Be careful what you wish for.
When Caroline Mulroney first announced her candidacy for Ontario鈥檚 2018 election, the future was hers. Back then, she publicly supported official Progressive Conservative policies on an updated sex education curriculum, a carbon tax, and the rule of law.
Until she didn鈥檛.
Eclipsed by Doug Ford in this year鈥檚 leadership race, she folded on carbon pricing. Still, she stood her ground on sex-ed.
Until she didn鈥檛.
When Ford triumphed, he made her attorney general and, thus rewarded, she revised her position on our sex-ed culture wars and the carbon clash with Ottawa. Still, she vowed to defend the rule of law.
Until she didn鈥檛.
Now, instead of distinguishing herself as a judicious defender of law and order, she is discrediting herself as the enabler of an injudicious premier. Instead of comporting herself as chief law officer of the crown, she is conflating her role with that of Ford factotum.
Mulroney is not solely responsible for the Ford fiasco, whereby the premier has invoked the 鈥渘otwithstanding鈥 clause of the Charter of Rights for the first time ever in Ontario. But by virtue of her unique cabinet position, she bears a higher burden to rein in recklessness, to oppose arbitrariness, to advocate for the rule of law, to remind us of political norms and constitutional conventions (see: U.S. President Donald Trump versus Attorney General Jeff Sessions).
Consider, for example, the primacy of freedom of association, the principle of non-interference in democratic elections, the practice that judges should be respected and not reviled. Where is the attorney general when Ford flouts legal conventions and lashes out at the judiciary?
When the premier demonizes judges as political appointees who dare not judge him, let alone overrule him 鈥 claiming that an elected premier reigns supreme until the next vote, free from judicial scrutiny 鈥 does the attorney general not caution him, counter him, or contradict him? If this is not what she signed up for last year, why not sign her name to a resignation letter by way of protest?
It is a fair question for Mulroney, not just because of her onerous responsibilities as attorney general, but her legacy as the daughter of a consequential prime minister whose name she has surely profited from (conveniently condensing her full name, Caroline Mulroney Lapham, when she entered politics). She benefited not merely in name recognition, but unrivalled fundraising power whenever Brian Mulroney made an appearance on her behalf.
Read more:
Former premier Bill Davis speaks out against Doug Ford鈥檚 use of the 鈥渘otwithstanding鈥 clause
As Mulroney acknowledged Wednesday, her father has always denigrated the Charter鈥檚 notwithstanding clause, and he did so again unequivocally this week, noting that as PM he 鈥渉ad no interest in using it, no matter what.鈥
No matter what. Assuredly not for a partisan-motivated brawl with 海角社区官网city council (for which Ford forgot to seek an electoral mandate).
鈥淭hat鈥檚 why I opposed it then, and that鈥檚 why I oppose it today,鈥 Brian Mulroney said. 鈥淎nd, no, I haven鈥檛 discussed this with my daughter.鈥
Why should he? After all, a daughter cannot be bound by her father鈥檚 views, just as a son like Justin Trudeau is not answerable for Pierre Trudeau鈥檚 thoughts as prime minister.
But when another party elder speaks out 鈥 in the person of Bill Davis 鈥 does not our attorney general take note? Davis is not a blood relative, but his DNA is no less Tory than Mulroney鈥檚 and he is himself a father of the Charter of Rights.
In a rare intervention, Davis stressed that the notwithstanding clause was conceived as a compromise that assumed politicians would abide by political norms. Any override of the Charter鈥檚 protections was intended as an instrument of last resort to resolve difficult contradictions, not as a routine weapon in the premier鈥檚 鈥渢oolbox鈥 (as Ford described it) that would put judges back in their box.
As Davis told TVO鈥檚 Steve Paikin: 鈥淭hat it might now be used regularly to assert the dominance of any government or elected politician over the rule of law or the legitimate jurisdiction of our courts of law was never anticipated or agreed to.鈥
Caroline Mulroney is not alone in her betrayal of the Charter. Other lawyers in the Progressive Conservative caucus, who should also know better, are displaying similar fealty to Ford instead of loyalty to the Constitution 鈥 like, for example, Doug Downey, a former treasurer of the Ontario Bar Association; and Deputy Premier Christine Elliott, who has long had a special interest in human rights law.
鈥淲hy on Earth would we want to expose ourselves by plunging recklessly into such a controversial issue?鈥 Elliott once said when condemning a proposal that would weaken human rights in Ontario.
That was in 2009, when Elliott warned the PCs against alienating voters by eliminating the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. What does Elliott say now?
What about the other ministers and caucus members who were supposed to act as a check on the untrammelled power of Ford? And what do voters think of a premier鈥檚 hidden agenda to expend so much political currency and constitutional capital on a sudden showdown with city council over seat size?
In the free vote held at Queen鈥檚 Park Wednesday, not a single member of the PC caucus dared to vote against first reading of the premier鈥檚 shameful disruption and destabilization of municipal politics in the middle of an election 鈥 notwithstanding the devastating judgments of two party elders who found Ford has overstepped by overriding the Charter鈥檚 protections.
For Mulroney and her fellow Tories at Queen鈥檚 Park, their dreams of power have finally been realized. Just not quite the way they first envisioned their wishes coming true.
