Farewell, soon-to-be-former Deputy Attorney General John H. Sims

Yes, according to the Department of Justice, earlier this week, Deputy Minister John H. Sims -- a three-plus-decade veteran of the civil service -- gave notice, via widely-distributed letter, that he would be leaving his post, effective April 1. The news apparently provoked mild-to-middling surprise on the mandarin circuit, since generally speaking, the imminent departure of such a senior official would have been telegraphed months in advance, and not announced in a brief note just two weeks before his last day on the job.

The timing is especially curious given how deeply enmeshed in the Afghan detainee controversy his soon to be former department has become, particularly given yesterday's Questions of Privilege.

During debate, Liberal MP Derek Lee suggested that the letter sent by the assistant deputy minister "breaches the privileges of the House by, in effect, laying for witnesses a false basis for refusing to provide disclosure to the House or its committees after being ordered to do so," and called her words "sad and shocking coming from the Department of Justice and the legal advisers to the Crown."

He went on:

The problem here is not just the assistant deputy minister of justice's being wrong and fully disregarding any reference to parliamentary law and Parliament's constitutional purpose, but it actually describes that government officials would not be absolved from respecting statutory duties if required to testify before a committee.

These are not the words of an ordinary citizen over the counter at Tim Hortons. These are the words and pronouncements, the position, of the Department of Justice over the hand of the assistant deputy minister for the public law sector.

These and other words in this letter show no knowledge or regard for the law of this institution and betray on the part of the department a shocking and unprofessional ignorance of parliamentary law, and that law binds our democracy together. If these words were crafted with others and with ministerial approval, in my view it would constitute a conspiracy to undermine Parliament and the ability of the House to carry on its constitutional functions.

Either way, in simple ignorance or with subversive intent, this document over the hand of the assistant deputy minister of justice constitutes a contempt and cannot be allowed to stand under our Constitution.

In a subsequent intervention Bob Rae went out of his way to endorse his colleague's comments on that letter, which, he said, "could only be interpreted as having a chilling effect on people who are appearing before a parliamentary committee."

It's worth noting that Sims himself has, of course, never been cited as a potential target for contempt claims. But it's hard to see how as deputy minister -- and, under the Federal Accountability Act, accounting officer responsible before Parliament and committee -- he wouldn't have wound up played a key role in crafting the department's response to the argument that one of its senior officials may have breached parliamentary privilege.

In fact, given that Justice appears to have taken -- or been given -- the lead in the larger, and likely more potentially incendiary dispute over the order to produce those detainee-related documents in their original, unredacted form, he would almost certainly also have been deeply involved in the government's defence against the opposition's attempt to assert privilege. It is, after all, the role of Justice to provide legal counsel to other departments when required.

Meanwhile, outside the Commons -- and, as such, outside the scope of parliamentary power and privilege -- justice department lawyers have also been accused of attempting to intimidate potential witnesses before the Military Police Complaints Commission.

All told, it seems like less than auspicious timing for such a high-ranking changing of the bureaucratic guard.