Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
Trudeau did not “make up” the role of rapporteur. Rapporteurs have been around for a long long time.
Like all rapporteurs Johnston’s job was defined by the terms of reference. And the evidence of conflict is weak, since he has had as much relationship with Conservatives as Trudeau or other liberals. I appear in front of judges I know socially all the time.
|
Ok, find me a Canadian with the title rapporteur prior to Johnston. It's a role and term that is mostly utilized in the UN, but has no definition here in Canada in our government.
https://www.canada.ca/en/sr/srb.html...+&wb-srch-sub=
Typically you appoint a commissioner (see Gomery and Rouleau).
Semantics of the title aside the bolded is a big LOL.
Did Johnston go on skiing trips with Harper outside of his governor general role? As governor general, was Johnston in charge of investigating Harper and give a decision that could impact his political career? So you meet judges and chat with them from time to time and you think that is the same? Are you being investigated and is a ski buddy you hand picked to be in charge of investigating you?
The same exact petty rebuttal was used with Marron Rosenberg as well (being chosen as DM by Harper). Apparently if the Conservatives can be impartial in their political selections, it automatically defaults that choice for Liberals as safe even if it's a huge conflict of interest should they do it.
Trudeau could have almost literally picked anyone else and criticism would be much harder to stick, but he picked someone that could be loyal to him and his family. The only worse choice would have been to appoint Sacha.
Also a large majority of Canadians as well as all other parties disagree with your claim there is no conflict of interest (or appearance of conflict)