Obiter Dicta Issue 1 - August 31, 2015 | Page 13

NEWS Monday, August 31, 2015   13 Omnibus Duffy » continued from page 8 » continued from cover of years ago, and most importantly, does not bode well with a democracy. Furthermore, the absence of a judge in the new citizenship stripping process makes the process unfair, and likely unconstitutional. Bill C-24 further impresses the idea of citizenship as a privilege, not a right, where there are redefined narratives of citizenship, and what it means to be Canadian. This is important to note because while they are ‘strengthening’ the citizenship process, the image of the ideal Canadian is being formed to be those without dual nationality; not to mention the fact that the Bill has been widely criticized for its creation of a two-tier citizenship system. The image of Canada as a multicultural place accepting of those deemed as “others,” is quickly disappearing with Harper’s omnibus bills continuing to mark marginalized communities. Consequently, the Harper Government is using omnibus bills as a tool to change the Canadian landscape and, even more alarming, most of the public is not aware of the drastic changes being made which significantly alter what it currently means to be Canadian.  u know that the law is not on their side, but they are convinced that if they can find a lawyer who will tell them that it is, then they can safely absolve themselves of any wrong-doing. Arguably, the only position more ethically problematic than the person who seeks out such a lawyer is the lawyer who acquiesces to such requests. Nigel Wright, the former Chief of Staff for Prime Minister Harper, is a University of Toronto and Harvard Law-educated lawyer and is alleged to have coordinated the transaction at the heart of this scandal – the payment of $90,000 to cover Mike Duffy’s rejected Senate expenses. Although not acting in the capacity of a lawyer, Mr. Wright certainly understood what was happening. Arthur Hamilton, lawyer to the Progressive Party of Canada, is alleged to have been aware of the repayment plan and allegedly transferred $13,000 to help cover Mr. Duffy’s legal expenses. Mr. Arthur is an Osgoode alumnus. Benjamin Perrin, the former legal counsel to the Prime Minister’s Office, testified that he was told by Mr. Wright of his plan to pay back Mr. Duffy’s improper expenses. He was also involved in the negotiations with Mr. Duffy’s lawyers over the repayment of those expenses. Mr. Perrin is a professor of law at the University of British Columbia. Janice Payne was the lawyer on the other side of table. She was Mr. Duffy’s lawyer at the time and was part of the negotiations. Complaints were launched with the Law Societies of Upper Canada and British Columbia against Mr. Perrin and with the LSUC against Ms. Payne in 2013. The complaints were dismissed in 2014, but the University of Ottawa professor of law who launched Sources “It’s official – second class citizenship goes into effect” British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (3 June 2015) online: . the complaints questions how thorough or earnest the investigations could have been. At least four lawyers were allegedly aware of a plan to repay Mr. Duffy’s improperly claimed expenses in order to mitigate the political cost of a scandal. As those on the cusp of entering this profession, we should pause and reflect on how these intelligent and educated people became embroiled in such a scandal. The pressure in the air at the highest echelons of government must make it difficult to breathe; resisting the weight from the top must be extremely difficult, but whether the pressure was coming from a senator or the Prime Minister, the decision to submit to it was a conscious choice. Lawyers cannot simply claim to be neutral conduits who merely do their clients’ bidding. The LSUC Rules of Professional Conduct preclude lawyers from hiding behind their clients’ instructions. Moreover, the Criminal Code of Canada makes it an offence to be a party to an offence. Lawyers do not trade in knowledge; lawyers trade in judgment. When you advertise legal services, you are selling your judgment and are required to exercise independent and critical thinking. When you tell a client that they may skirt or subvert the law with impunity, you do a disservice to the client and to the entire justice system.  u If you have vision. Some people have long known what they want out of a career. They look beyond their present and focus on their future: a future with international scope, global clients and limitless possibilities. If you are that person, you’ve just found where your future lies. Law around the world nortonrosefulbright.com