Harper, a Caligula for our time.

In normal times I would not write this story, but these aren't normal times. I looked forward to seeing the eyes of the people, through the media, being firmly focused on the scandal enveloping the Prime Minister, his office and the Senate. Yet it was  not to be. Instead, Toronto's Mayor Rob Ford pulled his Samurai sword out and threw himself upon it in front of the blood thirsty Toronto media.

Ford, a personal and political friend of the Prime Minister decided, that of all days, to admit to having tried crack cocaine, by stopping himself in front of the media at his office and asking them to ask him a question that was asked over a year ago: "Did you smoke crack?". That drew the attention of the national and international media for the day, including a dramatic press conference right before the Senate was to have its historic vote which was just a repeat of his earlier performance. Mission accomplished - the night of the long knives in the Senate drew barely a glance.

The fact is Prime Minister Harper, the Caligula of our times, had his guard politically execute three Senators. Senators Duffy, Wallin, and Brazeau. The Canadian public had watched this drama take place in record numbers, with about 88% engagement - a record in recent times. The central issue to Senators fighting the Prime Minister's plans was due process - were these Senators being given fair judgement before being suspended. The issue of due process struck home with Canadians as they railed against yet another arbitrary decision of their Prime Minister. After Duffy's revelations of a political conspiracy and cover up, backed by an extensive email and paperwork trail, confirmed for many their thoughts of Prime Minister Harper - he is dishonest.

The three Senators claimed they followed the rules. They produced emails from senior officials authorizing their expenses, and charged the Prime Minister with getting rid of them for to garner political favour with the Conservative Party base.

The Prime Minister, and the Conservative Party, claimed these Senators "broke the rules", were caught by the auditors, and deserved a two year suspension without pay, benefits or use of the Senate facilities and staff. The common spin being if you or I did this in our work place we would be treated no differently - at a minimum.

All these arguments aside, and they can be put aside, the one most relevant guideline that was completely ignored by Harper, the Conservative Party, the Press, and even the Senators is such a move is unconstitutional. The role of the Senate, and the guidelines for all things Senate, is the British North America Act (BNA) of 1867 - our original constitution. It was consolidated with our official constitution in 1982 - The Constitution Act. The BNA makes no provision for suspending a Senator. It does have a very specific set of criteria to fire a Senator:

Disqualification of Senators

31.

The Place of a Senator shall become vacant in any of the following Cases: (1) If for Two consecutive Sessions of the Parliament he fails to give his Attendance in the Senate: (2) If he takes an Oath or makes a Declaration or Acknowledgment of Allegiance, Obedience, or Adherence to a Foreign Power, or does an Act whereby he becomes a Subject or Citizen, or entitled to the Rights or Privileges of a Subject or Citizen, of a Foreign Power: (3) If he is adjudged Bankrupt or Insolvent, or applies for the Benefit of any Law relating to Insolvent Debtors, or becomes a public Defaulter: (4) If he is attainted of Treason or convicted of Felony or of any infamous Crime: (5) If he ceases to be qualified in respect of Property or of Residence; provided, that a Senator shall not be deemed to have ceased to be qualified in respect of Residence by reason only of his residing at the Seat of the Government of Canada while holding an Office under that Government requiring his Presence there.

Not one of these criteria were met. There is the suggestion that these Senators did not reside in their province, but no finding was made to that effect by the Senate or the Courts. Even if they were found not to be residing in their province the sentence is to expelled from the Senate permanently, with a replacement to be chosen. That is a very important fact. The constitution requires that each province in confederation be represented by a specific number of Senators. It states these Senators must be "in" the Senate, and they must "represent" their province. Specifically, from the BNA Act:

Representation of Provinces in Senate

22.

In relation to the Constitution of the Senate Canada shall be deemed to consist of Four Divisions: 1. Ontario; 2. Quebec; 3. The Maritime Provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island; 4. The Western Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta; which Four Divisions shall (subject to the Provisions of this Act) be equally represented in the Senate as follows: Ontario by twenty-four senators; Quebec by twenty-four senators; the Maritime Provinces and Prince Edward Island by twenty-four senators, ten thereof representing Nova Scotia, ten thereof representing New Brunswick, and four thereof representing Prince Edward Island; the Western Provinces by twenty-four senators, six thereof representing Manitoba, six thereof representing British Columbia, six thereof representing Saskatchewan, and six thereof representing Alberta; Newfoundland shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by six members; the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by one member each. In the Case of Quebec each of the Twenty-four Senators representing that Province shall be appointed for One of the Twenty-four Electoral Divisions of Lower Canada specified in Schedule A. to Chapter One of the Consolidated Statutes of Canada.

The Senate is in fact, constitutionally, not a "star chamber" of sober second thought. Constitutionally it is described to be a weighted, appointed body that's focus is to represent provincial interests against an otherwise elected House of Commons. The rise of provincial governments in that role has practically diminished that role for the Senate, but on paper that remains its purpose. The bottom line is, the provinces of Quebec, PEI and Saskatchewan are without the constitutionally required number of Senators to represent them for two years. That is unconstitutional. That is improper.

Stephen Harper, the prodigy of Preston Manning, and co-founder of the western based Reform Party of old, has become the ultimate dictator. Instead of changing Ottawa for the better, he has simply used his office as a tool to impose his will. He has abused his power, his authority, and his office. He has shown his ruthlessness, and at the same time exposed to us all that the foundations of our country are but a mere inconvenience to him. It does not make him a strong leader with a vision. It makes him the Caligula of our times here in Canada, and it needs to change immediately.
  

Did Prime Minister Harper Obstruct Justice?

The Senate scandal story, or maybe better put the PMO scandal, has rocked Canadian politics to the core. It is the real, previously unpublished, under belly of Canadian politics as it's really practiced. Forget the regal Canada Day celebrations on the Hill. The Mounties in their scarlet promenading about on horse. The Governor General's tea parties and all that sort of thing. That's simply window dressing. This is the what real politics is done in Ottawa, and also in the provinces - especially this province.

There is a caveat however on the practice of exercising power in these devilish houses - don't get caught. This week the Conservative government, and more specifically the Prime Minister himself got caught. Senator Duffy, among others, is being "investigated" and has not been "convicted" of any crimes as yet regarding office expenses. But here is where the real story starts. Duffy, during his defence in the Senate, indicted the Prime Minister as actually having a direct hand in a financial deal with Harper's then Chief of Staff Nigel Wright.

How is that significant? Firstly, Duffy says he has hundreds of emails, memos, etc. that prove what he is saying is true. Given his experience one can likely take that to the bank. So let's say it's true. Also involved in this whole "fixing" of audit issues is Senator Tkachuk. He suddenly took medical leave just after it all hit the fan months ago for "preemptive" cancer treatment. Tkachuk was put in the Senate by Mulroney, nominated by then Saskatchewan Premier Grant Devine, to be a political fixer. That was his job, and he did his job - a very experienced political operative and experienced in the dark arts of politics.

So, as the story goes, Tkachuk becomes aware that the auditors have found issues with Duffy's and others expenses. He works with Wright and Duffy to make the controversy go away. Duffy doesn't disagree all this happened, but says Harper was actually present and had his hands all over the issue. Harper is known to be a control freak, hands on manager, personally vindictive, and political strategist - not necessarily in that order. This little exchange of dollars for expedient political solutions is common place, and the Prime Minister has a private fund worth over a million dollars that can be used for any such thing.

However, the real question is: Is this a legal issue before it is a political issue. I suggest it is. Often those lines get blurred, but here the lines are becoming quite obvious. An ex- Liberal Senator today had affidavits sworn out against him by the RCMP for breach of trust and misuse of public funds. He was trapped up in similar-type practices of abuse that some are leveling against the three Conservative senators. So, if those senators are all charged along similar lines, crimes, did the current and previous Chief of Staffs for Harper commit the criminal offence of Obstruction of Justice? If Harper did, as Duffy states he did, promise to make the audit go away if Duffy took the loan and paid the bill was that an attempt to obstruct an audit of a public office holder with the sole purpose of avoiding unlawful findings against the senator?

The Criminal Code of Canada defines the offence of Obstruction of Justice as:

"(2) everyone who willfully attempts in any manner other then a matter described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to  imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years."

So did the Prime Minister and his Chiefs of Staff attempt to pervert or obstruct the course of justice? If what Duffy says to be true the answer is yes. Duffy says he has the documented evidence. He may be holding that evidence over Harper's head until its decided if he is suspended from the Senate without pay for two years. I would consider that likely. However, perhaps Duffy could do all of his fellow Canadians one big last service and despite the outcome of the Senate vote on his future, release to us all the evidence so we can have the tools to clean our government up. Be the bigger man for the bigger reason. Make history by doing the right thing. Put us before yourself, your party or your institution. If this Prime Minister broke the law, as it appears, give us the evidence of it - we will look after the rest.