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.

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?

 

The Harper Government Attempts To Politicize The Courts

In the wake of a series of failed gambits involving the Supreme Court, we now find Harper attempting to assassinate the character of the Chief Justice.

"I can tell you this," said a clearly irked Harper, who appointed Nadon last September after commissioning independent legal advice that approved of the choice. 

"I think if people thought that the prime minister, other ministers of the government, were consulting judges before them or — even worse — consulting judges on cases that might come before them, before the judges themselves had the opportunity to hear the appropriate evidence, I think the entire opposition, entire media and entire legal community would be outraged," he said. 

"So I do not think that's the appropriate way to go."

Let us take a close look at Harper's statements here.  First, he is implying a similarity between a case that is before the courts and the deliberations of parliament with respect to making an appointment.  There is no such similarity, and Harper is lying to Canadians when he implies it.

An attempt on the part of a politician to lobby a judge regarding a case before the courts except as a witness before the court is clearly an attempt to confound the process of justice.  (This same principle applies to all participants in a litigation)  There is a very good reason for this, and that is to assure the public as a whole that justice is not only seen to be done, but that it is done independently of the influence of politics, wealth and other factors.  Harper is quite correct to say that had it come out that his office had lobbied the justices of the court with respect to a case before the court that the public would be outraged.

Appointments to the court, are done by parliament.  Parliament is a public body - it is responsible to the public, and its actions are subject to public scrutiny.  It acts on behalf of the public, and theoretically, in the public interest.  The proceedings of the elected bodies of parliament are inherently public through the publication of the Hansards, as well as records of committee proceedings.

This makes an appointment of a justice to the Supreme Court just as much a public proceeding as a debate over a piece of legislation.  Further, there is an existing process where in fact the committee is obliged to consult with the justices currently sitting on the court when appointing a new justice. 

McLachlin spoke to Harper "as a courtesy" last April to give him the retirement letter of justice Morris Fish, said the statement. 

She met with the parliamentary vetting committee on July 29 "as part of the usual process," then contacted Justice Minister Peter MacKay and the Prime Minister's Office on July 31 "to flag a potential issue regarding the eligibility of a judge of the federal courts to fill a Quebec seat on the Supreme Court." 

McLachlin's office said it contacted the PMO to make "preliminary inquiries" about setting up a call or meeting with Harper on the matter, "but ultimately the chief justice decided not to pursue a call or meeting." 

"Given the potential impact on the court, I wished to ensure that the government was aware of the eligibility issue," McLachlin said in her statement. 

"At no time did I express any opinion as to the merits of the eligibility issue. It is customary for chief justices to be consulted during the appointment process and there is nothing inappropriate in raising a potential issue affecting a future appointment."

Let's take a close look at the Chief Justice's comments as well.  First, she met with the committee as part of the standard process.  So far, nothing abnormal or unusual here.  Then a couple of days later, she contacts the Justice Minister to raise a flag over the eligibility of Marc Nadon.  Raising a flag over a matter of this nature is perfectly legitimate, and I cannot imagine how this constitutes an unreasonable action on the part of Justice McLachlin.

In fact, what she is doing in raising the issue is warning the government that they could be creating a serious political landmine for themselves should they proceed with Marc Nadon as an appointee.  Had the government actually heeded her warning and proceeded with a different candidate, they would have saved themselves a public embarrassment.

Which brings me to Marc Nadon's appointment in the first place.  Outside of being apparently ideologically compatible with Mr. Harper, there is little or nothing about Mr. Nadon that makes him one of Canada's noteworthy legal professionals.  So, one might imagine that a lot of people would be wondering about why he was even a candidate outside of Harper's desire to push the court in a particular political direction.

As he has done in the past with other public figures who have stood against him, Mr. Harper is once again playing to his mean-spirited, vindictive side.

That writer, Tom Flanagan, now is back with a forthcoming book, Persona Non Grata: The Death of Free Speech in the Internet Age, that speaks of Mr. Harper in “Nixonian” terms, as a man who “believes in playing politics right up to the edge of the rules, which inevitably means some team members will step across ethical or legal lines in their desire to win for the Boss.” 

Anger Harper, or thwart his political objectives, and he comes out on the attack.  He's done it before, going as far as to fire Linda Keen for failing to obey his politically motivated desire to restart a reactor that was unsafe.  I'm sure that had he dared, he would have sacked Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page long ago, except the political price of firing him would have been exceptionally damaging to Harper's political ambitions.

Getting into a spat with the Supreme Court justices simply reinforces that this is a thin-skinned politician who fails to respect the checks and balances that are central to this country's constitution.

Mr. Harper: Can You Even Read?

If I didn't know better, I'd swear that Harper doesn't know how to read a legal decision.  Yesterday, in Question Period, Harper said the following:

“The Supreme Court has ruled in its wisdom that the federal government can neither abolish the Senate nor, in fact, can the federal government actually propose reforms -- significant reforms -- to the Senate,” Harper said in the House.

This is complete nonsense.  The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government cannot unilaterally alter the Senate.  In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that changes to the Senate require the government to work in the framework of the Amending Formula embedded in the Constitution of Canada.

“That is all now, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, within the purview of the provinces. So my position has not changed. If the provinces believe as I do that there should be reform, they should bring forward those reforms forthwith. If they don’t believe that, they should bring forward amendments to abolish the Senate.”
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/provinces-should-propose-senate-reforms-forthwith-harper-says-1.1798071#ixzz30NXb5Yo6

Apparently, this is as close to negotiating consensus as Harper can get.  Acting like a petulant little child who has just been told "no, you can't have all the cookies", he tries to shift responsibility to somebody else.  In this case the provinces.

Frankly, if Harper wants to change the Senate, he is responsible for putting forth a vision for what a revised Senate should look like, and then work with his peers - the provincial premiers - to come to a consensus.  If he cannot build consensus among the provinces, that is his failing.

The amending formula for Canada's Constitution is a neatly crafted package which ensures that you can't make arbitrary changes to it without actually engaging with the rest of the country.  It requires that someone be able to foster consensus among the provinces to make amendments.  This is a good thing - it stays the hand of an autocrat, and requires actual leadership to achieve meaningful change.

Brian Mulroney was at least willing to try.  Both the Charlottetown Accord and Meech Lake Accord ultimately failed, but not because Mulroney was unwilling to negotiate with the provinces.  Instead, Harper sits there and acts like a petulant little child because the Supreme Court essentially told him to go do his job as Prime Minister.

Stephen Harper's legacy will be the redemption of Brian Mulroney.

An Open Letter From Academics on Bill C-23

Published in The Globe and Mail.

Highlights:  (much of which have been discussed in more depth on this blog)

Investigating electoral fraud. Bill C-23 fails to provide the Commissioner of Elections power to compel witness testimony in investigating systematic electoral fraud such as the 2011 “robocalls” scandal. Witnesses with knowledge of fraudulent activity can – and regularly do – refuse to provide information to investigators. The bill’s proposed voter contact registry will not greatly enhance the capacity to prosecute fraud, and its increased penalties for fraud do nothing if investigators cannot prove crimes. 

Polling supervision. Under Bill C-23, winning parties will appoint election poll supervisors – a further intrusion of partisanship in the electoral process, and one that creates an advantage for the incumbent party. The government has not addressed objections to this measure, and there is no sound rationale for it. 

Voter turnout. With the sole exception of school programs, such as Student Vote, the Senate amendments retain the gag on Elections Canada’s efforts to encourage voter turnout. Senator Linda Frum has asserted that Elections Canada is in a “conflict of interest” when it promotes turnout, claiming that heightened participation comes at the expense of electoral integrity. This position is unjustified in both fact and logic. Public outreach that encourages all citizens to vote – not just those who support one party or another – is central to the mandate of electoral commissions worldwide, such as those in Australia, India, and New Zealand. 

The Charter guarantee of the right to vote. By eliminating vouching and refusing voter information cards as proof of address, the bill undermines the right to vote protected by Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitutional entitlement so fundamental that it cannot be limited by the Charter’s “notwithstanding” clause. Where governments require voter identification, international best practices require that governments issue free ID to all eligible voters. This bill does the opposite: it takes away existing forms of cost-free ID. The Senate’s proposed requirement of “letters of attestation” from First Nations, homeless shelters and elder-care facilities would offload government responsibility onto under-resourced communities without resolving the underlying constitutional issues. There is no doubt that the bill’s voter ID restrictions will be challenged in court for violating the constitutionally protected right to vote. By insisting on these measures, the government invites costly legal battles for no clear public end. 

Elections Canada. As former auditor-general Sheila Fraser has persuasively argued, Bill C-23 undermines Elections Canada, an internationally renowned non-partisan agency. The damage done by the government’s gratuitous public attacks against Ms. Fraser and the Chief Electoral Officer goes even deeper. By casting doubt on the non-partisanship of independent officers of Parliament, the government unsettles the delicate balance of powers that secures our democratic system of government. 

The Senate committee has failed to respond adequately to the many legitimate criticisms of the other features of Bill C-23. These include campaign finance rules, the Treasury Board’s veto power over Elections Canada’s appointment of specialized staff, and the failure to require political parties to provide receipts for electoral expenses (even though they are reimbursed more than $30-million at taxpayer expense).

Bill C-23 is the most horrid piece of legislation that I have ever seen a government put forward.  Other governments in the past have pushed through legislation which has been seen as an attack on one region of the country or another.  Never have I seen a government attack the fundamental basis of democracy in Canada.

Democratic rights of citizens 

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

The right to vote is central to Canada's democracy.  The government exists at the collective will of the people, as expressed through voting.  Never before has the government attacked the right of Canadians to vote so blatantly, nor in a manner so clearly designed around achieving some kind of partisan advantage.

This is Canada, not Baathist Iraq under Sadam Hussein.  We deserve better than this from our government.  Instead we get deafening silence from the PMO, and blustering stupidity from the minister responsible for this piece of legislation, Pierre Poilievre.

If You Love Canada ... Read This

I don't usually use this space to promote posts at other blogs, but at iPolitics Michael Harris has an excellent column that summarizes what Harper is doing to Canada.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/04/20/harper-sees-role-as-protector-of-the-richest-few/

Read.  Take it to heart, pass it along.

Bill C-23: Accountability for Thee Not For Me

It's not exactly news that Harper has never liked Elections Canada.  In fact, it's less than news.  His outraged utterances about Elections Canada when he was head of the National Citizens Coalition (NCC) in the 1990s set the tone for the content of Bill C-23.

“The jackasses at Elections Canada are out of control.” 

In 2001, Stephen Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition. That was his opening line in a fundraising letter. 

His loathing for the election overseers was almost pathological, recalls Gerry Nicholls, the conservative commentator who worked with Mr. Harper at the NCC. It was a “blood feud,” he says, one that appears to be “never ending.”

One would have to be blind not to see the blatant and partisan attack on Elections Canada that Bill C-23 so clearly embodies.  It is designed to render it all but impossible for Elections Canada to investigate electoral fraud - in particular of the kind that has been perpetrated by the Harper Conservatives; it constrains the ability of Elections Canada to communicate with the people of Canada at all; it makes the appointment of polling station overseers the domain of incumbent MPs.

There is no coherent response to these criticisms from the Harper Government.  In fact, when so many knowledgeable and experienced people have criticized this bill for the obvious problems in it, it comes as no big surprise that the Conservatives have turned to attacking the message bearers:

“His recommendations really boil down to three broad requirements for him,” Poilievre told the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee as it launched a “pre-study” of the bill before the House of Commons considers amendments or passes it. 

“He wants more power, a bigger budget and less accountability.”

Considering the damage that this bill does to holding our politicians and their parties accountable for their antics during an election, it seems more and more clear that the party who promised Canadians greater accountability and transparency in government is in fact delivering quite the opposite.

Time To Get Your Eye Back On The Ball, Tom

Apparently NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair hasn't figured out what the ball is in Canadian politics today.

He also took shots at both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Trudeau.Trudeau, in particular, bore the brunt of Mulcair's attack.
The Liberals under Trudeau have been trying to court middle-class voters in the run-up to the next election, scheduled for Oct 19, 2015.

Let me be abundantly clear, Tom:  The problem in this country today is sitting two sword-lengths away from you in the House of Commons.  It is not the third party in the house, it is not the leader of that party, nor anybody else in the house - it is Harper and his government.

If the NDP is truly "The Government in Waiting", as the official opposition is often characterized, it needs to be focused on the malfeasance of the governing party.  There is no shortage of material to work with.  The "Fair Elections Act" (one of the most ironically named pieces of legislation ever tabled in the House of Commons) comes to mind, as do the government's abuse of omnibus bills, time allocation, and a litany of other topics that could be used to make political hay.

The only person that profits when Mulcair attacks the Liberals is Stephen Harper.  If he can show the NDP as unfocused, and just for fun gains a little bit from Mulcair's random attacks on the Liberals, he wins.  

Every time Mulcair takes a shot at Harper, he seems to think he has to take a shot at Trudeau.  I have no idea who is telling him this is effective rhetoric.  It isn't.  It dilutes his message, it takes the focus off the malfeasance of the governing party and actually makes Mulcair look like a dog who can't figure out what to bark at.

Mulcair has done an excellent job in the House of Commons grilling Harper over the Senate Expenses Scandal, so we know he's capable of excellent rhetoric and focused attacks on the government.  

The ball that he needs to focus on is NOT Justin Trudeau and the Liberals ... it is Stephen Harper and his band of criminals who are madly trying to steal Canada's democracy from Canadians.  Want to make political hay, Mr. Mulcair?  Keep your eye on the ball - in this case Harper and his government.  

In Harper's Canada ... A Budget Bill Isn't Just A Budget

Pay close attention to Harper's "omnibus" bills.  Those contain the bulk of his agenda.  They're so big that he's hoping you don't even look.  These bills are so multi-dimensional that calling them "budget implementation bills" is a bad joke.  Bill C-31, the budget implementation bill for 2014, is no exception.

In single column, english only form, this bill is over 150 pages long ... and it's small print.  Make no mistake about it, this legislation is much more than just a budget implementation bill.  Yes, it contains the usual array of legislative changes to taxation and spending as one would expect.

But it contains even more that people should be concerned about.

First, it contains the legislation to implement FATCA - the most egregious violation of Canadians' rights under our Constitution ever done in the name of a foreign country's laws.  FATCA, and the agreement that the Harper Government has signed with the US, basically hand over your banking information to the US government.  Worse, the US can demand those records up to six years in the past.

Further Analysis On Marc Nadon's Appointment

Marc Nadon is, for now at least, out of the picture as far as Canada's Supreme Court is concerned.

Frankly, I know very little about Justice Nadon's beliefs and history as a judge.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if he happened to lean towards Mr. Harper's "hang-em-high" approach to justice - generally speaking Harper is far more prone to basing his appointment decisions on ideology and politics than other Prime Ministers in our history.

However, the Supreme Court's ruling on Nadon's appointment is not about Mr. Nadon or Mr. Harper's views on justice.

The Supreme Court's ruling is very interesting as it went after many of the same issues that I suspect strongly affect Harper's desires to unilaterally amend the Senate.  In effect, in appointing Mr. Nadon, Harper was ignoring a set of rules that had been clearly established for over a century.

The government does not have the authority to amend the Act, wrote six of seven judges, saying "the unanimous consent of Parliament and all provincial legislatures is required for amendments to the Constitution relating to the 'composition of the Supreme Court.'"

Frankly, it comes to me as no great surprise that Mr. Harper and his gang are once again attempting to modify the structure of government without regard for the laws of Canada and the Constitution of this nation.  First, Harper is not a lawyer.  He never has been, nor has he shown any particular interest in coming to understand the finer points of law.

Second, and more concerning, is that Harper is an ideologue.  His government has repeatedly pushed through laws only to have them struck down by the Supreme Court time and again - often on Constitutional grounds.  He doesn't guide his ministers to legislate effectively and within the framework of Canada's legal systems, but rather is attempting to forge an entirely new system by writing tons of laws and hoping that they stick.

Fundamentally, he's using the same tactics that we see the far right in the United States using - throw tons of obviously ridiculous legislation into the system, and hope that enough manages to survive to fundamentally change the underlying structures beyond recognition.

At this point, I'm beginning to suspect that the first step in undoing the appalling damage that this government is doing to Canada and its legal systems is going to have to be an omnibus bill that rescinds 95% of the legislation pushed through since 2006.  Most of it is unconstitutional, and of the remainder, much of it is just plain cruel and punitive.

Harper's New Anti-Semitism

Few things make me angrier than the propensity of the far right to twist things.  In today's speech to Israel's Knesset, we find this lovely little gem:

"A state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history," he said. 

"That is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism. It is nothing short of sickening." 

Harper allowed that criticism of Israeli government policy isn't in and of itself "necessarily anti-Semitic."

Of course, Harper thinks he is being magnanimous in allowing that "criticizing Israeli government policy is not "necessarily anti-Semitic".  His words are, of course, disingenuous.  On one hand he castigates those who criticize Israel's policies of settlements and the wall as being unreasonable, and yet fails to see the similarities between these policies and other past racial segregation experiments?

Both Canada and Israel share "a sincere hope" that the Palestinian people and their leaders will choose a democratic Palestinian state that lives peacefully alongside Israel, Harper said. 

"Sadly, we have yet to reach that point. But, when that day comes, and come it must, I can tell you that Israel may be the first to welcome a sovereign Palestinian state, but Canada will be right behind you."

The problem here is that it creates false presuppositions about the form and structure of a possible Palestinian state.  We don't know if that is the kind of state that is desired by the Palestinians, and what happened to their right to self-determination?  Can we ignore the stranglehold that Israel continues to hold on the Palestinians and their ability to develop a coherent economy or government? This is no small issue, and one not to be ignored.

Fortunately, someone had the gumption to get up and leave during Harper's speech to the Knesset, and much of what he has to say should be profoundly troubling to anyone who is not invested directly in Israel.

Tibi said Harper didn't mention the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Canada officially opposes Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967, although Harper has refrained from criticizing Israel for its policy. 

"When you are controlling, discriminating, confiscating, occupying lands from one side and putting them in the corner without any basic rights, you are by this way ruling and committing apartheid in the occupied Palestinian Territories," Tibi said. 

"If he is talking about freedom, why he is totally neglecting the absence of freedom of the Palestinians under occupation? It is a double-standard. These words are moral double-standard from the prime minister of Canada." 

Tibi also took issue with the idea that debating boycotts of Israeli products and using the term apartheid is anti-Semitic. 

"Do you accept at any case to be under occupation and then somebody will tell you that it is absolute democracy? It is not. We are living day by day here. Palestinians under occupation are living day by day, and saying that the occupied territory is apartheid has no relation at any case with anti-Semitism," he said. 

"What's the connection? If you are criticizing the policy of the state of Israel, immediately you are categorized as anti-Semitic. This is a twisted logic of Mr. Harper."

Mr. Tibi's comments cut to the heart of the problem with Harper's uncritical approach to Israel.  Few things in that part of the world can be cast in black-and-white terms.  The conflicts in Israel and the surrounding region are centuries old, and no party to the dispute can lay claim to being beyond reproach.

I don't know what the answers are to the seemingly endless conflict in the Middle East, but blindly supporting one state over another is hardly helpful.  There is no rightness in lobbing rockets into Israeli territory, but it seems to me that there is no rightness in building segregation walls either.  As the old saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.

Mr. Harper should tread very carefully in his declarations of just what value judgments should be applied to criticism of any of the parties in ongoing dispute that is in the Middle East.

Mr. Coyne's Flaccid Critique

Andrew Coyne's latest column starts off with a clear enough statement of how the Harper Government has engaged in tactics which prevent the engines of parliament from holding those in power accountable.

Not only was the House of Commons conveniently shuttered, but neither the minister responsible, Lisa Raitt, nor any Canada Post executives were on hand to answer questions regarding this drastic reduction in public services. But then, in this they were only following the example set by the prime minister, who has for months avoided answering questions about the scandal that is slowly destroying his government.

Then he promptly does the usual dodge that we have seen from conservative apologists ever since Harper become the leader of the new Conservative Party:  turn around and try to blame other parties for the sad state of affairs in Ottawa these days.

Ottawa is increasingly a town in lockdown — as often as not with all-party support. MPs of all parties have resisted having their expenses either audited or disclosed. All parties agreed to a plan to compel Hill staffers to sign lifetime gag orders (though the bad publicity may force a rethink), just as all parties colluded this spring to prevent Mark Warawa and other MPs from speaking their mind in Parliament.  

Seriously, Mr. Coyne?  Do you really think that Canadians have forgotten the ever so brilliant move of the Harper Government in its nascent years of publishing a manual for his MPs to disrupt parliamentary committees?  Or perhaps you think that we don't realize that Harper's MPs dominate the very committees and votes he is referring to?

Make no mistake, Mr. Coyne.  Parliament may have been in rough shape in 2006 when Harper took power.  He has since turned it into a shambles.  Harper has gone to unprecedented lengths to exert direct control over all aspects of Ottawa.  The cloak of secrecy that we are seeing today is very much the creation of one man:  Stephen Harper.

Past PMs may have violated some of the tenets of a Westminster Parliament, but none have abused its good name to such a degree.  Prime Ministers past have used prorogation to reset the legislative business of parliament when they have largely completed the work set out in the last Throne Speech.  Harper, on the other hand, has used that same tool to avoid being held accountable.  Harper is the only Prime Minister in Canadian history to be voted "In Contempt of Parliament" for his behaviour.

He has created omnibus bills to deliver a payload of Trojan Horse legislation which has little to do with the budget implementation, and then used closure to limit debate and ram this legislation through - unamended.  Under Harper, accepting an amendment to a bill is to admit error, and Harper will never admit to being wrong.  Perfectly legitimate amendments which would actually improve the quality of Harper's legislation have been rejected simply because they were proposed by another party.

Under Harper, Question Period has become a farce.  Past governments have been evasive in QP - Harper's approach is to simply fling verbal poo across the floor - often answering a question with talking points that have nothing to do with the question asked.

Let me be abundantly clear about this:  The responsibility and blame for the current sorry state of parliament in this nation rests at the feet of Stephen Harper.

Perhaps the grandest irony of all of this is that the Reform party that Harper comes from gained much of its support by promising to fix parliament and make it work once again as a democratic institution.  

Double Standards On The Hill

I can appreciate that any employer wants to protect its confidentiality, however what the Harper Government is imposing on employees of MPs is another thing altogether.

Most people sign some kind of non-disclosure agreement with their employers.  These are not usually any big deal.  They usually contain some kind of statement that more or less says "thou shalt not give away company secrets". 

What they don't do is attempt to impose life-long bans.  In fact, doing so would be considered illegal under both our constitution and labour laws.  

So ... what makes it "reasonable" for the Harper Government to slide a clause like this into a confidentiality agreement:

Yes, Government Employees are often subject to the Official Secrets Act, especially if they have access to government secrets such as military intelligence documents.  Someone working in the employ of an MP may well have access to sensitive information.  However, imposing a lifetime gag order on them seems unnecessary.  Especially when MPs are not subject to similar restrictions.

But, then again, the Harper Government is no ordinary government in Canadian experience.  The Harper Government has gone to lengths to invade the private lives of Canadian citizens that are unprecedented, and at the same time a cloak of secrecy has descended over Ottawa since 2006. 

Only a government with a serious authoritarian streak would view this as an appropriate act.

What Ford and Harper Have In Common

They both have problems with telling the truth.

Yesterday, news broke that Rob Ford had been attempting to purchase the video of him smoking crack cocaine - before Gawker and the Toronto Star made the existence of the video public.  In this morning's news, we find Ford denying that he was doing that at all.

So far, in the course of this saga, every time Ford has denied something, evidence has come along to disprove his denials.  At first, he denied ever having smoked crack cocaine, and then at the end of October, the video mysteriously turns up in the hands of police.  Given the pattern to date, I'd say the odds of Ford's utterances (which appear to contradict the ITO documents) being true are fairly low.

As we've seen with the Senate Expenses Scandal, Harper has a similar approach - lie, deflect, deny until the evidence corners you.  At first, Harper was saying the everything was just fine with his errant senators, then when it became impossible to avoid, they were being "disciplined" by the Senate; and eventually the whole mess got handed to the RCMP in a clumsy attempt to bury it in a criminal investigation.  All the way along, Harper has denied all knowledge.  Meanwhile, Duffy's speeches have made it abundantly clear that the PM clearly knew what was going on in considerable detail.

In parliamentary terms, both have chosen to "deliberately mislead the house".

Do the math.

An Interesting Analysis Of The Recent Scandals

In reading the following article from Global Research: The "Scandalization" of Canadian Politics:  The Hard Truths of Neoliberal Conservatism,   I found myself agreeing with the author on some points, but substantially disagreeing with the extrapolations being drawn from the basic evidence.

If I were to distill this entire article down to its essence, it is very much the "Panem et Circenses" hypothesis applied to current neoliberal politics in Canada.  In short, the power players in (and just behind the veil) of Canadian politics are creating and using these scandals as a way to divert Canadians from the actual policies that are being implemented.

We are talking about much more than a few incidental scandals. More and more of what goes by ‘politics’ according to the media – statecraft, elections, parliamentary debates – is taken over by endless ‘revelations’ about individuals, their personal failings or corrupt practices. Political conflict takes the form of duels between individual establishment figures: politicians, newspaper editors, radio hosts, and police chiefs. We all fill social media sites with our own views about who we think are the good guys in this gladiator sport.

The metaphor of 'panem et circenses' is quite apt.  There can be no doubt that the Senate Expenses Scandal has provided months of high political theatre, and Rob Ford's implosion the last week or so has certainly been entertaining, if tragic on a human level.

The blogosphere has been alive with commentary on both subjects, and rightly so.

Why apolitical rebellion? Rimbert and Keucheyan argue that when media-fuelled scandals occupy our attention, the air seethes with schadenfreude about the powerful. Yet this resentment often remains passive: private rather than collective and focused on individual misgivings instead of systemic corruption. 

...  

All this explains why scandal risks pushing politics into a conservative direction. This is particularly the case in times of deep economic, social and ecological uncertainty, such as ours. Scandal can hit the ‘left,’ ‘centre’ or the ‘right.’ Yet in all cases, the danger is that politics is reduced to morality contest while systemic corruption remains intact. Names and personalities change but policies and structures of power are not questioned.

I will partially agree with the authors here.  There is no doubt in my mind that when voters disengage from the political sphere, it is the far right which benefits.  We've seen this in Alberta for years where voter turnouts are chronically low at both the provincial and federal levels and the running joke on the street is that you can get a bale of hay elected if you slap a conservative banner on it.

The political right has been very successful in exploiting voter apathy since the early 1990s in Canada.  The rise of "populist" politics in Canada's prairie provinces (e.g. the Reform movement in the 1980s) plays very much on voter apathy.  These movements do not invite discourse, but rather they are the "religious fundamentalist" of politics.  They adopt hardline positions and push them constantly rather than engaging in actual discourse.  Sooner or later, more moderate voters disengage for the same reason that people don't discuss theology with fundamentalists.

More recently, we saw this in the CPC policy convention in Calgary, where the hardline base once again pushed through policy directives which play to their views - overriding more moderate positions that the party had taken in order to seem "appealing" to mainstream voters.

Interestingly, I disagree with the author's claim that scandal results in passive disengagement, at least in the situation in Canada.  The response in Canada to both the Senate Scandal and the Ford Implosion has been for the disengaged to start engaging and taking a closer look at what is going on and begin formulating actual opinions about what is going on.

What is worse, scandal evokes desires to ‘clean up the mess’ by means of authoritarian intervention. Problems with elected politicians? Bring in the RCMP or the Police Chief to restore order. Yes, the very RCMP whose legitimacy is actively in question because of their role in cracking down on political protests and clearing the path of resource companies when First Nations attempt to defend their land, as the Mikmaq of Elsipogtog have been doing. Yes, the same Toronto Police force that, Rinaldo Walcott urges us to remember, “constantly stops, questions and cards black people and aboriginal people with less evidence of suspicious activity than warrant documents concerning Ford and Lisi reveal.”[3] 

Here's the second place that the author's argument starts to go off the rails.   First, I think the author has misunderstood the situations that are cited as examples of why the police should be considered "suspect".  The G8/G20 protest handling was so clearly driven by Harper's authoritarian streak that we are far better to look at it as a function of the political power structure manipulating the police rather than the police themselves.  At lower levels, there is no doubt that the orders from on high were interpreted as a license to engage in much harsher terms than we have seen in the past, but I suspect strongly that if you followed it through, you would find that orders came down from the PMO, no doubt with a "carrot-and-stick" incentive thrown in for compliance.

I have little doubt that Elispogtog was much different.  In fact, I would argue that Elsipogtog is far better understood through the lens of Corrupt Neoliberalism:  Corporatocracy, than as a direct failure of the police.  We already know that Harper has exerted considerable direct political control over the RCMP's top levels, and as the G8/G20 events demonstrated, Harper would not hesitate to use those tools to suppress protesters.

So, if I come back around to the Senate Expenses scandal, and the referral of it to the RCMP, I think what we really have is Harper attempting to bury the issue using the most expedient tools possible.  In general terms, police will not comment on an active investigation publicly, nor will a politician's office.  By creating a criminal investigation, Harper (theoretically) gagged every major player in the discussion ... except that he miscalculated Mike Duffy's response.  Harper assumed that Duffy would play along and be quiet in return for a bit of "hush money".  A poor assumption apparently, as Duffy has chosen to fight back after being thrown under the Harper bus.

With respect to the Rob Ford situation, I am much less familiar with the Toronto Police force and the politics of it.  I don't doubt that there are problems with implicit or even explicit racism in the actions of the GTO police force.  Ever since 9/11, racial profiling has become a tool of law enforcement agencies across the continent.  Yes, this does need to be addressed, and it does represent a serious problem.  However, it does not present actual evidence that the ability of the Toronto Police to carry out a serious criminal investigation has been compromised.  Again, I have little doubt that the Fords hoped (beyond reason, it would seem) that the police would carry out their investigation, arrest a few drug dealers and gang members and the whole mess would go away.  It didn't.  Instead, the police appear to have done their job quite thoroughly and the implication is that the Mayor himself is linked to illicit (if not outright illegal) gang activity.

While I agree that the events cited do mean that we have to be careful in our interpretation of police activities, I do not think that we can simply discount the Senate and Ford investigations as mere political chicanery based on those other events - it is simply an unreasonable extrapolation.  Every so often, attempts to bury things by creating an investigation backfire - both Harper and Ford have encountered this very reality, by their own hands no less, as the evidence keeps leading to their front doorsteps.

Scandalized politics is dangerous in more ways than one, particularly when it is connected to a surge of populist politics.[14] For progressives, radicals and the left, scandal is dangerous because it can keep popular anger passive and foster cynicism. Worse, it can deepen the desires for authoritarian solutions right-wing populism has been cultivating for decades. 

Again, the author is making a questionable extrapolation.  He is confusing the desire on the part of leaders like Harper to implement authoritarian solutions with the public's desires.  Harper has shown himself to be an authoritarian many times in the past.  His desire to use those kinds of solutions to "make a problem go away" is no surprise.  However, to assume that the broader body of the public believes that such solutions are the desirable approach is very questionable.

I think that in Alberta, we have seen the great irony of that populist authoritarianism come to the surface with the so-called "distracted driving" law that was rammed in a few years ago.  In theory, this law is supposed to stop drivers from doing things while behind the wheel that take their attention away from driving (e.g.  Using a cell phone, eating a hamburger, shaving, whatever).  This law is so overreaching that most people have long since tuned it out.  The definition of "distraction" is so broad, so imprecise, that just about anything except having your hands on the wheel is considered "distracted".  The result - compliance is low, enforcement is ... well ... spotty.  What does the province think an answer is?  Oh, well, they're going to stiffen the penalties.

Is it the public that is seeking stiffer penalties?  No.  It is the knee jerk reaction of a right-wing politic that seems to think that punishment is deterrent.

Does scandal result in disengagement?  Quite the contrary, I would argue.  After a long period of relative indifference, we are seeing Canadians taking a look at the issues in the light of politicians who are themselves corrupt, cynical and manipulative.  A quick survey of the comments sections in news sites shows more people critiquing Harper and his policies than we have seen since 2006.

Not being a resident of Toronto, I really don't see enough of what Ford and his allies are pushing to really comment on his policies.  What little I have seen simply demonstrates what I always thought about Alberta's Ralph Klein - a man of limited intellect who somehow manages to buffalo enough people into thinking he's a "right good guy" (in the 'I drink with people like that all the time' scheme of things).  Ford seems to be cut from similar cloth, although with a much harsher nasty streak in him that Klein didn't have.

At the end of the day, while there is a "bread and circuses" aspect to the current scandals, I do not believe that either Harper or Rob Ford and their power brokers are organizing these scandals as a means to foster disengagement or to distract the public from what they are doing in office.  I think that both of the current scandals represent the consequences of their activities escaping their ability to explicitly control all of the variables in the increasingly complex stories they are weaving.  Further, I do not believe that they fully understand the impact of the Internet's elephantine memory.

The author is correct about two fundamental points though:

1.  Far right politics gains the most from a disengaged electorate.  (why else do you think the HarperCon$ played the Robocall game in 2011?)

2.  Harper and his allies (like Rob Ford) have been diligently working to undermine our system of government for their own benefit.  

As Predicted

Mike Duffy is releasing the next bits of information linking this whole steaming mess back to Harper's doorstep (or his desk).

Senator Mike Duffy's lawyer has begun turning over hundreds of emails to the RCMP following a request by the Mounties last Friday to hand over documentation that may prove to be "evidence of criminal wrongdoing by others," CBC News has learned. 

In a letter obtained by CBC News on Monday, the RCMP said they were interested in "emails from the [Prime Minister's Office] specifically relating to a script for Senator Duffy to follow in advance of obtaining funds from a RBC loan to repay the Receiver General." 

The emails being turned over to the Mounties by Duffy's lawyer Donald Bayne are said to be "much more explicit" about the Prime Minister's Office script that Duffy said he was to follow.

I said previously that Harper's zealous desire to excise a political liability was likely as not to create an even bigger liability.

The question I have is when is the RCMP going to raid the PMO and confiscate not just a few files, but the ever critical backups of the e-mail system?  (Not to mention subpoena the email logs for every PMO denizen using a "personal" email such as Gmail or Yahoo Mail from their desks or cell phones?

That Was A Tactical Error

Last night, Canada's Senate voted to suspend three of its members.

Senators were allowed to vote separately with these results: 

• On the motion to suspend Brazeau without pay, 50 yeas, 29 nays, 13 abstentions.

• On the motion to suspend Duffy without pay, 52 yeas, 28 nays, 11 abstentions.

• On the motion to suspend Wallin without pay, 52 yeas, 27 nays, 12 abstentions.

The suspensions are to last for the remainder of the session, likely until the next federal election in 2015.  

Looking at the vote, I'd say this is pretty much a "whipped vote" on the Conservative part.  Except for a handful of the most senior CPC caucus who are more confident in their posts than Harper's minions, the CPC caucus voted quite firmly to Harper's wishes.

This is a tactical error on Harper's part.  From his point of view, suspending these Senators is a way to bury a political issue.  Harper doesn't like being grilled in Question Period about it and the constant media scrutiny on Parliament, so he has opted for what he thinks will be the easiest way to bury this.

However, Harper has just made his problem worse.  No, he won't be seeing the media circus that happens every time Duffy, Wallin or Brazeau show up on the hill.  But, he's lost the control over the narrative that is implicit with allowing them to continue to sit in the upper chamber.  Parliamentary privilege and the structure of parliamentary process can be used as far more effective 'gag order' on the errant Senators than ejecting them from the house will ever be.

Both Senators Wallin and Duffy are experienced media personalities.  They are used to being in the public eye.  By ejecting them from the Senate, Harper has just given both of them the time and opportunity to work their stories unfettered by their responsibilities as Senators.

Duffy has already shown that he has rather a lot of material in his hip pocket.  Material which he is willing to release at moments which are going to have maximum public impact.  I can't say the same for Wallin or Brazeau on these matters - neither of them has given the kind of speeches in the Senate that Duffy has - only time will tell for them.

With Duffy's latest bombshells in Senate speeches, if the RCMP isn't knocking on the PMO's doors today, they will be soon enough.

If Harper thinks that ejecting a few errant Senators has "ended" this scandal, he's profoundly mistaken.  At the moment, he looks more like Wile E. Coyote with explosives.

As Rob Ford found out this week, you can only get away with denial and lying about things for so long.  Harper's story has been changing on a near daily basis with respect to the Senate.  If he believes that this is "just going away" because he bludgeoned his appointed Senators into ejecting a handful who have become political liabilities, then more the fool he is.

Duffy's Testimony Before Canada's Senate

Full Text

Read it.  It's a bombshell that very clearly ties Harper into this whole scheme.  It doesn't make any of the parties involved look good - in fact in many respects it makes Duffy look pretty low too - which is part of the reason I suspect that he is being basically truthful in this speech.

Like you, I took a solemn oath to put the interests of Canadians ahead of all else. However, the sad truth is, I allowed myself to be intimidated into doing what I knew in my heart was wrong out of a fear of losing my job and out of a misguided sense of loyalty.

A promising start to the speech.  I still maintain that Duffy willingly engaged in an act of fraud when he claimed a recreational property on PEI as a primary residence when he's been a resident in Ottawa for decades.

I immediately contacted Nigel Wright, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, and explained that I was doing nothing improper. Nigel Wright emailed me, saying he had my expenses checked and he was satisfied that my accounts were in order, that all was in compliance with Senate rules.

The fact that Duffy's expenses "were within the rules" according to Nigel Wright suggests that the Senate expense rules are far too loose.

The Prime Minister wasn't interested in explanations or the truth. It's not about what you did; it's about the perception of what you did that has been created in the media. The rules are inexplicable to our base.

So Harper's worried about "keeping his base"?  Gosh - isn't that a surprise.  The fact that executing a lie comes so quickly to Harper's mind says a great deal ... and none of it good.

The PMO piled on the pressure. Some honourable senators called me in PEI. One senator in particular left several particularly nasty and menacing messages: Do what the Prime Minister wants. Do it for the PM and for the good of the party. I continued to resist. Finally, the message from the PMO became: Do what we want or else.And what was the "else?" He said the Conservative majority on the steering committee of the Board of Internal Economy, Senator Tkachuk and Senator Stewart Olsen, would issue a press release declaring me unqualified to sit in the Senate.

Here's where there is a large amount of shared poor judgment for both Harper and Duffy.  Duffy knew perfectly well that he wasn't resident in PEI prior to being appointed by Harper, and Harper was clearly willing to engage in the fiction that Duffy was representing PEI.  Further, later in the process, it becomes a handy lever for Harper to use when things get out of control.

Duffy is showing an enormous amount of poor judgment in this whole affair himself.  Harper is demonstrating the pathological dishonesty that has been the hallmark of his rise to power.

There was an undertaking made by the PMO, with the agreement of the Senate leadership, that I would not be audited by Deloitte, that I'd be given a pass; and further, that if this phony scheme ever became public, Senator LeBreton, the Leader of the Government of the day, would whip the Conservative caucus to prevent my expulsion from the chamber. 

PMO officials confided it wasn't easy to get this commitment to do as they were told from Senators LeBreton, Tkachuk and Stewart Olsen, but the email chain shows it took hours of shuttling back and forth as the lawyers checked with their principals about the guarantees they were going to give to ensure that I wasn't censured for going along with this PMO scheme. 

Given all of those emails, you can imagine my shock when I heard there is not a single document about all of this in the PMO, not one. In response to an access to information request, CBC was told there is not a single document related to this matter in the PMO. 

I never believed for a moment that the PMO was being honest with the CBC when it claimed that it had no documents related to the Duffy affair.  This is not a minor "lie".  It speaks to a deliberate effort to cover up what has been going on.  If the PMO truly does not have those documents, it can only be because it has gone on a document shredding spree that would put Oliver North to shame.

Then, in May, after someone leaked selected excerpts of a confidential email I had sent to my lawyer in February, in which I voiced my opposition and concern about the deal, the PMO was back with a vengeance. I was called at home in Cavendish by Ray Novak, senior assistant to the Prime Minister. 

I find it interesting that a confidential e-mail got leaked.  If Duffy used facilities at the Senate to send that e-mail, then it tells us that there is a level of surreptitious surveillance going on in the halls of Parliament that Canadians should be very concerned about indeed.

If Duffy used personal equipment to send that e-mail, then we need to further ask just how much control Harper has over CSEC that this e-mail came to light.

There are two major issues here, and both are issues of unwarranted surveillance.

This motion, put forward by Senator Carignan, is in direct conflict with any sense of fundamental justice. Not only is it a firing without a firing, as Senator Segal has correctly pointed out, it deprives me, not only of a paycheque but of a health plan, of life insurance. This, a guy who came back off sick leave because of serious heart problems. Who is going to buy the heart drugs I need? What kind of a country do we have when the power can override the sick leave provisions of the federal government of Canada Health Care Act or arrangement?

To be honest, I do not like this particular paragraph.  Having worked in private industry as a journalist for decades, Duffy should know full well that paycheques, health plans and life insurance provided by ones employer cease once you have been terminated.  Further, thousands of small business owners and their employees don't make enough money to support those kinds of benefits either.  Duffy is whining about his "entitlements" here, and I see no evidence that he has been fighting to make those available more broadly than himself.

And those same senators who conspired to put me in this corner, conspired to destroy my reputation with Canadians, they are going to sit here in judgment of me? Let me be clear: I have violated no laws. I've followed the rules, and I've got a ton of documentation, including a two-page memo from Senator LeBreton's office about it, and I never received a single note from Senate finance or the leadership that suggested anything in my travels was amiss. 

There's an old saying, Mr. Duffy:  When you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.  You should not be surprised that a PM who was willing to let you lie about residing in PEI when appointing you has appointed other people who are just as willing as he to throw you under the bus.

I am less convinced that Mr. Duffy's actions did not violate any laws.  There have been revelations of all sorts of questionable expense claims, even if we ignore the residency issues.  At the very least, there is a significant degree of question around the fictions used when he was originally appointed.  There are also a fair handful of dubious expense claims to be considered.  Claims which on their own would probably be overlooked by Canadians, but when more fundamental issues are raised about the Senator's legitimacy cannot be ignored.

The upshot of Duffy's speech is that Harper was directly involved from the beginning.  He claims to have significant supporting documentation.  I would hope that he has the gumption to do the right thing, and turn it all over to the RCMP when they come knocking.  Personally, I'd like it all out in the public sphere, but if the RCMP criminal investigation results in actual charges being laid, that wouldn't hurt my feelings too much.