I think that our MPs need feedback on the Lavelin - Jodi Wilson-Raybould situation. This is my letter today to Jane Philpott (my MP) with a copy to Justin Trudeau.
____________________________________________
I voted for you in the last election and at this point I would do it again as you seem to be carrying out your responsibilities in a very competent manner. As far as I can tell you set high standards and act ethically.
I had hope after the last election that Justin Trudeau and his government would be a breath of fresh air after years of Harper. I understand that there are political realities about what can be accomplished (and how quickly) but Trudeau and the Liberal Party set itself up by promising a lot and not delivering. Promises on the economy and deficits; electoral reform; indigenous people; veterans and transparency all seem to have fallen far short of what was promised (and hoped for). I know that you started to make some progress with your indigenous people responsibilities but you were only in that role a short time before you were shuffled.
It seems that the very essence of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement makes it a political (not a legal) tool. I don't see how it is possible to have a policy (and there currently doesn't seem to be one) that can apply to DPA's that would allow them to be applied strictly as a transparent legal tool. How can there be different rules for those who are rich and powerful and pretend that the Justice System is working properly. It may well be that the rule about being banned from government contracts for 10 years is too harsh and rigid but the right answer is to make it more flexible (probably not 0 years) rather than attempt to bypass the laws as written.
Jodie Wilson-Raybould seemed very competent and factual in her presentation to the Justice Committee. She seems to be highly credible; more-so than the Prime Minister at this point. Justin Trudeau's instincts and/or the advice he is being given does not seem to be the right approach to managing this PR disaster. So far, his inappropriate argument seems to be that it is OK to use economic and (self-serving) political considerations in deciding how to apply the law. This, of course, is an underlying (but unstated) assumption upon which the whole DPA approach is based. This runs totally counter to what he has said about the handling of the Huwaei-Meng situation. The Attorney General position is supposed to be independent of political considerations. It should, in fact, be a separate position from the Justice Minister as they do in the UK.
As my Member Of Parliament and by all accounts a very good one, I hope that you are a voice within the cabinet in support of JW-R; and, against this doubling down on trying to smear her and defend the actions of the PMO. Continuing to take this approach is more than just wrong. It is probably going to be self-destructive for the Prime Minister and the Liberal Government that he heads. Electing a Conservative Government in the fall is not the right answer but we seem to be moving in that direction by default.
____________________________________________
I voted for you in the last election and at this point I would do it again as you seem to be carrying out your responsibilities in a very competent manner. As far as I can tell you set high standards and act ethically.
I had hope after the last election that Justin Trudeau and his government would be a breath of fresh air after years of Harper. I understand that there are political realities about what can be accomplished (and how quickly) but Trudeau and the Liberal Party set itself up by promising a lot and not delivering. Promises on the economy and deficits; electoral reform; indigenous people; veterans and transparency all seem to have fallen far short of what was promised (and hoped for). I know that you started to make some progress with your indigenous people responsibilities but you were only in that role a short time before you were shuffled.
It seems that the very essence of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement makes it a political (not a legal) tool. I don't see how it is possible to have a policy (and there currently doesn't seem to be one) that can apply to DPA's that would allow them to be applied strictly as a transparent legal tool. How can there be different rules for those who are rich and powerful and pretend that the Justice System is working properly. It may well be that the rule about being banned from government contracts for 10 years is too harsh and rigid but the right answer is to make it more flexible (probably not 0 years) rather than attempt to bypass the laws as written.
Jodie Wilson-Raybould seemed very competent and factual in her presentation to the Justice Committee. She seems to be highly credible; more-so than the Prime Minister at this point. Justin Trudeau's instincts and/or the advice he is being given does not seem to be the right approach to managing this PR disaster. So far, his inappropriate argument seems to be that it is OK to use economic and (self-serving) political considerations in deciding how to apply the law. This, of course, is an underlying (but unstated) assumption upon which the whole DPA approach is based. This runs totally counter to what he has said about the handling of the Huwaei-Meng situation. The Attorney General position is supposed to be independent of political considerations. It should, in fact, be a separate position from the Justice Minister as they do in the UK.
As my Member Of Parliament and by all accounts a very good one, I hope that you are a voice within the cabinet in support of JW-R; and, against this doubling down on trying to smear her and defend the actions of the PMO. Continuing to take this approach is more than just wrong. It is probably going to be self-destructive for the Prime Minister and the Liberal Government that he heads. Electing a Conservative Government in the fall is not the right answer but we seem to be moving in that direction by default.
