Thread by @Norlaine

First, and I can't believe I need to say this, but apparently I do: DO NOT THREATEN PEOPLE! Do not threaten journalists. Problems in our media are not going to be solved with violence.

OK, now I would like someone, a journalist perhaps, to explain to me why... 1/20

https://twitter.com/stephenlautens/status/1446165742488068097

An article is now out fomenting outrage against the PM and the current government over something that was done by the Harper government. The facts, had anyone in the media bothered to google them, were in the Globe & Mail at the time. Simple search. 2/20

The new cabinet, including JWR, was sworn in November 4th, The decision was made October 30th. Are we operating under conditions of retroactive responsibility now? Anyone care to blame PM Trudeau for the 1950 flood in Winnipeg? 3/20

Something the public may not know, but political journalists certainly should, is that many things never cross a Minister's desk. The Finance Minister does not check over everyone's tax return. The AG/Minister of Justice does not check in on every criminal trial. 4/20

In fact, direct interaction between Ministers and day to day operations within the purview of their departments is rare. They get big picture briefings. And civil servants within the departments put those briefings together. 5/20

It can happen that things that maybe should have been flagged as important for the Minister to see, are not seen that way by whomever in the department is handling the file. Think about it. 6/20

Almost 10 years of a government that wasn't particularly interested in Indigenous issues. The new government wasn't installed yet when the decision was made on October 30. Low priority for the file may have just been business as usual. 7/20

Another thing that the public may not know, but political journalists certainly should, is that during an election, until the new government is sworn in, things keep moving along. The government acts in a caretaking mode. The civil service keeps on moving paperwork along. 5/20

Having worked in a government department, long ago, I can say that every document goes through a process. It is proofread, edited, approved, proofread again, etc. Also, a change in government is a tumultuous time in all Ministerial departments. 6/20

My guess would be that by the time the cabinet was sworn in, the document dropping the appeal was making its way through the process, going along with a pile of other paperwork, from one desk to another. And then into the mail system. 7/20

So, while the new Minister of Justice was approving her new letterhead and getting to know her immediate staff, the document dropping the appeal was already a done deal and on it's way to the court. Why would they bring that up when there were many other pressing matters? 8/20

Hindsight is 20/20. It is easy to say the document should have been pulled out of the process and placed in front of the in-coming Minister. In the controlled chaos that is a major change of government, though, people may have had other things to be concerned with. 9/20

The CBC article implies that there was a concerted deliberate effort to prevent JWR from knowing what was happening on this file. That seems highly unlikely. If anything, the decision by a caretaker government to sign off on abandoning the appeal is suspect. 10/20

cbc.ca/news/canada/sa… 11/20

I think many of us agree that the Catholic Church has behaved abysmally in this (and many other) issues. Their abdication of their responsibilities and continued protection of people who hurt children is completely reprehensible. 12/20

And I do get the passion and commitment from Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond and Thomas McMahon. Their drive to make sure justice is served for residential school survivors is noble, admirable... But I think they are pointing the finger of blame in the wrong direction. 13/20

And so is the media. Yet again, our media seems to be operating under the assumption that the public good is served by casting aspersions on the current (Liberal) government, in the absence of any evidence, based on the opinions of people with a stake in the issue. 14/20

For 10 long years, Indigenous issues were low priority for the CPC. We don't need to give them another try to understand where they stand on such issues. The CPC still has many of the same people who didn't have MMIWG on their radar, and who decided to drop this appeal. 15/20

If I were a journalist, I would hesitate to blame a government for something that was signed off on before they were sworn in and a transfer of power had taken place. And yet, here we are. 16/20

If Turpel-Lafond and McMahon think that undermining the current government and getting a CPC government in their place would somehow benefit residential school survivors, I would love to hear their reasoning. 17/20

Remember, it is the CPC MPs who have been deeply upset by the toppling of statues of MacDonald and other architects of the residential school program. It was the CPC who talked about "Old Stock Canadians" and they didn't mean First Nations. 18/20

So, once again, our media is behaving in incomprehensible ways, drumming up a scandal based on a decision that was made before the Liberals took power. How does that even work? Why are they doing this? 19/20

Is it just for clicks and ad revenue? Maybe, I suppose. That would be irresponsible. And that is, actually, the best case scenario. Laziness and irresponsibility. Anything else would involve an actual agenda. That doesn't even bear thinking about. 20/20 #cdnmedia