Editor:
Re: Loyalty has price, Murphy’s Law, April 11
The editorial (along with the cartoon next to it) clearly implies that MP Carla Qualtrough's backing of the prime minister is purely out of loyalty to him and the Liberal Party, which further implies that she doesn't really mean what she has said regarding the SNC-Lavalin issue raised by Jody Wilson-Raybould, and extended by Jane Philpott; put more bluntly, the implication is that she is lying.
As well, it is implied, or assumed, that Qualtrough has not spoken on behalf of Delta. I don’t know how this conclusion is drawn in this case: What is Delta’s position? Does Delta have one unanimous position? Does Ted Murphy know what she said in cabinet and caucus?
Implied throughout so much of the discussion about this issue is the assumption that Wilson-Raybould and Philpott are right in their opinion on the appropriateness of the discussions between the former attorney general and other government-related persons. (As important as it is for us to have women and Indigenous people in Parliament, those demographic characteristics do not guarantee the individuals are always right; nor is the first position to be heard on an issue necessarily the right one.)
This is an easy position to take if one is in general opposition to the Liberal government: in politics proof or facts don't really have to be adhered to in taking positions. On the other side, knee-jerk supporters of the Liberals can jump to the alternative position. For the rest of us, we can only learn as much as we can and try to draw our own conclusions, or accept a position of no conclusion.
It seems to me that if there was absolute wrongdoing in a legal sense here, there should and would be an RCMP investigation. But even Wilson-Raybould has said there was no law broken. There is also the complication in our government set-up in which the attorney general is also the minister of justice and is part of the cabinet, taking part and being subject to discussions and debates therein. Where is the line to be drawn in questions of appropriateness in this kind of situation?
Murphy made three sweeping generalizations about former Delta politicians who did and did not “stand up” for Delta and South Delta. In this case, I don’t see the evidence of Qualtrough failing to speak up for Delta in opposition to the Liberal government.
That leaves me to question the motivation of the editorial in its clear implication that Qualtrough is failing, deceitfully, in her representation of this riding.
Howard Solverson
