Stephen Harper and the Supremes

Well I finally got my tax stuff into the mail this week. I was much later than usual but I’m sure the government won’t mind. I’ve got a refund coming.

Paying taxes is one place that I stand far apart from Stephen Harper. He’s never seen a tax that he doesn’t hate while I, on the other hand am proud to be able to pay taxes. It’s a cost of being a citizen, and it means I’m earning enough to warrant paying taxes as well.

While I don’t mind paying taxes (even I’m not happy about it), it bothers me when my tax dollars are misused and abused. I think WiFi in National Parks is a waste. I think TV ads telling me how wonderful the EAP is are a waste. I think sending lawyers to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) to fight for poorly written laws is a waste.

My solution to the last one is simpler than Steve’s. Let’s ask the Parliamentary Legal Department to look at these bills before we send them into the House instead of waiting until the court challenges are filed.

Steve, on the other hand likes to play the martyr. Those horrible Justices struck down a law that the “People’s Representatives” passed. It’s been a long time since some of us have had a representative in Ottawa.

Between the omnibus bills and time allocation and committees that spend more time behind closed doors (in camera they call it) than they do in open meetings, our representatives don’t get to say doodley-squat. That, and the marionette theatre that votes “Yea” when Steve does and “Nay” when Steve does. We don’t have representation in the House, we have Party Reps to the ridings.

This is why we need a Judicial System that has some independence from the politicians.

This is a toughie for the Justices, they are picked by the same person who picks the Senators and often for similar reasons. The Justices might have biases towards one party or another, but they try to set these aside so that their decisions are based on the Rule of Law and measured against the Constitution of Canada including the Charter of Rights.

Steve seems to think that the “Law and Order” Party means he writes the laws and orders the SCC to enforce them.

Currently Steve is involved in a dust-up where he has the chutzpah to blast the chief justice of the SCC, Beverley McLachlin, for improper actions. She gave free advice to the government about the list of people under consideration for the vacant SCC seat and warned that there might be an issue with the appointment of Marc Nadon.

Steve and the PMO have turned this into some kind of a pissing match with the SCC and McLachlin. A matter that was best left behind closed doors is now being contested in the media.

This is family business, dirty laundry if you will. Not meant to be aired in front of the neighbours, much less the country…

And this is where I pull out my crystal ball and wipe the dust from it.

I was going to save it for the Ontario election, but here goes.

“Leaks and official statements chastising the SCC as well as the lower courts who don’t march to Harper’s tune will find their way into the media with increasing regularity.

The Fair Elections Act will no doubt go to the SCC if the 2007 legislation requiring ID to vote doesn’t get there first and knock C 23 for a loop.

The rhetoric will revolve around the “activist judges” who are imposing their will on the “People’s Representatives” rather than just enforcing the laws that the government writes and enforcing them unquestioned.

I’ve no doubt it will be said in ways that make it look more palatable, but the argument will be that the courts need to answer to Parliament, not the other way around… and the loonies and the toonies will fill the coffers of the Harper Party war chest for the 2015 election.” Thus foretells the Bear.

This frightens me.

We have few checks or balances on the government in Canada. Our national police force, the RCMP answers to the government. Our Crown Prosecutors answer to the government.

The only layer that has any real distance from the government is the Judiciary. They are government appointed, but many, if not most hold the law to be higher than the government.

We have a Constitution and part of that is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a very important document. If you told Americans that the government there was going to erase parts or all of their Constitution they’d reach for their guns. Here the government makes that threat to raise money from their supporters.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, they consider the arguments and they measure our laws against the highest law in the land, the Constitution and the Charter. If the law is found lacking, it is struck down.

Stephen holds that Parliament should be the highest authority, that any laws enacted by the House of Commons should not be impeded by the unelected Senate, or the Governor General, or the Judiciary at any level.

This is dangerous.

Parliament has long lost its original purpose, which was to make the government accountable for its actions. The “government” is only the Prime Minister and the Minister in the Cabinet. All other Members of Parliament are Private Members charged with trying to ensure that only bills that have been carefully vetted pass on to the Senate.

This does not happen, any Member who votes against the Party line risks sanctions or even expulsion from the Party. This isn’t particular to the Harper Party, all parties tend to this sort of discipline. Members get their marching orders in caucus and go and do their duty in the House.

Committees are made up of Private Members as well. They are supposed to do the heavy lifting to ensure what the government proposes is good for us. But Party loyalty and the risk of sanctions force these committees to divide along party lines as well.

That leaves only the Judiciary to protect us, and if they lose or give up that power, the genie will not go back into the bottle.

This is what I want you to think about, and think hard. If the courts are answerable to Parliament, (and Parliament no longer does its job) the government is no longer accountable to anyone save themselves. And that is a recipe for disaster.

Even if you think the Harper is the bee’s knees and that he can do no wrong, what about the people who will be in charge 2 years from now, or 20 years from now.

The Supreme Court of Canada said unanimously that Marc Nadon did not meet the requirements to sit on the SCC. Even the justices that Harper appointed were in line with that decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada found that the government could not unilaterally impose changes on the Senate nor could the government abolish the Senate.

Without the Supreme Court, Marc Nadon would be sitting on that bench and the Senate would be whatever the Harper government decided it should be.

The Constitution would be relegated to just being a law, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the same.

With a stroke of a pen, the rights that you think you have could be taken away by a majority government. Forever.

If you want to say that Harper would never do that, please be my guest. But would you give that kind of power to Jean Chretien? to Pierre Elliott Trudeau?

The power you let Stephen Harper have today will be the same power that future leaders will have, are you willing to take that risk?

We’ve already seen what happened when Parliament lost its teeth. It has devolved into a party driven marionette theatre. They only support their team, pull one string and they say “Yea” and pull the other and they say “Nay.”

History shows us what can happen if there are no restraints on government. 1930s Germany where having the wrong religion could stop you from operating a business or get thrown in jail… or worse.

You might think that something of that order could never happen here, just have a look at the news from the past week in Brampton. It ain’t pretty folks.

A couple of former Reform Party members are trying to revive the power of the Private Member. It’s a long slow process and in the end, I fear it will not come to pass. With MPs bound by party partisanship and voters blinded by it, it will be a cold day in Hell before the government of Stephen Harper will give up one iota of power.

God help us if he gets it all.

BC

Brian Peckford corrects the “Narrative”

Brian Peckford debunks the “Kitchen Accord” and “Night of Long Knives” Narrative

• Giving Credit Where Credit’s Due: Rewriting the Patriation Story:
  For the last 30 years, politicians and the media have frequently recounted the same story about the patriation of Canada’s constitution and the adoption of the Charter of Rights. Most of the credit in this version goes to Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, but three others are recognized for breaking an impasse in the negotiations in 1981: federal justice minister Jean Chrétien, Saskatchewan attorney general Roy Romanow, and Ontario attorney general Roy McMurtry. In his memoirs, Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford argues that the key intervention came not from Romanow, Chrétien, and McMcMurtry, but from Peckford himself and the members of the Newfoundland delegation.

  The long-accepted narrative goes like this. In the 1980s, Trudeau was determined to create a charter of rights and a procedure that would allow Canada to amend its constitution without seeking Britain’s permission, a legacy from the country’s colonial past. Trudeau faced opposition from eight provincial premiers (all but those from Ontario and New Brunswick), who formed the Gang of Eight to advance their own decentralized vision of Canada. After failing to come to an agreement with the provinces, Trudeau decided to proceed without them, but a Supreme Court ruling forced him back to the negotiating table.

  According to this version of history, the decisive moment came during a federal-provincial conference in November 1981. The deadlock between Ottawa and the provinces was broken when Chrétien, Romanow, and McMurtry left the main meeting room in the Ottawa Conference Centre and ducked into an unused kitchen pantry. There they reached a compromise, which journalists later mythologized as the “Kitchen Accord.” Seen as the backbone of Canada’s new constitution, the agreement provided for a charter of rights and a notwithstanding clause that would allow legislatures to exempt legislation from the charter’s terms. The accord also included a provision that the constitution could be amended with the approval of the federal parliament and two-thirds of the provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population.

  In Some Day the Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More, Brian Peckford provides documentation to support his claim that the patriation package of 1981 evolved from a Newfoundland proposal and not from the Kitchen Accord. In Peckford’s account, he prepared a formal document, which was revised during the night of 4 November 1981, hours after the creation of the Kitchen Accord, in a meeting with representatives from several provinces. The next morning, Peckford presented the agreement to the federal-provincial conference. The federal government and all the provinces except Quebec agreed to the package, which, with a few amendments, became Canada’s constitution.

  Peckford’s account brings long-needed balance to the story. The patriation process was a complex series of manoeuvres, in which several individuals played pivotal roles. To credit only Trudeau, Chrétien, Romanow, and McMurtry is to miss a large part of what actually happened. Many politicians and officials were present on the night of 4 November 1981 in the Chateau Laurier suite of Saskatchewan Premier Allan Blakeney, where six provinces accepted a revised version of Peckford’s plan. Few of the participants in that historic meeting even knew about the existence of Kitchen Accord.

  This is not to say that the Kitchen Accord was unimportant. It might not have had any direct effect on Newfoundland or many of the other provincial delegations, but it was essential in altering the positions of Ontario and the federal government. When Chrétien and McMurtry left the kitchen pantry, they were committed to an agreement that would include a notwithstanding clause to limit the force of a new Charter of Rights. Chrétien began to push Prime Minister Trudeau to accept such a deal, unknowingly preparing him for the Peckford proposal. Ontario similarly had moved to a place where it would accept what the Newfoundland premier was about to put forward. It was Romanow, through the Kitchen Accord, and not Peckford, who had forged an agreement with the governments of Canada and Ontario.

  Brian Peckford deserves considerable credit for our constitution, alongside Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, Roy Romanow, and Roy McMurtry. Important too were Saskatchewan’s Howard Leeson, Alberta’s Peter Meekison, and countless other unelected officials who shunned the spotlight and have been largely ignored in the history books.

  People like simple stories, and the media and politicians oblige. Yet there was nothing simple about our constitutional drama of 1981.

  Stephen Azzi is associate professor in the Clayton H. Riddell Graduate Program in Political Management and the Department of History, Carleton University. He recently revised the/ Canadian Encyclopedia entry on “Patriation of the Constitution.”

  continue reading: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/featured/giving-credit-where-credits-due-rewriting-the-patriation-story

• Brian Peckford and the patriation of the Canadian constitution:

  In Some Day the Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More, the political memoirs of Brian Peckford, former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador from 1979 to 1989, were formally published today at a launch party in St. John’s. Political Management professor and historian Stephen Azzi, writing in the Canadian Encyclopedia, draws attention to a little-known but markedly consequential contribution Peckford made to the Canada that exists today: his role in breaking the political log jam that permitted the patriation of the constitution and the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.

  The commonly accepted folklore holds that the provinces and the federal government were bitterly divided at the constitutional conference of November, 1981, until federal justice minister Jean Chrétien, Saskatchewan attorney general Roy Romanow, and Ontario attorney general Roy McMurtry ducked into an unused pantry in the conference centre and hashed out a compromise that was later dubbed “the Kitchen Accord.” It is a nice story, says Prof. Azzi, but it fails to do justice to the complexities of the negotiations or to the role played by Brian Peckford in bringing about an eventual agreement.

  Read Prof. Azzi’s account at: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/featured/giving-credit-where-credits-due-rewriting-the-patriation-story

  Randy Boswell, who teaches in the School of Journalism and Communication, noted in the National Post how the Canadian Encyclopedia rewrote its entry on the constitution’s patriation to acknowledge Peckford’s contribution: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/12/kitchen-accord-downgraded-former-premier-rewrites-constitutional-history/

  continue reading: http://www6.carleton.ca/politicalmanagement/2012/brian-peckford-and-the-patriation-of-the-canadian-constitution

• Brian Peckford interview on Power and Politics with Evan Solomon
  POLITICS | Oct 8, 2012 | 44:38

  http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2288652796/

• Brian Peckford re-writes constitution’s Night of Long Knives
  CBC News
  Posted: Sep 20, 2012 9:54 AM ET
  Last Updated: Sep 20, 2012 9:53 AM ET

  It is one of the enduring stories of the battle to patriate Canada’s constitution: late-night talks on Nov. 4, 1981 that produced the Kitchen Accord, a compromise that ultimately led to an agreement that brought home Canada’s constitution.

  That breakthrough has long been credited to then Justice Minister Jean Chrétien, Saskatchewan Attorney General Roy Romanow and Ontario Attorney General Roy McMurty — the so-called Kitchen Cabinet that met in the kitchen of Ottawa’s convention centre until the wee hours.

  In Quebec, it has been known by another name: the Night of the Long Knives, referring to the perceived exclusion of Quebec premier René Lévesque and the betrayal of Quebec’s interests.

  But 30 years later, another version of events has emerged — and former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford has outlined his own account in a new book, Some Day the Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More.

  Was it his proposal that actually laid the ground for the final agreement during the historic constitutional talks? Brian Peckford spoke with Power & Politics host Evan Solomon.

  continue reading: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/20/pol-brian-peckford-patriation-constitution-power-and-politics.html

• Peckford rewrites history with new account of ‘Kitchen Accord’ to patriate Constitution
  Randy Boswell, Postmedia News | Sep 12, 2012 11:54 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 13, 2012 12:27 AM ET

  Former Newfoundland premier Brian Peckford has literally rewritten history, prompting the Canadian Encyclopedia to substantially revise the story of the 1982 patriation of the Constitution.

  The then-premier of Canada’s newest province now gets central credit in shaping the historic deal, with the encyclopedia playing down somewhat the significance of the famous “Kitchen Accord” led by future prime minister Jean Chrétien that up until now was largely thought to be the constitutional saga’s breakthrough moment.

  Related

  • Ex-N.L. premier blasts Charter signing ‘myth’
  • The Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Celebrating Canada’s righteous milestone
  • Thatcher didn’t relish ‘queues of Indians’ knocking on her door over Canadian Constitution fight, documents reveal

  Mr. Peckford, whose political memoir was launched Wednesday in St. John’s, used the 30th anniversary of patriation in April to raise objections to the prevailing “mythology” about how the deal was done during a high-stakes first ministers’ conference in Ottawa in November, 1981.

  Now, the country’s main easy-reference resource for historical knowledge has examined Mr. Peckford’s claims, conducted additional research and — as the author of the revised patriation entry puts it — is now “giving credit where credit’s due.”

  Carleton University political historian Stephen Azzi told Postmedia News that he read Mr. Peckford’s book as well as “copies of documents in his possession from this period.… They convince me that Mr. Peckfordand the Newfoundland delegation played a significant role, one that has to be acknowledged properly.”Mr. Azzi said he also spoke with other key players in the 1981 constitutional talks to confirm Mr. Peckford’s claims about how the landmark deal was struck.

  Mr. Azzi, in an article also posted at the Canadian Encyclopedia website that explains how he came to accept much of Mr. Peckford’s claim, states the former premier’s account “brings long-needed balance to the story” of the 1981 constitutional bargain.

  The patriation process was a complex series of manoeuvres, in which several individuals played pivotal roles

  “The patriation process was a complex series of manoeuvres, in which several individuals played pivotal roles,” Mr. Azzi writes.

  

  The revised entry pointedly details how Mr. Peckford’s proposal for a constitutional deal was presented to the “Gang of Eight” premiers — all but Ontario’s Bill Davis and Quebec’s Réné Lévesque — at a critical breakfast meeting at Ottawa’s Château Laurier hotel at the height of the constitutional impasse.

  “After some minor adjustments, the federal government, Ontario, and New Brunswick signed on, and the deed was done,” the encyclopedia entry now states.

  The federal-provincial conference — a last-ditch bid to end months of wrangling over constitutional reforms, and to avoid having the federal government of then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau act unilaterally on the issue — is well known to have produced the final patriation deal, though Quebec’s rejection of the accord at the time left an enduring source of tension in the Canadian federation.

  Key sticking points were a constitutional amending formula, provincial qualms about the scope of the charter being championed by Trudeau, and federal concerns about the provinces’ demand for a controversial “notwithstanding” clause, aimed at overriding certain provisions of the charter in exceptional circumstances.

  

  The 30-year story of the Chrétien-Romanow-McMurtry [breakthrough] is a myth

  Narratives of the negotiations typically credit Mr. Chrétien — then Trudeau’s justice minister — and attorneys general Roy McMurtry of Ontario and Roy Romanow of Saskatchewan with outlining the basic terms of an agreement on a napkin while cloistered in a cooking area at the Government Conference Centre in Ottawa, directly across the street from the Château Laurier.

  The 70-year-old Mr. Peckford — then the 39-year-old Progressive Conservative premier of Newfoundland and Labrador — has made a campaign of “setting the record straight” since he started researching his political memoirs, titled Some Day the Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More. “The 30-year story of the Chrétien-Romanow-McMurtry [breakthrough] is a myth,” Mr. Peckford told Postmedia News in April.

  Postmedia News

  continue reading: http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/12/kitchen-accord-downgraded-former-premier-rewrites-constitutional-history/

---

Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

---

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Security Perimeter: Harper government’s Big Lie To Canadians… And Americans

By Terry Wilson – November 30, 2011

By: David Stein
agoracosmopolitan.com

I am a retired teacher in law warning both Canadians and Americans who would like to defend their independence as sovereign peoples, about the so-called “Security Perimeter”. It appears that both the Stephen Harper government in Canada, an the Barack Obama ‘regime’ in the United States, are purusing an agenda to decieve people on both sides of the “current border”.

Legally, there is no such thing as the kind of “common security border arrangements” which these leaders describe, that would affirm the independence of Canadians and Americans from each other, in international law.

It is apparent that Stephen Harper and Barack Obama are talking in deceptive legal fictions designed “fool the masses” who are not schooled in law.

Just as colonial elites of Europe sought to fool the First Nations of Canada, and the United States with “treaties” with no legal integrity, the descendants of those elites have sought to hatch a similar scam.

It is apparent to borrow words of the First Nations, that these leaders and their operatives “are speaking with forked tongues”.

When Stephen Harper and Barack Obama refer to “common security border arrangements” they actually mean ‘NO BORDER’.

There would no longer be an international boundary between the United States and Canada, if the United States government through Homeland Security effectively controlled the Canadian border, along with national security arrangements and the oversight of the implementation of domestic laws including those on privacy.

The Harper government is selling-out the complete package of the remainder on Canadian sovereignty, while having the audacity to claim the Agreement they pursue with the American president, “has nothing to do with sovereignty”.

The Harper government’s claim according as defined by the Canadian Criminal Code, is nothing short of ‘treason’.

Wikipedia notes than in Oran’s Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as “…[a]…citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].”

For Americans, the so-called North American Union would amount to the replacement of the American Constitution with a continent-wide neo-fascist state presided by the elites who act as the puppeteers of the Obama regime.

It is apparent that both Stephen Harper and Barack Obama are students of the technique which Leo Strauss called the “Big Lie”. Leo Strauss was ironically a Jew, who was inspired by the “Big Lie”. Accordingly, tell a lie that is so big, that no one would believe you could ever be lying.

Stephen Harper’s claim that the legal fiction of the so-called “North American Security Perimeter” has “nothing to do with sovereignty is laughable. The Stephen Harper government according to Dr. John Lash’s insights on metahistory.org could be considered a government of ‘archons’ which in turn is being propped-up by opposition parties infiltrated by archons, and a mass-media under the apparent spell of archons.

source: http://canadianawareness.org/2011/11/security-perimeter-harper-governments-big-lie-to-canadians-and-americans/

---

Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

---

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/