That's not the rationale she gave for stepping down from cabinet. She accepted the new posting to Veteran's Affairs, and held it for a month. She resigned only later, after Trudeau claimed that "her presence in Cabinet should speak for itself."
I've not seen/heard her express 'rationale' for resigning... not in her public released letter of resignation; not throughout her testimony before the Justice Committee. You say, 'she gave a rationale' - please, if you're able, provide citation support to that end... thanks in advance.
as for the actual JT statement; it was: "
I respect her view that, due to privilege, she can't comment or add on matters recently before the media. I also highlight that we're bound by cabinet confidentiality. In our system of governance, her presence in cabinet should speak for itself," Trudeau said. "I continue to have full confidence in Jody." Subsequently, of course, privilege & matters of cabinet confidentiality (as regards the point to her cabinet shuffle) were waived to allow, as she expressed it, "her truth to be told". Ahem - apparently 'her truth' versus 'alternate truths'!
My concern here isn't to advocate on behalf of JWR. I'm not a lawyer and am not in position to argue the merits of the major pieces of legislation that marked her time as justice minister.
and yet you have no qualms in repeatedly speaking to a "demotion". As you now openly state, you're not factoring anything else into why she might have been moved to other roles; you're not factoring the merits of her job performance and, I expect, you're not factoring her working relationships and the expressions of her work colleagues that speak to her as 'difficult', 'not-open', 'inflexible', etc.. Nor, I expect, are you factoring her formalized mandate... if you're not aware, all Ministers received mandates in terms of expected work/accomplishments they were to meet - a mandate she most certainly came no where close to meeting.
My concern here-- and I'm baffled that you and JMT aren't concerned-- is that the PMO spent 4 months trying to interfere in an ongoing legal issue for political reasons, and when the AG wouldn't comply, they found a new AG who'd do their bidding. That's concerning. That's banana republic shenanigans. That's Trump level shenanigans.
I'll repeat the same point I've made to you previously (I believe this is now the 3rd time I'm stating it): the DPPSC decision was one that, in itself, over-ruled that of the lead-prosecutor. More pointedly, until court proceedings commence, that decision is not binding and is open to change. You prefer to speak to "interference for political reasons" - versus initiatives to bring new information, new contextual analysis, new factors/influences, etc, forward to bring consideration towards reevaluating the initial decision. Essentially, as I've also previously stated to you, your want is to keep steadfast to a decision that, many suggest, is not in the public interest - not in the public interest when 9000 Canadian jobs might be in jeopardy, when the company might move its base of operations to another country, when the actual viability of the company itself could be at risk (particularly in regards a weakened position subject to takeover).