I was watching John Ivison from the National Post, Mia Rabson from the Canadian Press, and Peter Van Dusen from CPAC on CPAC’s YouTube channel where they were discussing Jane Philpott’s resignation as President of the Treasury Board.
It was an interesting discussion and I encourage you to watch it if you have the time.
Near the end, they discuss the timing of former Minister Philpott’s resignation, noting that she was making official public appearances as recently as earlier the same day.
That morning, we published an article commenting on a couple of recently published opinion pieces. We felt that the extra scrutiny was well warranted in light of former AG Wilson-Raybould’s testimony that Katie Telford offered to have positive op eds written about the decision that the party demanded that she make.
While the journalists in the video seem to conclude that the timing of former Minister Philpott’s resignation was mostly coincidental, Bill Morneau had what I think is a less probable hypothesis.
But I think that it is worth noting that the resignation came so suddenly, and so shortly after a new wave of Olympic-level mental gymnastics began popping up in the public square.
It seems almost laughable that this would happen so shortly after the Wilson-Raybould testimony, but media outlets like the Toronto Star were quick to reassure the public that they were in charge of what they publish, not the politicians.
But the last time I checked, the Toronto Star responded to the Philpott resignation by reposting their opinion article titled “SNC-Lavalin controversy? Just put it to bed,” in which Heather Mallick says that we should “[c]heck our privilege” before having an “upmarket quarrel we are fortunate enough to have” but “needs to end before it does real damage”.
Later on in the day, the same Toronto Star published this subtle but racist hatchet job to protest that the media had not adequately questioned whether Wilson-Raybould was ‘too indigenous’ to deal with the corruption that the author Jeff Dvorkin, who lectures at the University of Toronto, seems to suggest has a proper home in our political system. He even goes further to say that journalists should be discussing how “[h]er principled stand seems at variance with the ideal of consensus governance in Aboriginal society.”
Sickening. I would bet that neither the prime minister, nor his chief of staff, could have said it any better themselves.