SNC-Lavalin Affair- Hey Quebec, Payback's a Bitch!

The ongoing political saga over possible political interference by Justin Trudeau and his inner circle of henchpeople has taken on a rather hilarious turn, with Quebecers furious that the rest of Canada seems superbly uninterested in saving the Quebec 'pearl' as it is known reverently in Quebec political circles as well as in the media.

SNC-Lavalin is more than just a company, it is a symbol of Quebec's emergence from a backward farm and natural resource economy to a modern mixed economy.

But SNC-Lavalin, which helped engineer a modern Quebec, did so with the business ethics of ENRON, bribing individuals with millions of dollars of payola as a matter of course, both here in Canada and abroad.
How depraved was SNC-Lavalin is revealed in another exposé of the company and its business practices

"New details have emerged about Quebec engineering giant SNC-Lavalin’s cozy relationship with the son of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, including the company allegedly hiring prostitutes for him during a visit to Canada a decade ago.
The sordid tale, revealed by Quebec newspaper La Presse...
Receipts gathered during an investigation of a former SNC-Lavalin executive show $30,000 in payments to Saadi Gadhafi for sexual services in Canada in 2008, La Presse reported."

Let us not single out SNC as the only Quebec bad corporate citizen, an anomaly which had a temporary lapse of executive oversight. The company only demonstrated the prevailing dubious business practices of the time that is was the hallmark of Quebec business society.

"For a Québécois, the SNC-Lavalin-Trudeau-government debacle is especially painful to watch. I can’t help but wonder whether English Canada’s punditocracy would be as indignant if the prime minister’s office had seemingly been trying to save a Toronto- or Calgary-based multinational corporation instead of a Quebec one."  Lise Ravary Montreal gazette

This opinion is repeated in the nationalist Quebec French media ad naseum, where the legal prosecution of misdeeds of SNC-Lavalin is seen as nothing more than Quebec-bashing.

For once I am of the concurring opinion that Canadians are not particularly unhappy to see Quebec get its comeuppance. The deafening roar of protest from Quebec over potential job losses is clearly falling on deaf ears in the rest of Canada.

What does surprise me is the interminable chutzpah of Lise Ravary et al in believing that Canadians owe Quebec a fair hearing and consideration. They are surprised and miffed that Canadians are unsympathetic, this after decades of Canada-bashing (a term unheard of in Quebec) and contempt shown by Quebec politicians and media.

According to Quebec,  Canada should be concerned about the effect of an SNC-Lavalin prosecution and to the potential job losses.

Really???

How concerned was Quebec when it put the kibosh of the Energy-East pipeline without much thought or concern for the economic impact or the job losses in Alberta.

Come to think of it, where were Justin Trudeau and his minion of crooked henchman in working the backrooms to secure said pipeline in an effort to secure Alberta oil-industry jobs and economic prosperity.

Could it be that electoral considerations and the political reality made expending political capital on saving jobs in Alberta just not worth the effort, considering the few seats held by the Liberals in that province?

Could you imagine that if during the pipeline debate a Quebec politician getting up and saying that in considering approval of the Energy-East pipeline, Quebec should consider the economic interest of Alberta and the attached jobs

HA! HA! HA!.

For Quebec politicians and pundits, lobbing political and economic bombs at Canada is just par for the course, business as usual.
Quebec's righteous indignation is almost laughable.

I am reminded of Shakespeare's Shylock, a Jew who has suffered discrimination and now turns the tables on his tormentors.

"The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction"

That's how Shakespeare termed it.
Today we say....

"Payback's a bitch!

Anothony Housewater Embarrasses Mount-Royal

A bozo smile and an partisan heart...

"The riding is among the strongest Liberal ridings in the country. Réal Caouette, long-time leader of the Social Credit Party in Quebec, once said that a mailbox could win the Liberal nomination in Mount Royal and still win election just because it was red (the traditional colour of the Liberal Party). The Liberals have held the riding continuously since 1940, and have only been seriously threatened three times since then—in 1958, 1984 and 2011."

It's hard to watch a young politician with a seemingly bright future turn so quickly into a sad-sack partisan hack, especially when doing so in the unfamiliar spotlight thrust upon him by circumstances beyond his control and certainly beyond his ken.

Anthony Housefather is the nebbish member of Parliament for Montreal's largely, Jewish riding of Mount-Royal, where winning has little to do with talent and a lot to do with being Jewish and Liberal.
Up to now, Housefather was such an unknown that a renowned LCN French television talking head, Paul Larocque (the French news channel's Wolf Blitzer,) hilariously referred to him as Anthony House'water.' 

Housewater's Housefather's claim to Parliamentary fame is as a Jew, he represents one of the two Canadian ridings that are informally designated as "Jewish seats" where candidates of all major parties are customarily part of the chosen people.

Up to now, he has been toiling away in relative obscurity. But that all changed for Housefather as the unlucky Liberal sap who chairs the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, where he was thrust into the limelight in relation to the ongoing political fiasco that is embroiling the Liberal government concerning the Judy-Raybould Wilson affair.

To make a long story short, the Trudeau cabinet is accused of trying to influence the then Solicitor-General to interfere in an ongoing prosecution of Quebec's infamous engineering firm SNC-Lavalin. While we don't have the facts, as nobody is talking, the optics for the Trudeau government are not particularly good.
Trudeau demoted Raybould Wilson from a prestigious cabinet position with the opposition charging that he did so because she would not play ball and influence government prosecutors to go soft on punishment for the Quebec firm that seems to have been run with Mafia-like business ethics that had bribery as its preferred method of securing contracts.

At any rate, the usually boring and obscure committee, at the direction of Housefather, killed opposition demands that the principle players be brought before the committee to explain their part in the affair.

For this decision Housefather has forever branded himself a partisan party hack without scruples or morals, ready to do his part in burying the truth for political gain.

To make matters worse the buffoon novice put his foot in his mouth when he suggested that the ex-justice minister might have been dropped from the cabinet for her lack of French, a laughable suggestion that even Trudeau felt obligated to deny.

While Housefather apologized for the gaffe, the damage was done, not only to Trudeau but to his own political career where mistakes that embarrass the leader are never forgotten when cabinet choices are considered.

And so Housefather has turned himself into another Sheila Finestone a former Mount-Royal Liberal hack that distinguished herself by her irrelevance, toiling for years in the House of Commons in total obscurity.

With the Liberals down in the polls, it is actually possible that Mount-Royal goes Conservative if a quality candidate is offered. Housefather only managed a 7,000 vote majority over Robert Libman last time around and should the Trudeau scandal endure, Housefather will be hurt as the political hack who defended the indefensible.

Will Jewish voters vote blindly Liberal next time around?  Maybe, but I hope not.

Readers.... a note on an article in the Journal de Montreal by resident hater Richard Martineau who waxes eloquent once again over his favourite subject, "Les Autres"

Martineau was furious because;

"In Côte-Saint-Luc, the city council unanimously passed a resolution in which it declared that it would not respect the "illegitimate and unconstitutional" law of the Caquist government. The mayor has even said that his administration will never consider the dress or religious symbols its employees wear, even if they are in a position of authority! In other words, "F ** K you, Legault! "

The idea that a town council can pass a resolution that contradicts the law of the land infuriated him, especially when those towns are English.

"And I thought that Côte-Saint-Luc is part of Québec! Well, it seems no. It is an undivided republic, an enclave, a reservation, a city-state like the Vatican in Italy. What does it matter if government was elected democratically. Côte-Saint-Luc disrespects Québec and after the religious signs, what is going to be? Will they refuse to accept pre-K for four year olds or 21 years old for pot consumption, Bill 101?

Are municipal governments stronger than the provincial government now? And the little kings who sit in city halls, more powerful than the premier? And wait, this is just the beginning. The same reaction can be expected in Kirkland, Hampstead, Westmount, Pointe-Claire, Dollard-Des-Ormeaux, Dorval, Mount Royal, Beaconsfield ... In these cities, you see, we do not live in Quebec time, but Canada."

 I must say that his agony over the hated English resistance is somewhat comforting to me. His pain as they say, is my gain.

I only have one comment to make or better still a question for Mr. Maritineau.

When the city council of the City of Montreal voted a motion declaring itself a 'sanctuary city,' a motion which clearly contravenes Quebec's civil code, did he offer the same nasty opinion?

SNC-Lavalin... For Quebec, Payback's a Bitch!

Once again the two solitudes of the Canadian reality has reared its ugly linguistic head with reaction in Quebec diametrically opposed to that of the rest of Canada in the Trudeau/SNC-Lavalin affair.

Quebec journalists have been almost universal in complaining that the unsympathetic reaction in the  rest of Canada lies in the entrenched hatred of Quebec.
They contend that would SNC-Lavalin be based in Toronto, public sentiment would be massively in favour of a deal that would see the company avoid a criminal trial in favour of a negotiated settlement, one that would spare the company from being banned from bidding on government contracts for a period of years.

It should be noted that the company is already subject to a ten-year ban by the World Bank following the company’s misconduct in relation to the Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project in Bangladesh, as well as misconduct under another Bank-financed project. Link

The Quebec view;

"Our colleagues in Toronto would be happy to politically block the Trudeau government from saving this Quebec giant," an editorialist wrote this week in the French-language daily Le Devoir, accusing anglophone media of hypocrisy in its indignation at SNC. Link {fr}

"It's all fine and dandy to play politics in an election year, but what would 'Canada' gain if SNC-Lavalin was found guilty?" asked Michel Girard, a business columnist for the tabloid Journal de Montreal.

But I ask you, dear reader, if the street address of SNC-Lavalin’s headquarters were on Bay Street instead of at 455 René-Lévesque Blvd. W. in Montreal, would we be talking about the same scandal today? Lise Ravary

The Rest of Canada view;

Can it be? Can a large, politically sensitive corporation with a history of buying influence avoid prosecution in this country by the mere expedient of a phone call to the prime minister’s office? Can the prime minister’s staff have charges against the corporation dropped by a quick call to the minister of justice? Is that the sort of country we live in? Andrew Coyne

 Here are some comments from readers in the Globe and Mail.

We cannot accept Montreal level corruption on a national scale. .....No net jobs will be lost. Contracts will go to other Canadian companies. 

SNC-Lavalin does not have to do the work. There are plenty of other engineering firms in Canada that can do the job. It is time for companies to suffer the consequences of their actions.

SNC-Lavalin’s record is not good. Why continuously reward them for sleazy behaviour? This needs to be an example case.

At any rate, I'm not sure these Quebecers are wrong, it does seem that Canada has it in for Quebec and while Quebec plays the innocent aggrieved party, Quebec cannot expect any other reaction.

Imagine you have a neighbour who complains to authorities that your lawn is unkempt, your kids are playing on the street and calls the police over perceived noise violations, all the while complaining that the city treats you preferentially.
You see his convertible with the top down in his garage way and its starting to rain.
Do you go over and ring his doorbell or do you laugh and garner an enjoyable measure of schadenfreude ?

I would hope that Canadians, given their reputation for fair-mindedness and consideration would do the right thing and ring the doorbell, but it's clear that those days are over, after forty years of Quebec slagging Canada and pissing in the proverbial Canadian soup pot there's little or no good will left.

While Quebecers chalk up the negative reaction to the inherent meanness of Canadians, it doesn't occur to them at all that they bear any responsibility for the enmity.

Poor Lise Ravery whose lamentations are laughable if not sad for the fact that her opinion is printed in Montreal's daily rag, Le Journal de Montreal, feeding Quebec's persecution complex.

Let me remind Quebecers that they rejected the pipeline from Alberta out of spite and nothing else.
Since there was no tangible benefits to Quebec, other that enriching Alberta and feeding its treasury (which funds the equalization program of which Quebec is the biggest beneficiary,) Quebec saw no benefit other than being a good neighbour, something that means nothing to it.

The blasé and mean-spirited attitude of Quebec does not go un-noticed in the ROC.
While collecting the lion's share of the federal governments largess, Quebec continues to drone on and on with the familiar done-me-wrong refrain.

And so if Madame Ravary et als want Canadians to support an out of court settlement for the criminal activities of its favourite son, they are plumb out of luck.

As it says in the Bible,: "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Quebec has been a bad and spiteful neighbour for over forty years and so it should not be surprised, at Canadians reciprocity. I haven't got a comparable French saying so I remind the whiners....

payback's a bitch!....

In Defence of Justin Trudeau

How soon we forget....

You're probably a bit surprised at the title of this blog piece, given my historic hostility towards Justin Trudeau, a politician I loathe on just about every level.

But Trudeau was elected by a majority of Canadians on an ultra-liberal platform much as Trump was elected on a conservative platform. The real problem for both men politically is that recent presidents and prime ministers, regardless of political affiliation governed from the middle, something that seemed to be well tolerated by voters. Not so for these two leaders who quite frankly scare the bejesus out of those who voted against them, generating a river of angst and a firestorm of hate.
Regardless of what opponents think, both men seem safely ensconced, their support perhaps a bit diminished but solid just the same.

I don't dislike Trudeau for his underlying philosophy, one of radical liberalism, after all, he was voted in on that platform, but rather his cynical and dishonest manner in which he plays to and uses the general good will and intentions of Canadians.
Running on a supposedly pro-environment, pro-women, pro-immigrant and natives rights platform, Trudeau has talked a good game but delivered nothing concrete except one whopping budgetary deficit after another, all the while pretending that he is, what clearly he is not and pooh-poohing criticism with a wave of his hand and a toss of his hair like a king on a throne, offering deflections and fairy-tale answers in Parliament, making a mockery of Question Period, all without an ounce of contrition or guilt over his abject dishonesty.

He reminds me of the flim-flam man in that famous movie, the Music Man, whereby a con artist convinces a town of good and naive people that a new pool table installed recently in town will corrupt its youth and render them indigent and troublesome. He then proposes to form a boys marching band to in order to combat the problem,  and of course, sells the band equipment in the bargain.
Justin too is a con, he is not the kind and gentle political progressive he projects. When push comes to shove and political survival is at stake, Justin is as vicious and nasty as they come, dumping his phoney convictions and punishing those who betray him with evil abandon.

Seeing (Wilson-Raybould) being tossed under the bus certainly is a message to First Nations but also to women across Canada.- Chief Bob Chamberlin, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs

Justin is as phoney as a three-dollar bill and is as manipulative as the best of con men, but in the current blow-up over the resignation of ex-minister Judy Wilson-Raybould he was and is, in fact, acting not only in his and the Liberal party's best interest but that of the country as well.

Justin must not be a student of history, otherwise, he'd know that often it isn't the crime that is so damaging, but rather the coverup as in the Watergate Affair that destroyed the presidency of Richard Nixon.  It wasn't insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail, but rather lying about it to the FBI.

In trying to help SNC-Lavelin, Trudeau was looking for political gain, or rather trying to stem a possible political pitfall. Regardless of motive, in my estimation a worthy undertaking.

He tried to intervene in an ongoing criminal prosecution, something that is verboten under the law but can actually be explained away as a necessary evil political necessity. Had he made his case honestly to the Canadian people, he'd be in the clear by now.
But he lied.
He pretended that he did not ask his justice minister to put pressure on federal prosecutors to seek a fine rather than a conviction in the SNC-Lavelin corruption trial, something that would allow the company to survive.

While the opposition parties are having a field day over Justin's woes, it behooves me to ask if they are also opposed to Justin's intervention on behalf of SNC-Lavelin.

Let us examine the underlying facts, legal,  political and economic.

SNC-Lavelin, a large company with thousands of employees has a history of paying bribes to win contracts at home and abroad, with perhaps the most galling bribe, a twenty million payment to executives of a Montreal hospital to secure a contract for the new building.

SNC-Lavelin was born and bred in the corruption-ridden atmosphere of Quebec politics that dates back past the reign of Maurice Duplessis, where every major government contract was tendered with the necessary political or personal bribe attached.
Contracts for snow removal, paving and road building, as well as major buildings and infrastructure, were all subject to the same game of corruption, with engineering firms, construction companies and politicians and government employees all in on the action.

That entrenched system of corruption was exposed in an explosive government enquiry that blew the lid off the sordid system of payola, much to the shock and dismay of hitherto innocent and uninformed Quebecers, especially taxpayers.

There's no forgiving SNC-Lavelin for its dishonesty and corruption which occurred at the highest levels, but the question remains as to whether the Canadian law which imposes sanctions upon conviction including banning the offending company from bidding for government contracts for a period of up to ten years is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Should the thousands of well-paid and productive employees be sacrificed for the errors and criminality of their bosses?
Should SNC-Lavelin be destroyed through a criminal process that would see the company reduced to rubble?

Let us examine the cases of Wells-Fargo in the United States, a company that openly and systematically defrauded its own customers. The United States Justice Department issued a fine of one billion dollars, but did not, in the interest of financial benefit to the country and the company's employees make any attempt to restrict the company's ability to continue.
The same goes for Volkswagen which negotiated a $2.8 billion fine for its scheme to fool regulators over its car emissions.

Just like SNC- Lavelin, plenty of individuals in the company faced the legal music for their malfeasance, but the companies both went on to live. I would remind readers that it was a stunning fall from grace for former SNC-Lavalin CEO Pierre Duhaime who plead guilty to breach of trust in a Montreal courthouse, so it's not like the company bosses got off scott-free.

So Trudeau tried to get his justice minister to put pressure on crown prosecutors to come to some sort of similar arrangement with SNC-Lavelin, one that would allow the company to survive after a massive fine.
He wasn't supposed to do it, but I applaud him for the effort. That is what Prime Ministers are supposed to do, that is to fight for the survival of an important Canadian employer, for the benefit of employees and the economic well-being of the country.

As for Judy Wilson Raybould, her refusal to do Trudeau's dirty work is understandable but ultimately counter-productive to the well-being of the country.
When at first Trudeau demoted her, I assumed it was out of retribution but have come to realize that it was rather to install another minister more attuned to doing what Trudeau (and myself) rightly deemed necessary.

It is perhaps ironic that for all Trudeau's ridiculous and downright stupid policy gaffes and wasteful spending, he is being skewered for something that actually makes sense.

Sometimes politicians do some pretty under-handed manoeuvres to secure a good outcome. I invite readers to take in the film "Lincoln" starring Daniel-Day Lewis, chronicling his back-room deals, many underhanded and illegal, in an effort to pass the 13th amendment which freed the Black slaves.
The same goes for the film "All the Way" starring Brian Cranston as LBJ who also used some pretty under-handed methods to pass his greatest achievement, the Civil Right's Act.

I won't put Justin in the same room with these guys, but I hope readers will understand that behind closed cabinet doors some pretty dirty machinations are undertaken, hopefully for the greater good.

In the case of Justin and SNC-Lavelin, he is in the right, fighting for its survival. He is paying the political price for having those machinations undertaken by himself on its behalf spill out from the cabinet cone of silence.

I can't say I feel bad for him but remain amused that his undoing may be over what I characterize as good and necessary intervention, instead of over his many idiotic policy failures.

Now many of you, especially those in the rest of Canada have a sore spot for Quebec companies that receive preferential treatment, but I would beg you to consider this.

Even without corruption, SNC-Lavelin is a profitable tax-paying giant that employs thousands of hard-working men and women who honestly work at a high level, providing for their families and paying their fair share of taxes.
SNC-Lavelin cheated and should be punished, but killing it off because of ill-conceived laws that are out of step with our competitive allies is wrong. It is a disservice to its employees and the taxpayers of Canada.

Regardless of the motives or methods, I applaud Justin Trudeau for his effort to save the company.

Quebec Calls Hijab and Kippah Signs of Oppression

Minister "Kippahs and hijabs are incompatible in Quebec"

The newly elected CAQ government is ramming ahead with its attack on religion Islam like a bull in a china shop, with contradictory and incoherent pronouncements and policy objectives making little sense other than to satisfy the bloodlust of voters who want to bloody the nose of Muslim women who dare wear the infamous hijab in Quebec, contrary to current Quebec feminist dogma that brands it evil.

The CAQ government is bound and determined to make good on election promises to come down hard on Muslim women wearing a hijab, something that irks Quebec feminists to no end.

"Quebec's new minister responsible for the status of women says the Muslim hijab is a symbol of oppression.
Speaking to reporters after being named to the portfolio Tuesday, Isabelle Charest said the Muslim head scarf does not correspond to her values and is not a way for women to flourish in society.
She said women should not wear the garment. She objects to it because it represents a command for women to cover themselves, she said."

The next day the minister walked back the statement slightly, saying she respected the right of women to wear what they want but went even further insisting that all overt religious symbols, including the kippah, were symbols of oppression.

"She also expanded her criticism formulated the day before. According to her, any clothing imposed by a religious belief is a form of oppression, including the Jewish kippah." Link{fr}

Now, this is a profound change from the Quebec feminist position that Muslim women are oppressed because of the hijab, niqab, or whatever head-covering which supposedly is imposed upon them by men and therefore incompatible with Quebec values of equality.
She is now saying that men who don a kippah or turban because of their religious beliefs have values that are incompatible with modern Quebec society as well.

It was probably a weak attempt to throw other religions under the bus so that Muslim women wouldn't seem to be the only ones targeted, but the implications are staggering.

She is, in fact, saying that anyone who is religiously orthodox and wears symbols of that orthodoxy hold values that are incompatible with Quebec values!
Wow!

Now  Premier Legault came to her defence telling reporters that her opinion was personal and that he wasn't going to censure ministers from offering personal opinions.
The French media fawned over the Premier's response as well as the minister's original pronouncement telling viewers and listeners that it was a good thing for ministers to tell the public what they really believe.

This, of course, is utter bullshit and runs contrary to Parliamentary tradition where party members, especially ministers must toe the party line in public. The truth is that Legault and the CAQ absolutely hold that same belief in private.

As for the media, especially TV host Mario Dumont who was pleased as punch over the pronouncement and fully supported the policy that ministers could offer personal opinions that may or may not differ from the official party line without consequence.

I wonder how Mr. Dumont would react if the then Heritage minister Mélanie Joly told a group of reporters that Radio-Canada, the French division of the CBC was over-funded as compared to the English side (which it is is.)

If Prime Minister Trudeau defended her saying that she was just expressing a personal opinion, would Mr. Dumont applaud her candour or would he be demanding her resignation in abject fury along with the rest of the French media cabal?

What say you, readers?

At any rate the Premier is talking a big game in the anti-Muslim push, but is, in reality, treading carefully lest he land on the third rail, that is attacking Jews who have powerful allies in the rest of the country and especially the USA and who are not averse to using their massive financial and political clout to punish those who tread on them.

Removing religious symbols from public schools affects the head-covered Muslim women only, you won't find many male Jewish teachers in the public system, especially those few who wear a kippah.

But not so in the private Jewish day schools which are in part funded by the government where women and men do wear religiously prescribed clothing, especially kippahs. Over half of  Quebec's school-age Jews attend these schools, so it isn't insignificant. In ultra-orthodox religious Jewish schools run by the Lubavitch sect of Judaism, male teachers and administrators wear kippahs. But what the general public readily doesn't know is that married women teachers wear wigs for exactly the same reason Muslim women wear hijabs.

All these situations have been strategically left off the table by the CAQ. As I said there is the third rail there and so Legault has tactically decided to omit these schools from any law prohibiting religious dress, a coward's way out of a difficult situation where the law will apply unequally to all.

At any rate, like the tax on Netflix which made huge waves in Quebec, it is a story which is, in Shakespeare's inimitable words...Much ado about nothing.

The Quebec government doesn't even know how many teachers in the public system wear hijabs and were roundly attacked by the Liberal opposition for asking school boards for numbers. Many school boards refused to offer numbers, the idea repugnant.
But it turns out that the Liberals were two-faced in their opposition because it turns out that when in government they asked school administrators directly how many women wore the hijab, which incidentally turns out to be precious few.
As for the police, the Surete du Quebec reported zero of its police officers wear hijabs and there are currently no hijab-clad judges sitting in court.

As I said before the only effect of the law will be to legitimize harassment of hijab-clad Muslim women in public, open season for yahoos with grade school education to verbally attack women going about their daily routine.

When the shit hits the fan and the stories of attacks on Muslim women make the news, no hand-wringing by politicians should be tolerated, with the blame for what will be squarely upon those who made political hay out of abuse.

And by the way, it remains to be seen if the proposed law will pass the "Oakes" test whereby the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Charter Rights can only be curtailed if those limitations are sufficiently important.

• First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective;
• Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question;
• Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of "sufficient importance".

Not sure it can pass the sniff test.