Law Times

Page 6 august 24, 2015 • Law Times www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT respectful debate on climate change needed ave critics unfairly targeted the oilsands? They probably have, but that doesn't mean it's right to demonize them. As Corey Battershill, a Calgary realtor who runs canadaaction.ca, a web site dedicated to a "more informed conversation about resource development," told the Canadian Bar As- sociation's legal conference last week, Canada's contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is quite small on an absolute basis and the oilsands are responsible for a fairly small part as well. Speaking at a breakfast at the conference sponsored by the In Situ Oil Sands Alli- ance, he presented lots of information about jobs created by the energy industry and noted Canada's high rankings in international surveys. But while Battershill's points were fair, they were also a case of selec- tive reasoning. Yes, the oilsands aren't responsible for a large proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions but they're rising at a time when the threats posed by climate change mean Canada needs to be cutting them. And while the federal government has talked about significant cuts to emissions over time, it has repeatedly missed its targets and failed to come up with a real plan to meet its continually revised goals. If Can- ada is to have any chance of making a positive contribution to the fight against global warming, the oilsands need to be a part of the efforts. For his part, Battershill doesn't deny the threat posed by climate change. And, like some in the oil industry, he makes the valid point that addressing the issue will require regulations in a variety of sec- tors, including the end users who consume oil and gas by driving their cars and heating their homes. In that sense, they're right that the oilsands have been a scapegoat. Wily bayne merciless in grilling Wright at Duffy trial rime Minister Stephen Harper's backroom geniuses never saw it coming. Or if they did, they chose to keep Harper in the dark about it. Maybe they thought the Mike Duffy trial would just go away quietly and people would prefer to talk about keeping Canadians safe from wicked jihadists and Harper would save our sagging economy. But it hasn't turned out that way so far. The first 10 days of the Duffy trial haven't been the amusing courthouse sideshow they expected. Harper finds himself defending his entire office, including some of his most trusted election organizers at a time when he needs them most. People are asking police to investigate Harper's staff once again, even those they had already cleared. Several questions remain. Why did Harper's staff keep him in the dark? Did they fear he might fire them or at least in- struct them to stop the despicable scheme they had hatched if they told him? And now that he knows what they did, why has he still not fired them? Harper may well have thought the Duffy payoff scheme was only between his chief of staff, Nigel Wright, and Duffy. That's why Duffy and Wright were the only ones to get the boot. And for some reason, the cops only charged one of the two and none of the others even though they had presumably read all of their e-mails. Now we know almost the entire band of heavies in the prime minister's office either took part in the scheme or knew what was happening. With staff like this, who needs Duffy? We've known for some time now that there were a lot of e-mails in the hands of police that told us a lot more than the few words that were coming out of the mouths of Harper and his staff. Now we know there were at least 400 e-mails worth looking at. They, and not verbal testimony from Wright, are at the core of the court case. Duffy's lawyer, Donald Bayne, has been grilling Wright mercilessly on the stand. He's rough on Wright, but it's Harper that Bayne is really after. How is Harper ever going to get back to talking about the jihadists or how's he going to help all of those big companies waiting for handouts from the federal government? The trial hasn't just been rough on Harper. Wright isn't getting off easily, either. Last Monday, Bayne pulled out one of Wright's more entertaining e-mails, one he had written to his team in the prime minister's office praising the hard work they had done on their scheme by getting Duffy off to Prince Edward Is- land to spout on TV a self-incriminating script they had prepared for him. "There was extreme glee that you pulled this off," said the wily Bayne, set- ting up Wright for a hit. Bayne quoted from Wright's e-mail to members of his team in the PMO: "I ap- preciate the work this team did on this," the e-mail quotes him as saying. "One down, two to go, and one out." It was perhaps confusing, but not for Wright. Wright explained to the judge and the courtroom what he had meant. Duffy is the guy who had gone down, said Wright. Two other senators, Den- nis Patterson of British Columbia and Pamela Wallin of Saskatchewan, are the "two to go" and Senator Patrick Brazeau is the one who's out. One member of the team, Harper's former communications chief, Andrew McDougall, wrote back in an e-mail to Wright: "Yeah, this is fun." Wright replied to the team's e-mails with a single word: "Sweet." There's a feeling in the courtroom au- dience that Duffy wasn't the only senator the hit team in the prime minister's of- fice had singled out. There's also a feeling that the prime minister is fortunate to have such witty fellows working on such schemes out of his office, especially those who are always telling the truth about what they do — except to Harper himself, of course. Harper gets to stay in the dark and hears only what they choose to tell him. And in the end, nobody but Duffy and Wright take the fall. LT uRichard Cleroux is a freelance repor- ter and columnist on Parliament Hill. His e-mail is richardcleroux@rogers.com. ©2015 Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted or stored in a retrieval system without written per- mission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Law Times disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, com- pleteness or currency of the contents of this pub- lication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement Number 40762529 • ISSN 0847-5083 Law Times is published 40 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com CIRCULATIONS & SUBSCRIPTIONS $199.00 + HST per year in Canada for print and online (HST Reg. #R121351134), $199 + HST per year for online only. Single copies are $5.00. Circulation inquiries, postal returns and address changes should include a copy of the mailing label(s) and should be sent to Law Times One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd. Toronto ON, M1T 3V4. Return postage guaranteed. Contact Keith Fulford at ........... 416-649-9585 or fax: 416-649-7870 keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com ADVERTISING Advertising inquiries and materials should be directed to Sales, Law Times, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON, M1T 3V4 or call: Kimberlee Pascoe ...............................416-649-8875 kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Grace So .............................................416-609-5838 grace.so@thomsonreuters.com Joseph Galea .......................................416-649-9919 joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe ................................416-298-5077 steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com Director/Group Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Lorimer Editor in Chief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gail J. Cohen Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glenn Kauth Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tali Folkins Staff Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Yamri Taddese Copy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patricia Cancilla CaseLaw Editors . . Adela Rodriguez & Jennifer Wright Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alicia Adamson Production Co-ordinator . . . . . . . . . . . .Sharlane Burgess Electronic Production Specialist . . . . . . . Derek Welford Law Times Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd. One Corporate Plaza, 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto, ON • M1T 3V4 • Tel: 416-298-5141 • Fax: 416-649-7870 www.lawtimesnews.com • LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes • LT.Editor@thomsonreuters.com • @lawtimes u Editorial obitEr By Glenn Kauth What's unfortunate is that people like Battershill persist in demonizing environmental groups that raise concerns about the oilsands. In his case, Bat- tershill referred to the organizations behind the Tar Sand Campaign as a well-funded group that's rak- ing in lots of money through their efforts against the oilsands. That may be true, but their concerns are legitimate and there's no doubt the energy industry is earning plenty of profits through natural resource extraction. Everyone has an interest here. Besides the more informed debate Battershill wants to see, Canada needs a more respectful one, particularly during the election campaign. The issue has been too divisive on both sides for too long, and if proponents of oilsands devel- opment are as serious about addressing climate change as they say they are, they'd be better to raise concrete proposals that offer the prospect of re- sults soon rather than vilifying the environmental movement. P The Hill Richard Cleroux H

• Cover