Penny Collenette, a former senior fellow at the Kennedy School of Government and former director of appointments in the Prime Minister's Office under Jean Chrétien, is an adjunct professor in the University of Ottawa's faculty of law.
In Canada's 150 years of existence, it is probably safe to say that every one of our 22 previous prime ministers and their respective staff would have benefited from hindsight. Brian Mulroney may not have become involved with Karlheinz Schreiber. Jean Chrétien may not have considered the sponsorship program. Stephen Harper may not have appointed Mike Duffy to the Senate.
Now, Justin Trudeau may be thinking it might have been wiser to water ski than to take the Aga Khan's private helicopter to his island in the Bahamas during his family vacation in late December.
Margaret Wente: Justin Trudeau's out of touch with the 99 per cent
Globe editorial: Why was the PM's vacation a secret?
Andrew Cohen: Trudeau's friendship with the Aga Khan should be celebrated, not hidden
The helicopter decision, on the face of it, appears to contravene sections of federal rules. Mary Dawson, the respected Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, will examine the situation and decide if an exemption could be granted to the Prime Minister for accepting this type of banned travel.
Whatever her decision, questions must be raised for future clarity on the machinery of government. But first, how did this situation arise in the first place?
If no one in the PMO is aware of the provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act, that in itself is an issue of concern. Regular reviews of ethical and legal guidelines are best practises. Are such reviews being conducted in the PMO?
If the PMO was not aware of the rules, did the Privy Council Office have oversight of any of the holiday details? If so, did that office make it clear that the Ethics Commissioner should have been consulted before the trip – not after? Are the PMO and the PCO in sync with each other?
Life in a PMO can be frantic and frenzied, which makes it important to have a designated official regularly scrutinize organizational plans for possible ethical problems. Everyone knows the traditional questions to ask: How would this look in a headline? What could opposition parties say? Are any guidelines or laws being violated?
The more troubling possibility is that a decision was made to ignore the rules. No one in their right mind would dispute that our Prime Minister has a right to a private holiday with his family and friends, and few would dispute the location, or the company of such an esteemed individual as the Aga Khan, spiritual leader of the Ismaili Muslim community. But why wasn't there full disclosure beforehand? Were there privacy or security issues at play? Was the PMO's communications team fully briefed, or did they only have a few of the facts?
Even if Ms. Dawson grants an exemption, for reasons that may not yet be apparent, another potentially serious question has been raised by opposition parties. Given that the Aga Khan and his well-regarded foundation have received millions of dollars in development aid from successive federal governments, and given that it is now apparent that he and Mr. Trudeau are long-time family friends, should the Prime Minister recuse himself from any conversations regarding the foundation with his cabinet and his Minister of International Development and La Francophonie?
Recusing oneself because of a potential conflict of interest at board meetings, whether corporate or not-for-profit, is part and parcel of a director's life. But for a prime minister, it could be an unusual situation, especially if not done for business reasons.
The vision of a road ahead is what a prime minister presents to a country to ensure citizens' support. The road behind, however, can be littered with accidents. As other prime ministers have learned, a good rear-view mirror would be helpful in a PMO. Looking ahead and simultaneously behind is a difficult task. But it must be learned to avoid ethical collisions.