Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Under pressure

The front page of Friday's Citizen contained the headline "Legebokoff move raises ire of MPs, victims families." Rightly so. In the article, Doug Leslie says "He should never be out of that little box, ever.
col-whitcombe.05_342019.jpg

The front page of Friday's Citizen contained the headline "Legebokoff move raises ire of MPs, victims families." Rightly so.

In the article, Doug Leslie says "He should never be out of that little box, ever." In the opinion of the families, Legebokoff deserved maximum security incarceration for the rest of his life. No disagreement with that.

But I mention this story because local MP Todd Doherty raised the issue on Feb. 26 in the House of Commons when he specifically challenged federal Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Ralph Goodale, to review the case.

Doherty said "Mr. Speaker, recently, Canada's youngest serial killer, Cody Legebokoff, was transferred from maximum security to medium security without acknowledgement or notification to two of the families of the four victims. Cody Legebokoff heinously murdered four young women in our communities in Cariboo--Prince George. He has not admitted guilt and has not formally told the victims' families where the remains of the victims are.

"I would ask my honourable colleague across the way if he will review this case of the transfer of Cody Legebokoff, Canada's youngest serial killer, from maximum to medium security."

Minister Goodale responded "Mr. Speaker, the particular item raised by the honourable gentleman obviously does not relate to Bill C-83 but on the substantive issue he has raised, I will examine the facts and get back to him with further information."

In this context, Mr. Doherty did exactly what we expect him to do - apply pressure to a minister to reconsider a decision made by his staff. And the minister responded he would examine the issue and reply.

During the rest of the week, Doherty made several references to the Legebokoff case as an example of the how the correction system makes mistakes. In effect, he contended Corrections Canada has done something it shouldn't and so the minister needs to step in and overrule his subordinates.

Our local MP is doing his job. He is speaking on behalf of his constituents and asking a minister to reconsider a decision which has been made.

In the letters section of the same newspaper, in a letter titled "Area MPs weigh in on Wilson-Raybould affair", we have MP Todd Doherty writing about the pressure being brought to bear on a minister to examine the actions of her subordinates and to reconsider their decision.

The language used in the letter describes the actions of the Prime Minister and the PMO as "not only shocking but corrupt and speak to a prime minister who has lost all moral authority to govern."

Why? Because they asked Minister Wilson-Raybould to change her mind with regard to a decision made by her subordinates.

The letter even states "the prime minister must resign and the RCMP must immediately open an investigation." It finishes with the profound statement "Canadians deserve answers and not a government that continuously keeps them in the dark while attempting to bend the rule of law to benefit their friends."

Except no one is presenting evidence SNC-Lavalin is a "friend" of anyone in government. Yes, they contribute to the Liberal party but, according to news reports, they also contribute to other political parties.

So here we have a case of an MP condemning the government in very harsh terms and insinuating it acted corruptly for doing something he has done himself. Is there a difference? Absolutely. MP Doherty rose in the house to ask the question of the minister and although he applied pressure, he is not a member of the governing party.

It is a matter of scale.

But should that really matter? If the prime minister is defending his constituents and asking a minister for a reconsideration is that really different?

I don't have the answers to these questions. I do know one of the aspects of our system of government is for both members of the government and of the opposition to bring to the attention of ministers cases where they feel something has gone wrong.

And I do know it is the responsibility of the minister to act when appropriate or not act when it is inappropriate. In the Wilson-Raybould case, she did not bow to the pressure. The prosecution is proceeding. Everything is unfolding as it should.

So, where is the scandal? The only question is did she lose her position as the minister of justice and attorney general over her refusal to change her mind? Maybe - and it would be a significant price to pay for having the courage to hold to your convictions. But one many have paid in all walks of life.

The issue shouldn't be whether pressure was brought to bear on behalf of constituents because if that was the case, there wouldn't be an MP left in Ottawa. It is whether she was punished for not bowing to the pressure.