The Globe and Mail (Prairie Edition) - - OPINION -

Re Caro­line Mulroney’s Test­ing Time (Sept. 14): In 1968, an On­tario Royal Com­mis­sion is­sued a re­port fol­low­ing an in­quiry into the uses and abuses of gov­ern­ment power. An en­tire chap­ter was de- voted to the du­ties of the At­tor­ney-Gen­eral. “The duty of the At­tor­ney-Gen­eral to su­per­vise leg­is­la­tion im­poses on him a re­spon­si­bil­ity to the pub­lic that tran­scends his re­spon­si­bil­ity to his col­leagues in the cab­i­net. It re­quires him to ex­er­cise con­stant vig­i­lance to sus­tain and de­fend the rule of law against de­part­men­tal at­tempts to grasp un­ham­pered ar­bi­trary pow­ers…”

In the Toronto City Coun­cil case, it is the duty of the At­tor­neyGen­eral to ad­vise cab­i­net against the in­vo­ca­tion of the not­with­stand­ing clause, to vote against the leg­is­la­tion and prob­a­bly to re­sign her cab­i­net po­si­tion should it pro­ceed. What did Caro­line Mulroney do? She voted for the bill. Her ac­tions will de­fine her not only as a politi­cian, but as a per­son.

Les­lie McIn­tosh


As some­one who has voted for each of the three ma­jor par­ties, I was look­ing for an al­ter­na­tive to the On­tario Lib­er­als in the re­cent elec­tion. Had ei­ther Chris­tine Elliott or Caro­line Mulroney been the leader of the Pro­gres­sive Con­ser­va­tives, I would have se­ri­ously con­sid­ered vot­ing PC. I could not sup­port Doug Ford, as I con­sider him demon­stra­bly un­fit for of­fice.

I now be­lieve, given their ap­par­ent un­qual­i­fied sup­port for what­ever Mr. Ford does, those two lead­er­ship ri­vals, and the At­tor­ney-Gen­eral in par­tic­u­lar, are equally un­fit for of­fice. The PCs have demon­strated that be­ing in power is more im­por­tant than in­tegrity and do­ing the right thing. As their men­tor might say, sad. Phil Ford


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.