Practice Review - Request For Deferral Declaration Form: Fill & Download for Free

My goals here are three-fold:To give non-Canadian readers a window into the story that’s going to determine whether Trudeau gets re-elected this year.To give Canadian readers a clearer and more complete sense of what’s happened than is easily found in any other single source.To make a few arguments re: what does and doesn’t matter here, and why. (And in the case of what doesn’t matter, outlining a theory on why some are pretending otherwise.)By necessity, what follows isn’t exactly short. But I’ve done my best to keep it as interesting and concise as possible while still hitting the above goals.For those unfamiliar with my writing, two quick notes: (1) My only interest in the partisan side of politics is deconstructing it. I have no team or tribe. (2) To ensure the most accurate takes possible, I offer rewards for all corrections.Ok, enough housekeeping.[EDIT: My original answer here was written March 1st. I returned on March 13th to make a few minor corrections and to address some common questions / objections. Where it made sense, I added edit snippets throughout the main text. Where I felt additions would be too distracting, I saved new commentary for the end. You can track all changes via the answer’s edit log.]Background ContextHere’s what brought us to today, in six bullet points:SNC-Lavalin is an EPC firm, which is to say that they’re the folks governments turn to when they want to contract out large infrastructure projects. SNC has roughly 50k employees globally, including 9k or so in Canada, with some 700 of those Canadian jobs being in the Montreal area (where SNC is currently headquartered). As recently as last October, SNC was worth about $9bn CAD, which is a fair amount for a Canadian company. If not quite a crown jewel, they were right at the top of the next tier down.SNC engaged in some shady stuff between 2001 and 2011, leading to a mire of lawsuits and investigations. As evidence of their misdeeds mounted, thousands of employees left, the board was made over, and a host of new compliance procedures were put in place to ensure that The Bad Times were behind them.In July 2012, the Harper government (the Conservative majority that preceded Trudeau’s Liberal majority) had Canada’s national contracting office revise their anti-corruption rules, with the net effect being that any vendor found guilty of certain crimes would be “rendered ineligible” for future federal contracts for a period of 10 years (reducible to 5 with good behavior). The Conservatives also made further amendments over the following years to reduce options for leniency, largely (it’s assumed) to position themselves against the Liberals, who had a party history of bedfellowing with shady corporations.For obvious reasons, SNC didn’t care much for this. They began lobbying for Canada to adopt what many other countries call deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), which are something like plea deals, where a corporation can admit wrongdoing and submit to certain penalties and government-supervised renovations without bearing the full weight of a potentially crippling criminal conviction. (The logic here being that it’s not generally fair or useful to punish an entire enterprise for the sins of a few, especially if those few are no longer there.)The Trudeau government, which came to power in late 2015, ultimately did move forward with creating a DPA regime this past September. Unsurprisingly, SNC was quick to request an invitation for entry, arguing that they’d already done all the sorts of penance and reform that a DPA would require, and that further punishment was basically just value-destruction with no upside.The person responsible to decide on SNC’s request said no, setting off a chain of dramanoes just now reaching their crescendo.Now, before we can unpack the decision itself, we have to make a quick detour into the structure of the Canadian government — which I promise isn’t (quite) as boring as it sounds!Super Fun Learning Time!Trudeau, in addition to being Prime Minister (PM), is a Member of Parliament (MP) representing a riding in Montreal. That’s because in Canada the PM is always head of the executive branch and a sitting member of the legislature, with those two branches of government being heavily intertwined.[EDIT: Mike Hewson pointed out that all ministerial roles, including PM, can legally be filled by Senators and/or credentialed professionals, though this is only applicable in fringe cases where no suitable MP is found for a given role, which almost certainly would never be the case for PM — though this did happen twice in Canada’s early days when the sitting PM died in office.](I’m going to skip over the roles of the Queen, her Governor General, her Privy Council, and the Canadian Senate — mostly because those are all legacy institutions that hold marginal effective power today. If a PM has the backing, or “confidence”, of a majority of individual MPs, the PM effectively is the government. They own nearly all executive powers, and have enormous influence over legislation. Individual MPs have latitude to vote as they will, but those in the PM’s party will generally support the PM on all but rare “vote your conscience” items. The only part of the federal government that a majority-party PM has no real influence over is the judicial branch.)Anyway, there’s this other thing that the Harper government did (again, presumably) to brand themselves in distinction to the scandal-ridden Liberal Party of the early 2000s.In brief:The Conservatives instituted the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, which was to be subordinate to (but somehow independent of) the Department of Justice.The Department of Justice is headed by the Attorney General (AG), who is almost always a sitting MP selected for said purpose by the PM. In this new arrangement, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) would be a civilian appointed by the sitting Attorney General.The idea here is that the DPP would be two steps removed from the PM, which would theoretically protect the former from undue political influence from the latter as far as deciding whom to prosecute.(Oh, and by the way, the Attorney General is also the Minister of Justice, which is a totally different hat that the same person always wears. It’s a confusing duality not worth getting into here, outside the basic idea that the same person is to be considered independent or not-so-independent depending on the hat they’re wearing in a given instant, which often leads to all the obvious complexities that one would expect.)Now, if you’re wondering what the division of power is between the AG and DPP on a practical level, there’s a handy guide for that very thing: Relationship between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions.In a way, it’s the most “Canadian Politics in a Nutshell” thing you could ever read — almost 4,000 words of high-sounding rhetoric (“independence!”, “justice!”, “accountability!”) that accomplishes basically nothing outside of making the system even more convoluted and bureaucratic.Two reasons I say that:The DPP serves at the pleasure of the AG, who serves at the pleasure of the PM. While this gap between the DPP and PM probably does make it slightly harder for an otherwise good PM to improperly influence an otherwise good DPP, it doesn’t at all solve the problem that a bad PM would appoint a complicit AG, who would hire a complicit DPP.The AG can overrule and/or sideline the DPP at their own discretion, making the whole thing kinda pointless. (The AG would have to publish a memo of sorts explaining why, but that’s about it.)The obvious (if uncharitable) reading here is that Harper wasn’t all that interested in changing anything, so much as he was very interested in the optics of being seen to change things. That this chess move would also make it near impossible for his successor to reverse the changes without massive blowback (despite the changes being largely symbolic) was just an added bonus.[EDIT: For more on Harper’s presumed insincerity, see this combined with this. Also note that the current chair of SNC’s board was a key figure in Harper’s government for three years, as he’d been in several governments prior. He was expecting his calls to be answered, regardless of who was PM at the time. The idea of a Conservative government handling the SNC case any differently on a practical level seems like bad fiction to me, and I’m not sure on which grounds someone could even argue otherwise. I suspect Harper was unsurprised to hear that his trap had worked, if also a bit surprised to learn it was the SNC deferral that sprang it.]This all in mind, let’s get back to the current narrative.A Series of Unfortunate DecisionsBefore the new law even came into effect, the SNC began pushing hard for their chance at a deferral. But Canada’s current DPP, Kathleen Roussel, for reasons still unknown, decided that she was going to tell SNC “no deal”, leading her to issue an internal memo to this effect on September 4th of last year. The contents of said memo aren’t public at this point, having been private to the AG. But the fact of the decision was communicated to the PM’s office, which Trudeau and co. were, well, not entirely satisfied with. This set off a chain of contacts over the next three months or so, which broadly consisted of the PM’s office looking for the AG to either reconsider or allow an outside legal opinion.As to Trudeau’s motivations here, we can make some reasonable guesses:SNC is headquartered in Trudeau’s home city.Trudeau has an election coming up, and Quebec often plays the deciding role. SNC is a big deal to Quebec, and a conviction could cause deep harm to SNC. (At the least, the conviction would play poorly, whatever the ultimate economic consequences.)The Liberal Party has always been corporate-friendly (in ways both good and bad). In particular, they’ve largely been against value-destruction as a general principle. And Trudeau almost certainly sees refusing SNC’s request to be textbook value-destruction.Anyway, whatever his motivations or their relative weighting, Trudeau’s entreaties to Wilson-Raybould to intervene didn’t change her mind. But they did cause significant friction between them, which Trudeau was unable to keep entirely private. This was a gift that Andrew Scheer feasted upon. (Scheer is the current leader of the Conservatives, and Trudeau’s chief competition in this year’s election.)As a further gift to Scheer, Trudeau initiated a cabinet shuffle in January, which included the reassignment of Wilson-Raybould to Veterans Affairs (with additional responsibilities in National Defence). While this was met with some suspicion, the real drama began on February 7th when The Globe and Mail published a rundown of the spreading rumors. This in turn led to someone asking Trudeau a few days later if he and Wilson-Raybould were still on good terms. His answer was to the effect of “well, she’s still here working for me, which should be its own answer” — which, uh, backfired spectacularly in that she resigned a few hours later.[EDIT: The timing of an ethics probe may have also played into her timing. Also, it isn’t clear how aware Trudeau was of how Wilson-Raybould felt until the shuffle. She says it should have been obvious. He says it wasn’t. As of this time, no documentary evidence has come out proving either right or wrong.]Her resignation obviously raised even more questions, which ultimately led to her appearing before the House Justice Committee to address concerns over whether Trudeau and co. had crossed any legal lines in their lobbying.The FalloutYou can read Wilson-Raybould’s opening remarks here.Being as objective as able, I’d summarize them as follows:Trudeau and team lobbied aggressively on SNC’s behalf, and he made it clear that he was displeased with her and Roussel for being inflexible.While she didn’t accuse them of breaking any hard laws, she feels they did cross well into “inappropriate” territory, both in tone and frequency of approach, including after she’d basically said “no means no”.She feels that she was “demoted” because of her stand.All said, she seemed entirely credible. Her notes were thorough and it’s hard to imagine her having lied on any point. Even so, there’s the open question of interpretation, especially as it concerns that last bullet point.While there’s much that’s still unclear, we do know that, as far as immediate causes go, she was reassigned as part of a larger cabinet shuffle triggered by someone else’s resignation. This in mind, Trudeau’s official position has been “had Scott Brison not stepped down, Jody Wilson-Raybould would still be minister of justice and attorney general of Canada.”Now, Scheer is obviously hoping for a smoking gun that will prove this statement false. But we don’t have one yet, and it doesn’t seem all that likely to me that one exists. Could Trudeau have opportunistically used the shuffle to punish her? It’s possible. But it’s also possible that he was simply annoyed at how she handled the whole affair, leading him to decide that he’d prefer her elsewhere. I can see how either scenario could be viewed as objectionable, but I’m less sure that even the former rises to the level of criminal obstruction. Whatever Trudeau’s motivations in shuffling her, his replacement AG has so far left the existing DPP in place, which means nothing involving SNC-Lavalin has actually changed. I suppose you could still argue pettiness, but pettiness isn’t quite a crime.[EDIT: There’s also the possibility that there was no pettiness at all and that the shuffle was exactly and only for the reasons that Trudeau’s former top aide suggested. I found his testimony compelling in its own right, and I’m not sure how to adjudicate between the two accounts outside further evidence. My lean is that it feels a little unlikely for there not to have been some secondary motive, however small. But YMMV. I get into this a bit more in the edits at the end.]Anyway, all those arguments are meaningless to Scheer, mostly because it’s very convenient for him to not consider them.(Note: As I don’t want to give anyone cause to believe that I’m meaningfully biased, I’ll point out before continuing that one of the last two votes I cast was for a Conservative. And I’m fine with throwing more votes in their direction — just as soon as they stop nominating feckless lizardpeople like Andrew Scheer.)A Study in InsincerityWhile I wasn’t much of a Harper fan, my dislike for him was mostly benign. Had he won against Trudeau in 2015, I’d have made a vaguely disappointed clicking noise and then gone back to whatever I was doing. I ultimately voted against him because I was displeased with how he seemed to court the alt-right as it became clear he was going to lose — but his work as PM was largely … fine?Andrew Scheer, however, is a different category of conservative. Andrew Scheer, in a nutshell, is the kind of person you’d get if you isolated all the unhealthy impulses that Harper struggled with and then doused them with growth hormones (and then also stripped most of Harper’s policy/strategy IQ).He made a speech yesterday in response to Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, of which I’ll share just one excerpt:The testimony Canadians have just heard from the former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould tells the story of a Prime Minister who has lost the moral authority to govern. A Prime Minister who allows his partisan political motivations to overrule his duty to uphold the rule of law. A Prime Minister who doesn’t know where the Liberal Party ends and where the Government of Canada begins. And a Prime Minister who has allowed a systemic culture of corruption to take root in his office and those of his most senior cabinet and public service colleagues.Now, much of this is just your run-of-the-mill disingenuous nonsense. But even in that ignoble context, I still find this one line incredible:a Prime Minister who doesn’t know where the Liberal Party ends and where the Government of Canada begins.Scheer seems to be making one of two absurd arguments here: (1) that “the government” is somehow separable from the declared values/views/proposals of those specifically elected to form said government; (2) that a majority government should set the values/views/proposals they were elected on aside so as to privilege the values/views/proposals which voters judged less attractive.I honestly don’t know which one of those ideas is less preposterous, but that Scheer would employ that kind of cutesy phrase despite it not actually meaning anything is one of many reasons I hope he’s never allowed to run anything more important than a blender. (Like, is it better if he just didn’t think through how dumb the sentence was, or if he did and said it anyway? And in the case of the latter, what does it say about the state of things if he judged this a viable tactic?)[EDIT: I don’t know how I forgot this, but by far the funniest thing here is that Harper had literally renamed the Government of Canada as “The Harper Government” in 2011! And guess who worked for Harper at the time? I wonder if he was this passionate about the distinction then?]Anyway, let’s shift from the statement to the motivation behind the statement. Who benefits from the SNC being prosecuted? Scheer! Who benefits from Trudeau being perceived as trying to interfere with this prosecution? Scheer! He wins either way. The only way he doesn’t win is if he’s forced to actually give his own opinion on why SNC does or doesn’t deserve a deferral.Lucky for him, no one is going to force him to do that — which I’d argue is symptomatic of the defining problem in this whole mess.About That DeferralBefore we move on to why Scheer is able to get away with all this, a few final words about SNC.What Scheer would prefer lost in the hubbub is that a deferral is not an exoneration. It’s a decision to choose a scalpel over a sledgehammer. While there may be times when the latter is the more appropriate tool, Scheer hasn’t really made any argument to that end (nor will he on this side of the election). His argument is simply “the DPP said sledgehammer, so Trudeau has to use the sledgehammer, which I don’t otherwise have an opinion on, but hey it does win me a lot of votes! — and PS, if Trudeau argues against the sledgehammer, it’s because he’s a coward/crook who hates Canada!”Trudeau’s response hasn’t been “c’mon, let’s let them off lightly because they’re my yacht buddies and besides I need their votes!” but rather “let’s pursue a form of justice which doesn’t introduce unnecessary collateral damage — and PS, I’d rather keep those votes thank you very much”.All else being even, it isn’t unreasonable for politicians to lean towards decisions that benefit them in the polls. But all else isn’t even here. One of these decisions is better for Canada, and one is worse.Now, is it possible that the DPP and AG actually had good reasons to stick it to SNC? Could be. The problem is that neither explained their reasons, both citing that it would be inappropriate to comment while SNC is pursuing their appeal of said decision in the courts. (This is probably a reasonable position now, though I’m less sure it’s a good reason for not having explained the decision at the time.)[EDIT: Just to be super clear on this point: the DPP’s Section 13 memo was read by the AG and no one else that we know of. The AG’s deputy didn’t read it. No one in the PM’s office read it (though Wilson-Raybould says a copy was forwarded, and then re-sent again after her conversion with Wernick on Dec 18th). SNC was never told why they were rejected. It’s all a mystery. And despite this being the first decision on this law, the AG refused to solicit an external opinion from a former Chief Justice of Canada. The AG had the right to make this set of decisions, but it’s hard to understand the logic here.]While their silence keeps us from perfect clarity, there are two dominant theories for why the DPP and AG decided against SNC’s plea:They agreed on the technical argument that SNC is legally ineligible for deferral on the explicit grounds of national economic interests (which is to say that Canada can’t use that as a factor in its judgment).They found compelling evidence that SNC hasn’t reformed and/or wouldn’t offer good faith cooperation in context of a plea.In the first case, it’s hard to argue against this reading of the law being facially correct. Even so, there are non-trivial counter-arguments: (i) Governments make this kind of self-benefiting decision all the time. The game is that you simply list reasons other than “national economic interest” when filling out the paperwork, regardless of how important said interests actually were. Now, maybe countries shouldn’t do this. But they do. And while I personally see the appeal of “let’s go by the book, even if mostly alone, even if that’s a net tax”, I don’t think people who take the other side are necessarily bad. (ii) If you have enough other reasons outside the national economic interest, it isn’t clear to me that it being helpful to the national economic interest is bad. (iii) Pragmatic flexibility is half the Liberal Party’s platform. Most voters who had an informed opinion here would have expected Trudeau to take precisely the stance he has. As such, you could argue that this is a form of mandate that he’s actually responsible to uphold.In the second case, the counter-argument is simply that over-ruling the PM’s judgment shouldn’t actually be their call, regardless of what the current letter of the law may say. Remember that this whole new structure was a Harper innovation, and arguably just a symbolic one. And while the AG has always theoretically been independent from the PM’s office, there are realist arguments for why this distinction has always been something of a legal fiction.(To be clear, we don’t know which — if either — of these arguments Trudeau is leaning on, largely because we don’t know what Roussel’s thinking was.)Formalist v. Realist(As preface for what follows, I’m not trying to convince anyone that one particular school of thought here is better or more right than the other. My point is that both are valid, in as much as they’re both logically robust frameworks that you could believe and defend without being inherently bad or crazy.)As to what I mean by the realist school, there’s a significant parallel here (in a narrow way) to the current situation in the US with Trump. When his new AG (who at the time wasn’t yet his AG, but who had been an AG before under Bush Sr.) issued an unsolicited memo outlining an argument that Trump was constitutionally OK to reassign and fire his way to outcomes he wanted without this implying actual obstruction of justice, this was widely met with cries of “treason!” — despite (a) that not being what treason means, and (b) it being a coherent and well-argued theory of law.Now, sure, you or I may disagree with this philosophically. And we may be right! But the idea that the chief executive has extraordinary and unilateral powers over nearly all executive affairs isn’t necessarily as dangerous as it may seem at first blush.Over-simplifying this a bit, imagine two competing scenarios:You restrain the executive’s powers with a complicated set of rules which are really hard to enforce with any consistency and which involve endless subjective judgment calls and which can easily be misused by a belligerent opposition to thwart the executive doing its job and which really don’t offer much effective restraint anyway.You restrain the executive’s powers with two simple levers: (a) in the case of gross judgment, you vote the executive out next election; (b) in the case of gross judgment that will cause more harm if left that long, you vote them out by pressuring your reps for impeachment / a no-confidence vote.Now, yes, there are real objections to this second system, which we’ll get to in a second. But just keep this idea of two approaches in mind as we consider a statement from Wilson-Raybould’s remarks yesterday:We either have a system that is based on the rule of law, the independence of prosecutorial functions and respect for those charged to use their discretion and powers in a particular way, or we do not.This is basically an argument for that first system — which, on its face, seems entirely reasonable. The rule of law is obviously good! And independence sure sounds like something we’d want! But step back for a minute. Let’s recall that the AG is a member of the executive (not the judiciary). They serve at the pleasure of the PM. And while we’d want the AG to have their own personal philosophy and set of legal interpretations, they weren’t elected to enact those. (In the US, the AG isn’t even an elected official at all!) And if the PM/President happens to have a different philosophy and set of legal interpretations (which they, in effect, were elected to enact), it isn’t at all obvious why they must lose in the event of a tie.By way of analogy, imagine that I’m a hiring manager working directly under the CEO in a public company. She’s the one hired by the shareholders (via the board), not me. She’s hired me to be an extension of her vision. To the degree that I do this well, all is well. But if she and I disagree on whether to hire a given candidate, my objection of “well, our bylaws say this is my call” isn’t itself all that compelling. I can go to the board and say “hey, she overruled me and our bylaws say she can’t do that”, but for the board to be fully interested they’d want me to also add “and her judgment was dangerously flawed for x reason”, else the board would just say “yes, well, we hired her and not you, so if she thinks your judgment is wrong, you’re not really fulfilling the function you were hired to fulfill, so I’m not sure why you’re still here”. What they care about most is whether the CEO displayed poor judgment relative to the standard they were hired to uphold. Whether or not bylaws were broken along the way is somewhat incidental. (While some board members care a lot about bylaws, that concern is more often about organizational dynamics than any higher theory of justice. If they like the CEO’s vision and you were hired to execute that vision and the CEO no longer feels like you are executing that vision, arguing “but the bylaws!” is probably not going to save your job.)To be ultra clear, this isn’t to say that a CEO or PM or President should be allowed to “get away” with whatever they want. There are many occasions where a PM will want something that’s not actually consistent with the platform on which they were elected (or that’s just generally bad in some moral or ethical sense) — in which case we would want the AG to object, and object strongly. But in cases where the AG loses this argument, we’d also expect them to no longer be AG thereafter, which is itself fully consistent with a healthy system provided that their exit triggers a thorough review.To use an extreme example, imagine that Trudeau tells his AG to tell her DPP to bring a Biblical flood of lawsuits against his next-door neighbor because they objected to his backyard Nickelback concert. In the realist view, it doesn’t necessarily matter if the AG says yes or no, or even whether they have the latitude to make that decision. What matters is that the public is informed so that we can all decide whether this is something we object to or not. And if we do, enough of us will call up our local MP and say “if you don’t stop this guy immediately, we’ll vote in your opponent next year”, which they’ll take as impetus to go vote the PM out. It’s no less an effective check against the PM’s abuse of power than the AG having theoretical independence. It’s just a different mechanism. Sure, there are plenty of people who prefer one mechanism over the other (which is the kind of viewpoint diversity that’s good and healthy!), but it’s hard to argue that this realist view is essentially wrong. Having an independent AG is not as structurally important as having an independent judiciary — provided that the actions of the executive are regularly and efficiently reported back to a voting public interested in holding leaders to account.And it’s exactly with this last bit that things get thorny.A RequiemThe phrase “constitutional crisis” has been bandied about a lot in both Canada and the US in recent days. Yet few of the underlying situations really seem to fit the bill, at least relative to a much deeper constitutional crisis that’s been growing unchecked for decades now.The constitution (both in the US and Canada, and in nearly every developed democracy) depends upon an engaged citizenry willing to demand and do, and a press capable of giving said citizenry the data on which they can fairly decide.The problem is that none of this works if we don’t share common ideas of which bad things are especially bad, or if we don’t all trust that at least a few impartial and talented journalists will always ask the right questions to empower useful explanations of what the executive did so that we can vote and/or pressure our reps accordingly.The challenge as I see it is that Canadians have long been remarkably ill-served by their press.Huge chunks of the country only have a Postmedia outlet as their local paper. (Postmedia being the antithesis of unbiased.)There are less sensational papers, including some large national ones. But none are especially good at what we need them to be good at. (If you can find me an explainer from a major outlet that’s anywhere near as thorough or clear as this one, I’ll send you $25. And I really don’t mean this to my own aggrandizement. I just don’t think one exists.) [EDIT: I’m happy to 10x this offer to $250 CAD just in case $25 isn’t enough of an incentive.]Most papers have dedicated an increasing amount of space to opinion pieces, which are quite good for clicks and quite bad for reader education. (They’re too short, too slanted, and they mostly use the little space they have to tell rather than show.)Most opinion columnists sell a partisan spin, which only serves to divide people into camps that inevitably grow further and further apart, thus making voter coordination across party lines difficult to impossible, all while also reducing common ideas of which things are worth coordinating on.No outlets have shown a willingness or ability to force Trudeau or Scheer to answer hard questions. (Hard to say if they’re too worried about losing access, too self-focused to coordinate, or too distracted to see the civic necessity of getting those answers.)I’ve polled a bunch of my Canadian friends — all bright young people who regularly vote and try to do so intelligently. None could really explain what happened with Trudeau and SNC, nor were they sure where to turn to rectify the gap. Plenty of stories were a search away. But which would give my friends the context required to understand Trudeau’s decisions for what they were?(That’s a non-rhetorical question, by the way. My wallet is open if I’ve misspoken here.)Why This MattersConsider this current case. It’s fine for someone to say “hey, I believe in closely following the letter of the law in all cases” and for them to thus side against Trudeau here (assuming he did in fact inappropriately pressure Wilson-Raybould). Like, I may not personally find this to be the world’s most sophisticated ideology, but the point is that we all tend to think our own judgment best, which is exactly why we do things like vote in free multi-party elections. Lots of people probably believe that an AG should be 100% independent in every way, and these voters should be welcome to form a party around that belief! But that party wouldn’t quite be today’s Liberal Party (or the Conservatives), which is something that’s been poorly explained to voters.The resulting issue is that I don’t think most people will go to the polls this October with optimal clarity in mind. While some are only ever going to vote against the candidate they hate more, many with less tribal feelings are going to be swayed by a faulty assumption that Trudeau committed some especially heinous crime here, where the reality (to the current public evidence) is more that, at worst, he and his AG were approaching from two different angles, with one of them ultimately having the trump-card of being the elected PM.There are all sorts of valid reasons why someone might vote for or against Trudeau. But I think it’s important that those votes are cast in light of what actually happened here and what it actually implies — which Scheer is actively trying to muddy and misrepresent, which the media is largely unwilling to combat, which I think is probably a bad thing?EDITS: ROUND #1Original answer written March 1st. Coming back on the 13th to get around to some needful updates/corrections/addendums.Some I’ve made above; others I’ll list here in no particular order:Trudeau and Butts have been arguing that they do believe in full prosecutorial independence. But I almost wish they wouldn’t. It’s hard to believe that they (or any PM team) totally believes it to be the best possible mechanism. I get that it’s scary to say anything else (imagine the headlines!), but this feels like a good opportunity to maybe start talking about all the stuff I’ve outlined here. (I suppose there’s a world in which they could totally believe in the idea. Butts certainly sounded sincere when he talked about it. But I just can’t get there as it concerns a PM. The sorts of people who win national elections aren’t generally the sorts to take being overruled by an underling all that well. I only leave this door open because of how authentic Butts seemed on the point.)My original piece included this note: “In the interests of precision, the most recent source I could find said that SNC has 3,400 employees in Quebec (vs. just Montreal). But as their headquarters are in Montreal, I’m assuming the bulk are there. I could be wrong.” As an update, this authoritative-seeming Globe & Mail article puts the number in Quebec at 2,500 and the number in Montreal at 700.Lots of commentary out there about just how at risk those 9,000 Canadian jobs were (and about how a federal debarment wouldn’t necessarily influence bidding on provincial/municipal projects). Though I’ve made a few edits to account for these arguments, they all seem peripheral to me for two reasons: (i) if SNC was found guilty, this would almost certainly impact their employee retention and bidding prospects in a general downstream way (we have evidence of recent press impacting them already); (ii) while most displaced workers would find new jobs, there’s no obvious replacement within Canada for SNC in terms of EPC firms. (For more, I thought this take was balanced and thorough — though I did find the final four sentences wildly upsetting.)I found this personal testimony from a current SNC exec (who lives and works in Saskatchewan) worth reading. His main point is that those trying to politicize this as some Liberal gambit to exclusively favor Quebec are overlooking that some 2/3rds of SNC’s Canadian workforce don’t live or work in Quebec. (On a political level, an SNC conviction would definitely hurt Liberals more. But his point that Trudeau is fighting for jobs that are mostly not in Quebec is certainly valid.)It still isn’t clear to me which laws/precedents are shielding the DPP’s SNC-related memo(s) from public review. The court has since ruled against SNC’s appeal, and it really feels like this whole debate would be much simpler if we all knew exactly why Roussel and Wilson-Raybould felt so strongly against SNC being eligible for a deferral. (FWIW, you can read the full text of the deferral-related legislation here.)For those asking, I’m 100% behind a thorough investigation. Let’s get lots of uninhibited testimony, and let’s subpoena relevant emails/texts, etc. Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant. But let’s also report those findings in a cautious and contextual and non-sensational way.There’s a representative thread here on why the AG's independence is somehow sacrosanct. All such threads/articles I've come across share the same hallmarks: (i) they ignore/discount that individuals serving at the pleasure of the PM can never be truly independent; (ii) they make a weird assumption that independence is a required pre-condition to keeping a PM from interfering with prosecutions in a gross way (when a non-independent prosecutor could just as easily report the PM for gross judgment). I don’t know who is debating that bad judgment is anything other than bad, or who is suggesting we shouldn’t deter/punish it. The question is whether a certain old and imported legal doctrine is the most effective mechanism to ensure an end we all agree is important.The way most journalists use the word “political” in the phrase “political interference” is also weird! Whether interference is “political” has nothing to do with whether it’s good or bad. Take the case of weed-related prosecutions. Most would say that more political interference would have been good (in terms of directing prosecutors to not prosecute any more pot cases while new legislation was framed). The fact that Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould didn’t interfere with those prosecutions is a widespread criticism. That resources were spent fining and jailing people for trivial amounts of pot possession after Trudeau’s majority election on a “legalize pot” platform is, to many, a symptom of a flawed system, not proof of some sacred pillar doing its job. The public will was pretty clear about this (and had been for some time). Following the existing law to the letter led to an outcome that most consider bad. Governments semi-regularly opt to not prosecute existing laws for various political reasons (most of them positive/healthy). This isn’t necessarily a meaningful threat to the rule of law. (This is doubly true when it’s a new law with no prosecutorial precedent either way.)On a related note, I think “rule of law” is one of those phrases where everyone has some idea of what they mean by it, but where few actually have a robust conception that could survive a hard cross-examination. By any conception, sure, inconsistent and partial rulings are generally to be avoided. But the idea that prosecutorial independence (which just shifts who gets to make the decisions which some will find inconsistent and/or partial) has some necessary role in supporting the rule of law is curious. Taking up the example of pot again, look how many Americans were angry at Jeff Sessions for increasing the number of pot prosecutions given that this was contrary to Trump’s platform. Sessions’ decision caused all sorts of confusion/chaos, and it clearly favored one demographic of voters at the expense of another. No one is questioning that he was legally allowed to make said decision (the federal law was clear, and the restrictions placed upon on it by the previous AG were non-binding), but I’m not sure how any could argue that his decision reflects the rule of law working in a positive way either.A few good write-ups about the Shawcross doctrine (the basis in Canadian legal theory for prosecutorial independence) here, here and here. The last link (about the UK implementation) is interesting in that it describes a “Shawcross letter” (i.e., a letter sent by the AG to their ministerial colleagues to solicit their input). This was, in effect, what Wilson-Raybould didn’t do. She made up her mind independently, then dismissed those who expressed contrary views. Had she gathered up all available views to inform her decision (rather than decide based exclusively on her and her DPP’s legal judgment), one imagines that others would have found less cause to ensure their views were being heard/considered. (She had the legal right to make up her mind independently, but that hardly means she was right in doing so.)I’ll have to write a separate answer about Butts’ testimony at some point, but the big things for me were: (i) it gave a pretty good explanation for why Wilson-Raybould was shuffled; (ii) Butts made an extraordinary and easily-falsified set of claims about her interactions with him about the SNC file, which, if true, are enormously problematic for her case.The other thing that came out of Butts’ testimony was that Trudeau really dropped the ball in offering Wilson-Raybould (who is Indigenous) the Indigenous Services portfolio as opposed to the Crown-Indigenous Relations portfolio, with that difference being, roughly, the difference between being in charge of restructuring relations (the latter) and being in charge of administering welfare (the former). She was never going to accept the former, and he and Butts have no real excuse for not foreseeing this.The real crisis here (if we must use the term crisis) seems to be that Trudeau was so out of tune with two of his ministers, and that he was unable to keep them in the fold after they raised their objections (even if the way they raised them was less than ideal).On the subject of raising objections, Scott Welch wrote a great companion answer here about the various opportunities (if not obligations) that Wilson-Raybould had to report any inappropriate or unethical behavior on the part of Trudeau or his staff. She, to our current knowledge, made use of none of them. Prior to her being shuffled, her only vocalized discontent came in the form of telling some people (paraphrasing) “stop lobbying already!”, which is not at all the same thing as raising a formal concern/complaint about misconduct. (And again we have Butts’ testimony that his sole one-on-one conversation with her about SNC came at the end of a friendly two-hour dinner which she initiated, with no other text or email ever being sent to him on the subject. Per his testimony, she was the one who brought it up then, and her after-dinner text said nothing further about it. He claims she never laid out her concerns until during one of their “four or five” “long” and “personal” conversations they had after she was transferred, and that he was dumbfounded when she mentioned her suspicion on why she had been moved.)While she isn’t a disinterested party (and while I think some of her criticisms are overly strong), I thought Sheila Copps’ interview with CBC contained some solid points, namely: (i) that saying “I’ve made up my mind, now go away” is not exactly consistent with the role of an AG/MOJ when your colleagues don’t feel heard, (ii) that it’s kinda weird to quit a cabinet without also quitting caucus, (iii) that the number of meetings which Wilson-Raybould took on this file was not especially high, (iv) that the original decision to not prosecute was split. (As an aside, I really dislike that interviewer. He’s part of the problem.)EDITS: ROUND 2So, the Conservatives have started a “Let Her Speak” campaign pushing for a second (at least) round of testimony from Wilson-Raybould. While I’m broadly supportive of this, it’s worth noting that Trudeau has a rational case for saying “no” that isn’t solely rooted in being afraid of some harmful truth being revealed. From his perspective, Wilson-Raybould is on a mission to take him down. Let’s assume that every word she said in the first testimony was true. There was nothing particularly damning in it from a legal context, but it played very poorly for Trudeau all the same. He’s now facing a decision between: (i) allowing her to speak again and the same thing happening again and it hurting him more in the polls, (ii) not allowing her to speak again, which will hurt him in the polls now, but which may also cap the damage. Were I his advisor, I’d push him toward letting her speak and then prepping a killer set of rebuttals (assuming the facts are indeed on his side). More downside, but more upside. That said, it would seem that he’s being pushed in a different direction. While I’m not so much a fan of this, I wouldn’t infer from it (as many are) that it’s necessarily a sign of guilt.Ok, a bit more about Scheer. I keep getting comments wondering why I dislike him so much. First, I should point out that most Conservatives never cared much for him either until he was their sole hope against Trudeau. He didn’t crack 20% in opinion polls until after Kevin O’Leary dropped out (and that’s among Conservative Party members). He won the nomination on the 13th ballot, having trailed on all 12 ballots prior. The fact that he won (which was contested due to significant inconsistencies) was largely viewed as a frantic rejection of Maxime Bernier (who had led on all of the first 12 ballots), not an endorsement of Scheer. From his first speech post-nomination, he’s relied on red meat, generalities, and strawmen. That’s not what we need from the Leader of the Opposition. We need someone able to carefully and accurately deconstruct the PM’s decisions, showing voters a detailed vision of some plausibly better way. Jack Layton was that guy. Harper, in his own way, was that guy. Scheer is not that guy. He once wrote an op-ed in support of Brexit — aka, arguably the most ill-conceived set of decisions in modern political history. (He was still in support of it as recently as this past November, which is just wild given how things have unfolded. It’s one thing to be theoretically in favor of sovereignty. It’s quite another to be in favor of a nation jumping off a cliff to get it.) Scheer’s campaign chair, Hamish Marshall, is also a former director of Rebel Media, which is morally inexcusable in itself. (Marshall says he had nothing to do with editorial there and that he eventually did resign. But this rundown of all the content they published before he quit is deeply disturbing — not to mention that we have no reason to believe that he quit for moral reasons.)I’d been waiting for a transcript of Nathalie Drouin’s (Wilson-Raybould’s former deputy) testimony before the House Justice Committee (which it seems doesn’t exist anywhere, maybe due to some rule). But snippets were reported by the CBC. A few interesting takeaways: (i) JWR had given Drouin an instruction not to talk about the SNC case by September 17th, which was super early into the process; (ii) JWR forbade Drouin from answering a question from the PCO (civil service) about the potential impact of SNC failing to get a deferral; (iii) Drouin was never told what the evidence against SNC’s case was. This is all very odd.An important open question: where did the original leak to the Globe & Mail come from? And why was a leak made to the press before internal remedies were exhausted (or even attempted)?An interesting tidbit from Butts’ testimony that I missed the first time around: Wilson-Raybould was the second minister that Trudeau attempted to move from a dream portfolio to Indigenous Services using the same logic. The difference is that the first person said yes. (Incidentally, this was the other minister that later quit in solidarity with Wilson-Raybould.) While it was still an unwise move, this does lend credence to the argument that Trudeau was doing it to signal continued support for his Indigenous reconciliation efforts, which is to say it could have been a bad decision made with positive intent. (Logically, though, this same move having been made before might have been a really convenient cover. I don’t know how we’d know for sure unless we’re just taking someone’s word.)Echoing what Copps said about the insubstantial meeting count, Butts estimated the number of meetings on the TMX pipeline deal as being around 100. By comparison, the SNC file ended up drawing 10 meetings and 20 contacts over a little more than three months. While the context is a bit different with an AG vs. other ministerial roles, this number still doesn’t seem outlying.Lots of people have been mentioning how prosecutorial independence is “constitutionally guaranteed” (or other wording to that effect). This is true in a sense, but that sense is mostly misleading. Canada is unlike the US in that we have no single document called The Constitution. What we have is a messy patchwork of acts, statutes, orders, and precedents. Prosecutorial independence is a “constitutional convention”, meaning that it’s an unwritten rule with no binding power over Parliament. In the absence of contrary legislation, conventions are the best practices which all are generally expected to follow. But not only have conventions been broken from time to time with little consequence, the House is free to pass new laws to make written what is unwritten, and the courts (explicitly) have no power to overrule. So if Trudeau were to decide tomorrow “hey, let’s do away with this thing” and if enough MPs were to say “yeah, let’s do that”, then the bill would be passed. (There are more steps, but the gist is that there’s no way to stop a majority-supported bill without sparking an actual constitutional crisis likely to resolve in the House’s favour.) While I can’t imagine that any PM would try this in the current climate, there’s nothing actually legally stopping them.

Can I Enter Canada?This section will help you determine whether you are indeed inadmissible to Canada based on a criminal charge or conviction.Non-convictions: charges, cautions and related mattersEven if you have not been convicted of a crime, there is a possibility that you may still be inadmissible to Canada.Canada restricts people who have committed an act outside Canada that is an offense in that place. Some examples of having committed an act include:You are subject to a warrant where a charge will be laid against youCharges are pending against youYour trial is underwayYou are fleeing prosecution in your countryAs always, there must also be an equivalent offense in Canada to the act you committed abroad. If there is no equivalent offense in Canada, then you will be able to enter Canada.It is important to note that CIC will only apply the “committed an act” provisions to acts (or offenses) that are considered to be indictable offenses in Canada punishable by a maximum term or imprisonment of at least 10 years in Canada.The differences between summary, hybrid and indictable offenses are explained below.Summary offenses are less serious offenses, and indictable offenses are more serious offenses.So if you committed an act in a foreign country that would be considered a summary offense in Canada, you will likely be able to enter Canada.If you committed an act in a foreign country that would be considered an indictable (or hybrid) offense in Canada punishable by a maximum prison term of at least 10 years, you will likely not be able to enter Canada.In this case, see the “How long until I can enter Canada” section to determine when you can enter Canada.PardonsIf you have been granted a pardon in a foreign jurisdiction and that pardon is equivalent to a Canadian pardon, then you are admissible and can enter Canada.The pardon is equivalent to a Canadian pardon if the pardon erases the conviction.For example, the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act automatically pardons individuals after certain periods of time (depending on the circumstances) if the person was sentenced to less than 30 months in prison. Such a pardon is equivalent to a Canadian pardon and would allow the person to enter Canada.It is always best to see if you qualify for a pardon in your country rather than apply for criminal rehabilitation – it is usually much faster and easier to obtain a pardon than seek permission to enter Canada.AcquittalsIf you have been acquitted of an offense at trial or at an appeal court, you are admissible and can enter Canada.Different countries have different ways of disposing with a criminal matter that may look like a pardon or acquittal. Here is how CIC deals with these more unusual matters:Criminal processes that are not considered to be convictions by CICAcquittal contemplating dismissalDeferral of prosecutionDeferral of judgmentDeferral of convictionNolle prosequiExpungedCriminal processes that are considered to be convictions by CICDeferral of sentenceSuspended sentenceNolo contendreConvictedThere are other ways that foreign courts can deal with criminal matters. In each case, the key is to determine how it would be considered equivalent in Canada.Young OffendersYou may have been convicted of an offense during your youth. Generally, if you were convicted of an offense when you were under eighteen years old, you will likely be admissible and can enter Canada.Offenses committed when you were under eighteen years old are equivalent to offenses under the Youth Criminal Justice Act in Canada.You can not be prevented from entering Canada for foreign offenses equivalent to an offense under the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act.Canadian Equivalent ConvictionsYou can only be denied entry to Canada based on a criminal conviction if there is an equivalent offense in Canada.There are some criminal offenses in certain countries based on religious conduct that would have no equivalent in Canada.For example a woman who does not wear a hijab in some countries may be convicted of an offense. However, there is no such equivalent offense in Canada. This means that woman would not be denied entry to Canada based on that offense.Some offenses in Canada are called “hybrid” offenses. These offenses can be pursued in a less serious way (summary) or a more serious way (indictable) depending on how the prosecutor wants to proceed.An example of a hybrid offense in Canada is a driving under the influence of alcohol, which can be a summary or indictable offense.Immigration law states that if your foreign offense is equivalent to a Canadian hybrid offense, you must use the more serious, or indictable, offense as the equivalent in determining when or how you can enter Canada.Unfortunately for many potential immigrants, a large number of Canadian offenses are hybrid offenses.Please note that I use “conviction” throughout this section, however, committing a criminal act (as discussed above) without a formal conviction can also make you inadmissible.The equivalent offense must a in a federal statute (equivalency to a provincial or municipal statute will not make you inadmissible – for example, minor traffic offenses are found only in provincial statutes and won’t make you inadmissible).Contempt of court is not found in a federal statute, and thus, contempt alone won’t make you inadmissible.Minor convictions and length of inadmissibilitySummary offenses in Canada are considered relatively minor (for immigration purposes) and are usually punishable by a maximum of 2 years imprisonment or a fine in Canada.If you have a single foreign conviction that is equivalent to a summary offense in Canada – regardless of your actual sentence – you are likely admissible to Canada.A single, summary conviction offense does not typically make you inadmissible to Canada.If you have two or more foreign convictions that are equivalent to summary offenses in Canada, then you can not enter Canada until five years have passed since the completion of your sentence (and not five years from the date of your conviction). You must not have been convicted of any other offenses during this time.Major convictions and length of inadmissibilityIndictable offenses are more serious offenses in Canada and the maximum punishment can be life in prison.If you have a foreign conviction equivalent to an indictable offense in Canada (and remember, hybrid offenses like drunk driving are considered indictable offenses for immigration purposes), then you can not enter Canada until ten years have passed since the completion of your sentence, and you have not committed any other offenses during that time.Multiple convictions and length of inadmissibilityIf you have more than one foreign conviction equivalent to an indictable offense in Canada, then there is no period of time that can pass before you can enter Canada.You will have to take one of the steps described in the next section.Common offensesHere are some of the more common offenses I see in my practice and their equivalent offenses in Canada.Check the criminal code provisions I list here to determine if this offense is equivalent to the one in your home country – you’ll need to put the Canadian offense in your application form.It is always best to consult a lawyer with regard to equivalent offenses.Driving under the influence of alcoholThe offense of driving under the influence of alcohol in Canada is section 253 of the Criminal Code of Canada.Driving under the influence of alcohol is determined in two ways. The first is whether the individual is “impaired” which is typically done by roadside tests (such as touching one’s nose while standing on one foot, reciting the alphabet, and so forth).The second way to be charged with DUI in Canada is more common, and that is a breathalyser test of “.08” which means that alcohol in a person’s blood exceeds 80 milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.A DUI is a hybrid offense in Canada, and thus you will not be deemed rehabilitated for 10 years.In other words, you will not be automatically “cleared” for entry until 10 years passes from the date your sentence was completeGenerally, you can still apply for “criminal rehabilitation” 5 years after your sentence is complete (including any probation or conditional sentence periods of time)- see below.If you were convicted of a specific offense of testing under 0.08, then you may be admissible, as there is no offense in Canada for alcohol testing under .08 with regard to driving. For example, in Australia you can be convicted with a breathalyzer test under .08.AssaultThe offense of assault in Canada is section 265 of the Criminal Code of Canada.This is a hybrid offense and thus you will not be deemed rehabilitated for 10 years.In other words, you will not be automatically “cleared” for entry until 10 years passes from the date your sentence was completeGenerally, you can still apply for “criminal rehabilitation” 5 years after your sentence is complete (including any probation or conditional sentence periods of time)- see below.TheftThe offense of theft in Canada is section 322 of the Criminal Code of Canada.This is a hybrid offense and thus you will not be deemed rehabilitated for 10 years.In other words, you will not be automatically “cleared” for entry until 10 years passes from the date your sentence was completeGenerally, you can still apply for “criminal rehabilitation” 5 years after your sentence is complete (including any probation or conditional sentence periods of time)- see below.FraudThe offense of fraud in Canada is section 380 of the Criminal Code of Canada.This is a hybrid offense and thus you will not be deemed rehabilitated for 10 years.In other words, you will not be automatically “cleared” for entry until 10 years passes from the date your sentence was completeGenerally, you can still apply for “criminal rehabilitation” 5 years after your sentence is complete (including any probation or conditional sentence periods of time)- see below.How Long Until I Can Enter Canada?The length of time before you can enter Canada will depend on your foreign offense, the equivalent Canadian offense, and whether you wish to stay in Canada permanently or temporarily.Criminal RehabilitationCanada uses the concept of “criminal rehabilitation” to determine when someone with a criminal record can enter Canada.This does not refer to any steps you may have taken in terms of rehabilitation (such as drug or alcohol rehabilitation, anger management courses, or related activities).“Criminal rehabilitation” is a point in time when Citizenship and Immigration Canada believes that you are highly unlikely to ever become involved in any sort of criminal activities in the future.There are two ways to achieve criminal rehabilitation for immigration purposes: deemed rehabilitation and application for rehabilitation.Deemed Criminal RehabilitationDepending on your foreign offense, its Canadian equivalent offense, and the time since your sentence was complete, you may be deemed to be rehabilitated.If you are deemed to be rehabilitated, you can enter Canada and you don’t need to take any further steps. However, determining whether or not you are deemed to be rehabilitated takes some careful analysis.Your Offense Equivalent to an Indictable or Hybrid Offense in CanadaIf you were convicted outside of Canada of a single offense that is equivalent to an indictable (or hybrid) offense in Canada, you will likely be deemed to be rehabilitated if all of the following apply:the equivalent offense is punishable in Canada by a maximum prison term of less than 10 years;at least 10 years have passed since you completed your sentence; andno convictions in the last 10 years; only minor convictions from the period before the last 10 years may be permissible.You Have Several Offenses Equivalent to a Summary Offense in CanadaIf you were convicted outside of Canada of two or more offenses that are equivalent to a summary (i.e., minor) offense in Canada, you will likely be deemed to be rehabilitated if all of the following apply:at least 5 years have passed since your sentence was complete;no other convictions.Even if you believe you have been deemed to be rehabilitated, it would be a good plan to have your paperwork with you when travelling to Canada in case you are asked about previous convictions.If possible, carry copies of your criminal record check, details of your offense and when sentence was complete, copies of the statute under which you were convicted, and a copy of the equivalent Canadian offense.Application for Criminal RehabilitationIf you are not eligible for “deemed rehabilitation” as discussed above (i.e., the relevant time period has not yet passed), you may be able to apply for “individual rehabilitation”.Individual rehabilitation is application process to show you are “rehabilitated” and (if approved) will allow you to enter Canada as if you were never convicted.Unfortunately, you can not apply for individual rehabilitation until 5 years have passed since the completion of your sentence.So if your deemed rehabilitation time period is 5 years you are out of luck – you won’t be able to apply for rehabilitation any earlier.How To Apply for Criminal RehabilitationForms and FeesYou will have to complete the Application for Rehabilitation form, the Fees for Immigration Services form, and the Use of Representative form if you are using a representative.You have a choice of paying $200 or $1,000. The fee of $200 is for less serious offense, and the fee of $1,000 is for more serious offenses.CIC states that you can pay $200 and if $1,000 is required, CIC will request a further $800.I suggest that you do not follow this process if possible – try to get the fee right before you submit your application.Why?In my experience, submitting an incorrect fee will delay your application for a long period of time. Often, CIC will not request an additional $800 and instead, CIC will just return your application to you and you will have to start again at the back of queue.If your offense is one of “serious” criminality, then your fee will be $1,000.“Serious criminality” means that your offense is equivalent to a Canadian offense where the minimum sentence is 10 years in prison.It does not matter what sentence you actually received in your country. It only matter what the equivalent offense would be in Canada, and what the minimum sentence would be in Canada.Your equivalent offense may be in the Criminal Code of Canada, but may be in other statutes as well.If you can not determine your equivalent offense in Canada, you may wish to check with an immigration lawyer to assist you with this aspect of your application.In addition, I do not typically recommend paying with a credit card if you can avoid it.Why?In my experience, credit cards from a foreign country often have security measures where they will deny unusual charges to prevent fraud.When a Canadian Consulate makes a charge on your card, there is a real risk that your card will be denied, as the card company believes this is an attempted fraud.A denied card will cause huge delays in your application. It will be weeks before your entire application is returned to you, and you’ll have to start again at the back of the queue.If you must use a credit card, be sure to contact your credit card company in advance to advise them that the Canadian Consulate will be making a charge to your card, and advise them of how much it will be.This should prevent any denied charges, but you can never be sure.Supporting DocumentationThe key to a successful criminal rehabilitation application – aside from properly completed forms – is very good supporting documentation.Be sure to review the CIC checklist, but typically, CIC requires at minimum these supporting documents:Criminal record checks from every country you’ve in for 6 months or more in the last 10 years. For the USA, you’ll need an FBI clearance certificate and a State criminal record check where you currently live, any state you’ve lived in the last 10 years, and the state where your offense occured.Court records if the criminal record check is not clear on the offense and sentence committed and completed. Court records or transcripts should be provided as well.If you were treated as a juvenile offender, you’ll need evidence of this including copies of the statute that treated you as a juvenile offender.If you have tried everything and can not obtain criminal record checks in your country, you can provide a statutory declaration – contact an immigration lawyer to assist you with this rather complex process.Copies of the statute that you were convicted under – CIC needs to see the exact wording of the statute under which you were convicted.Your written statement about the circumstances of the crime – be detailed and straightforward and indicate why you believe your crime is not part of a pattern of criminal behaviour and why you believe you are rehabilitated.RCMP police certificates if you are making an in-Canada application.Photocopy of the bio-data pages of your passport.Photocopy of driver’s license and birth certificate if possible.Along with the required documentation, you should also include as much documentation that you can that shows you are completely rehabilitated and unlikely to offend again in future.You should try to include the following supporting documents if you can:Any certificates or letters of rehabilitation or completion of community service.Any reports from probation or parole officers that is favorable to you.Any comments from a judge that is favorable to you.Any victim impact statements that are favorable to you.Any evidence of remorse and restitution.Any letters of recommendation you can get – especially from any public official or anyone with standing in your community. Failing that, at least provide letters of recommendation from friends.Note that any document that is not in English or French must include a certified translation.What is CIC Looking For in a Rehabilitation Application?CIC is looking for answers to certain questions they will have, and need to decide if you pose a danger to Canadians.You should address these issues:Circumstances leading to the commission of the offence.Motives for the offence.Details on how the offence was perpetrated.Degree of violence involved, including the use of weapons.Degree of harm done to the victim, physical and/or psychological.Level of cooperation with authorities following arrest.Applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the offence and any evidence of remorse or restitution to the victim.Explanation of the offense, if version inconsistent with official record.CIC is also looking at rehabilitation factors – evidence that you have rehabilitated and will not re-offend. Here are the rehabilitation factors that CIC will look for in your application.You should try to address many of these, although some are more relevant to certain offenses than others.CIC would not expect you to address all of them, but it gives you a very good insight on what the visa officer will be looking for in your application:Understanding of the offence.Responsibility taken for the offence.Evidence of remorse.Restitution to the victim, where applicable.No negative contact with the law.Psychological or drug/alcohol (substance abuse) counselling.Completed rehabilitation program: drug/alcohol/sexual abuse/assault.Life-skills training, and improved survival and social skills.Education/employment training.Stable employment pattern.New social groups.Involvement in non-manipulative relationships and pro- social activities.Stable marriage/family life/living arrangement.Temporary EntryThis section will discuss your options for temporary entry into Canada if you do not yet qualify for criminal rehabilitation or if your criminal rehabilitation application is underway but not yet approved.Temporary Resident PermitIf you need to enter Canada on a temporary basis but are currently criminally inadmissible, you may apply for a temporary resident permit.A temporary resident permit will allow you to enter Canada for a specified period of time – and usually no more than 3 years until you will have to apply for another permit.It will not permit you work or study however – you’ll still need a work permit or study permit in addition to your temporary resident permit if you wish to work or study in Canada.Application Forms and ConsulatesMost consulates will require you to complete the Criminal Rehabilitation application form for a temporary resident permit. Check the “For Information Only” box at the top of the form.You should contact your local Canadian consulate and ask if a Criminal Rehabilitation application form is acceptable for a temporary resident permit application, or if they have a unique form they would prefer you to use.Generally, the Criminal Rehabilitation form with the “For Information Only” box checked will suffice.Supporting DocumentsThere a number of important and required supporting documents you must submit with your temporary resident permit application – follow the most recent CIC checklist – links are available below.This section will discuss these documents and provide advice on additional documents you should submit that CIC does not normally request.Criminal records and criminal record checksYou must submit original criminal record checks from the country in which you were convicted, and any other country in which you’ve lived in for over 12 months.If the country in which you were convicted also has states with their own criminal system, you should obtain an additional criminal record check from the state in which you were convicted.For example, in the USA, you’ll need a national FBI criminal record check along with a criminal record check from the state in which you were convicted, and any state in which you’ve lived in.Identifying documentsYou must submit clear copies of the bio-data pages of your passport and birth certificate. These copies do not need to be notarized.However, if they are not originally in English or French, you will need certified translations. Your translator must be able to provide a certified copy of the translation into either English or French.Written statementYou must provide a written statement providing the details of the offense and sentencing. Your statement should begin by describing the circumstances of the offense.For example, was it a one-time offense? Were there any mitigating circumstances? Mitigating circumstances might include such things as mental health issues or reactions to prescription drugs. In other words, were there any other circumstances that led to the offense what were not your fault?You should be sure not to blame any other factors – take responsibility – but do make note of these other circumstances to help show the offense was out of character if at all possible.Next, you should discuss the sentence that was given. Was it shorter than the maximum? Did the judge make any favorable comments? Include the legislative section under which the sentence was handed out if you can.Finally, you should discuss the completion of your sentence (include when it was completed) and any steps you took toward rehabilitation if that is relevant (for example, alcohol, stress or anger management counseling, etc.).Reference lettersYou will need reference letters from three individuals who can speak to your character and confirm you are a decent person and not a career criminal.The letter should include how long they have known you, in what role they have known you (e.g., friend, family member, employer, etc) and their opinion of your character and the offense (if possible).Employment lettersYou should include a reference letter from you current employer (or previous employer if you are currently unemployed). This letter should state your name, position, length of employment and duties and salary.Helpful documentsIn addition to the above, you should include any documents that show you are of good character and that you have overcome any issue or addiction that may have contributed to your criminal offense.For example, copies of certificates of completion of anger management, alcohol use, community service and other post-conviction activities should be included.What CIC is looking for in the ApplicationCIC is looking to see if you pose a danger to Canada to not. They want to see if you have a pattern of criminal behaviour, of if your conviction was a one-time event.CIC wants to see evidence that you have rehabilitated yourself and that you have good character. The documents discussed above will help to show these elements.CIC also wants to see if you qualify to apply for individual criminal rehabilitation. If you qualify to apply for criminal rehabilitation, you may be asked to do that rather than be issued a temporary resident permit, depending on your circumstances.CIC will also need to see a compelling reason to enter Canada under a temporary resident permit. For example, if your job requires you to travel to Canada, or if you have family to visit in Canada, those are good reasons.If you just wish to visit Canada and have no other compelling reason to enter, you may have difficulty obtaining a temporary resident permit.Sample letter covers should address these issues that CIC looks at when evaluating your application:seriousness of the offense;risk of further offenses in Canada;behavioural factors such as drugs or alcohol;evidence that the person is reformed or rehabilitated;pattern of criminal behaviour;completion of all sentences;any outstanding criminal charges;any restrictions of travel as part of the sentence;eligibility for applying for rehabilitation or a pardon;time since the offense;controversy or risk of admitting the person to Canada;risk that the person will require public assistance in Canada;Entry for Frequent Business Travellers with Minor ConvictionsIf you are a frequent business traveller into Canada and you have a minor conviction, you may be eligible for a long-term, multiple entry temporary resident permit.Your offense will be considered “minor” only if:the crime did not involve drugs (except for simple possession of marijuana or hashish);the crime did not involve physical harm or violencethe crime resulted in a suspended sentence or probation (no jail term), unless it was the result of plea bargaining;the crime did not involve damage to property;if on probation, the person has been fulfilling the conditions of probation; andthere are no more than 2 convictions.If you can show each of these elements, and you can show you are frequent business traveller to Canada, you may qualify for this program.Be sure to advise the visa officer that you are applying as a “frequent business traveller with a minor conviction.”Applying at the Border or AirportIf you are a US citizen or if you are from a country that does not require a temporary resident visa you can apply for a temporary resident permit at the border or an airport.However, you should attempt this only if you do not have the time to apply at a Consulate.Why?Because in my experience, border officers are very reluctant to issue permits at the border. Your documentation must be perfect, your reasons for entering compelling, and your offence relatively minor.There is a real risk that a visa officer will decline to process your application and apply at a Consulate instead.If you are desperate to enter Canada and you don’t have the time to apply through a Consulate (it will be several months to receive your permit through a Consulate), then try your application at the border, with the knowledge of the risk that they may not process your application.MisrepresentationsThis section will cover misrepresentations, and they can make you inadmissible to Canada.What is a Misrepresentation?CIC relies on information you provide in your immigration application to make decisions about whether you can enter Canada or not.As a result, CIC takes misrepresentations in applications very seriously, whether the misrepresentation was intentional or even made by mistake.A “misrepresentation” is considered to be a misrepresentation or a withholding of a material fact (directly or indirectly) relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error on that part of the visa officer.That’s a pretty broad definition!Note that the misrepresentation can be direct or indirect, meaning that if you have a representative, and that representative makes a misrepresentation on your behalf, you will still be found to have made a misrepresentation.Be sure that all materials submitted to CIC are correct.If you find an error during the process, your best option is to advise CIC as soon as possible with an explanation and the correct information.Also, a misrepresentation can be made in writing or during an interview. What you say can be a misrepresentation as well.What Happens if CIC Finds a Misrepresentation?CIC is supposed to contact you to give you an opportunity to respond to an alleged misrepresentation for an explanation.Visa officers do have some discretion with regard to misrepresentations. If you made an honest error or misunderstanding , visa officers do have the ability to refrain from imposing a misrepresentation finding on you.As well, the misrepresentation must be relevant. If the misrepresentation would have had no impact on the decision made in your application, then it is not considered a misrepresentation for immigration purposes.Your best approach when facing a claim of a misrepresentation is to be absolutely truthful.What if CIC Discovers a Misrepresentation After I Arrive in Canada?If you obtained status in Canada (for example, permanent residence) based on a misrepresentation, then you may face deportation based on that misrepresentation even after you arrive in Canada.The importance of being not only truthful – but accurate – in all your application materials is highlighted here. A misrepresentation follows you to Canada and can threaten your status here once you arrive.What is the Effect of a Misrepresentation Finding?If have been found to have made a misrepresentation, you will be excluded from Canada for 2 years, whether or not you are permanent resident.If you have a compelling reason to enter Canada during this time period, you can apply for a temporary resident permit, described above.Inadmissible Family MembersIf any of your accompanying family members are inadmissible, then you will be inadmissible as well.In addition, you may be inadmissible if one of your family members is admissible, even if that family member will not accompany you to Canada. That’s right – you could have a family member who is not even coming with you to Canada, and you yourself could be deemed inadmissible.When could this situation arise?This situation can only arise if you make a permanent resident application and your non-accompanying family member is:your spouse (unless your relationship has broken down);your common law partner;your dependent child and you (or an accompanying family member) have custody or the power to act on behalf of that child by agreement, law or otherwise;your grandchild who is dependent on your dependent child (in other words, if you have a child under 22 who has a child as well) and you (or an accompanying family member) have custody or the power to act on behalf of that child;So if your uncle or aunt or sibling (for examples) are inadmissible, they won’t make you inadmissible as well, so long as they are not accompanying you to Canada.AppealsAppeals for inadmissibility are limited.For most applications, a lawyer may be able to contact a regional manager for you if there was a misunderstanding or CIC service failure.Otherwise, your option is typically to apply for judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada, which will require a lawyer and will be a costly endeavor.Sponsorship applications (spouse/children) can usually be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board which is a faster, cheaper alternative to the courts.You should retain legal counsel when considering any appeal option.Application FormsYou should always obtain application forms from the Citizenship and Canada website. These forms are updated regularly so you need to ensure you are using the most up-to-date forms.As well, some of the forms need to be “verified” so they generate a code that Citizenship and Immigration Canada can use to speed processing. Using the official forms from their site ensures that the verification process will work for you.Criminal Rehabilitation and Temporary Resident PermitYou can use the same form for criminal rehabilitation and a temporary resident permit application, just check “for information only” when applying for a temporary resident permit.For more questions, any help or something other about Criminal records and others, you just can contact us here with a comment or in our website [In my biography]Source: Entering Canada With Criminal Charges and Convictions