It was shocking that the Trussler Report was issued on the day of the Leaders' Debate last week..Ms. Trussler did recommend the Conflicts of Interest Act be amended to stay proceedings during the writ period. But, one wonders why an amendment would be necessary: could not such a brief report have been issued weeks ago? Or, given that the key findings in the report were of such a limited nature, perhaps even after the election?.Nothing in the Conflicts of Interest Act commits the Ethics Commissioner, the Speaker, or any other Independent Officer of the Legislature to release a report on a particular day. For one thing, the risk of advantaging one candidate or another by doing so on a poorly chosen occasion should seem obvious. And Rachel Notley certainly milked it for every advantage she could imagine..What could have been the rationale for releasing the Trussler Report at that time? We can only speculate: One can never be certain of the motives of others..However, we can be certain of the two key findings with regard to any alleged interference in the Pawlowski prosecution. .They were as follows:.1. Forty-four Crown Prosecutors confirmed that “they did not receive any contact relating to their files from the Premier’s Office.”.2. “Minister Shandro told her (Premier Smith) that there was nothing that could be done, and she accepted his advice. There were no further conversations between Minister Shandro and the Premier on the subject.”.Yet, Rachel Notley and her propagandists at the CBC lied repeatedly about these key findings: Notley accused Smith over and over again of “breaking the law” and interfering in the Pawloski prosecution..The Trussler Report makes it crystal clear that no such interference took place. Section 3 of the Conflicts of Interest Act states that:."3. A Member breaches this Act if the Member uses the Member’s office or powers to influence or seek to influence a decision to be made on behalf of the Crown to further a private interest of the Member, a person directly associated with the member or the Member’s minor child or to improperly further another person’s private interest.".The opinion of Trussler J. was that any interference in judicial process is “improper” and that therefore Premier Smith violated the Act simply by asking her Attorney General for legal advice... advice which Trussler admits at page 12 of her report was followed by Premier Smith without any further conversation or pressure being applied to Attorney General Shandro..The finding on page 12 that Premier Smith simply followed AG Shandro’s advice stands in stark contrast to — and contradicts — Trussler’s politically loaded finding on page 15 where she says:.“Speaking to an Attorney General about a specific ongoing criminal case, in the way that Premier Smith did on the call with Minister Shandro, is not acceptable. Just as with the case with Prime Minister Trudeau in the SNC-Lavalin case, Premier Smith was the only person, who by virtue of her position, could clearly exert influence over the Attorney General and had the power to remove Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I believe that Minister Shandro must have felt considerable pressure and concern for his tenure as Minister as a result of the call.”.To be clear then, there is nothing “improper” in a premier asking an attorney general for legal advice. That was AG Shandro’s job. The premier asked a question, the attorney general answered it, the premier accepted his answer..End of story..Neither was this a case like the SNC-Lavalin mess..There, friends of a prime minister were alleged to have engaged in bribery and acquiring prostitutes for clients to land contracts and the prime minister then applying so much pressure to the attorney general to not pursue charges against his friends that she was left no option but to resign..In this case AG Shandro did not feel sufficiently pressured to resign. At best he whined to Ms. Trussler that he felt that Smith was “passive/aggressive” and as determined by Trussler “she did not direct him (to stay the charges against Pawlowski) to do so.”.So, while the timing of the release of Trussler J's report continues to raise eyebrows, the report itself is no indictment of Premier Smith..As for its subsequent use, it is just evidence of how low some people will sink to corrupt an election and create propaganda points out of nothing. Rachel Notley's behaviour throughout this entire episode reflects the low depths to which she and the NDP will sink to win this election..It also demonstrates how unfit Rachel Notley is to govern and how little we should trust the candidate who claims that “trust” is the major issue in this campaign.
It was shocking that the Trussler Report was issued on the day of the Leaders' Debate last week..Ms. Trussler did recommend the Conflicts of Interest Act be amended to stay proceedings during the writ period. But, one wonders why an amendment would be necessary: could not such a brief report have been issued weeks ago? Or, given that the key findings in the report were of such a limited nature, perhaps even after the election?.Nothing in the Conflicts of Interest Act commits the Ethics Commissioner, the Speaker, or any other Independent Officer of the Legislature to release a report on a particular day. For one thing, the risk of advantaging one candidate or another by doing so on a poorly chosen occasion should seem obvious. And Rachel Notley certainly milked it for every advantage she could imagine..What could have been the rationale for releasing the Trussler Report at that time? We can only speculate: One can never be certain of the motives of others..However, we can be certain of the two key findings with regard to any alleged interference in the Pawlowski prosecution. .They were as follows:.1. Forty-four Crown Prosecutors confirmed that “they did not receive any contact relating to their files from the Premier’s Office.”.2. “Minister Shandro told her (Premier Smith) that there was nothing that could be done, and she accepted his advice. There were no further conversations between Minister Shandro and the Premier on the subject.”.Yet, Rachel Notley and her propagandists at the CBC lied repeatedly about these key findings: Notley accused Smith over and over again of “breaking the law” and interfering in the Pawloski prosecution..The Trussler Report makes it crystal clear that no such interference took place. Section 3 of the Conflicts of Interest Act states that:."3. A Member breaches this Act if the Member uses the Member’s office or powers to influence or seek to influence a decision to be made on behalf of the Crown to further a private interest of the Member, a person directly associated with the member or the Member’s minor child or to improperly further another person’s private interest.".The opinion of Trussler J. was that any interference in judicial process is “improper” and that therefore Premier Smith violated the Act simply by asking her Attorney General for legal advice... advice which Trussler admits at page 12 of her report was followed by Premier Smith without any further conversation or pressure being applied to Attorney General Shandro..The finding on page 12 that Premier Smith simply followed AG Shandro’s advice stands in stark contrast to — and contradicts — Trussler’s politically loaded finding on page 15 where she says:.“Speaking to an Attorney General about a specific ongoing criminal case, in the way that Premier Smith did on the call with Minister Shandro, is not acceptable. Just as with the case with Prime Minister Trudeau in the SNC-Lavalin case, Premier Smith was the only person, who by virtue of her position, could clearly exert influence over the Attorney General and had the power to remove Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I believe that Minister Shandro must have felt considerable pressure and concern for his tenure as Minister as a result of the call.”.To be clear then, there is nothing “improper” in a premier asking an attorney general for legal advice. That was AG Shandro’s job. The premier asked a question, the attorney general answered it, the premier accepted his answer..End of story..Neither was this a case like the SNC-Lavalin mess..There, friends of a prime minister were alleged to have engaged in bribery and acquiring prostitutes for clients to land contracts and the prime minister then applying so much pressure to the attorney general to not pursue charges against his friends that she was left no option but to resign..In this case AG Shandro did not feel sufficiently pressured to resign. At best he whined to Ms. Trussler that he felt that Smith was “passive/aggressive” and as determined by Trussler “she did not direct him (to stay the charges against Pawlowski) to do so.”.So, while the timing of the release of Trussler J's report continues to raise eyebrows, the report itself is no indictment of Premier Smith..As for its subsequent use, it is just evidence of how low some people will sink to corrupt an election and create propaganda points out of nothing. Rachel Notley's behaviour throughout this entire episode reflects the low depths to which she and the NDP will sink to win this election..It also demonstrates how unfit Rachel Notley is to govern and how little we should trust the candidate who claims that “trust” is the major issue in this campaign.
