Jody Wilson-Raybould was Justice Minister in the Trudeau Government and had a falling out with the PM, and the Clerk of the Privy Council Office (Michael Wernick), over her refusal to proceed with a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the construction company SNC-Lavalin. She resigned from Cabinet over the matter and is no longer in Parliament.
You have a much different reaction to the article than I did, much more generous. My guess is also different than yours, about how long they have been in that position. I have always thought, not long enough to experience more than one prime minister during their time. Any claim to be non-partisan, or even suggesting they were a Liberal, was jeopardized, to my mind, when they allied themselves to Jody Lynn Raybould. It seemed such an unnecessary reference.
One thing I find strange, is that whenever the years that are seen as critical for needing a response are mentioned in regard to the "whistleblower's" motivation (2020, for example), the two Michaels are never mentioned.
Many thanks, Wesley, for your pieces on this subject. I've quite enjoyed them. In your March 17 post, I was struck by your repeated use of the moniker "whistleblower" in reference to the Globe's "national-security source" (and unnamed author of the confessional op-ed in Saturday's paper).
In your March 9 post, I note that you had remarked "[t]he leaker(s) are not whistleblowers in so far as they have chosen anonymity (at least for now) and have not used sanctioned procedures for bringing alleged wrongdoing or problems to the attention of authorities (so far as we know)."
The leaker remains anonymous. Is it your view that the efforts the author of the op-ed has said they went to "to raise concerns about this threat directly to those in a position to hold our top officials to hold our top officials to account" meets the second part of your "whistleblower" test, i.e. that this represents a use of sanctioned procedures to bring alleged wrongdoing to the attention of authorities? To my mind, it doesn't so I confess to being a bit confused by your use of the term "whistleblower" in your most recent post. Many thanks for any further light you can shed on the subject.
Miranda, yes, all fair comments. There are elements of the Op Ed that don’t fit neatly together.
Jody Wilson-Raybould was Justice Minister in the Trudeau Government and had a falling out with the PM, and the Clerk of the Privy Council Office (Michael Wernick), over her refusal to proceed with a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the construction company SNC-Lavalin. She resigned from Cabinet over the matter and is no longer in Parliament.
You have a much different reaction to the article than I did, much more generous. My guess is also different than yours, about how long they have been in that position. I have always thought, not long enough to experience more than one prime minister during their time. Any claim to be non-partisan, or even suggesting they were a Liberal, was jeopardized, to my mind, when they allied themselves to Jody Lynn Raybould. It seemed such an unnecessary reference.
One thing I find strange, is that whenever the years that are seen as critical for needing a response are mentioned in regard to the "whistleblower's" motivation (2020, for example), the two Michaels are never mentioned.
Thank you for your article!
Many thanks, Wesley, for your pieces on this subject. I've quite enjoyed them. In your March 17 post, I was struck by your repeated use of the moniker "whistleblower" in reference to the Globe's "national-security source" (and unnamed author of the confessional op-ed in Saturday's paper).
In your March 9 post, I note that you had remarked "[t]he leaker(s) are not whistleblowers in so far as they have chosen anonymity (at least for now) and have not used sanctioned procedures for bringing alleged wrongdoing or problems to the attention of authorities (so far as we know)."
The leaker remains anonymous. Is it your view that the efforts the author of the op-ed has said they went to "to raise concerns about this threat directly to those in a position to hold our top officials to hold our top officials to account" meets the second part of your "whistleblower" test, i.e. that this represents a use of sanctioned procedures to bring alleged wrongdoing to the attention of authorities? To my mind, it doesn't so I confess to being a bit confused by your use of the term "whistleblower" in your most recent post. Many thanks for any further light you can shed on the subject.
Regards!
Marc