Excusing Canadians and Americans for having a higher-than-normal level of cynicism about politics these days may be in order. In the United States, thanks to a constitutional power granted the president at the beginning of the Republic, recent presidents have used pardons to make political statements, clear family and friends, and pay off political favours. The pardons issued at the end of the Biden Administration and during the first year of Trump 2.0 distort the purpose of the power and have led some to call for an amendment to change how it’s applied. Meanwhile, in Canada, floor-crossers have put the Liberal government on the precipice of a majority. Two members, elected as Conservatives in April, have left the party to join Prime Minister Mark Carney’s merry band, bumping the Liberals up to 171 seats, just a seat short of parliamentary control.
Both matters lie well within legal grounds, but do they pass ethical muster? If they do not comply, is it then necessary to reevaluate the rules and define some fundamental guidelines governing their execution, as well as whether to include limitations or safety measures to ensure their ethical and legal compliance? Starting with the pardon power, Article Two of the American Constitution states, “The President shall…(have) Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Like interpreting scripture, many will argue about original intent. From contemporaries and authors, we can derive some meaning. The framers were aware that judicial miscarriages could occur. They anticipated lawfare and created an outlet that would allow the Chief Executive to commute a sentence or wipe the slate clean compassionately.
There have been controversies in the past. Washington pardoned the Whiskey Rebellionists, and as The Editors in National Review wrote, “Abraham Lincoln commuted a great many death sentences for deserters and Native American rebels, showing how clemency can be balanced with law, order, and justice.” Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon may have cost him the 1976 election. Jimmy Carter pardoned several thousand draft dodgers, welcoming them back to America. Bill Clinton used the power to free his brother from charges and then pardoned Marc Rich, charged with tax evasion, fraud, and illegal oil deals with Iran, after his wife donated millions to Democratic causes. As The Editors stress, “Presidents have also used pardons to end abuses of lawfare, as George H.W. Bush did in pardoning Caspar Weinberger.”
That brings us to the present. The last two presidents have mugged the process. Consider some of Biden’s orders at the end of his term. In 2022, Biden signed nine pardons; in 2023, he approved four; and in 2024, he increased that to 52, including his son Hunter. As he prepared to leave office, he cleared his closest family members, several others, and the entire Congressional Select Committee appointed to investigate the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Adding to the controversy was the fact that an autopen signed them. This has led to investigations in Congress and has sown doubt about the legitimacy of their effect. Not to be outdone, Trump has upped the ante with a flood of pardons beginning on day one of his second administration. The Editors did not spare the Republican president, stating that “Trump has openly used pardons, commutations, and clemency as leverage to gain political support from corrupt Democrats, to reward factional allies within the Republican Party such as Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, and Joe Arpaio, and to mass-absolve participants in the January 6 riot at the Capitol. Trump has capriciously bulldozed the long-standing Justice Department process for issuing pardons. His latest pardons include Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar, whom Trump seems to hope can be induced to switch parties; fraudster David Gentile, who Trump freed from paying $15.5 million in restitution to his victims; and former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, a convicted narco-trafficker of the sort that Trump is simultaneously claiming the authority to kill by drone strike without trial.”
Some members of Congress want the pardon power reviewed. If the separation of powers blocks the legislature or the judiciary, then amending the Constitution suits the purpose. To become law, three-quarters of the state legislatures, or thirty-seven states, must pass an amendment. As things stand, there are people interested in moving this along. The abuse of the pardon power that has endured in the last decade equates to the corruption many believe has characterized the previous two presidents. Both have created enough displeasure in the opposing party to increase bipartisan interest in modifying the power. In the instance that limitations are to be placed upon this authority, as was the case when legislatures acted after FDR disregarded the usual practice and sought a third term, followed by a fourth, then so be it. Democratically elected leaders responding to norm-breaking fulfill their constitutional responsibilities when they protect democracy and the intentions of the founders (at least as they understand them to be).
The debate about floor-crossing in parliament is ongoing. According to many of our system’s experts, party switching has a long history and is common in parliamentary democracies. No doubt there are reasons for people to switch parties and justifiable explanations for individual members to do so. What some have suggested, however, rings true. What justification could there be for a member who wants to switch brands to avoid seeking the consent of the people they serve? Resisting this are those who protest the cost of a by-election, but that should be built into a decision of this magnitude. If that looks like a hill too hard to climb, then why is the honourable member taking this step? Surely, in a democracy, when voters have entrusted a member to represent them under a certain banner, does the member not owe the supporter an opportunity to affirm his decision to convert?
The other part of the equation relates to timing. With one party so close to a majority, what kind of deals are on the table? On CTV’s Question Period (Dec. 14), the NDP interim leader, when asked about one of his members being appointed Speaker and solidifying Liberal control, replied, “I think you have to be fluid. You have to be open. We haven’t had that proposal put to us, so I can’t say that we’ve given any consideration to it. But any opportunity for New Democrats to meaningfully participate in this Parliament to make it work and function there, I think we’d be prepared to look at,” Davies said in a year-end interview with CTV Question Period, when asked about the possibility. The shenanigans going on in Ottawa may not be unprecedented or the fault of one party. However, these findings do indeed point to underlying, systemic issues within the parliamentary operational framework.
Good people of all parties should want an accountable government. There are reasons to defend this practice, but most would find it hard to argue that it does not cause regular citizens to become cynical. If we seek greater participation and genuinely aim to encourage people to vote, then the message shouldn’t be that, because of tired ideas, outdated traditions, or legally permissible actions, it’s acceptable to misrepresent one’s loyalties or allegiances.
Brian Lilley and The Bureau (Sam Cooper), among others, are digging deep on this latest instance of flagrant self-interest. Cooper and Lilley know that Liberal MP Tim Hodgson, whose riding has long been suspected of a pro-Beijing ecosystem, brokered the deal that brought MP Michael Ma over. According to Cooper, Lilley says Hodgson persuaded Ma because of their shared business interests. Interests potentially linked to Chinese communities in Canada. Any party willing to partake in these dealings, and any individual willing to “horse-trade” his principles, adds very little to an institution already short on credibility. It may be a lot to expect, but asking these high-minded deliberative bodies to display ethics in public life requires the individuals elected to them to live up to their titles as Honourable members. We could use a few more people of upright character in high office. The prime minister should think about that the next time he poaches another member. Or perhaps he isn’t certain about where his true allegiance lies.
Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who worked part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar until being appointed Executive Director at Redeemer Bible Church in October 2023. He has worked on political campaigns since high school and attended university in South Carolina for five years, earning a Master’s in American History with a specialization in Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.
