That's nonsense. The cabinet serves at the PMs pleasure.
The idea that the Attorney General is to be independent of political influence and the idea that the PM can fire and replace the Attorney General at any time he wishes are completely at odds with each other. It's the same reason that politicians can't directly fire judges. It's the reason that university professors receive tenure. If you're supposed to be independent from politics but the politicians can fire you at any time they want, then you're not really independent from politics.
Having policy discussions with the Justice Minister is something that members of cabinet would of course do all the time. But discussing the SNC-Lavalin prosecution wasn't a policy discussion, it was a legal matter. So they weren't talking to the Justice Minister, they were talking to the Attorney General during those conversations. And the ethics of trying to influence the Attorney General regarding an ongoing legal matter should be obvious to everyone.
Right - the onus is on the AG not to bow to pressure.
And clearly she didn't. Which leads to...
Except she didn't bend to his will and that is likely why she's not AG anymore.
Exactly.
Right now there's a strong appearance that the Prime Minister fired the Attorney General for not doing what he wanted, and appointed a new Attorney General who would do what he wanted.
The potential for political interference in the administration of justice is something that western democracies strive to avoid. It's one of the basic tenets of our system of government. See ongoing events south of the border for more examples of why justice and prosecution need to be at arms length from politicians.
JWR mentioned that the Minister of Justice and AG might need to be separate roles by different people to better maintain its political independence. Maybe Parliament should study that as she suggested.
That should be the lasting outcome from this affair.
-k