The waves generated by the SNC-Lavalin fiasco continue to rock the current government. But, beyond the moment, there are lessons for the future. Jaime Watt writes:
Lisa Raitt, deputy leader of the opposition, asked Wilson-Raybould on Wednesday if this experience had left her with anything she thinks should be recommended to parliament.
Wilson-Raybould’s response was instructive.
“I’ve thought about this a lot,” she said, “and I think this committee [should] look at the role of the minister of justice and the attorney general of Canada, and whether or not those two roles should be bifurcated.”
She went on to say to say that there should be consideration around “having the AG not sit around the cabinet table.”
That sounds like a wise suggestion. Watt asks:
Is it not, on its face, absurd to think that one person can, one minute, be expected to act in a non-partisan way and then in literally the next minute to act as a partisan?
In our system, the minister of justice is inherently partisan: She or he is responsible for drafting partisan policy and shepherding partisan legislation through Parliament on behalf of the governing party.
The attorney general, on the other hand, is the chief law officer of the Crown, responsible for the government’s litigation and for providing legal advice regarding the very policies they have — while wearing their minister of justice “hat” — helped to draft.
In Britain, separation is the current state of affairs:
In the United Kingdom, the role of the secretary of state for justice, who has oversight of the ministry of justice, is separate and distinct from the attorney general, who is the chief legal adviser to the Crown and oversees prosecutions but is not usually a member of cabinet.
And when the AG has sat in cabinet, problems have arisen. Prime Minister Blair’s AG Lord Goldsmith came to a “better view” of the legality of the Iraq War 10 days after conversations with the prime minister and his cabinet. And the rest, as they say, is history.
When Jody Wilson-Raybould speaks of the strain that she has been subject to, she refers of course to “political interference.” But she is also sounding a warning to Canadians that the burden she faced stemmed, at least in part, from a structural flaw in our political system.
Clearly, the whole affair was a mistake. The political consequences of that mistake will be evident in the upcoming election. But, surely, we can learn from our mistakes. Those mistakes provide teachable moments.
Image: Our Out-of-Sync Life
8 comments:
This "mistake" dates back to Confederation, when John A wore three hats: PM, JM & AG. Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. all fixed the problem long ago. But our own bushleague politicians like it the way it is. It allows them to say with a straight face that no *inappropriate* pressure was placed on JW-R to subvert the rule of law in favour of a huge Liberal donor.
Cap
Ganted, Cap. John A. insisted that he be at the centre of everything. These days, the PMO ensures that that is where the PM is. It's time to change that calculus.
Cap nailed it. A justice minister is a member of cabinet. In functioning democracies, the attorney general is not a member of cabinet. The justice minister is a partisan post. The A.G. is independent (except here). Where both posts are commonly held there is a blurring, at times a merging, of these offices.
Given that we've had this duality since 1868, our politicians do seem to find it to their liking. In Canada that means the scales of justice are sometimes well greased.
When a government knows it can put its thumb on the scales of justice -- and get away with it -- you can count on such a government to do just that, Mound.
One teachable moment was when Jody Wilson-Rayault, at the end of her testimony, said: "I will conclude by saying this — I was taught to always be careful of what you say — because you cannot take it back — and I was taught to always hold true to your core values and principles and to act with integrity — these are the teachings of my parents, grandparents and community. I come from a long line of matriarchs and I am a truth teller in accordance with the laws and traditions of our Big House — this is who I am and who I will always be." In other words, her decision was based on Kwakwaka’wakw law and the traditions of the Big House and being who she is as a Truth Teller, the core basis of her decision was Indigenous Law.
Again, Canadians are being challenged to see their country from an Indigenous perspective, Gaiancity -- something John Ralston Saul documented in his book, A Fair Country. That perspective is still foreign to many Canadians.
Honestly, I had not known those two positions were being held by the same person before this affair brought it to my attention, but that the two positions should be separate was literally the first thing that came to my mind when I did realize it. It’s like a automatic conflict-of-interest for anyone who takes the job. Given that it is rather obvious to anyone who understands how such positions are supposed to work, the real question is just how badly this has been abused in the past and why there still doesn’t appear to be much appetite to make the obvious change to it now.
A very valid observation, BJ. The conflict of interest is so obvious, you have to wonder why the situation was not remedied long ago.
Post a Comment