Department of Justice Canada Minister's Transition Book

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents

First 60 Days

Litigation Overview

Under the Department of Justice Act, the Minister of Justice is ex officio the Attorney General of Canada. The Attorney General has carriage of all litigation for or against the federal Crown and any department. He or she represents the Crown and not individual departments or agencies of the government. The Attorney General therefore seeks to protect the interests of the whole of government when providing advice and conducting litigation. In carrying out this duty, the Attorney General must act in the public interest, advance principled legal positions, and maintain high standards of civility and advocacy. If legislation or government decisions are challenged in courts, however, the Attorney General’s mandate is to vigorously defend the government’s position.

In the civil litigation context, departments generally act as instructing clients, although in having carriage of all litigation the Attorney General must keep in mind his or her duty to ensure that public affairs are administered in accordance with law. The Attorney General’s instructions are sought on all applications to intervene following a recommendation from the National Litigation Committee. Where litigation involves Indigenous peoples, it is to be conducted in accordance with the guidelines in the Attorney General’s Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples.

The litigation function within the Department of Justice is handled by the National Litigation Sector (NLS), led by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. NLS comprises counsel at headquarters in the National Capital Region, the nine regional offices of the Department, and some specialized Legal Services Units. Tax cases are managed by the Tax Law Services Portfolio, in coordination with NLS.

NLS is also responsible for: extradition, mutual legal assistance requests, and related litigation; national security litigation and coordination; class action and mass litigation to which Canada is a party; the Agent Affairs Program; and litigation support services and technology.

The Attorney General is also ultimately responsible for the federal prosecutorial function. Federal prosecutions are the responsibility of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), led by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Crown servants, Ministers, ministerial exempt staff and other federal government officials may receive legal representation pursuant to the Policy on Legal Assistance and Indemnification. Depending on the circumstances, they may be represented by the Department of Justice or receive compensation for legal fees paid to private counsel.

Significant litigation files

In addition to the litigation matters referenced above under “Hot Issues”, other significant litigation files currently include the following:

     [Redacted]     

Reports to be tabled before Parliament

Issue

Pursuant to various statutory provisions, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is responsible for tabling a number of reports before Parliament that involve Justice Canada and a number of its portfolio organizations. Six reports must be tabled within the first 15 sitting days of Parliament opening. An additional three, with no statutory deadline for tabling, will require your attention early in 2020.

1. Applications for Ministerial Review—Miscarriages of Justice 2018-2019 Annual Report(to be tabled on December 6)

Pursuant to section 696.5 of the Criminal Code, the Minister of Justice shall submit an annual report to Parliament in relation to applications under section 696.1 of the Criminal Code. This report must be tabled before each House of Parliament within six months after the financial year in respect of which it is made (September 30) or, if the House and Senate are not then sitting, on the first day they reconvene. The report will be sent to your office in the upcoming days.

2. 2018-2019 Annual Report regarding Service Fees

The tabling of stand-alone Fees Reports is a new requirement under the Service Fees Act, which came into force in June 2017. All federal entities listed in Schedules I, I.1 and II of the Financial Administration Act must table a Fees Report for the 2018-19 reporting period. The reports must be tabled before each House by December 13, 2019. They are ready and will be sent to your office in the upcoming days.

3. Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission Report

Pursuant to section 26(4) of the Judges Act, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada has the ability to ask the Quadrennial Commission to undertake an inquiry on any matter. The Commission submitted a report to the Minister of Justice at the end of October, and it must be tabled on any of the first 10 sitting days after it receives the report. More information on this report is available in tab 10c.

4. Courts Administration Service 2018-2019 Annual Report

Pursuant to section 12 of the Courts Administration Service Act, the Chief Administrator shall, within six months after the end of each fiscal year (September 30) submit a report to the Minister of Justice on the activities of the Service for that year. This report must be tabled before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting following the reception of the report. The report will be sent to your office in the upcoming days.

5. Corruption of Foreign Public Official Act 2018-2019 Annual Report

Pursuant to section 12 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of International Trade, and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada shall jointly prepare, within four months of the end of the fiscal year (July 30), an annual report on the implementation of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the enforcement of the Act. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is responsible for tabling this annual report before both Houses of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which the House and Senate are sitting after the report is completed. The report is ready and will be sent to your office in the upcoming days.

6. Access to Information and Privacy 2018-2019 Annual Reports

Pursuant to section 94 of the Access to Information Act and section 72 of the Privacy Act, the head of every government institution shall prepare a report on the administration of these Acts within the institution during the fiscal year. The Minister of Justice is responsible for tabling the reports of the Department of Justice, the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The report must be tabled before each House on any of the first 15 sitting days after September 1. These reports are ready and will be sent to your office in the upcoming days.

7. Investigative Hearing and Recognizance with Conditions 2018-2019 Annual Report

Pursuant to section 83.31 of the Criminal Code, the Attorney General of Canada shall submit an annual report to Parliament containing information about how frequently the investigative hearing provisions and the recognizance with conditions have been used and whether the operation of these provisions should be extended. There is no statutory deadline for tabling this annual report; however, it is expected to be tabled at the end of 2019.

8. Canada Evidence Act 2018-2019 Annual Report

Pursuant to section 38.17 of the Canada Evidence Act, the Attorney General of Canada shall submit an annual report to Parliament containing information on the operation of sections 38.13 and 38.15. This annual report must include the number of certificates and fiats issued under sections 38.13 and 38.15. There is no statutory deadline for tabling this annual report; however, it is expected to be tabled at the end of 2019.

9. Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime 2017-2018 Annual Report

Pursuant to section 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, the Ombudsman shall submit to the Minister of Justice for tabling before Parliament, an annual report on the activities of the Office of the Ombudsman. There is no statutory deadline for either the submission of this report to the Minister or the tabling before Parliament. In the past, a government response was prepared following receipt of the annual report and both documents were tabled simultaneously before Parliament; however, there is no statutory requirement to provide a government response.

Background

After a dissolution, clerks of both Houses of Parliament do not accept any returns, reports, or other papers required to be tabled pursuant to an act of Parliament or a resolution or Standing Order of the House of Commons. Ministers must wait until the new Parliament is in session before tabling any document.

Most annual reports may be tabled in one of two ways: “front door” or “back door.” When a report is tabled “front door,” it is tabled before the House of Commons by a minister or parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of the minister or, in the Senate, by a senator. A report tabled “back door” means that the tabling is not done formally in the House of Commons or Senate. It is instead deposited directly with the Clerk of the House or Senate. In both cases, the name of the document can be found in the Journals of the House or the Senate for that day.

For a minister to have the option to table an annual report “back door” in the House of Commons, pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), there must be a requirement for it to be laid in accordance with any act of Parliament or pursuant to any resolution or Standing Order of the House of Commons. If not, the only option is to table “front door.”

In the Senate, all of the annual reports that a minister is responsible for may be tabled “front door” or “back door” as Rule 14-1(6) only has a requirement that the document be laid before the Senate.

In the House of Commons, pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), annual reports that are tabled will automatically be referred to a standing committee so that they be studied or used as information for ongoing examination. Annual reports that fall under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice are referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In the Senate, by contrast, a motion must be moved and adopted in order for the document to be referred to a committee.

Justice Canada’s Cabinet and Parliamentary Affairs Unit is responsible for coordinating the tabling of annual reports for the Department and for the portfolio organizations that have an arm’s length relationship with the Minister of Justice. These responsibilities include preparing the necessary material and ensuring that your office receives it in a timely manner for your signature and subsequent tabling before Parliament by yourself or the Parliamentary Secretary.

Conclusion/Advice

For each annual report that must be tabled before Parliament, a briefing note and all accompanying cover letters will be submitted to your office for approval and signature in due time. Regarding the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime 2017-2018 Annual Report, instructions will be sought upon receipt of the report as to whether a Government response should be prepared.

Report of the Quadrennial Commission on Pension Accrual

Issue

On October 28, 2019, the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission (Quadrennial Commission) issued its report (the Report) on proposed amendments to stop pension accrual for judges whose removal has been recommended by the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC). The Report will need to be tabled in Parliament in the first 10 sitting days after Parliament’s return on December 5, and a public response must be issued within four months of the Report’s receipt by the Minister of Justice, i.e. by February 28, 2020.      [Redacted]     .

Background

The Quadrennial Commission process was established in the Judges Act following the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1997 decision in the PEI Judges Reference. The Commission is intended to safeguard the constitutional principle of judicial independence by interposing a filter between the judiciary and the government, and depoliticizing the process of setting judicial remuneration.

By way of a letter dated May 31, 2019, the Minister of Justice asked the Quadrennial Commission to consider amendments to the Judges Act to freeze a judge’s pension entitlement as of the date of a CJC recommendation for removal, with the proviso that if the judge challenges the recommendation and is successful, and the judge can resume sitting, pension accrual would resume as if it had never been interrupted. While the Minister was clear that the amendments would not apply retroactively (to claw back pensionable service already accrued), he proposed making the amendments applicable to any existing recommendations for removal as of coming into force, as well as to all future recommendations.

     [Redacted]     

In its Report, the Quadrennial Commission recommended the proposed amendments with one caveat: it declined to endorse making them applicable to existing recommendations for removal –      [Redacted]     . While it avoided making any actual recommendation on this point, it stated as follows at paragraph 29: “[T]he Commission makes no comment on the timing of the application of the proposed amendment, other than to note that it would be unfortunate if the making of the Request and the results of this report negatively affected those whom are already the object of deliberations and recommendations by the Canadian Judicial Council, and who have yet to complete the process of exercising recourses available to them within the law.”

     [Redacted]     

Recommended Action

Pursuant to subsection 26(6) of the Act, “[t]he Minister of Justice shall table a copy of the report in each House of Parliament on any of the first ten days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.” Parliament will return on December 5. Your direction will be sought on the timing of tabling the Report in both Houses of Parliament.

Furthermore, pursuant to subsection 26(7) of the Act, “[t]he Minister of Justice shall respond to a report of the Commission within four months after receiving it.” Accordingly, the Government Response must be made public no later than February 28, 2020. Your direction will be sought on a proposed approach to address the Report.      [Redacted]     

Forward Regulatory Plan

Posting an update to the 2019-2021 Forward Regulatory Plan

Issue

In accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS)’s new Policy on Regulatory Transparency and Accountability, every department must develop a Forward Regulatory Plan and publish it on their departmental website by April 1 of every year. The Forward Regulatory Plan spans two fiscal years and is designed to improve the transparency and predictability of the federal regulatory system. The Forward Regulatory Plan is meant to be an evergreen document with periodic updates throughout the year.

Background

Regulation is a key instrument used by the Government of Canada to achieve various policy objectives and to improve the quality of life of Canadians. It is an important tool for protecting the health and safety, protecting the environment, and for securing the conditions for an innovative and prosperous economy. Ministers have discretion over the initiatives to be included in their Forward Regulatory Plans as their publication is used for early public notification of initiatives that are under development.

A Forward Regulatory Plan identifies anticipated regulatory changes or actions that a department intends to bring forward or undertake over a 24-month timeframe. It also identifies public consultation opportunities and a departmental contact point for each initiative.

There are currently nine regulatory initiatives listed on the Department’s 2019-2021 Forward Regulatory Plan:

• Amendments to Schedule II to the Privacy Regulations (Investigative Bodies)
• Amendment to the Family Support Orders and Agreements Garnishment Regulations
• Regulations amending the Pension Diversion Regulations
• Order Amending the Schedule to the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act
• Amendments to the Release of Information for Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Regulations
• Amendments to the Judges Act Regulations
• Amendments to the Contraventions Regulations (Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act)
• Amendments to the Contraventions Regulations (Fisheries Act)
• Repeals and amendments to statutory instruments adopted under the Canadian Human Rights Act

Considerations

The Department of Justice Canada normally aims to publish the update to the Forward Regulatory Plan every fall; however, due to the election, the update to Justice’s 2019-2021 Forward Regulatory Plan was delayed, but is on track for December 2019.

Conclusion/Advice

The Cabinet and Parliamentary Affairs Unit will provide the proposed package to your office in the coming weeks for review and approval. The approved changes will then be posted to the Department’s website.

2020 Annual Report and Motion under the Statutes Repeal Act

Issue

The Statutes Repeal Act (SRA) requires, in every calendar year, that the Minister of Justice table before the Senate and the House of Commons, on any of the first five days on which that House sits, a report listing every Act or provision that has not been brought into force for ten years or more at the end of that calendar year. All Acts and provisions listed in an annual report will be repealed on December 31 in the year in which the report is tabled unless they are brought into force or are repealed before that date or unless a resolution deferring their repeal is adopted by one of the Houses of Parliament before that date.

Background

The SRA establishes an annual process to repeal provisions that have not been brought into force for 10 years or more. It came into force in 2010 and requires the Government to report regularly to Parliament on how it exercises its power to bring statutes into force by order in council. The SRA also seeks to ensure the effective maintenance of federal statutes through the regular repeal of provisions that are not in force and that are not needed.

Following tabling of the annual report in both Houses, further call letters are sent to Departmental Legal Services Units to provide justification for deferral of repeal or explanation as to why deferral is not required. Once the information is received, a Memorandum to Cabinet (MC) is drafted and is subject to the usual Cabinet process. Once ratified by Cabinet, a motion package is prepared for presentation to one of the Houses of Parliament. In recent years the motion and speech have been presented in the Senate.

Considerations

When preparing the annual report for 2020, Justice officials will emphasize that departments should be taking steps to either repeal or bring into force the Acts and provisions that are listed in the report, particularly when they have been sought for consecutive years.

Conclusion/Advice

The Cabinet and Parliamentary Affairs Unit will provide the proposed package to your office for review and approval. Given the current Parliamentary Calendar, the tabling of the annual report in the House of Commons will be required for the time period of January 27 to January 31, 2020, and for the time period of January 28 to February 3, 2020 in the Senate.      [Redacted]     .

Appointments/Vacancies

Key appointments required in the first 60 days

Issue

The Minister of Justice is responsible for recommending to the Governor in Council approximately 40 appointments to various organizations within the Justice portfolio in accordance with the open, transparent, and merit-based process established in 2016.

The Department of Justice Canada was able to complete all of its priority appointments prior to the election period; however, certain positions will become vacant in the coming months and will require attention. The Department and the Privy Council Office (PCO) are tracking upcoming vacancies within 4 organizations that will likely require open, transparent and merit-based processes. As these processes can take several months to complete, it is expected that they will be launched relatively quickly once Cabinet business resumes.

Background

The upcoming vacancies are as follows:

Judicial Advisory Committees (JACs)

The Minister’s Office works directly with PCO to appoint members to JACs. PCO is currently tracking vacancies in the JACs for Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, and the Tax Court. As of November 1, 2019, there are 54 superior court vacancies to be filled through the JAC process.

Accessibility Commissioner (New position pending the coming into force of the Accessibility Act)

The Accessibility Canada Act, which created the position of Accessibility Commissioner, received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019. The entire Act, including the provision to appoint the Commissioner, will come into force on a date to be fixed by Order in Council. You will be responsible for appointing the Commissioner because the appointment will be made under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which falls within the purview of the Minister of Justice.

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (full-time & part-time members)

Dena Bryan (Nova-Scotia), full-time appointment ending on March 26, 2020.
Anie Perrault (Quebec), part-time appointment ending on April 30, 2020.
Alex G. Pannu (British Columbia), part-time appointment ending on June 18, 2020.
Olga Luftig (Ontario), part-time appointment ending on December 13, 2020.
George Ulyatt (Manitoba), part-time appointment ending on December 13, 2020.

Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission

Gil Rémillard (Quebec), Chairperson, term ending on May 31, 2020.
Margaret Bloodworth (Ontario), Member, term ending on May 31, 2020.
Peter Herbert Griffin (Ontario), Member, term ending on May 31, 2020.

Specific Claims Tribunal Canada

Honourable Harry Slade (British Columbia), Chairperson, term ending on December 11, 2020.

Considerations

The Department will work with PCO to determine the priority of upcoming appointments and whether or not open, transparent, and merit-based processes will be required.

Conclusion/Advice

It is recommended that your office appoint a Director of Appointments who can act as point-person in managing Governor in Council appointments and participate on selection committees for upcoming vacancies. The Cabinet and Parliamentary Affairs Unit of the Department will advise your office on next steps once guidance has been provided from PCO.

6-Month Calendar: Key events & notable dates

Notable dates and meetings

Opportunities for proactive communications (e.g. statements, social media posts, events, speeches, etc.)

Media outreach strategy

This media outreach plan proposes public visibility and media opportunities for the new Minister of Justice and Attorney General in the first weeks of taking office (November to December).

The objectives of the plan are to:

• Foster a positive image of the incoming Minister as one who is committed to engaging with the general public, members of the legal community, other justice stakeholders, and the media;
• Position the incoming Minister as experienced, knowledgeable and credible;
• Provide opportunities for the Minister to increase awareness of the Government’s priorities to Canadians; and
• Assist the Minister and their staff in developing a strong relationship with the media in order to reach Canadians on the Minister’s and Government’s priorities.

Strategic Considerations

Once sworn in, the new Minister will receive numerous interview requests from news outlets. It will be important to triage the requests in order to focus on opportunities to discuss Government and departmental priorities.

Effectively dealing with media interviews is a skill that can be learned and practiced. A new Minister of Justice will face media questions regularly and may want to consider formal media training or a refresher to build on any previous experiences. The department can provide names of potential spokesperson trainers. If this approach is chosen, training should take place before any key interviews are conducted.

During the early mandate phase (first 3 weeks) media will want access to the Minister. The focus will be mainly on getting to know the Minister, their background, and what they bring to the job. Questions will quickly turn to pressing issues when Parliament resumes. Responding to questions related to high-profile or controversial issues will require thoughtful response development. There is an opportunity for the Minister with their staff to develop a storyline about the Minister to present them to the Canadian public and media.

In addition, as interview questions will cross over into specific justice or Government issues, the Minister will need to be well briefed and comfortable with portfolio and hot issues prior to media interviews. The Communications Branch will provide the incoming minister with a snapshot of hot issues and a description of how those issues were managed.

Consideration needs to be given to providing equal access to both English and French outlets. This is particularly important as reporters may want to delve in to justice-related issues that play differently in various regions (for example, medical assistance in dying).

Target Audiences and Considerations

It is important to consider target audiences and possible topics of interest that they will want to an incoming Minister to cover.

• General public: Members of the general public want to hear from a new Minister on key issues that were high profile before and during the election. While the incoming minister may not be in a position to comment on those immediately, follow up will be required as well as tracking of issues that bridge from summer/fall into the new mandate.
• Local /regional audience: The news media from the Minister’s region will be very interested in having the Minister available for local television, radio and print interviews. This audience will be interested in the Minister’s priorities for the region.
• Legal community: The legal community will want to hear from the new Minister. The Minister should considering doing outreach to legal associations as several of them have targeted publications such as the Canadian Bar Association Magazine and Lawyer’s Daily. There are also a number of blogs targeting the legal community.
• Academia: Post-secondary institutions that offer law programs provide opportunities to raise awareness of the Minister’s profile regionally. While universities have small publications, speaking opportunities on campus can drive broader media engagement.
• Indigenous partners: Indigenous people can be reached through a number of associations and dedicated media outlets (ATPN, CBC Indigenous, etc.) and provide a way to reach these First Nation, Inuit, and Métis audiences. The issues faced are complex and will require that the Minister have a good understanding of the whole-of-government public policy, Justice initiatives focused on Indigenous peoples, and Indigenous legal issues prior to taking part in interviews.
• Digital influencers: There are a number of influencers on social media that have followers in the tens of thousands that provide an opportunity to get the message out. Examples would include: The Lawyer’s Daily (14.4k followers on Twitter); Canadian Bar Association (19.3k followers on Twitter); The Hill Times (88.2k followers on Twitter); iPolitics (76.9k followers on Twitter); The Conversation Canada (11.8k followers on Twitter); Canadian Forum on Civil Justice (2.6k followers on Twitter). This will be an evergreen approach and recommended influencers will evolve as different topics and issues take turns sharing the spotlight.

Top Issues of the Department – Overview

Total number of calls in 2019: 736

Note: the focus below is on the percentages related to top issues but do not total the number of calls received by the department.

Public Environment Analysis on Selected issues

Medical assistance in dying

This issue has sustained interest with a number of ongoing litigations against the medical assistance in dying (MAID) legislation.

Recently, there were three distinct flashpoints:

• When the Truchon decision declaring part of the legislation unconstitutional was announced;
• When Julia Lamb withdrew her challenge to the legislation (to a lesser degree); and
• When Quebec and then Canada announced that they would not be appealing the Truchon decision (this is when MAID became an election issue).

Coverage of all three events was both factual and opinion-based.

Immediately following the decision, coverage was focused in Quebec, but also made national news headlines.

Further coverage in Quebec outlined the opposition of professional associations representing Quebec’s doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others urging the government not to appeal the decision (Montreal Gazette: Please don’t appeal death ruling, medical professionals tell Quebec).

When the governments of Quebec and of Canada announced they were not appealing the decision, coverage increased again, this time themes covered the legality of the matter (Montreal Gazette: Ruling on assisted dying opens Pandora’s Box; Consequences for people suffering from mental illness are of particular concern, writes Georgia Vrakas) to commenting on its impact on the federal election (National Post: Federal leaders still don’t seem to understand the attorney general’s role).

Since September, coverage has lessened, although there has been more national interest in the larger questions related to the legislation. Coverage is expected to start up again soon after a new Cabinet is in place, asking when and how the government will address the pressure to address the constitutional concerns raised in the original Truchon decision.

Other litigations are ongoing, including an Ontario-based case on the adequacy of assisted care prior to the provision of MAID. MAID will certainly continue to be a hotly-debated and discussed issue as the many challenges make their way through the courts or through the House of Commons.

As the legal cases and return of Parliament continue to play out in the public environment, this issue is expected to remain top of mind for the media, related stakeholders and some members of the general public.

Impaired driving

There are two tiers of media coverage regarding impaired driving; local coverage focuses on specific impaired driving incidents (PEI, Yorkton, London etc.), whereas national coverage focuses on the new impaired driving laws and roadside testing devices.

Since the one-year anniversary of cannabis legalization, media outlets have begun to report on drug-impaired driving statistics (Lethbridge, Kitchener, Halifax, Montreal etc.) Drug impaired driving statistics vary depending on the region, however most outlets continue to report that alcohol impairment is a larger problem.

National media coverage focuses on impaired driving laws, such as the “two-hour window,” mandatory alcohol screening, and oral-fluid and blood testing. Recently the Globe and Mail reported about the lack of knowledge of the impaired driving laws amongst Canadians.

With the coming into force of the new impaired driving laws, there has been significant discussion around mandatory alcohol screening and the “two-hour window”. Media has been very critical of the new legislation, using cases like Lee Anne Lowrie and Norma McLeod from British Columbia, as examples to highlight the new laws in effect and their complications. In July, the department of Justice Canada received backlash regarding a tweet that highlighted the “two-hour window” rule.

Following the legalization of cannabis, the discussion around drug impaired driving and roadside testing increased. Most media coverage focuses on the devices used for roadside testing, their immediate capabilities, and their cost. Media coverage around the devices varies between factual and opinionated, including how they can only confirm the presence of drugs, and a blood test is needed to determine the level of impairment, as well as their function in the cold weather.

Meng

Since Ms. Meng’s arrest on December 1, 2018, this case has garnered extensive national and international media and public interest, which is expected to continue.

Extradition remains a topic of interest for the public. Media provide factual information on the extradition process in three phases: Phase 1 ATIP released; Phase 2: Judicial Phase (court hearings); Phase 3: Extradition Hearing, reported to commence on January 20, 2020.

Chinese journalists have reported significantly on this issue and coverage continues to link court hearings to the current breakdown in Chinese-Canadian relations.

Huawei Spokesperson Benjamin Howes has provided public statements about the case, outlining the defence’s position and maintaining Ms. Meng’s innocence.

United States’ interest in this case remains high with recent reports that the House of Representatives has passed legislation directed at China, including a bill commending Canada for its support in the detention of Meng Wanzhou.

Recent live coverage from the British Columbia Supreme Court captures arguments from both the Crown and the defence, with respect to Ms. Meng’s disclosure application in the extradition proceeding.

Media reporting on the defence and Crown’s positions have been factual and balanced; media provide the public with filed court documents to outline the positions.

Social media reports:

Reporters who have been covering the case at length and live tweeting: Jason Proctor (CBC), Melanie Nagy (CTV), Ian Young (South China Morning Post), Laura Kane (Canadian Press), David Molko (CTV).

Huawei social media accounts have shared articles from the South China Morning Post on the case. They have many official accounts, including a Canada-focused Twitter account, which add up to more than a million followers. These posts usually average over 50 retweets and 300 likes.

In March 2019, the Department’s official social media channels published informative posts on the extradition process. These included an infographic on how the process works which was shared by media during the court dates in October 2019.

Journalists have criticized CBSA’s operations in this case, citing a general growing criticism of CBSA’s outdated laws, operations and oversights.

In addition to the extradition matters, media have reported on Ms. Meng’s civil litigation action against CBSA and RCMP related to her provisional arrest on December 1, 2018.

The Role of the Attorney General of Canada

The dual role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has been the subject of extensive and varied coverage in 2019, which focused on three main areas:

• The distinction between the two roles;
• The independence of the Attorney General, including the Shawcross doctrine and the relationship between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions; and
• Former Minister of Justice and Attorney General the Honourable Anne McLellan’s study of the potential separation of the two roles.

There was sustained interest in the dual role of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada beginning in February 2019 and running through much of the spring and into early summer, with extensive factual and opinion coverage.

The Shawcross Doctrine, which outlines principles for the independence of an Attorney General, was the subject of extensive coverage as winter came to a close (e.g., The impossible position: Canada’s attorney-general cannot be our justice minister, Globe and Mail, February 22), which continued at a lighter pace through the spring and summer (What is the Shawcross Principle, the judicial doctrine that the ethics commissioner said Trudeau breached?, National Post, August 22).

There was some lighter interest in the relationship between the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in February (e.g., CTV News Network, February 7).

The March appointment Ms. McLellan to examine the issue of a formal separation of the two roles was the subject of extensive coverage (e.g., Anne McLellan to advise on separating attorney general, justice minister roles, iPolitics, March 18; Trudeau appoints Anne McLellan to advise PMO on the role of justice minister, attorney general in cabinet, CBC, March 18)

By the time of the release of Ms. McLellan’s report in July, media interest had faded to some degree, with factual coverage of the report’s recommendations, as well as some ongoing opinion coverage (e.g., Rapport sur le rôle du procureur général: puissante leçon d’indépendance, La Presse, August 22; Canada Needs Non-Political Attorney-General, Regina Leader-Post, September 18).

Eight Ways to get your message out

• Be Confident—Be Truthful—Be Positive
• Prepare—Prepare—Prepare your key messages in advance
• Be message-driven, not question-driven. Bridge, bridge, bridge—Bridging is a key way to tackle tough questions because it is a tool to take you from a reporter’s tough question to your key message. A key is to emphasize key words and messages.
• Remain in the positive. Never repeat the negative. Listen carefully to the question before answering. Turn a hypothetical question into an opportunity to deliver your key message.
• Stick to the facts—Never guess—Answer only what you can accurately. Reinforce your messages with supporting facts, statistics or examples.
• Answer a multi-part question one step at a time.
• Never say anything you don’t want to read in the newspaper, see on television or hear on the radio.
• Don’t fill dead air. When you’ve made your point, stop talking.

We recommend you consider the following rollout when planning media outreach.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents