I read with interest, and with some dismay, the letter to the editor of Don MacBeath (The Telegram March 14, “Comments targeting judges over Muskrat report unwarranted”).
The high-minded but misguided comments of MacBeath confuse the role of Justice Richard LeBlanc as a commissoner appointed under the Public Inquiries Act with his role as a judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Anyone could have been appointed as commissioner; it could have been you or it could have been your hypothetical second cousin who has never had a steady job in his life.
The government happened to choose LeBlanc. The point is that LeBlanc, as commissioner, was not performing a “judicial” role in the strict sense of the word. If he were, his findings would be subject to appeal, which they clearly are not.
With no right of appeal, how are people who disagree with his findings expected to express their opinion?
Clearly, they have a right to express that disagreement without disparagement from people who should know better.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms accords to everyone the freedom of expression, belief and opinion. No one is immune from criticism, whether they are performing a judicial or non-judicial role. It’s called democracy.
Whether every finding of LeBlanc was well-founded is for the public to decide. I’m not expressing here an opinion one way or the other but let’s not stifle debate on the subject as MacBeath has suggested.
I would hope we have learned a lesson from the early days of the project when naysayers were disparaged and disregarded.
Edward Shortall,
St. John’s
