David Raymond Amos @DavidRayAmos
Replying to @DavidRayAmos @Kathryn98967631 and 47 others
Methinks if the lady were remotely ethical she would not have attacked my lawsuit then appointed her Deputy Minister to the bench once my appeal was dismissed N'esy Pas?
https://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.com/2019/04/wilson-raybould-may-not-have-broken-law.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-tape-1.5082119
Wilson-Raybould may not have broken the law, but her Wernick tape crossed ethical lines, lawyers say
1708 Comments
Commenting is now closed for this story.
edward reeve
The PM and PMO and friends may not have broken the law but what they tried to do was unethical. That is what started the whole mess. The recording showed the complete truth as to the conversation. The clerk denied saying any of it. Remember... Voting anything but liberal
David R. Amos
Reply to @edward reeve: Methinks one unethical lawyer in particular whom I have crossed paths with many times should read what is quoted before he offered his two bit worth N'esy Pas?
"He was not her client. He was not officially an MP. So because of that he wasn't a client. He wasn't someone that she was formally representing,"
Brian Kennedy
Dear CBC; stop blaming the victim, it was Justin Trudeau who crossed the lines in this scandal.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Brian Kennedy: YUP
Nicolas Krinis
She didn't break the Law, period. More diversion and scapegoating. Not buying it. More to come.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Nicolas Krinis: YUP
Spencer McDougall
Nonsense. Had she not recorded the conversation, Trudeau and his gang of thugs would still be spewing their falsehoods. They backed her into a corner.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Spencer McDougall: YUP
Lorne Mccuaig
Jody's undisclosed recording of her phone call to Wernick is a classic case of entrapment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
Here’s the argument why that is. Whenever someone secretly records their conversation with someone else, its not a big leap to realize that the person doing the recording has a premeditated motive and agenda which in laymen terms is to find dirt on someone to bury them with it. The person doing the recording will control the narrative and or flow of the conversation and use canned speech or “script” to sway the defendant into either committing a crime or convince a jury that a crime or misdemeanor had been committed whether evidence existed or not, as jury findings (in this case the public) are often subjective. In other words, to speak plain, its a set up.
Now, in that light, give Jody’s recording a listen in the link below:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/wilson-raybould-snc-1.5078948
She calls Wernick and records the conversation without disclosure. Wernick asks for her to meet with former Supreme court justice Beverly McLauglin to discuss the use of a legal DPA. JWR, knowing she's recording this, hits Wernick with a canned script about how improper it is optically to remotely consider a DPA. She set Wernick up. Its classic entrapment!
David R. Amos
Reply to @Lorne Mccuaig: NOPE
Mar Pell
I believe that she had no choice, when a person is in the accusing box, she uses everything she has to convince the jury.
She was behind the eight ball.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Mar Pell: Methinks if the lady were remotely ethical she would not have attacked my lawsuit then appointed her Deputy Minister to the bench once my appeal was dismissed N'esy Pas?
Bryan Atkinson
Secretly recording and leaking to the opposing media is not only unethical, it raises questions as to their motivation
Frankly, it makes me doubt JWR & Philpott's whole version of the events.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Bryan Atkinson: Methinks the Ethics Committee released the recording to the media not JWR N'esy Pas?
Paul Pedersen
As this drags on it has become apparent that her blanket refusal to apply a dpa to snc (which would anyway then require court review and approval) was at best incompetent. Her subsequent conduct, such as not disclosing she was taping (not the actual taping as thats fine if disclosed) was self serving bordering on juvenile and completely unethical. She appears to suffer from a colossal lack of basic good judgment.
David R. Amos
Robert Shirley
Jody, Jane, thank you.
Jim cono
Reply to @Robert Shirley: Yes. Thank you for your service. Now, be off with you!!
Benmett Reinold
Reply to @Jim conor: Not so easily. This will hound JT's legacy when he leaves
David R. Amos
Reply to @Benmett Reinold: True
Craig Campbel
I find it ironic that someone questions the ethics of taping a conversation about unethical pressure and reprisals.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Craig Campbel: Me Too
David Sampson
Her inexperience and political naviety eventually were her downfall.
David R. Amos
Reply to @David Sampson: So you say
Reply to @David R. Amos:
So says the lawyers petitioning the Law Society to hold an inquest into her actions.
David R. Amos
Reply to @David
Allan: Methinks you aand the lawyers and the Law Society the
questionable former Attorney General does not belong to should have
read my lawsuit first N'esy Pas?
Rick Guthrie
Making this recording was not illegal or unethical. Everyone has the right to protect themselves if they have legitimate concerns about being threatened. It does not matter if your a lawyer or not. That's exactly the position JWR was in.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Rick Guthrie: "Making this recording was not illegal or unethical. Everyone has the right to protect themselves if they have legitimate concerns about being threatened."
True but why does she not mention Federal Court File No T-1557-15???
Dale Boire
Wilson-Raybould only decided to tape the conversation after realizing what she was up against and to protect herself. To suggest that was unethical is really BS.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Dale Boire: YUP
Frank Goodwood
Just read this and it is spot on:
"the prime minister and his camp followers profess themselves outraged, not at what the tape reveals, but that it exists."
David R. Amos
Reply to @Frank Goodwood: Exactly
Jennifer McIsaac
I am totally baffled by JWR and her thinking. She says she was pressured which, I would think, would be nothing new for any Minister - yet there seem few mentions of her serious problem with it in most of the emails between her and other members of the government. Would you not expect SNC to figure more promiently in her communications if it was such n issue for her?
Then she says she wants to remain in the Liberal caucus when she is either highly naive about the damage she was causing and then expecting that such disloyalty would not have consequences or deliberately getting payback for her removal from MOJ to Veterans Afdfairs.
Then I have yet to see a LEGAL analysis of her thinking about SNC and a DPA - only a statement about the politics of the situation.
I am totally confused by her actions I must admit.
Doug James
Reply to @Jennifer
McIsaac: Well here's your legal analysis: SNC-Lavalin was only eligible
for a DPA because of a legal loophole introduced in a budget omnibus
bill (which in of itself is ethically dubious) due to heavy lobbying by
said company. DPAs were never intended for such things, but meant for
unintentional/minor infractions in isolated cased. Broad repeated
corruption cases fly in the face of it, and outside of the loophole
SNC-Lavalin did not qualify for a DPA. DPAs are not meant to be offered
because of political/economic considerations, but based upon company
merit (which SNC-Lavalin) does not have. Granting them a DPA because the
PMO told her to when they otherwise would not have qualified is the
very definition of political corruption. It doesn't shock me that you
are confused, however. Your continual defense of Trudeau implies a lack
of understanding of the situation.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Doug James: Methinks you forgot my lawsuit or political reasons N'esy Pas?
Peter Burke
CBC trying to divert again. When you know the other side is breaking the law and putting you in peril, you collect evidence to protect yourself any way you can. Now put this in the context of protecting our Democracy and I'd say it was imperative that she took this action.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Peter Burke: YUP
David Speed
If Jody didn't record them, Wernick and Trudeau would still deny they said those things. Good job Jody!
David R. Amos
Reply to @David Speed: "If Jody didn't record them, Wernick and Trudeau would still deny they said those things"
True
True
Thomas Desjardis
Enough of this victim blaming. The source of all this issues is judicial interference from the PMO and Co.
Mike Scott
Reply to @Thomas Desjardis: yes, it’s ironic how the PMO is suddenly crying “unethical”
David R. Amos
Reply to @Mike Scott: Welcome to the Circus
Sakira Cadman
It turns out doing the right thing and blowing the whistle on political interference is a bad thing to the Liberal party. Well.... SNC said they were not leaving Canada, so it wasn't about the jobs.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Sakira Cadman: "SNC said they were not leaving Canada"
Methinks SNC did threaten to move their HQ to the USA N'esy Pas?
Methinks SNC did threaten to move their HQ to the USA N'esy Pas?
Manny Fredrick
Those who support the most unethical PM in history are now playing the ethics card on someone else? Ridiculous.
David R. Amos
Reply to @Manny Fredrick: Methinks Sir John A. MacDonald holds that title N'esy Pas?
Wilson-Raybould may not have broken the law, but her Wernick tape crossed ethical lines, lawyers say
PM expelled Wilson-Raybould on Tuesday evening saying 'trust has been broken'
Lawyers say Jody Wilson-Raybould may
not have broken the law but her decision to tape a conversation with the
privy council clerk may have crossed ethical lines.
Wilson-Raybould has done a number of things in the past few weeks to upset her Liberal MP colleagues. But the 17-minute call she recorded with outgoing Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick ultimately spelled the end of her time in the Liberal Party.
On Tuesday evening, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expelled Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from the Liberal caucus, saying that trust with the two former cabinet ministers was broken.
"If a politician secretly records a conversation with anyone, it's wrong," Trudeau said at a news conference. "When a cabinet minister is secretly recording a public servant, it's wrong. And when that cabinet minister is the attorney general of Canada secretly recording the Clerk of the Privy Council, it's unconscionable."
Wilson-Raybould
made the taped conversation with outgoing Privy Council Clerk Michael
Wernick public last Friday and has been pilloried by her Liberal MP
colleagues ever since. (Canadian Press photos)
With debate swirling about what to do with SNC-Lavalin, Wilson-Raybould decided to record a December conversation she had with Wernick.
The crux of the SNC-Lavalin affair centres on allegations from Wilson-Raybould that she faced sustained and improper pressure from senior government officials to interfere in a criminal case against the Quebec engineering and construction giant.
Wilson-Raybould made the tape public last Friday and has been pilloried by her colleagues ever since. She defended it, saying no staff member was present to take notes and that it was necessary to create a record of the conversation.
She called the taped conversation "extraordinary and [an] otherwise inappropriate step." She said it was necessary to "ensure that I had an exact record of what was discussed as I had reason to believe that it was likely to be an inappropriate conversation."
"I do not believe that I should be removed from caucus for doing my job and doing what I believe is right. With respect to the recording, I've heard some caucus members make comments," Wilson-Raybould said. "It was a reasonable, rational thing to do in an unreasonable and irrational situation."
By the letter of the law, Wilson-Raybould did nothing wrong.
"It is legal to tape a conversation that you're part of — even if it's two or three or four people. As long as you are part of that conversation, you are able to tape that even if the other parties do not know that they're being taped," says Toronto employment lawyer Lior Samfiru.
Samfiru says the law is different if the conversation takes place between a lawyer and client.
"If I have that recording for my own purposes that would be fine, but I would not be able to share that recording under any circumstances without my client's consent," Samfiru says.
Wilson-Raybould and her advisers, in releasing the tape, clearly feel Wernick was not Wilson-Raybould's client, and she was not his lawyer.
"The conversation I had with the Clerk, he's not a member of the Liberal caucus. He's not my client by his own admission," Wilson-Raybould said Monday.
Samfiru concurs. He says it's a fine line but one Wilson-Raybould didn't cross.
"He was not her client. He was not officially an MP. So because of that he wasn't a client. He wasn't someone that she was formally representing," Samfiru contends. "Obviously, she has a relationship with him, but he's not someone that she was obliged to provide legal advice."
Samfiru says in the case of the prime minister or fellow MPs, privilege would apply and a taped conversation could only be released with consent.
Privacy lawyer David Fraser says it's the ethical implications that many of Wilson-Raybould's colleagues are focusing on.
Fraser says the person doing the surreptitious recording has an "unfair" advantage.
"The person who knows the recording is taking place is able to curate the conversation and formulate the conversation to create a record that might look particularly good on them," Fraser says. "The other person is at a disadvantage because they don't know that this word-for-word verbatim record is being prepared. So I have concerns about it."
"Anytime a conversation is being recorded and then released publicly that becomes a really live issue of trust," Bromwich says. "There is an ethics of collegiality versus the letter of the law. And, as a professional and as a lawyer, I expect you to abide by an ethics of collegiality."
Wilson-Raybould has done a number of things in the past few weeks to upset her Liberal MP colleagues. But the 17-minute call she recorded with outgoing Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick ultimately spelled the end of her time in the Liberal Party.
On Tuesday evening, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expelled Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from the Liberal caucus, saying that trust with the two former cabinet ministers was broken.
"If a politician secretly records a conversation with anyone, it's wrong," Trudeau said at a news conference. "When a cabinet minister is secretly recording a public servant, it's wrong. And when that cabinet minister is the attorney general of Canada secretly recording the Clerk of the Privy Council, it's unconscionable."
The 'inappropriate conversation'
With debate swirling about what to do with SNC-Lavalin, Wilson-Raybould decided to record a December conversation she had with Wernick.
The crux of the SNC-Lavalin affair centres on allegations from Wilson-Raybould that she faced sustained and improper pressure from senior government officials to interfere in a criminal case against the Quebec engineering and construction giant.
Wilson-Raybould made the tape public last Friday and has been pilloried by her colleagues ever since. She defended it, saying no staff member was present to take notes and that it was necessary to create a record of the conversation.
She called the taped conversation "extraordinary and [an] otherwise inappropriate step." She said it was necessary to "ensure that I had an exact record of what was discussed as I had reason to believe that it was likely to be an inappropriate conversation."
I do not believe that I should be removed from caucus for doing my job and doing what I believe is right. With respect to the recording, I've heard some caucus members make comments. It was a reasonable, rational thing to do in an unreasonable and irrational situation.- Jody Wilson-RaybouldWilson-Raybould maintained she did nothing wrong, lawyers say.
"I do not believe that I should be removed from caucus for doing my job and doing what I believe is right. With respect to the recording, I've heard some caucus members make comments," Wilson-Raybould said. "It was a reasonable, rational thing to do in an unreasonable and irrational situation."
Did nothing wrong, experts say
By the letter of the law, Wilson-Raybould did nothing wrong.
"It is legal to tape a conversation that you're part of — even if it's two or three or four people. As long as you are part of that conversation, you are able to tape that even if the other parties do not know that they're being taped," says Toronto employment lawyer Lior Samfiru.
Samfiru says the law is different if the conversation takes place between a lawyer and client.
"If I have that recording for my own purposes that would be fine, but I would not be able to share that recording under any circumstances without my client's consent," Samfiru says.
Wilson-Raybould and her advisers, in releasing the tape, clearly feel Wernick was not Wilson-Raybould's client, and she was not his lawyer.
"The conversation I had with the Clerk, he's not a member of the Liberal caucus. He's not my client by his own admission," Wilson-Raybould said Monday.
Samfiru concurs. He says it's a fine line but one Wilson-Raybould didn't cross.
"He was not her client. He was not officially an MP. So because of that he wasn't a client. He wasn't someone that she was formally representing," Samfiru contends. "Obviously, she has a relationship with him, but he's not someone that she was obliged to provide legal advice."
Samfiru says in the case of the prime minister or fellow MPs, privilege would apply and a taped conversation could only be released with consent.
'Ethics of collegiality'
Privacy lawyer David Fraser says it's the ethical implications that many of Wilson-Raybould's colleagues are focusing on.
Fraser says the person doing the surreptitious recording has an "unfair" advantage.
"The person who knows the recording is taking place is able to curate the conversation and formulate the conversation to create a record that might look particularly good on them," Fraser says. "The other person is at a disadvantage because they don't know that this word-for-word verbatim record is being prepared. So I have concerns about it."
There is an ethics of collegiality versus the letter of the law. And, as a professional and as a lawyer, I expect you to abide by an ethics of collegiality.- Rebecca Bromwich, lawyerRebecca Bromwich, a lawyer and professor at Carleton University, says there is a certain expectation in any workplace that people will act ethically even if their behaviour doesn't violate the law.
"Anytime a conversation is being recorded and then released publicly that becomes a really live issue of trust," Bromwich says. "There is an ethics of collegiality versus the letter of the law. And, as a professional and as a lawyer, I expect you to abide by an ethics of collegiality."
About the Author
Methinks the liberal lady lawyer is not alone in those failings N'esy Pas?