Federal Liberals and Justin Trudeau supporters tied themselves in knots trying to disgrace Jody Wilson-Raybould after she refused as attorney general to stop a federal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, a large Quebec-based engineering firm. Despite intense political and bureaucratic pressure that went on for months, she held her ground until Trudeau shuffled her out as attorney general.
What happened afterwards has been well reported. The affair provoked a hot debate over the roll of attorney general and whether the individual in that office is primarily responsible to her political master (in this case, the prime minister) or to the Government of Canada (and by extension the Canadian public) when dealing with legal matters.
In the normal course of government business, the two interests should be compatible since the prime minister has been entrusted by voters to work on their behalf. In situations where the prime minister's political desires conflict with the legal plans of independent federal prosecutors, the attorney general finds herself in a tight spot. She can work with both sides behind the scenes to find a compromise, she can obediently use her political authority to overrule her bureaucrats or she can refuse to satisfy her leader and face the political consequences.
Obviously, Wilson-Raybould chose the latter option and, in her taped conversation with then Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, stressed that she wasn't just standing on legal principle but also had strong feelings that Trudeau and his advisors were potentially making a huge political mistake that could hurt the prime minister and the party.
Right on both counts.
To see what kind of attorney general those people thought Wilson-Raybould should have been for Trudeau, look to the south and the disgraceful, potentially illegal conduct of U.S. Attorney General William Barr on behalf of his political master, U.S. President Donald Trump.
Since becoming attorney general earlier this year, Barr has consistently put the political interests of Trump ahead of his official duties as the head of the Department of Justice. Numerous political commentators and politicians have rightly pointed out that if Barr wanted to be either Trump's personal lawyer or the White House lawyer, he should have applied for those positions, not attorney general. While Trump's personal lawyer represents Trump the individual and the White House lawyer's job is to offer legal counsel for the president and his administration, the U.S. attorney general is supposed to represent the American people in overseeing the administration of justice, regardless of politics.
U.S. attorney generals have a long (and many would say proud) history of refusing to provide legal comfort to the presidents who appointed them. Richard Nixon's attorney general refused to fire the Watergate special counsel. The attorneys general for Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did not intervene during the Iran-Contra and Monica Lewinsky scandals, respectively.
Barr's letter summarizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report led to Mueller writing his own letter to Barr, informing the attorney general that his synopsis "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions." That's the language lawyers use to accuse someone of misleading others.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went much further Thursday morning, accusing Barr of committing a crime by lying to Congress. Whether she uses her authority to bring forward perjury charges against Barr (convictions can lead to jail time as Trump's former personal lawyer Michael Cohen has learned the hard way) is another matter.
For too many people, this is politics as usual, easily dismissed with a cynical wave of the hand but it truly matters if one believes the fair application of the law to everyone, regardless of wealth or power, is a core democratic value. Having to make difficult choices about what to do about the potentially illegal conduct of others isn't just something faced by politicians but by residents in their private lives.
If a friend refuses to stay over or take a cab instead of driving home after having four drinks in two hours at your home, is your friend impaired? Do you call the police or do you make excuses for your friend's conduct?
If, despite your protests, your colleague takes a small amount of product with little value that won't be missed from your employer without permission, do you tell your manager or do you stay quiet?
How many people who praised Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott for their opposition on matters of principle against Trudeau and their fellow Liberals would have made a similar choice if they had stood in their shoes?
The phrase "for whom the bells toll" originates with English poet John Donne. His following words - "it tolls for thee" - is a plea to the reader to care about issues and problems beyond everyday personal concerns and to answer the bell when called upon, to stand up for what's right.
-- Editor-in-chief Neil Godbout
