Its a fair question especially as Canada's AG has to wear 2 hats one being the Minister of Justice and the other as the AG. I did like the suggestion of JWR that it should be 2 separate positions and not a dual role for one person. The UK split this dual role to ensure the AG was insulated and independent and if watching her testimony I now understand why they did that.

From Trudeaus mandate letter issued in 2015 to any person holding the position

You have a double role as both Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada. As Minister of Justice, you are the legal advisor to Cabinet. In this capacity you are responsible with the administration of justice, including policy in such areas as criminal law, family law, human rights law, public law and private international law, constitutional law and Aboriginal justice.

As the Attorney General of Canada, you are the chief law officer of the Crown, responsible for conducting all litigation for the federal government and for upholding the Constitution, the rule of law, and respect for the independence of the courts.

As Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, your overarching goal will be to ensure our legislation meets the highest standards of equity, fairness and respect for the rule of law. I expect you to ensure that our initiatives respect the Constitution of Canada, court decisions, and are in keeping with our proudest legal traditions. You are expected to ensure that the rights of Canadians are protected, that our work demonstrates the greatest possible commitment to respecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that our government seeks to fulfill our policy goals with the least interference with the rights and privacy of Canadians as possible.

So you can see the current AG has 2 functions and from the testimony she was given when approached by the PM, PMO, OPC and other Ministers and their staff which hat was she wearing?

Why should an AG have power well someone has to be seen to be upholding the law and making lawful decisions rather than a leader of a country just deciding they can do anything even if it means any laws are broken.

So many squirrels and red herrings being thrown around at the moment and no wonder the average Canadian hasn't got a clue what's going on with the current mess. I would ask you to consider the following based on the facts we currently know

SNC Lavalin were under investigation for bribery offences in Libya.
Given the current legislation that was passed by the Liberals this year dealing with the DPA's or Remedial Agreements and inserted into an Omnibus Budget Bill does SNC Lavalin qualify for a DPA?
If the answer is NO then any communications on this subject after the decision not to give them one in September when the AG made that decision IMHO should be construed as interference and any attempts to influence the AG to change their mind and consider a DPA when they have no legal grounds to give SNC one would again IMHO be unlawful. In my line of work we call this fettering a decision ie trying to change a decision makers mind and to take a different course of action. In the SNC case it would actually be unlawful.
As its a very murky area and new legislation I did read an article in the National Post Financial Post section yesterday that explains it better than I could and even the PMO's office. Actually its a very good and interesting read which might even convince anyone who reads it that SNC could not be offered a DPA.

https://business.financialpost.com/o..._autoplay=true

I didn't know she had a dual function. Might be time to make it a single function MOJ and do away with AG altogether. Make the PM a dual function with the HOS. Which of course implies jettisoning Her Majesty too. Well, perhaps it can wait a few more years, but "post-Elizabeth" I think Canada should ditch the monarchy.

Ditching the Monarchy is a whole new thread It has been discussed in generality as found in this article

According to an Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News, half of Canadians believe that Canada should end its ties to the monarchy when the Queen’s reign ends. About 61 per cent of Canadians believe that the Queen and Royal Family should not have any formal role in Canadian society, as “the royals are simply celebrities and nothing more.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/3559289/h...-the-monarchy/

Personally I have no thoughts one way or the other as I won't get to decide unless there was a Referendum and we know how they can turn out

I want someone independent who makes a decision on the law not the PM. Haven't those in power abused their position many times in history? How about that chap in the 1930-40s in Germany? Castro, Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Mussolini etc etc.

I'm with the 61% then. Glad to see it's on its way out.

I guess Parliament will decide as they won't let the public have a referendum me thinks. I tend to think Quebec residents might be voting to get rid of the Monarchy though cant think why?

I'm definitely in the 61%. It would be higher in Quebec, the young, those from countries with no ties to the Commonwealth and lower amongst the more 'experienced' cohort, Buick owners, Legion members, those in Atlantic Canada, those who identify as card carrying PC party members I would imagine.

Every time I buy postage stamps,which isn't too often, I request stamps that don't have the queen's head on them.

Do you decline money too, insist on being paid in personal services?

Not just Parliament though - also the ten Assemblies. s 41(a) of the Constitution says that any amendment to the office of the Crown requires unanimous consent, and that's why it's probably never going to happen. Because as soon as 9 Provinces want something enough to open up the constitution over it, the tenth is going to insist on a price, and that's going to make the others insist on their price, and that's going to derail the whole thing. Unless there's a devastating Royal scandal that makes everyone agree the monarchy must go, no strings attached, they'll be hanging around forever.

This sounds about right. I can't imagine Asian Canadians have much affinity for the monarchy, and there FN, probably not either. Just Buick owners in Moncton.

As someone who generally can't tell one car from another - except maybe a robin reliant - I had to look up Buick to see what this meant.

I'm still none the wiser. They're just cars like any other just cars.

Just the brand, a bit conservative, not quite a Lincoln or Caddy, but trying to be...

I looked up all three.
Maybe the difference is inside or under the hood.

They don't make Old-folks-mobile anymore so Buick is the one not to get behind at the lights (unless the other choice is a Prius or BMW).