And on top of that, the government changed the law to retroactively grant her a shortcut to the bar. The Barristers Act was amended to say that anyone who has served as Attorney General of Ontario is automatically eligible to be called to the Bar. This change was implemented after she was no longer serving in the role. Also, she is designated as a non-practicing lawyer. So the Mulroney was not a lawyer in Ontario while AG, has never met the requirements to be a lawyer in Ontario until those requirements were changed to allow her a non-practicing designation, and her contributions to the law in Ontario were so profound as to merit a designation
given to lawyers who have demonstrated a commitment to the pursuit of legal excellence in service to the Crown, the public and their communities.
The shortcut may have actually made sense. It’s important that one differentiates between the role of Minister of Justice, which is a political position in the cabinet that concerns it’s self with the politics of the legal system (budget, push laws that offer improvements) vs. Attorney General, which in a nutshell, is the head lawyer representing the government.
The large amount of lawyers in government has caused the issue that government wants to appoint an MP as the AG and have them also wear the hat of MoJ. This leads to some issues, like when you’re an MoJ and need to take orders from the PM and at the same time, being AG need to advise the PM not to break the law, like what happened with JWR and JT… Or in this case, where your MP of choice has received education to be a lawyer, will be appointed as the head lawyer, but isn’t actually a lawyer. In some jurisdictions, the AG and MoJ positions are separate so that you can appoint a qualified AG, or you do what Ontario does and say “the government recognizes this person as a a lawyer.” After all, being the head lawyer for the government means you’re good enough to be a lawyer, right?
Of course, none of that matters for the KC because it looks like the recipients paid for their title which is scandalous, or were given the title because of political reasons (hey look, Christine Elliott is on there too).
And on top of that, the government changed the law to retroactively grant her a shortcut to the bar. The Barristers Act was amended to say that anyone who has served as Attorney General of Ontario is automatically eligible to be called to the Bar. This change was implemented after she was no longer serving in the role. Also, she is designated as a non-practicing lawyer. So the Mulroney was not a lawyer in Ontario while AG, has never met the requirements to be a lawyer in Ontario until those requirements were changed to allow her a non-practicing designation, and her contributions to the law in Ontario were so profound as to merit a designation
But this is TOTALLY NOT MEANINGLESS PATRONAGE.
Do I have that right?
The shortcut may have actually made sense. It’s important that one differentiates between the role of Minister of Justice, which is a political position in the cabinet that concerns it’s self with the politics of the legal system (budget, push laws that offer improvements) vs. Attorney General, which in a nutshell, is the head lawyer representing the government.
The large amount of lawyers in government has caused the issue that government wants to appoint an MP as the AG and have them also wear the hat of MoJ. This leads to some issues, like when you’re an MoJ and need to take orders from the PM and at the same time, being AG need to advise the PM not to break the law, like what happened with JWR and JT… Or in this case, where your MP of choice has received education to be a lawyer, will be appointed as the head lawyer, but isn’t actually a lawyer. In some jurisdictions, the AG and MoJ positions are separate so that you can appoint a qualified AG, or you do what Ontario does and say “the government recognizes this person as a a lawyer.” After all, being the head lawyer for the government means you’re good enough to be a lawyer, right?
Of course, none of that matters for the KC because it looks like the recipients paid for their title which is scandalous, or were given the title because of political reasons (hey look, Christine Elliott is on there too).