PAN PACIFIC LAW CORPORATION 

Our Mission is to “Move People to Excellence", through effective advocacy in Aboriginal Affairs and Government RelationsPublic Speaking, an inspirational Book, and a thought-provoking Blog.

Listening Well + Education + Experience = Positive Outcomes

Ability + Experience + Relationships = Positive Results for You

Memorable Motivational Messages that reflect your group’s needs

A book that helps you build value in yourself so you can add value to others.

John Weston's Blog

Blog


John Weston Blog

By John Weston 13 Jan, 2018
No one has tried harder in leadership to move the dial away from glitz and towards good character than Preston Manning.

It’s fitting that he’s sought a crowning moment in his career by writing a scholarly and practical book on pursuing good character in leadership: Faith, Leadership and Public Life: Leadership Lessons from Moses to Jesus , (Castle Quay Books, 2017). It’s intriguing that he’s directed strong criticism at fellow travellers, that is, Christians. He also has worthwhile things to say to people of all faith backgrounds who crave more character in modern leadership.

First, let’s look at the book’s message to Christians. Unencumbered by political considerations, Manning squarely expresses his faith as the premier influence in his life. As he says,
 
   [W]hile my secular advisors were always worried that my religious views and commitments would alienate potential    political supporters, I was always more worried that my political positions and commitments would alienate potential    believers from investigating the claims of Christ. (FN 374, p. 261),

Without apology to non-believers, he uses examples of leadership from the lives of key Biblical figures: Jesus, Moses, David, Daniel, and Esther. In a groundbreaking way he addresses them, not as religious icons, but as political actors who had to cope with leadership challenges common to us in the 21st Century.

Based on a lifetime of managing the tension between his personal faith and his commitment to grassroots democracy (he used to have a quote from US President Thomas Jefferson in his office about trusting “the people” with political decisions), Manning works with the reader to examine why the church has become increasingly stripped of political influence.

There are people who would keep public life out of the church, and even more who would keep the church out of public life. Manning deals deftly with the separation, then hones his argument for why there's a necessary overlap. More than conceding that the two must intersect, he believes that healthy society requires a commitment of secular leaders to protect faith-based institutions and of faith leaders to take a stand in the non-faith public arena.

Manning lays part of the blame for marginalization of Christianity at the feet of Christians who try to impose their faith on others:

   [A] tragic irony is that when well-meaning Christians advocate the use of the coercive power of the state to bring in the    kingdom of heaven they are actually taking not Jesus’ side but the side of Satan… (p. 41)

   So if there is one supreme test for distinguishing the expression of genuine Christianity in practice from spurious           Christianity … it is that genuine Christianity does not seek to impose itself or its solutions on those who choose not to    receive it. (p. 115)

Christians, Muslims, and others of faith - don’t take Manning’s words lightly! As a Christian and recently a Member of Parliament myself, I recall the stern warning from Fraser Institute Founder Michael Walker, echoed by Manning in Faith. “People don’t fear your faith,” Michael said, “They just fear you might want to impose it on them.”

Manning addresses not only philosophical and spiritual matters but also pragmatic issues that bedevil leaders concerned with character. At the end of most sections is advice entitled “Implications for Us,” tips for leadership success that conjure up the advice of Niccolo Machiavelli in The Prince . The difference between Manning and Machiavelli is that Manning consistently puts character above short-term success.

Manning’s eternal perspective allows him to believe that virtuous decisions which entail short-term sacrifice ultimately engender long-term success. He’s sparse on the personal anecdotes, however. One of the best personal stories he does relate is the description of decisions he made to promote democracy which ultimately cost him the leadership of the party he created.

Manning’s book is a work for our times, as citizens of democracies around the world stand aghast at the hollowness of our leaders. The “dumbing down” of political discourse fashioned by digital communications; the domination of money in American and other politics; and the overweening influence of special interest groups have all contributed to erode our trust in leaders.

Other strengths of the book include the impressive scholarship. For example, the 511 footnotes provide excellent background and - what a welcome break from current practice! - Manning goes against the grain by presenting them conveniently at the bottom of relevant pages. Manning also ennobles the work by refraining from partisan potshots.

If there’s any disappointment in the book, it’s that Manning falls short in one of the two objectives he states in his Preface, that is, to help secular people understand better the “nature and implications of the religious traditions and convictions of citizenship who hold them”.  

This is not so much a criticism as an invitation for Manning to write a sequel. His focus on advising people of faith how to lead - his other objective, in which he succeeds admirably - may make it hard for readers to appreciate his message if they do not share his faith convictions. That’s okay - by keeping his sights on a particular audience, he’s able to increase his impact.

However, he has a strong message engendered by his faith for people who are not Christians. While the leaders studied in the book are Biblical characters motivated by faith in God, history suggests that people touched by those leaders benefited, regardless of their faith.

Similarly, many people touched by Manning have benefited from his leadership regardless of their faith. Based on his life example, his impressive Biblical scholarship, and his vast political experience, Manning has the means to create another book targeted solely at persons who do not share his belief in God. Such a book could provide invaluable advice for the non-believer that would improve the governance of Canada, in politics, business, and other fields. Such advice can be found in Faith but with more focus on the secular reader Manning could make an even more significant impact on that audience.

Even as a book focused on readers of faith, the book could have been improved in certain simple ways. As a lighthearted person whose quick wit is easily triggered, Manning is excessively sober in his book. I could find only one purely humorous moment, in a footnote (“Why did the Canadian cross the road? To get to the middle.” p. 89)

While humility is generally a virtue, Manning actually sacrifices valuable ground by sharing personal anecdotes so parsimoniously. The reader has to wait until page 82 to find even a trace of self-promotion, a footnote mention of Manning Centre activities. He continues to cherish privacy for his family but, again, the reader loses out by not learning more about Manning’s impressive wife, Sandra, and the influence she’s had on his life. He discusses the influence of Wilberforce’s wife on Wilberforce (p. 110), so why mention Sandra only in the Acknowledgements, at the end?

A bibliography and an index would have added to the book’s value. Churchill would have liked Manning and his book but exhorted the author to abbreviate it (Manning’s book is five times the length of Machiavelli’s). As Churchill might have said, if Manning had more time, perhaps he’d have written less.

In sum, Manning truly believes what he writes in his book: “Character - the inner condition of the human heart - is not only something most important to God; it is the most important qualification for public office” (p 208). Regardless of your faith position, you can’t argue with his underlying premise:

      Putting the interests of others - our fellow countrymen, our constituents, our colleagues, our families - ahead of our      own selfish interests should constitute our highest ethical commitment. (p. 54)

In sum, we can thank Manning for Faith and his many other contributions to good leadership. At the end of a James Bond film, there’s a recurring statement that “James Bond will be back”.  Let’s hope there is at least one more book in Manning; as with James Bond, we need to know that “Preston will be back.”

John Weston is an author, lawyer, and public speaker. As Member of Parliament, he represented West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea to Sky Country from 2008 through 2015.
By John Weston 13 Jan, 2018
Something happened on my way to dispute a traffic violation.

In fact, in an obscure incident in a tiny corner of Vancouver City Hall, a humorous, humbling little sequence of events led to a conclusion that honoured the framers of the Magna Carta.

I’d parked in Downtown Vancouver early one August morning last summer. I looked closely at the temporary sign that prohibited parking in that spot from 6pm til midnight. Clearly, I would be okay until 9am, or so I thought. But on my return the car had been towed and I had been ticketed. Closer inspection revealed another sign I hadn’t previously noticed. A couple of feet further up the same post, it prohibited parking for all but commercial vehicles. Given that Section 30 of the Magna Carta specifically prohibits a “sheriff, official, or other person [from taking] horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent,” I decided this was worth a fight.

Firstly, the sign I’d noticed was more prominent, almost a trap for the unwary. Secondly, the two messages were inconsistent. My sense of natural justice was that the regulation which accorded the more freedom ought to outrank the more restrictive one.

Outside the hearing room before things began, the adjudicator approached the four of us, each assembled to protest a traffic violation notice served against us. He looked at me astonished - he was a fellow member of a dinner group with whom I had engaged in political discussion on at least a dozen occasions over the past few years. He offered to recuse himself - step down in favor of a different adjudicator - not once, but three times. I knew he wouldn’t be easy on me - he’s too much a stickler for propriety to cut me special slack based on a personal relationship, but I figured he’d be intelligent and fair. And, given my travel schedule, it had taken five months to get to a hearing. So I wasn’t keen to attend another hearing. Instead, I made my pitch.

Drawing on my career as a constitutional lawyer and legislator, I offered three reasons to excuse my action, all based on the rule of law. The City of Vancouver ought not to promote or enforce ambiguous laws. In constitutional law, ambiguous laws are typically interpreted to favour the party misled by the vagueness, and against the party responsible for the ambiguity. Secondly, I said, the incoherence undermined respect for the rule of law, which goes far beyond the question of traffic regulations. Thirdly, such incoherence led to arbitrary decision-making and the rule of law frowns on arbitrariness. “There is no rex where will rules rather than lex,” wrote Henry de Braxton, in the 13th Century.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” So said English philosopher Edmund Burke and others. It was necessary to protest this unjust ticket to promote freedom and justice, not just to cancel my ticket.

The adjudicator didn’t buy the highfalutin language. Noble principles, he said, but any reasonable driver should have noticed the other sign. He proceeded to type in his decision.

But before he could finish, another motorist in the room approached me. She had highlighted a section of the Vancouver Traffic Bylaw that said the provisions of a temporary or portable sign prevail over other signage where there’s conflict. Unlike me, she didn’t let centuries-old constitutional verbiage get in the way. An accountant, she focused in on the pragmatic, the section that specifically applied to my problem, which was similar to hers. The adjudicator reversed his decision and canceled my ticket.

Where the constitutional lawyer failed, the accountant succeeded, all because, in our system, justice is often dispensed in an open adjudication room. Enthralled with the process, I waited to observe how the other cases were handled. The adjudicator continued respectfully to hear the pleas of other motorists, reach his decision, and spell out his reasons.

In one little episode, several aspects of a good justice system were on display: the adjudicator’s offer to recuse himself to avoid the appearance of bias; the opportunity for complainants to speak their piece; the openness of the hearing; the respect of the adjudicator for the parties; and his commitment to explain the process.

I walked away smiling, thinking that aspects of fairness decency do sometimes influence the dispensing of justice in Canada, even if our systems often leave a lot to be desired.

John Weston practises Indigenous Law and Government Relations. He served as Member of Parliament for West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea to Sky Country. www.johnweston.ca
More Posts

What People Are Saying....

Rod Senft

 Managing Partner, Tricor Pacific Capital Inc.

“As a lawyer myself , I have been on both sides of the solicitor-client equation. I have been on the Management Committee of a Major Law Firm and a client, as Managing Partner of one of Western Canada’s leading Private Equity Funds. I believe clients want a determined, highly skilled professional advocate with well educated mind. Having seen John in action as my Member of Parliament, I know clients will get the benefit of these qualities with him as their lawyer.” 

Sganisim Simaugit 

Chief Mountain 

“My Nisga’a Eagle tribal name is Sganisim Simaugit Sagaween, also known as Chief Mountain.  

I first met John around 1999. He came into my life firstly as a lawyer who represented us in the British Columbia courts with the “Chief Mountain Challenge” to provisions of the Nisga’a Treaty.  

I liked John right away and he soon became a trusted friend. In early 2000 the Chief Mountain Wilp (Tribal House) adopted John as an honorary member of our Tribal Wilp. John’s Tribal House name is “Ama Dax Gadum Algahum Skag” - “Talking Eagle”. 

I believe John Weston is a man with a good heart for everyone. I support and stand beside him with full confidence.”

Mehrdad Rahbar

President, Vernacular Development Corp. 

“From 2009 through 2015, John served as the first ever Canadian Government Liaison to the Canadian-Iranian People. As an active member of our community, during his 6 years in Ottawa, we had real representation and a caring voice not only as an MP but as a friend of our community. I worked along with a handful of other volunteers to guide John in this challenging role."

"John consistently worked hard to learn the needs of our community, made himself readily available, and nimbly drew together governmental and non-governmental groups to create common ground. He made it clear that a client would be fortunate to have John on the team to navigate Government Relations and legal issues.”

Contact John Weston

Obtaining John’s help in Aboriginal Affairs
Obtaining John’s help in Government Relations
Getting John to give a talk to my group.
Share by: