1. Home
  2. -
  3. All Blog Entries
  4. -
  5. Questions
  6. -
  7. Decriminalize illicit drugs, WE connections, taxes

Decriminalize illicit drugs, WE connections, taxes

If the federal Liberals agree with the police chiefs to decriminalize illicit drugs, are they going against their promise? Or listening to police and advocates? Facts?
What drugs are included? Should any be policed? The distinction is made between personal possession & trafficking, is that enough?


Are the federal Conservative connections to WE important? Does it matter that a premier went on a trip with the charity to Africa or that Manitoba has given the charity about $1million? Does it prove that it’s a well-connected & trusted organization? Are those connections relevant to a conflict of interest prove?

Did Prime Minister Trudeau & finance minister Morneau not recuse themselves because they did not directly or financially benefit from the $19.5million contract? Is it a conflict of interest if there is no direct or financial gain? If it is a conflict if the benefit is indirect, how indirect can it be? How is that benefit measured? Is it indirect financial if it benefits relatives who simply keep doing what they were previously doing? Have they benefited? Is it conflict of interest if an indirect non-financial benefit goes someone related to the person in the cabinet meeting? Because there doesn’t seem to be a gain for a charity that is already widely known & respected by Conservatives & Liberals (probably amongst others); the $19.5million was to cover the fees of administering the grants. If that’s now a gain, is every time this sort of contract (administering a program or aid on behalf of the government) a potential gain for other charities and ministers should distance their involvement with them and/or recuse themselves from such discussions?

Shouldn’t this be covered before this meeting was held? When picking this charity, does anyone have a job that’s to check for conflicts of interest and suggest members recuse themselves? Like a pre-emptive ethics measure?


If we can’t refuse police budgets and must increase mental health budgets & community-building budgets, can taxes be increased to pay for it all? Or does it have to be we take funds from some other budget to add to these ones?


If we’re taxed too much but still can’t cover the costs of adequate health care and education and infrastructure and policing and everything else, is it because the programs are so vastly inefficient or that we aren’t paying enough? If it’s inefficiencies, are there thousands of little issues or a bunch of big ones? Easy to find or hard to spot? How come things that are cut are often returned? Were they actually inefficient? Or just costly & government thought we’d be fine without and was wrong? When the programs are funded again or funding levels increased to match near previous levels, are they now being run efficiently? If so, why not do that in the first place? Or is it still an issue but the government is at a loss of how to fix it?

Is our desire for quick results partly at fault? Hard to find efficiencies take time, but can they be found in a 4year term? Are government’s given enough time to put in the required efforts to correct these budgets?

Share This

Leave a Comment