Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FELDSTED: Shooting the messenger -- some of the commentary respecting Jody Wilson-Raybould is needlessly vicious and mean spirited



Jody Wilson-Raybould remained in caucus after being demoted – until Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the mistake of telling the media that her continued presence in Cabinet, indicated she had not been under pressure from the PMO.

She resigned the following day.

Wilson-Raybould made a credible presentation to the Commons Justice
Committee but avoided revealing all of the evidence she had at hand. Her intent was not to destroy, however, Wernick and Butts followed her presentation and intimated that she was overreacting -- or misunderstood the communications.

Wilson-Raybould retaliated with clear evidence of her original assertions, including a voice recording of a conversation she had with . If Wernick and Butts had not attempted a character assassination, the recording would probably not ever have surfaced.

Rumours that Wilson-Raybould wrote a 60-page missive to Trudeau asking that Winnipeg Judge Joyal be appointed to the Supreme Court, not just as a judge, but as a replacement for retiring Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin are ridiculous and worse, easily confirmed. Produce the missive or admit an attempt to smear Wilson-Raybould.

The government can’t have it both ways.

During the Justice Committee hearings, Michael Wernick announced that a directive written by Wilson-Raybould to justice staff on January 11th, 2019 was of concern. Wilson-Raybould was removed from the position of Attorney General and Justice Minister on January 14th, 2019 (3 days later) so any alleged concerns can be dealt with by her replacement. It is nothing set in stone or a change to existing law.  
   
It is tiresome to listen to the government, media and academics telling us that Michael Wernick, as Clerk of the Privy Council is non-partisan. In theory, yes, but Wernick is also secretary of the Cabinet, sits in on all their meetings and is as non-partisan as a sports team mascot.

Coverups are a particularly nasty business.

Government efforts to control the narrative and change the dialogue to a different topic have failed several times. Officials have been caught in lies and misdirection. Buts resigned and Wernick announced his imminent retirement.


Wilson-Raybould is not a reincarnation of Joan of Arc. She is a human with all of our frailties and personal biases and a personal agenda. Her service as Attorney General and Justice Minister is likely blemished but have to be considered apart from the SNC-Lavalin pot-boiler.

Belated concern has been raised that the positions of Attorney General and Justice Minister should be separate due to potential conflicts. Wernick claims to have been speaking to the Justice Minister, but only the Attorney General has to power to intervene in the Lavalin prosecution. 

The same concern holds true for the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet. The potential for conflicts of interest in those roles is apparent and we have seen the ugly results.

The Privy Council is intended to report to, and support, the Governor General ... not the Prime Minister.

That has to be fixed.

Confidentiality of Privy Council operations has to be iron clad as communications between the government and the  must be leak-proof. The Privy Council is, by law, informed of all government activates and the Governor General must be free to encourage or warn government officials as he or she deems it necessary. The Governor General has the right to be informed.

We need a public inquiry into operations of the PMO; not only the SNC-Lavalin scandal, but all of the questionable operations of federal governments. The shotgun marriage of the Attorney General and Justice Minister is troubling. They have distinct roles to play that are at times conflicting and that should not happen. The Attorney General must not be a member of the Cabinet. He or she cannot be without risking a conflict of interest.

Fix it.

The dual roles of Privy Council Clerk and Secretary to the Cabinet are distinct roles with very different roles that are incompatible and unconstitutional. The Clerk of the Privy Council must be non-partisan and bound by absolute confidentiality, reporting to and advising the Governor General. He is not the most senior civil servant – that is the role of the Secretary to the Cabinet.

The Secretary to the Cabinet is the most senior civil servant. He or she is the bridge between the government and the civil service. The Secretary can communicate with the Justice Minister, but not the Attorney General. The Attorney General must be protected from political considerations in managing the justice system without favour to or bias against anyone.

We need a public inquiry, and recommendations, for the government of the day to follow. No one party or government can oversee the needed changes. It has to be an all-party agreement to work.


John Feldsted
Political Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

'Very good news' that Supreme Court will hear B.C. mineral claims case, Eby says

The BC government needs clarity from the Supreme Court of Canada on a landmark mineral rights claim, Premier David Eby says. But the lawyer representing the challenger says that they would have preferred the province respect the lower court's decision. Eby said Thursday it is very good news that the court will hear its appeal of a ruling that found the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the provincial mineral claims regime are "inconsistent." The BC Court of Appeal ruled in December that the provincial Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or DRIPA, should be "properly interpreted" to incorporate the UN declaration into the laws of B.C. with immediate legal effect. That ruling set off the appeal from the province amid concerns that it could cause economic uncertainty ... CLICK HERE for the full story 
Post a Comment
Read more

EBY OFFSIDE WITH NATIONAL INTEREST AS CARNEY AND SMITH BUILD BC'S ECONOMIC FUTURE WITHOUT HIM ~~ BC Conservatives

IMAGE CREDIT :  CBC News   Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced a landmark agreement today committing Ottawa to designate a new pipeline to BC's west coast as a project of national interest by October 1, 2026, with construction approval targeted for September 1, 2027. The deal pairs the pipeline with a new industrial carbon pricing framework and a fall 2027 construction start. British Columbia, the province where the pipeline ends, where the jobs would land, and where the export terminal would be built, was nowhere at the table. "This is a nation-building deal, and the BC NDP have been locked out of the room," said Trevor Halford, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition.  "While the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta were doing the hard work of growing the Canadian economy, the NDP is on the sidelines calling this pipeline a 'fiction' and an 'energy vampire.'  He chose petulance over partnership, and now BC ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Kamloops - North Thompson BC Conservative MLA Ward Stamer speaks to Bill 20 — K’ómoks Treaty Act

The following is a condensed version of Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s remarks, to the BC Legislature, on the afternoon of Tuesday May 19th : I rise today to continue remarks on Bill 20, the K’ómoks treaty, and to address what I believe are some of the most important constitutional, democratic and governance concerns facing this Legislature today. At the centre of this debate are two major issues. First, unresolved overlapping territorial boundaries tied to this treaty process. And second, the growing legal and political consequences arising from the provincial government’s implementation of the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, more commonly known as DRIPA. Much of the government’s defence on DRIPA rests upon references to the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, commonly known as UNDRIP. And this is where we must begin having a more honest and mature conversation in this province. UNDRIP was never originally designed to function ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Labels

Show more