The Rule of Law: The Jody Wilson Raybold & Justin Trudeau Affair - Through the Lens of Solicitor Client Relations

The Rule of Law: The Jody Wilson Raybold & Justin Trudeau Affair - Through the Lens of Solicitor Client Relations

The rule of Law is not at stake of being eroded in Canada. If anything, this is proof that the rule of law works and is robust in Canada. The system worked as we expected it to.  The Attorney general exercised her duty with integrity and the PM fought hard to protect Canadian jobs even to the point of skirting the grey areas of the law. If everyone is being honest, everyone has skirted the grey area at one point in their life or another (obviously generalizing here to make the point). We as society do not want to encourage public servants to walk the grey areas but if we are honest and we should be, it happens all the time across public and private sectors. Irrespective of people walking the grey areas, what we cherish is for the rule of law to prevail and in the SNC Lavalin case with the PM and Attorney General, the rule of law prevailed.

Here is how we know. At one point during Ms. Jody Wilson Raybould’s testimony she responded to a question about the legality of the actions of the PM and his office and said unequivocally that what happened was inappropriate but not illegal? And that is the key to understanding this matter. There was nothing ILLEGAL done here by the Prime Minister or his office.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/02/28/jody-wilson-raybould-testimony-highlights_a_23680842?utm_campaign=canada_dau

Anyone who understands politics knows that Politicians most often do what will get them elected first and then the public good and, in most cases, the two go hand in hand.  Equally important to point is that everyone involved in this matter including the Minister of Justice (distinguished from her role as Attorney General) are politicians.  And in politics as in many other disciplines, inappropriate (grey area dealings) which are not illegal happen all the time. (reason why we have ethics commissioners and professional responsibility codes). The AG being a lawyer was operating with an eye on both the Rule of law and Professional responsibly and the PM was operating with an eye on the Rule of law and Political Strategy. The Rule of Law being the impartial arbiter prevailed. We cannot now condemn one or the other players for playing the best of their role.

Here is how  I see it

1.      The PMO or PM or Government is the client

2.      The client is embodied or represented in the PM who is a politician,

3.      This client’s role and desire is to zealously advocate and implement their policies which will keep their party elected all in belief that it is the best for the citizens (protects/creates Canadian companies and jobs etc.), no matter whether one agrees or disagrees with the specific policies

4.      The AG is the lawyer of this client above and therefore should advocate zealously for this client’s interests and on their behalf as per Solicitor client relations

5.      The AG while being the lawyer for the client above is also the Protector of the Rule of Law (guards against abuse by the client (government, PM or PMO)

6.      The AG is also a politician/political figure in their capacity as Minister of Justice and member of Cabinet – meaning involved in day to day business of their client’s dealings respecting the client’s role as stated above

7.      The client wants their lawyer to do something that they believe is in their best interests

8.      The lawyer says I cannot because while it is not illegal, it is inappropriate for me because of my professional responsibilities as a lawyer.

9.      The client is not bound by these same professional responsibilities as his lawyer.

10.  The client pressures their lawyer to do what they think is in their best interest (typically not illegal and common in solicitor client relations)

11.  There is a breakdown in solicitor-client relationship as a result of #10 above

12.  At this stage if between individuals, the lawyer can either remove themselves or the client can fire their lawyer

13.  The client in the case at bar does not fire their lawyer (AG -1) but rather brings on their team a new Lawyer (AG -2) whom they believe (reasonable guess, as we really do not know) might work within the confines of the Rule of Law to advance the interests that the former lawyer AG-1 was not comfortable doing.

14.  Every lawyer is different and have different extents to which they will stretch their ethical obligations. The professional code of conducts applies equally to all but does have grey areas

Now given all the above. It is apt to say The Rule of Law Prevailed – Nothing unlawful happened and therefore

A.    AG-1 is clearly a person of great integrity, strength and character to stand in the fiery furnace and take the heat and standup for their values. They played their role with strength as the system contemplated – We all agree

B.     The Client is clearly a savvy person, courageous and willing to navigate the tight boundaries of law, a strong advocate for their belief of what is in the best interest of the citizens and the country.  They played their role equally as well as the system contemplated, albeit to the very edges but never illegal.

C.     Mindful that there is an intersection of law and politics at play here and also mindful that the very

Is this not evidence that the Rule of Law is vibrant and under no threat of erosion in Canada? Isn’t this a moment to be proud that the system worked as it was intended with each player playing the best of their roles? Why is one party the hero and the other the villain? Doesn’t the portrayal of one as hero and the other as villain destroy the very essence of what we have so very much wanted to accomplish with the symbolism of the Trudeau and Ms. Raybould as the faces of reconciliation in government?

I will be frank, and I can acknowledge my own privilege as a black Canadian which allows me to take on such a thought process without fear of being called a racist or sexist or blinded by white colonial privilege.

I honestly believe, progressives have been placated by them believe in progress towards reconciliation and a breakthrough of the colonial façade of Canada embodied in the symbolism of an indigenous Minister of Justice who is also a strong racialized woman appointed and serving along a young white male Prime Minister, the son of a former and most prominent Prime Minister of Canada. The image of these two individuals in government seemed for many as the rehabilitation of the colonial history of Canada and a perfect poster for reconciliation work. The truth is the real reconciliation work already began, it is robust and is ongoing even if all parties are not satisfied and there remains much more to do. However, we cannot substitute symbolism for the actual work of governance and the difficult decisions that public servants must make even if they are politicians to keep the system functioning amid disruptive change.

While the feel-good story of an indigenous Justice Minister is one, we all embrace, the reality is the work of reconciliation can be done at all levels and by anyone who takes up the call to service for this purpose. The work can be done from any public or private office right down to every home in the land. 

Therefore, the evidence from the 14 points above, the prime ministers did nothing unlawful, neither has his policy and attitudes towards respect for indigenous rights, reconciliation, the rule of law, women’s rights and care about Canadian jobs and companies changed.  His only offence here is that he shuffled his cabinet as is within his powers to do and in so doing took away the feel-good symbolism for the political elite. And that the political elite consider the ministry of Veterans Affairs as a demotion – what a shame.

That being the case, Progressives ought to be frank about the truth here rather than caricaturizing the PM as a fraud, a violator of the Rule of Law, as no longer being a feminist, and as being anti indigenous peoples. This is a fallacy and an overreaction that does nothing positive but further antagonizes the process of reconciliation which as I said earlier is ongoing, very delicate and in need to truth, clarity and service (hard work) not merely symbolisms and happy good feeling gestures.