A Dangerous Change In Law

In his latest abuse of the legislative processes, Harper has slide a particularly slimy bit into the 2015 budget implementation bill:  

The Harper government moved to retroactively rewrite Canada's access to information law in order to prevent possible criminal charges against the RCMP, The Canadian Press has learned. 

An unheralded change buried in last week's 167-page omnibus budget bill exempted all records from the defunct long-gun registry, and also any "request, complaint, investigation, application, judicial review, appeal or other proceeding under the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act," related to those old records. 

The unprecedented, retroactive changes — access-to-information experts liken them to erasing the national memory — are even more odd because they are backdated to the day the Conservatives introduced legislation to kill the gun registry, not to when the bill received royal assent. 

The date effectively alters history to make an old government bill come into force months before it was actually passed by Parliament.

 Oh, but this gets better.  It turns out that this is intended to squelch an ongoing investigation by a parliamentary officer - the Information Officer, Suzanne Legault.

In an interview airing later Thursday on CBC News Network's Power & Politics, Legault expanded on the ramifications of passing these amendments. 

"What this does is that it erases the right of the requester to have ever made this request. It erases the right of the requester to have ever complained to my office. It erases all of the investigative powers that I have used during this investigation. And it erases the referral that I have made to the attorney general of Canada. And it erases the recommendations I have made to the minister. 

"What these provisions do is they actually erase any potential administrative, civil or criminal liability for any actors involved throughout the investigation and in the destruction of those records in contravention to the Access to Information Act."

Creating retroactive legislation in Canada that reaches back years in time is unusual, although technically legal as long as it isn't a criminal code change.

"An argument has been made that there are elements in the information act, the Access to Information Act, that contradict something in that other piece of legislation. At best that is a loophole," he said at an event in Windsor, Ont. 

"I'm not sure there really is a contradiction, but to be perfectly clear, the government is clarifying the information act to make sure it is in full conformity with Parliament's already expressed wishes on the long-gun registry that the RCMP has executed as they were required to do according to the law." 

The RCMP also rebuffed Legault's accusations, saying it did nothing wrong.
"The RCMP disputes the OIC's (Office of the Information Commissioner's) view that it denied a right of access under the Access to Information Act by destroying records that were responsive to the request," Sgt. Harold Pfleiderer said in a statement.   ( CBC )

However, in this case, it is quite clear that Harper is trying to squelch an investigation into possibly illegal actions of the RCMP and other government officials with respect to the Long Gun Registry data. So, even if this legislation is technically "legal", it doesn't mean it is right. No government should be using legislative fiat to make its indiscretions "disappear".

Once again, what we see here is a government trying to "change the rules" when they suddenly become a political liability.  

I've said it before - Harper needs to go.  This man is attacking not just the people of Canada, but the institutions of government itself.  

 

So, Just Who Is The Terrorist Here?

In 2014 in Canada, we have had several incidents involving people attacking various institutions and symbols of government.

Consider the following list:

January:  "GG"  Plans an attack on a Veteran's Affairs office in Calgary

June:  Justin Bourque shoots 3 RCMP Officers in New Brunswick

October:  Martin Rouleau hits and kills a member of the Canadian Armed Forces

October:  Zehaf-Bebeau shoots an unarmed military guard at the War Memorial in Ottawa

The two in October has been deemed "terrorist actions", the first two have never been called that.

Who	Gun	Explosives	Target
GG	Yes	Yes	Veteran's Affairs Office
Justin Bourque	Yes	No	RCMP Officers
Martin Rousseau	No	No	Canadian Forces Member
Michael Zehaf-Bebeau	Yes	No	Canadian Forces Member & Parliament

Looking the surface of these, I don't see a whole lot of difference between these various events.

The first two involved people who were upset with the government for various reasons, as did the last two.  The last two have been dubbed "terrorists".  What's the difference?  Oh, well, allegedly the last two were "converts to Islam" and had been "radicalized".

All four involve a great deal of anger with the government, and arguably 3 of the four involved ideological differences with the government.  The case of GG seems to be more of a case of frustration with Veterans' Affairs, although given the current government's "Veterans as Photo-ops" approach to Veterans' Affairs, one could argue that there is a causal connection.

In the story around GG at the very least we are talking about PTSD and Depression (both significant mental illness conditions requiring treatment).  Michael Zehaf-Bebeau is known to have sought help for significant mental health issues unsuccessfully.  We don't know enough about Martin Rousseau, although there are hints in the story of possible depression and the act itself seems to be more one of opportunity rather than anything planned.  Justin Bourque is a little harder to pin down on this front, and I don't think there's enough evidence to be certain about his mental health.

Objectively, three of the four cases reflect people struggling with potentially serious mental health issues that were largely untreated.

So, why are the cases of Martin Rousseau and Michael Zehaf-Bebeau dubbed "terrorism"?  Frankly, it's nothing more than an arbitrary connection of these people's religious affiliation.  Both men had converted to Islam somewhere along the way in their lives.  This is not a crime.  In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that each of us has the right to follow whatever religion (or lack thereof) that we choose.

There had been much talk in the news about "radicalized" youth travelling to Syria to fight with ISIS in the months prior to the October events.  The events of this past October got dubbed "terrorism" because a couple of people who were arguably dealing with untreated mental illness happened to be converts to Islam. 

I'm not saying that there are not violent factions within Islam.  There unquestionably are.  However, mere association with Islam should not be seen as an affiliation with terrorism.  The individual acts of two men, both apparently suffering from serious mental health problems, should not be considered "terrorism" on the basis of their choice of religion.  Even if they had posted violent threats online, we have to consider those in the full context of their lives.

The use of the label "Terrorist" has become one of political expediency.  We need to be much more judicious in applying such labels.  As a public, we need to be even more skeptical of the motives of a government that uses that language about people who are now dead and cannot be objectively examined.

ISIS, IS or ISIL ... Whatever It's Called This Week

It comes as no surprise that Harper is in a great hurry to commit Canada to a shooting war in Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria.

Make no mistake, "military advisors" is a euphemism.  Harper is committing troops to a shooting war that frankly we have no business involving ourselves in.

I remember saying back in 2002 that invading Afghanistan or Iraq was a fatal mistake.  It was a mistake on two basic levels.

First, direct military intervention in the Middle East has never been an effective strategy.  While military intervention has made Israel happy, and has no doubt done wonders for lining the pockets of the corporate types who profit one way or another off oil extraction in the region, it has done little but prop up regimes which exist as a result of the artificial borders cooked up as the colonial powers pulled back at the end of WWI.

The second aspect was the ridiculous claim that a new government could be installed at gunpoint and have any expectation of credibility on its home front.   You can call it "democracy" all you like, but that doesn't mean that the understanding of democracy is the same in the new country as it is here, or that it is even respected.

The rise of ISIS as a threat should come as no surprise to anybody, nor do I want to diminish the awfulness of ISIS.  Often after the dominant powers in a conflict pull back, those who went underground during the occupation will resurface and organize themselves into something.  In Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out, the Mujahadeen more or less collapsed into the Taliban; ISIS is no doubt a similar phenomenon.

With over a thousand years of failed interventions in the Middle East to reflect upon, we would be well advised to consider stepping back, and let the peoples of that region organize themselves.  I am profoundly concerned by the apparent lack of engagement in the ISIS matter on the part of the regional powers.  Except for those directly affected, the silence (at least in our media) of countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya or Iran is deafening.  I have less than no interest in seeing Canada, or any other western power trying to "lead" an intervention.  When the other powers in the region step forward to put troops on the ground and go after ISIS, then perhaps there are degrees of support we can provide.

Western powers trying to lead such an intervention is merely a repetition of mistakes we have already made.

Confusing Freedom With Imposition

Canada's "Association For Reformed Political Action" came to my attention this past week.  Just from the name, you can tell that this is one of the groups that is seeking to turn Canada into a theocracy much like the far right is currently doing in the United States.

I decided to spend a little time sniffing through their website, and found a fair bit of interest.

First is an explicit and clear sense of just how deeply these groups are connected with the Harper Government.

... a speech to the ARPA groups from cabinet minister Jason Kenney

Do you think you would find Jason Kenney speaking to a feminist group, or an LGBT group?  Come to think of it, how many conferences have you heard about being held on Parliament Hill in recent years ... besides those which are connected to the religious lobby?  Kenney is well known as a speaker on the "pro-life" circuit, but he is very careful to make sure that no public records of his speaking engagements are readily available.

Parliament Hill was abuzz with close to 70 representatives of ARPA chapters from across the nation who gathered last week and sat down with approximately 50 Members of Parliament and Senators to discuss issues close to our hearts.

In itself, there isn't anything particularly wrong with this group lobbying the government.  In fact, all groups should be able to lobby the government.  The real question is what does an organization lobbying the government actually represent?

Well, in this case, one doesn't have to go too far to start building a picture, and it is one which all Canadians who respect what is good and decent in this land should be concerned by.

Let's start with the following "public policy submittal" from ARPA's website:

Canada is a nation in search of an identity. We don’t publicly recognize any god as supreme, let alone the Christian God. We follow leaders and ideas for a time, only to move on to the next person or thing that stirs us. But hockey, donuts, and beer aren’t exactly symbols on which to build a nation.

Over the decades Canada has divorced the Christian God from our public institutions and replaced Him with self- worship, state-worship, and earth-worship, among other things. Yet we continue to lay claim to, and benefit from, many of the political and legal by-products of the Christian faith, including fundamental human rights, much of the Criminal Code, and the concept of rule of law.

Ah ... this would be the plea for their particular faith to be granted supremacy over all others in the nation.  After all, we were all "Christian" at one time, weren't we?  Ah, here we are:

In a nutshell, civil governments are called by God to be his servant for good, to bear the sword to punish criminal wrongdoing and to promote justice and righteousness (see Romans 13:3-4). The goal for civil government is to allow for citizens to enjoy a peaceful and quiet life (1 Timothy 2:1-2), not to convert souls or eradicate false religions.  

One reason for this limited role of the civil government is because there are other governments instituted by God and described in the Bible. Each of these governments has their own roles and responsibilities. For example, the family is a governing institution that is accountable directly to God, not to the State. It is entrusted with the duty of raising and educating children, among other things. The State has no business telling parents what their children must be taught. The family unit is not subservient to the State. Both are accountable directly to God. 

Ah yes.  The classic arguments that "God" has all the authority, and therefore the state has no reason to intervene in such trivial matters as education.  (after all, there's nothing like teaching your children fables like creationism instead of actual, objective science)

Now, in large part, this looks like the usual religious freedom claims.  More or less, the state has no right to dictate what religious doctrines are taught to children, and that people should be free to do as they please in such matters.

This suggestion that the God of the Bible is the authority from which all human authority is derived sounds radical. But the status-quo is not all that different. Much of what is guiding public policy in the provinces and our nation today is also religious – it’s just hidden under a superficial veneer of neutrality.
Religion is “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.”2 Every official is guided by his or her own beliefs or worldview – it is why you entered public office. As historian Link Byfield noted “All laws – not just laws concerning sexual behaviour – are based upon some moral principle. The entire Criminal Code, for starters, is an anthology of morality. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not murder, all these rules are moral principles.”3 In many regards Feminist MP Niki Ashton is no less religious than self- described evangelical Christian Stephen Harper. As a result, the policies coming out of our Parliament and Legislatures are also religiously based, though some are more explicit than others (see the example on the right). For example, the belief that health care should be distributed “freely and fairly” is a religious conviction based on a view of human worth and the role of the state.

Frankly, this is a sloppy attempt to say that "everything is religion" - a rather ludicrous reductio ad absurdum claim.  To make such a claim, one has to presuppose that morality is only informed by religion.  A more clear-headed view of the world would realize that someone can arrive at various "moral" positions through paths other than religious teaching.  For example, an atheist whose worldview is informed by empirical evidence and observation may arrive at the proscription against theft on the basis that stealing something harms the other person by depriving them of the fruits of their labour.  This is not a religious position, but rather one which can reasonably be arrived at without even so much as opening a religious text of any sort.  Is this a "religious" position?  Not in the least.

The claim is made (frequently) that our entire system of laws is rooted in religious codes that have been around for centuries.  This is partially true, but to claim that Christian religion uniquely informs our legal traditions is to ignore the fact that human society has had a social contract for millennia, and through many different religious traditions.  In many respects, one might view religion as having evolved from the abstract social contract as a means of ensuring a degree of consistency over time.  In terms of law, we traditionally credit the Babylonian king Hammurabi with creating the first known written legal code.  One might imagine that prior to this, there were laws that encompassed the likely violations of the social contract in various societies, but they were maintained orally.  Further, we know that the Greco-Roman concept of religion was highly legalistic, with various rituals forming a "contractual bond" between humans and the various Gods.  The Romans would claim that their authority was derived from the contractual endorsement between the Gods and man, just as Christianity claims authority from "the eternal God".  It is in fact this reality that causes me to assert that religion is a reflection of the society from which it emerged.

Now, things get interesting.  To this point, what we have is a group running about lobbying politicians to enable their religious freedoms.  Not entirely invalid, and per se, I have no real objection to this.  They should be perfectly free to believe as they wish and practice their faith in peace.

Then we come to some of the other campaigns that ARPA is connected to:

We Need A Law :  A "Fetal Rights" anti-abortion lobby effort.  Headed up by Mike Schouten.

The Truth Is:  An anti-abortion campaign of ARPA, with an associated "Pregnancy Help Line" (a la the misleading "Pregnancy Crisis Center" model the far right in the US has adopted to undermine Planned Parenthood.

Human Rights Commissions:  Part of a far right campaign to dismantle human rights codes and commissions that are enacted both federally and provincially in Canada.  The claim is largely that these bodies unreasonably constrain religious freedoms (which mostly turns out to be it constrains a religious "freedom" to discriminate against people who the religion doesn't like very much - like the LGBT communities).

Here is where the problem arises.  It is not that ARPA wants religious freedom at all.  It is the desire to impose their worldview on others by restricting what others who may not share their worldview are able to do.

For example, the arguments against abortion are largely based on a religious claim that life "begins at conception".  Of course, the definition of "life" is left open, allowing for much shifting of goalposts in debate.  However, making such restrictions effectively deny women's agency in setting up their lives and managing them.  While someone who happens to have the same religious philosophy as ARPA professes to may well not pursue an abortion to end an unwanted pregnancy, someone whose worldview is informed through a different set of drivers may well wish to do so for their own reasons.  In this situation, we have a problem.  The ARPA group is demanding that the agency of others in their own lives somehow unreasonably impinges upon their religious sensibilities and therefore must be limited.

Likewise, the complaints about the human rights laws (which are subservient to the Constitution and Charter - and to my knowledge have never been overturned by challenge before the courts), basically boil down to a complaint that their ability to bully and abuse others who they disapprove of is being restrained by these laws.

So, on one hand they are demanding that nobody, especially the state, impose itself upon their religious freedoms and on the other hand they are demanding that our legislators write laws which reflect their worldview and as such impose that same worldview upon all Canadians regardless of their own individual world views.

Apparently, they have not understood the distinction between individual rights and freedoms and the much broader social contract of cooperation that is needed in a diverse country in order for all members of society to be able to participate fully and freely.

More concerning is that groups like this seem to have far greater access to our current government than those who do not share these beliefs.  

Harper Tries To Foment A Crisis

Harper has taken a surprising number of losing cases to the Supreme Court of Canada.  Most, if not all, were obviously places where the government's position is one that is in direct contradiction with the Constitution of Canada.  Even a relative neophyte in Constitutional law in Canada can spot that, whether it is Harper's desire to "reform" the Senate or the government's daft position on prostitution.  

Now we have the CPC caucus starting to trot out the "undemocratic" talking points.

Dan Albas, the MP for Okanagan-Coquihalla, says that while he respects the courts he also believes an increasing number of groups are using litigation to advance policies the government will not put forward. 

"Often the Plan B is to do an end-run around our democratic process and turn to the courts where it seems some judges are quite happy to engage. This can result in decisions contrary to what have been decided in our democratic process," Albas told CBC Radio's The House.

Let's see ... the government is unwilling to engage with the issues that various groups are raising (presumably on ideological grounds, given the pattern of the Harper Government), so they take it to the courts.

First of all, that means that these groups are raising issues which are not just minor problems, but in fact have a legal basis where the current policy or laws are in fact inconsistent with the fundamental principles of Canada's legal system and laws.

Second, if the government is unwilling to engage on these issues, they leave the public with little other option but to force the matter by pursuing justice in the courts.

"Basically what you're having is a judge can overturn and then cost the taxpayer a lot of money without any accountability or representation on their behalf," Albas said. 

... 

The British Columbia MP said it's important to ask whether there is the right balance between the executive branch and the judicial branch to make sure every Canadian is well-represented. 

"If citizens through the democratic process are unable to make policy decisions because of unelected judges and well-financed interest groups, I submit we collectively lose," Albas said.

Well, we already know that Harper views the Constitution of this country as an impediment to his goals.  It stands to reason that he is also going to see the judiciary and any other branch of government that would dare challenge his wisdom as a bad thing too.

The Conservatives are basically taking the stance that as the governing party, they have a right to decide what issues they are going to address and when.  This is true ... to a point.  However, the courts can declare a given law or policy as illegal / unconstitutional on a variety of grounds when a case is put before them.

This is not "undemocratic" in the least.  In fact it is one of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy.  There are checks and balances in place which curb the power of the "democratic majority" (which I will point out in the last election was effectively just over 20% of the eligible voters) to run amok.

The point of an independent judiciary whose sole job it is to study and interpret the law of Canada is to ensure that the legislative and executive branches of our government cannot arbitrarily abuse the rights of citizens.  Make no mistake about it, what Harper proposed doing with the Senate abused your rights every bit as much as some of his laws.  By attempting to undermine the amending formula, he was effectively trying to set a precedent that the executive branch could propose and enact radical changes to the foundation of this country's laws without engaging with the provinces - thereby negating your democratic voice at not one level of government but two levels of government.

The judiciary in Canada isn't being "undemocratic" at all.  It is the Harper Government which is being undemocratic, and attempting to impose the tyranny of their followers on all Canadians without being held accountable.

Reference Cases Are Not The Problem

Over at iPolitics, James Matkin and Clive Cocking are busy moaning about how the Supreme Court "kills innovative legislation" in the form of "reference cases".

The basic thesis of their argument is that we need to take away from the Supreme Court of Canada the ability to hear "reference cases".  A reference case is fundamentally a hypothetical case - a "what if we wrote legislation like this" test.  For most Canadians, the most recent "Reference Case" was Harper's "Senate Reform" gambit, which got smacked around for violating various aspects of the division of powers in the Constitution.

Matkin and Cocking complain that these reference cases effectively drag the Supreme Court into the political discourse where it has no business being.

I respectfully disagree with their analysis of the situation.  The problem is not reference cases at all, but rather the manner in which the current government has approached the matter.

Since 1875 the federal government has dumped an astounding 75 reference cases into the lap of the court. Many of them have involved the thorniest of political issues, such as Quebec secession or Senate reform.

Quite frankly, if in 139 years, we have put 75 cases before the Supreme Court of Canada, that's not exactly a huge amount.  Thats one every couple of years, roughly, and for the most part, those have been legitimate cases of the government's lawmakers asking very real questions about the legitimacy of a given legislative approach to a problem under this country's Constitution.

On the whole, it has been quite useful when one examines it as a tool to help lawmakers (who are seldom experienced members of the judiciary) to consider the implications of legislation they are considering, or for that matter the more subtle aspects of constitutional law (as the 1998 Quebec Secession reference addressed).  Given the speed with which the court system moves as a whole, there is much to be said in favour of a reference case being heard - not the least of which is to serve as a baseline for guidance as to how a court would look upon a particular issue in the future.  While these are definitely theoretical moments, it takes years (and millions of dollars) to litigate an issue to the Supreme Court to have it overturned on charter or constitutional grounds.   When it is something which could have been avoided by simply asking the obvious questions up front, it saves all involved an enormous amount of grief (and money).

Citing Harper's Senate reference as an example, Matkin and Cocking seem to believe that Harper should have just legislated as he wished and then have the whole mess before the Supreme Court.  One doesn't have to be a Constitutional scholar to realize that Harper's entire approach to the Senate violated multiple articles of Canada's Constitution.  Since Harper has shown repeatedly that he has no interest in writing laws which respect Canada's constitution, one could arguably say that the reference case saved Canada millions in litigating the matter.

Harper has tried to use this to claim that Senate reform is "impossible".  Of course, what Harper is really saying is that he is unwilling to engage with the provinces to make the amendments needed to achieve his vision of a reformed Senate in Canada.  Since 2006, Harper has not once met with all the provincial Premiers.

Justice Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court rightly described such advisory opinions as “ghosts that slay”, particularly innovative legislation. Our Parliament has repeatedly used this legal device to dodge its duty to act on tough issues. One of the most craven examples was the federal government’s 2011 decision to let legislation creating a national securities regulator die stillborn in the face of a negative Supreme Court reference opinion – when three sections of the constitution give Parliament adequate trade and commerce powers to enact such legislation.

Oh ... it kills "innovative legislation"?  No more than writing that legislation and having it struck down as a result of subsequent litigation.  Again, the example that the authors cite is another case where Harper and his government would have to engage with the provinces directly in order to develop an acceptable model.  Harper refuses to engage with anyone outside his inner circle in the PMO, and he is incapable of developing any kind of meaningful compromise.

The problem is not reference cases, nor is it the politicization of the Supreme Court that they argue arises from such cases.  The problem is a government which has no respect for the Constitution of Canada and a Prime Minister who is unwilling to actually engage with the provinces.  Harper is the problem, not the reference cases.

An All Out Assault

The last couple of weeks of legislative activity in Ottawa have been distressing to say the least.  To call it an all out assault on Canada and Canadians is an understatement.

The Harper Government has been ramming through a series of legislation that comprise the single most overt attack on all that is good and reasoned in Canada.

I've already discussed my thoughts regarding Bill C-36, the Conservative response to the Bedford ruling on prostitution.  Unfortunately, what the Harper Government is ramming through is a more overt piece of legislation that makes a mess out of far more than prostitution.  It stands to make just about anything to do with sex illegal - from therapists to sex toys.

Then there is Bill C-24, which gives the Minister of Immigration rather broad powers to strip Canadians of their citizenship.  Quite rightly, a lot of Canadians are very concerned about this legislation.  This gives the politicians rather broad powers to strip people of their citizenship without any kind of real recourse in the courts.  Yes, they are talking about people who hold dual citizenship, but why on earth would we want to create an environment where there are two "grades" of citizenship?

It's been centuries since any civilized country engaged in banishing citizens who broke the local laws.

Bill C-13 is another piece of nasty legislation.  Framed in the rubric of addressing online bullying, this legislation gives the government unprecedented powers to engage in broad, invasive surveillance of Canadian citizens and their online activities.  In committee, Randall Garrison put forward an amendment which would have added gender identity to the hate crimes statutes (which are being amended by C-13).  To defeat that singular amendment, the Conservatives swapped out two CPC members on the committee who they thought might vote for it.

All of these are pieces in a larger mosaic of legislation that the Harper Government has put forth, sometimes as single issue bills, sometimes buried in the depths of omnibus "budget bills".  This government has been gradually attacking Canadian rights and freedoms at every turn.  Sometimes using subtle means, other legislation is much more blatant.

My guess is that Harper is doing all of this with an eye to wrapping up his legislative agenda (the one that he doesn't admit to) well in advance of the next election.  He's no doubt going to try and get Canadians to forget all of the legislative evilness that he has foisted upon Canadians in 2014.

Bill C-36: Analysis In Detail - Part I

The biggest pieces of Bill C-36 are well described elsewhere in the media, and there isn't any real surprise to it.  The Harper Government has more or less just resurrected the old environment.  

As with all such things the devil is in the details.  The odd little lines where the government changes clauses about without really talking about it.

For example, consider the following from the First Reading text:

3. Subsection 7(4.1) of the Act is amended by replacing the reference to “212(4)” with a reference to “286.1(2)”.

So, referring to the criminal code, Subsection 7(4.1) reads as follows right now:

Offence in relation to sexual offences against children
(4.1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that if committed in Canada would be an offence against section 151, 152, 153, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3), section 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172.1, 172.2 or 173 or subsection 212(4) shall be deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if the person who commits the act or omission is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. *emphasis added

What exactly is subsection 212(4) of the Criminal Code?  In context, in the current criminal code, S212 in general is offences related to the "procurement" of prostitute's services.  In particular 212(4) is related to underage prostitutes:

(4) Every person who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person who is under the age of eighteen years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.

This is being replaced with a reference to S286.1(2).  That's a fair distance away from the current Criminal Code provisions related to prostitution.  In fact, it's in a whole other part of the Criminal Code which this legislation amends.  At present, S286 reads:

286. In proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 280 to 283, it is not a defence to any charge that a young person consented to or suggested any conduct of the accused. 

Once Bill C-36 is passed, it will read:

286. In proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 280 to 283, it is not a defence to any charge that a young person consented to or suggested any conduct of the accused. 

Commodification of Sexual Activity

Obtaining sexual services for consideration 

286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years and a minimum punishment of, 

(i) in the case where the offence is committed in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a park or the grounds of a school or religious institution or that is or is next to any other place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present,  

(A) for a first offence, a fine of $2,000, and 

(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $4,000, or

(ii) in any other case,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and a minimum punishment of,(i) in the case referred to in subparagraph (a)(i),(A) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000, or(ii) in any other case,(A) for a first offence, a fine of $500, and(B) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $1,000.Obtaining sexual services for consideration from person under 18 years(2) Everyone who, in any place, obtains for consideration, or communicates with anyone for the purpose of obtaining for consideration, the sexual services of a person under the age of 18 years is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of(a) for a first offence, six months; and(b) for each subsequent offence, one year.Subsequent offences(3) In determining, for the purpose of subsection (2), whether a convicted person has committed a subsequent offence, if the person was earlier convicted of any of the following offences, that offence is to be considered as an earlier offence:(a) an offence under that subsection; or(b) an offence under subsection 212(4) of this Act, as it read from time to time before the day on which this subsection comes into force.Sequence of convictions only(4) In determining, for the purposes of this section, whether a convicted person has committed a subsequent offence, the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences, whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction or whether offences were prosecuted by indictment or by way of summary conviction proceedings.Definitions of “place” and “public place”(5) For the purposes of this section, “place” and “public place” have the same meaning as in subsection 197(1).Material benefit from sexual services286.2 (1) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(1), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.Material benefit from sexual services provided by person under 18 years(2) Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence under subsection 286.1(2), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years.Presumption(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), evidence that a person lives with or is habitually in the company of a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that the person received a financial or other material benefit from those services.Exception(4) Subject to subsection (5), subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who receives the benefit(a) in the context of a legitimate living arrangement with the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(b) as a result of a legal or moral obligation of the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(c) in consideration for a service or good that they offer, on the same terms and conditions, to the general public; or(d) in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good.No exception(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to a person who commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) if that person(a) used, threatened to use or attempted to use violence, intimidation or coercion in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(b) abused a position of trust, power or authority in relation to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived;(c) provided a drug, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived for the purpose of aiding or abetting that person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration;(d) engaged in conduct, in relation to any person, that would constitute an offence under section 286.3; or(e) received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration.Aggravating factor(6) If a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court that imposes the sentence shall consider as an aggravating factor the fact that that person received the benefit in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration.Procuring286.3 (1) Everyone who procures a person to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(1), recruits, holds, conceals or harbours a person who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.Procuring — person under 18 years(2) Everyone who procures a person under the age of 18 years to offer or provide sexual services for consideration or, for the purpose of facilitating an offence under subsection 286.1(2), recruits, holds, conceals or harbours a person under the age of 18 who offers or provides sexual services for consideration, or exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of five years.Advertising sexual services286.4 Everyone who knowingly advertises an offer to provide sexual services for consideration is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months.Immunity — material benefit and advertising286.5 (1) No person shall be prosecuted for(a) an offence under section 286.2 if the benefit is derived from the provision of their own sexual services; or(b) an offence under section 286.4 in relation to the advertisement of their own sexual services.Immunity — aiding, abetting, etc.(2) No person shall be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or attempting to commit an offence under any of sections 286.1 to 286.4 or being an accessory after the fact or counselling a person to be a party to such an offence, if the offence relates to the offering or provision of their own sexual services. 

This is an important change, and one that is both subtle and infuriating.  Sections 280-286 deal with abduction scenarios - particularly those involving underage victims.  The government has wedged a bunch of prostitution related discussion into S286, and in doing so is implicitly arguing that prostitution is clearly and directly linked with abduction and human trafficking.

Are you concerned yet?  You should be.  The Harper Government is muddying the legal waters here considerably, and there are potentially serious consequences to these changes.  First of all, the assumption that lies under this is questionable indeed.  To assert that there is an undeniable link between underage prostitution and child abduction is questionable at best.

Further, although S280-S286 appears to largely be intended to deal with abduction of youth scenarios, the amendments to S286 appear to be broad, involving more than scenarios which involve youth, which fundamentally perverts the intended application of S286.

I suspect that in part the government's intention in burying this in S286 is to create a bit of a legal shield for this portion of their legislation.  It clearly reiterates much of what used to be covered in the previous legislation, and thus creates the same hazards for sex workers in general.  By attaching to the sections on youth abduction, the Harper Government is clearly hoping that they will be able to make the case that these provisions should stand because they are "intended to protect youth".

Not only does it provide them with a shield in court, but they can accuse any opposition amendments of "not being willing to protect children".  Which is complete nonsense, but then again, so are most of the criminal justice laws that this government has passed.

The Harper Government - Slimy.  Dishonest. Unethical.

Apparently MacKay Missed The Point ...

When the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Canada's prostitution laws last year, it did so on the basis that the existing laws placed sex workers in unreasonably dangerous situations.  

Quite appropriately, the Supreme Court gave the government a year to table new legislation.  Today, Justice Minister Peter MacKay tabled the government's response in the House of Commons.

The bill would create new offences for: 

— The purchase of sexual services and communicating in any place for that purpose. 

— Receiving a financial or material benefit from the prostitution of others, including through businesses that sell the sexual services of others online or out of venues such as escort agencies, massage parlours, or strip clubs that also provide sexual services. 

— Advertising the sale of sexual services in print media or on the Internet. 

— Communicating for the purpose of selling sexual services in public places where a child could reasonably be expected to be present.

Frankly, I'm not sure that I see any substantive difference over the old laws.  

Under the old laws, prostitution itself was legal but almost all related activities — including communicating in a public place for the purposes of prostitution, pimping and running a brothel — were criminal offences.

Eyes open.  The Harper Government has just done exactly what one might expect.  Essentially they have just returned to the old laws, and added a few new words here and there.  Particularly "clever" is the offence of "communicating for the purpose ... where a child could reasonably be expected to be present".  Gotta protect the children, donchaknow.

Of course, the government knows full well that a public place by definition is a place where children can be found.  Come to think of it, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this same clause in the law used to effectively criminalize prostitutes who have children.  If it is "dangerous" for a child to witness a transaction being negotiated, the one might imagine that the government presumes that a child living with a prostitute parent must be in enormous danger.

Okay, you can't "communicate in a public place".  So, you go into a "coffee shop" or "club" to negotiate the deal.  Presto, that's illegal too.  If the business in question exists to facilitate such negotiations, they are subject to other clauses in the law.

Want to advertise your services?  No can do.  That's illegal too.

Once again, we see the Harper Government's inability to comprehend the finer points of constitutional law in this country.  What they have done is just re-create the same conditions that rendered the previous laws inoperative.  Now this country's sex workers face another decade or so of litigation to overturn what amounts to the same laws as were thrown out last year.  I'm sure the Harper Government has written a few clever weasel phrases into the legislation to sidestep the particulars of the criticisms of the previous laws - just enough to force further litigation before the right thing happens again.

Oh yes, the government is blathering on about "programs" to help people exit the sex trade.  Newsflash:  not everybody in that trade wants to leave it.

Harper: A Decade In And He Still Doesn't Get It

Stephen Harper has been in power for the high side of a decade.  That's a long time.

Most Prime Ministers by this point in their careers have figured out that the foreign affairs portfolio is a tricky one.  When you are a smallish nation like Canada, you get much better results by influencing rather than playing the puffed up pugilist.

Harper hasn't figured this out.  Does he really think that Putin notices his pronouncements in the wake of sanctions?  Is he really daft enough to believe that his military posturing is going to convince Putin to back out of Crimea?

It seems to me that Harper is following his usual hyper-partisan instincts.  He isn't actually trying to influence Putin.  He's not interested in that.  He is much more interested in playing the foreign policy cards in his hand as part of a propaganda campaign aimed at getting re-elected next election.

No doubt, Harper's base loves the idea of a foreign policy that they don't have to think about.  A world which is cast in stark tones of good and bad.  Israel is good, Russia is bad.  The US is good, Iran is bad and so on.  It seems easy to grasp.

Yet, it is also not so simple.  In reality the world is a subtle place, shaded mostly in degrees of grey.  No country is essentially good or bad.  The days of looking upon Russia as "the other", shrouded in secrecy behind the old "Iron Curtain" are long past.  Globalization has dissolved those mythologies.  Russia is a nation led by a man who wishes to revive the old Cold War tensions, and Harper is fool enough to believe that this is to his own benefit.

Harper has been tone deaf on foreign affairs from day one.  Just as Putin is in fact a fool to try and resurrect the old "Soviet Empire", Harper is an even greater fool for playing to Putin's tune.  

Nasty, Just Plain Nasty

It's not like it comes as a big surprise that the Harper Government is nasty.  But the extent of their vileness continues expand.

First, the Harper Government seems to have decided to shut down basic literacy programs across Canada.  The claims of the Harperites on this matter are the usual "we don't believe these programs are useful in their current form".  Basic literacy is always useful, unless you're a Conservative and you like the idea of having an underclass of people who aren't in a position to think about what's happening to them because they're struggling just to get by in near slavery conditions.

But that's not all of it, not by any means.  This week, Harper is hosting a "summit" on Child and Maternal Health, following up on the 2008 G20.  In a fit of almost laughable hypocrisy, he said that people should pay attention to the science on vaccination.  Coming from a Prime Minister who has been systematically dismantling science research in this country for several years, the admonition is laughable.

It gets even better.  When confronted on the fact that the government is restricting the availability of funding under this program to organizations that do not provide abortion services, he replied:

"We're trying to rally a broad public consensus behind what we're doing, and you can't rally a consensus on that issue, as you know well in this country," he said. 

"It's not only controversial here, it's controversial and often illegal in many recipient nations."Harper doesn't agree with the suggestion that he is exporting his beliefs abroad to other countries by not funding abortion services. 

"We're really not taking a position on that. We have taxpayers' money and we have great needs," he said to Thibedeau. 

"And frankly, there's more than enough things that we can finance, including contraception, without getting into an issue that really would be extremely divisive for Canadians and donors."

The government is taking a position.  Once again, we find Harper's often denied but impossible to ignore social conservative agenda.  He keeps talking about "not opening the debate", but then he allows his back-benchers to put forward legislation on the matter (which the front bench mysteriously votes for until it would become a political liability).  On this matter, he is essentially taking the anti-abortion stance that once a woman is pregnant, she has no say in the matter after that.

None of this is surprising, but that doesn't change the fact that this government is continuing to be fundamentally dishonest with Canadians on a variety of fronts. 

Health Insurance Is Becoming A Scam

I have long been suspicious of health insurance plans of any sort.  Even short term health insurance for travel seems to be written in such a way that it is weighted quite firmly in favour of the insurer than the insured.

Recently, three cases in Canada came to light that underscore the point.

“They hold all the cards in their hand. It’s a poker game, and I don’t think we are the winners,” said Jean Tetiuk, of Toronto, whose $12,000 claim was rejected by CIBC. 

In each case, the medical emergencies abroad had nothing to do with any pre-existing conditions they were asked about. 

So, if you had some obscure "pre-existing condition" that you had forgotten about or didn't answer the booby trap questions on the questionnaire correctly for them, your insurance is null and void?

CIBC later refused to pay, because Peixoto filled out a CIBC questionnaire — sent to her after she returned from her trip — answering that she had not been treated for a heart condition. Before buying the policy, she had only answered health questions over the phone. 

Records show she was tested for heart problems in 2011, after she had pain in her arm, but doctors found nothing significant. Because of those tests, CIBC said Peixoto should have answered yes to the heart condition question.  

“I was never treated for a heart condition. I never had a heart condition. I’ve been tested and different things but I never had a problem before. And I still don’t have a heart problem,” said Peixoto. 

This is nothing more than the insurers playing semantics.  They are hiring teams of lawyers and very carefully constructing questions using language that has specific meanings in the legal world and most ordinary people would understand it to mean something quite different.

This kind of semantic game is up there with the "pre-existing condition" escape clause that every health insurer out there likes to play.  If you have a long term need for medication of some sort, hope like hell you aren't going to have to change insurers along the way - because there goes your coverage.

And Harper has begun the process of dismantling our national health care system, which will subject more and more Canadians to this kind of chicanery at times when they need help the most.

Corporate greed knows few bounds, and is usually only bounded by laws.  When it comes to health, there are more ways to weasel out of providing coverage that they have committed to, and it will always be at the expense of the individual.

If insurance companies are playing games like this with travel insurance coverage, can you imagine what will happen when Harper hands over the keys to medicare to them?

The Next Step In Harper's Police State

So, Harper wants to connect the CRA with the RCMP.

Chantal Bernier, Canada's interim privacy commissioner, says she is concerned by the government's proposal to allow Canada Revenue Agency officials to voluntarily hand over taxpayer information to police if they have reason to believe such information is evidence of a crime. 

In her testimony before the House finance committee on Wednesday, Bernier urged the committee to properly demonstrate that information sharing between auditors and law enforcement is needed. 

"That is exceptional and therefore should be buttressed by an empirical demonstration of necessity," she said. 

The proposal, which is tucked away in the government's hefty 375-page omnibus budget bill, is an amendment to the Income Tax Act that would give auditors the right to disclose information found through the course of their regular duties to police.

In the middle of another one of Harper's omnibus bills, you say?  This has nothing to do with implementing the budget.  It has everything to do with a government who does not want to debate their legislation, and is incapable of being honest with Canadians about what its real agenda is.

As the Income Tax Act currently stands, officials are not allowed to disclose any information unless there's a criminal investigation underway or any serious circumstances with possible danger of death. In other words, only in rare situations. 

But under the government's intended changes, auditors can provide police with information if they believe it's evidence of crimes ranging anywhere from bribing public officials to motor vehicle theft to monetarily benefiting from acts of arson. 

Allison Christians, an associate professor at McGill University in Montreal who specializes in tax law, said this is further evidence of an "erosion of confidentiality — of privacy in general — from this administration."

This government appears hell-bent on stripping away any sense of privacy on the part of Canadians.  Their "anti-bullying" bill is nothing more than a retitling of the "Tell Vic Everything" internet spying bill a couple of years ago and this places the people that process taxes in the position of being an arm of the RCMP.

Harper has gone to extraordinary lengths not just to attack the privacy of Canadians, but he has also made enormous attacks on our judicial system - in particular in the form of "mandatory minimum sentences" which remove all discretion on the part of judges and place more people in prison for longer, but in a myriad of subtle ways which put more and more power in the hands of the police. 

TFWP: Yet Another Reason To Shut It Down

The consequences of the Harper Government's widening of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program over the last several years keeps going from bad to worse.

At first it was employers choosing to hire TFWs over Canadians.  Then we started finding out that not only were the companies forcing them to living in company-owned apartments and deducting the rent off the payroll, but we also started hearing of cases where the TFWs themselves were being charged significant sums of money to get here.

Today, we have allegations of a company in BC abusing the program and all but engaging in extortion and human trafficking.

An Iranian couple are going public about how a B.C. business charged them $15,000 to come to Canada — a violation of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program rules — for jobs that turned out to be non-existent....“After you get this situation, you pay $15,000 and after that … where is my money? Where is my job? I always ask — when can I start my job?” said Aminian’s husband, Payam Bakht....Aminian and Bakht also said that once they were in Canada, Parvaz Film told them that if they paid an additional $1,200 per month to the company in cash, it would remit false payroll taxes to government, so the couple could pretend Bakht was working — and stay in Canada. 

“We didn't have job, we had to pay tax, and if we didn't pay tax we had to leave Canada,” said Aminian. “We have to pay $1,200 each month, without any work and without any salary.”

This is nothing less than fraudulent on the part of the company.  Charging $15,000 for a non-existent job is straight out fraud, demanding that the victims pay $1200 a month after that is criminal - that's extortion.  The owners of the company in question need to be held accountable for these allegations - in a court of law.

Not only does this represent the worst kind of exploitation possible, it shows us beyond any doubt that the program has holes in it that open it to the worst predations possible - human trafficking.

The rather flaccid response from the government is appalling:

Go Public tried several times to ask Kenney about this, in Ottawa, but he wouldn’t stop to talk. His office said he was too busy. 

It later sent a statement, saying enforcement is improving. 

“Under the previous Liberal government, no inspections were done to ensure that employers were following the rules," said Kenney's office. "In 2007, our government began conducting investigations and has increased the numbers of investigations done each year significantly since then."

The Minister is "too busy" to deal with problems in this program?  Not acceptable.  Mr. Kenney is the minister responsible for this program.  When issues like this arise, it is unquestionably his job to deal with.

Playing the "but but the Libruls" line is ridiculous.  The Harper Government started opening this program up in 2006.  Prior to that, it was a very limited, small scale program.  There are now hundreds of thousands of TFWs in this country, and the companies hiring them are showing more and more signs of exploiting the program as well as the workers.

Essentially, what Kenney has done is on one hand tightened down the immigration system to the point where it's difficult for families to be reunited through official channels, and then opened up an unofficial immigration channel through the TFWP, a channel that starts to look like a tool used by racketeers engaging in smuggling people into Canada.

We aren't talking about a few cases here, it seems that every time we turn around, there are more, and more serious offences being committed under this program.

If the minister isn't willing to clean the program up, it's time to shut it down.  If a replacement is needed, we can create that, but it has to be closely monitored and controlled.  

Bill C-23 Passed, Stinkers Included

Whatever amendments were made to Bill C-23, they didn't address much of anything that I raised as problematic in my earlier analysis of the first draft tabled in the House of Commons.

Full text here.

Never before have I seen a piece of legislation so clearly designed to "stack the deck" in Canada's elections.

At this point, the only politician to say something clear about what they would do with C-23 is Justin Trudeau.

There is no "nuanced" or "reasonable" position that supports Bill C-23.  It is a blatant attack on Canada's democracy and the institutions responsible for implementing and safeguarding it.  Bill C-23 is designed by the Harper Government to allow them to stack the deck by cheating in ways that I think will shock most Canadians next election.  

CPC Lied To Elections Canada On RoboCalls?

The corruption that is the CPC's actions in the 2011 election continues to fester.

The most recent instalment comes to us via Stephen Maher's latest column.

In an email May 1, party lawyer Arthur Hamilton told Elections Canada that Conservative call centre workers were not advising voters that Elections Canada had changed the location of polling stations, and that the party had not advised voters to go to a polling station an hour and a half from their home. 

But a report released by Elections Canada last month includes a script that shows the party’s callers were telling voters that Elections Canada had changed the location of polling stations, and investigators found one voter who was directed to a polling station 740 kilometres away. 

The report from Elections Canada found that there was no evidence of a conspiracy to prevent Canadians from voting, but comparing the script included in the report to emails obtained under access-to-information legislation raises questions about whether the Conservatives have been honest about their use of political calls. 

Hamilton sent his email to Elections Canada as the agency was fielding complaints from voters who had been given bad information about their polling station by Conservative campaigns. 

Elections Canada lawyer Ageliki Apostolakos emailed Hamilton on the evening of April 29.“In the course of the last half-hour, Elections Canada has heard that two representatives of the Conservative campaign office are communicating with electors in two electoral districts to inform them that their polling station has changed to another location,” she wrote. 

Hamilton replied 27 hours later, just after midnight on May 1. He wrote that because Elections Canada changed some polling station locations “a number of our candidates have had to confirm the proper location of polling stations to a number of supporters during their respective get-out-the-vote efforts.” 

“The calls being made by our candidates request the voter to confirm his or her polling location. There is no indication by the caller that the location may have changed, or words to that effect. And no voter is being directed to a polling location one and a half hours away from the correct polling location.” 

But a script included in Elections Canada’s report shows that workers at Conservative call centres were told to deliver the following line: “Elections Canada has changed some voting locations at the last moment. To be sure could you tell me the address of where you’re voting?” 

Elections Canada had asked the Conservatives not to communicate with voters about the location of their polling stations.

So, just how much did the CPC withhold from Elections Canada investigators?  A lot.  Enough to call into question the conclusions in the recent Elections Canada report which concluded that there isn't enough evidence to lay charges.

Down in the comments is a bit more interesting information from Nadine Lumley:

Pierre Poilievre owned a robocall company called 3D Contact Inc and was dating Jenni Bryne who controlled CIMS database during last election. 

"When Poilievre was running for election in 2004, he stated that he was co-owner of a political research company called 3D Contact Inc. According to the company profile, these 'contacts' were Stephen Harper, Ted Morton and Stockwell Day. His partner was Jonathan Denis, who later became Minister of Housing in the Alberta government." 

Micheal Sona, Director of Communications, was roomates with Chris Crawford, the person responsible for managing CIMS Database/List at the time. 

"Rougier was key member of the target seat team, working directly under campaign manager Jenni Byrne" His phone used to call Rack9  

The Rob Ford Campaign, aka part 2 of Steve's Ford BBQ trifecta hat trick wishlist, also used 3D Contact. 

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/07/18/poilievre-brings-robocalls-expertise-to-new-job/
http://www.anonpaste.me/anonpaste2/index.php?5316b0ceba304db3#YH2hGWBgyB8ylA9eZfYSfM7U1mnnvELkutPzE6LkxcQ=
https://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=6072305

Proof absolute?  Not quite, but enough to continue to call into question the CPC's claims of being "clean", and more than enough for voters to seriously question the motives behind much of what is lurking in the bowels of the "Fair Elections Act".

Harper's Attempt To Politicize The Judiciary

More so than any Prime Minister in Canada's history, Harper is hell-bent on imposing his political agenda on Canada's courts.

But there's another way to look at it, based on a view shared by Stephen Harper and others in his inner circle, that judges on Quebec's senior courts are too liberal‎ and far too activist in applying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a check on the power of elected officials.

Let's be clear about something here.  Harper thinks that he should be able to write laws that violate our Constitution.  He has done it multiple times, and so far the majority which have been challenged in our courts have been struck down.  Every time, it is met with griping about the "will of Parliament being thwarted", which we should really understand to be "The Will of Stephen Harper has been thwarted".

But it's entirely consistent when you consider the broader signal the Harper government is sending to try to change a judicial culture it considers more liberal than conservative. 

That change, apparently, includes the Supreme Court of Canada, even though Harper has already appointed five of the judges now serving there. 

Last week, anonymous senior Conservatives complained to a Postmedia journalist that the court was thwarting the government's agenda. They alleged Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin had, last July, tried to lobby the prime minister not to appoint Nadon to her court.

What Harper is overlooking in his drive to stack the court with judges that he thinks should be his political allies is that in today's Canada, the courts stand as part of the checks-and-balances in the Constitution that stay Parliament's hand from writing truly unreasonable legislation.

By "Parliament's will," the Conservatives really mean the prime minister and his cabinet — the executive branch of government. They are not fans of the Charter of Rights, introduced in 1982, and not fans of the powers it gave the judicial branch to hold government in check. 

The prime minister made that clear last week when asked if McLachlin's court was holding up his political agenda. 

"My view is that in our system post-1982 we have a system where the court has had an expanded role in judging the appropriateness of laws, not just under the traditional constitutional criteria but under the Charter,'' he said. 

What Harper sees as a constraint on his power is in fact a constraint, and a necessary one if his legislative track record is anything to go by.  Of course, what Harper is likely equally ignorant of is that where the courts in Canada represent a check on his power, prior to 1982, the Privy Council and the Queen in England were that check, and a much less clearly defined check on the powers of Parliament.

Few things are as appalling as the current public smear campaign against the Chief Justice on the part of the PMO.  This is nothing more than an attack on McLachlin's personal and professional credibility, driven solely by political frustration.  Where Harper has a long history of going after the heads of agencies that frustrate him, or dismantling science research which happens to disagree with his politics, all of those agencies are subject to the direct will of Parliament.  The Supreme Court, as one of the independent arms of government, enjoys protection from the "will of Parliament".  While Harper can try to attack the Chief Justice personally, his ability to go after her beyond that is very limited.

It should worry Canadians deeply that the Harper Government is so ideologically driven that it finds the natural constraints present in our Constitution (which is a relatively young document, and therefore a reasonable reflection of the current norms of good governance) to be an impediment to its agenda.  If those constraints didn't exist, what would he be doing to Canada?