Rules, Morality, and the Place You Call Home

“How do you know the difference between right and wrong?” A question that comes up from time to time in the classroom.

Some kids will tell you they know the difference because they know they will get punished if they do the wrong thing. Some will say they know something is wrong because it’s against the law or against the rules. 

Others say they know the difference because that’s what the Bible or the Quran or the Talmud or Buddha teaches. They might say it’s what their parents taught them or it comes from some fundamental principles that guide them. Others might refer to the little voice inside their head that makes them feel guilty or ashamed- similar to Abraham Lincoln’s statement, “When I do good I feel good, when I do bad I feel bad, and that's my religion.”

For kids with less sophisticated thinking, we must push a little harder for them to understand not just the social contract, but the difference between morality and legislation. Something isn’t wrong because it’s against the law. It’s wrong because it goes against the moral fabric of society. Right and wrong speak to the choices we make that demonstrate respect for each other so we can live well together. Without those morals, right and wrong are just a matter of what we can get away with.

When I was a naïve university student, one of my profs assigned a paper on discipline in the classroom. In my innocence, I expounded at length on how I, as a teacher, would encourage students to internalize the rules so discipline would not be needed. Students would understand what was right and wrong and act accordingly. Although my prof liked the paper, in the real world of the classroom it did not take me too long to figure out how ignorant I was. Even for those who have a strong moral code, the temptation offered by doing the wrong thing is hard to resist. A laugh from your buddy or the promise of a high mark can make a lot of kids ignore both the rules and their principles.

“I did not break any rules,” says Jason Kenney of his expense claims for “primary” residency in his mother’s basement in her assisted living facility which reportedly does not accept sublets. A basement he visited four times in a given year.

Probably not Jason's wallpaper,, but then again.

“The primary residence is occupied by the Member more often than the other residence,” the guidelines say. “The primary residence is where the Member most frequently resides on weekends and holidays.”

Mr. Kenney apparently did not consider the reasons behind the rules governing residency-rules that were created to allow elected officials -both federally and provincially-to retain a home in their riding while living where the legislature sits without undue hardship. These rules were designed on the principle of fairness. If your home is in your riding in Neerlandia or Stettler but you need to spend a large portion of your time on government business in Ottawa or Edmonton, is it fair to pay accommodations costs in both communities when your counterpart who lives near the legislature only needs one home?

My own MLA and my MP retain primary residences in their home communities. Their homes, where their families live and to which they return whenever possible.

Mr. Kenney said in his statement, “I was afforded the same living allowance that all MPs get for accommodation in Ottawa. All was in line with House of Commons policy, and my principal residence remained in Calgary throughout.”  Like a kid who says "everyone is doing it" as an excuse for misbehaving.

“I owe them everything,” says Mr. Kenney of his parents. Sure. Millions of Canadians would agree. Many of us would love the chance to spend time with our parents if only we could. And plenty of us have lived in our parents’ basement, myself included. All three of my adult kids have furnished rooms in my house, filled with their stuff. They are welcome to return any day. But that's not their home. That's not where they have chosen to make a life. But all of that is beside the point. The point is, most of us don’t use our relationship with our parents to make money off the taxpayer.

“Following my father’s passing, my mother moved into a detached bungalow unit that is part of a retirement community,” Mr. Kenney has said. “Not wanting to leave my widowed mother entirely alone, I also rented the finished basement of the bungalow so that I could assist her and provide company while in Calgary.”

I don't question his love for his mom or his desire to spend time with her. Paying her rent is something he could certainly afford to do as a senior cabinet minister who earned over three million dollars while in office. I also understand that as a senior cabinet minister there were many demands on his time that might preclude visits "home". But claiming a room in this seldom-visited basement in retirement community as his “home” seems like a stretch.

I won't deny there are many definitions of "home".  A traditional bungalow you share with your family, a little apartment you share with a pet, a fancy condo you barely see due to the demands of your job, a  house on a reserve without access to clean drinking water-all of these can be "homes." Places you sleep in, places where you hang your clothes and keep your mementos and your family photos. Not places you visit a few times a year.

The irony is not lost on me that Mr. Kenney and his former comrade Derek Fildebrandt were both former directors of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the euphemistically named organization to which few taxpayers belong. Two men who made careers out of complaining about  abuse of taxpayers' dollars and then, once they were elected to office, turned around and abused those same dollars themselves.  But at least when Mr. Fildebrandt was caught out regarding the fact he rented out his taxpayer funded accommodations as an AirBNB, he owned up to his error. 

Thinking you didn't do anything wrong because you didn't break the rules is the kind of immature thinking I can accept from a high school student. Saying "everyone else is doing it" or using other excuses is also something I have come to expect from kids. But I don't accept it from an adult who aspires to lead. A man who may soon be making the rules.

I don't think Kenney's "rental" of his mom's basement is a scandal. I don't think it has anything to do with whether he is really an Albertan. I don't care if he lives with his mom on his off days, but he shouldn't be disingenuous about it. That's not his primary residence. That's not where his life is.  When a man who chooses to ignore right and wrong in favour of his own self-interest, that concerns me.

Probably not Jason Kenney's kitchen.

The Dangers of Self Interest

Yesterday Derek Fildebrandt resigned from the UCP Caucus.

The 31 year old Fildebrandt is known for his fiery outbursts as much as his libertarian values and his criticism of government regulations. The former Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation which ironically advocates for greater government accountability, was found to have rented out his taxpayer-subsided accommodations, double dipped on expense accounts, and claimed a housing allowance for an apartment he shared with a co-worker. He is currently charged with a hit and run accident in his condo parking lot.

In a statement ripe with irony Mr. Fildebrandt kinda sorta accepts responsibility for his actions.

I have worked for more than a year to help create the United Conservative Party, because Alberta needs a new government that can fight for the common-sense priorities of regular people.

During the fight for unification I said that we must put Alberta before our party, and before ourselves.

This young party cannot afford to be distracted from the formative period that it is in right now as we come together as conservatives. I owe that to my colleagues, my party members, my constituents, and all Albertans.

Right now, media controversy is distracting from the work that must be done as the UCP is founded. The UCP Leadership race should be focused on issues of leadership and values, and not on personalities.

I have made honest mistakes – always doing what I believed was best at the time – and I accept responsibility, and am truly sorry.

Honest mistakes? 

You can make a mistake once but when you keep making them, it's a pattern of behaviour. Not a mistake.

Leadership?

This is a man whose own website states he has consistently stood for free speech and personal responsibility yet blames the media instead of himself as his reason to quit caucus. The same free press that somehow implies he is a victim by calling him both "embattled" and "beleaguered" instead of a man whose errors are of his own making. 

Values? 

This is a man who called for a wage freeze for all  government employees and scorned an increase in the minimum wage while earning more than $138,000 a year as an MLA.

This is a man who "led the fight against the abuse of taxpayers’ money" yet has now abused that same taxpayer dollar to line his own pockets.

A man who instead of initially taking  responsibility for his actions, claimed  there was a smear campaign against him- a juvenile response that  indicates he feels "it's only wrong if you get caught." 

Fildebrandt is a self-proclaimed conservative and libertarian. He believes in acting in self interest but his also believes there should be very few regulations governing human behaviour. 

If the ideologies of conservatism and libertarianism are combined, all citizens require a moral compass to guide their actions. If that moral compass does not exist, laws must be in place.  Unfortunately, Mr. Fildebrandt has demonstrated that those laws must be detailed as the "letter of the law" is not enough. Apparently, for people like him, it needs to be spelled out that you cannot claim the same expense twice. It needs to be explained that you cannot receive a housing allowance and then rent out that same accommodation for profit.  You cannot share an apartment with a colleague and then both claim it as an expense.

His actions clearly exemplify the flaws in his ideology. If one is encouraged to act in self-interest, how do we preserve the common good? If we maximize personal autonomy, how do we protect society from those who choose to bend the rules? 

Mr. Fildebrandt may have left the caucus, but the ideology he espouses remains.