Tories resurrect Court Challenges Program
Monday, 14 September 2009

For more than a year now, prominent conservatives have been warning – some publicly – about the drift of the Harper Tories away from conservative principles. Party apologists, chief among them the Prime Minister himself, have responded to the criticism by citing the need for “pragmatism”, given the government’s minority status. Their argument has merit, but how does it explain the decision to reinstate the Court Challenges Program successfully terminated in 2006? The answer is – it doesn’t.

Supporters of the Language Rights Support Program, as the new initiative will be known, say that it will be nothing like its predecessor, promising that it will be restricted to cases involving minority language rights only. Funds will not be made available to other minority groups, they say.

When I read this, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Clearly these guys don’t know how the game is played.

First, a bit of history.

The original Court Challenges Program was established in 1978 to provide funding for minority language cases based on sections 93 and 133 of the Constitution Act of 1867, and later, cases based on the language rights provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Like the new Language Rights Support Program, the original Court Challenges Program was never intended to provide support for cases involving the rights of other minority groups either. So why was its mandate expanded to include these cases? Simply put, it just made sense. There was never a logical reason for the government to fund the constitutional challenges of one minority group, but not others, and once the Charter was adopted in 1982, the practice of favouring one group over another quite likely became legally untenable too.

That argument is no less valid in 2009 than it was then. Of course, a future Conservative government could resist the inevitable pressure to broaden the mandate of the new Language Rights Support Program, but that would only provoke the sort of messy political confrontation that the Tories have been trying to avoid in an effort to prove their pragmatist credentials. Given the relatively small amount of money involved, I suspect that they'll prefer to turn a blind eye to the problem rather than risk precipitating such a confrontation. History will simply repeat itself.

Even if the government succeeds in preventing an expansion of the new program’s mandate, that doesn’t mean that left-wing activists won't be able to use it to advance their social agenda. How long before someone makes the case that Francophones in a particular Ontario community are discriminated against because there is no abortion clinic dedicated to serving them in their own language? This isn’t so far-fetched – the Ontario government was forced to keep an entire French language hospital open in Ottawa not long ago despite the fact that there was a fully bilingual hospital just a few miles away.

What about taxpayer-funded community programming for gay Francophone teenagers where “numbers warrant”? Or more women’s shelters? The possibilities are endless. Eventually, someone will bring a case like this to the independent committee overseeing the program, and the committee will agree to take the case on forcing the government to either intervene, or relent.

Again, given the small amount of money involved and the pitfalls of a confrontation, I predict that the government will prefer that latter course of action.

What really bothers me about the Language Rights Support Program is not that it is so susceptible to abuse though; it’s that it completely undoes one of the few big conservative policy successes this government has had since coming to office in 2006 – the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program. In one fell swoop, the Tories have rendered meaningless the considerable effort expended at that time by their friends in support of that policy decision.

Why? Can it be that someone has made a calculation that this will help win an election, maybe even a majority? It’s hard to believe.

As the country braces for yet another election – our fourth in five years – I’m asking myself, as a principled conservative, if the Harper Tories are still worth supporting. Until this past week, the two answers that kept coming back to me in response were: a) the liberals would be much worse, and b) the Tories would be much better if they had a majority. The sudden and, in my view, gratuitous creation of the Language Rights Support Program has badly shaken my confidence in either of these answers.

To the untrained eye, all this may seem like a small thing, but it’s the small things that point to bigger, more serious problems.

The question is – are there any trained eyes left in the federal Conservative Party with any influence who even care?

Comments (24)add comment
Kevin G. McDonald: ...
Joseph is right: all the promises in Ottawa won't prevent something that is philosophically flawed from becoming politically dangerous and misused.

When the Catholic church was left reeling from the sex abuse scandals in the past one sociologist looked around and found that the most orthodox bishops were the ones attracting the most vocations for priests and nuns.

In short, "orthodoxy is sexy". In politics the same is true: real red-blooded conservatism attracts new followers and creates movements that transcend politics and regenerate the culture. Real conservatives are not afraid of the cut and thrust of politics and a free and open marketplace of ideas.

Pragmatism does not attract the idealists and the reformers. It dies a slow death of a thousand cuts by so many party hacks and partisans. Pragmatists find it hard to talk about controversial subjects like abortion, embryocidal research, assisted suicide, homosexual marriage and anything else that makes them take a stand and get off the fence they sit on.

Harper is luke warm water to be spat out. He is useless to true conservatism. He has failed the unborn and he has failed the institution of marriage -- probably just so social liberal Laureen does not make him sleep on the couch. He's pathetic and becoming a caricature of a politician, not a true leader.

We need to start looking at Jason Kenney or others to lead the CPC.
1

September 14, 2009
David Murrell: ...
Joseph: good investigative work!

As a card carrying Conservative, I will still go out to vote Conservative in the next election. But I will be refusing to donate any more money to the party. The clincher for me has been the large rise in federal spending, and the reluctance of the Conservative government in reigning in the deficit. The Cpnservatives have no real plan to eliminate the defict. Prime Minister Harper no longer sees the need to address small-c conservative concerns. Partially resoring the corrupt Court Challenges Program shows this.
-- David Murrell
Editor and Publisher
WatchDog Newsletter
2

September 14, 2009
Scott: ...
As the country braces for yet another election – our fourth in five years – I’m asking myself, as a principled conservative, if the Harper Tories are still worth supporting.

That's a fair question, Joseph. Maybe you should ask yourself this: would Stephen Harper himself (the early 90s reform edition) have supported this government?
3

September 14, 2009
s. mann: ...
David Murrell,In a democracy your vote should be more sacred than your money, make up your mind,either you support your party or you dont. smilies/smiley.gif
4

September 14, 2009
Michelle: ...
I agree with David Murrell. As a citizen of one of the world's great democracies, I consider it my duty to vote, so in the end, I will probably still vote Conservative, but I'll have to hold my nose to do so. They won't be getting any more money from me though.
5

September 14, 2009
Ed: ...
So this means that religious school groups in Ontario can not get support for challenges of 3 card monte mcguinty's catholic only school programs.

Guess it is time to vote Liberal.
6

September 14, 2009
SteveR: ...
I'm a fiscal conservative, so I appreciate the attention Joseph gives to fiscal issues. The Conservatives under Stephen Harper's leadership have been a big disappointment in this area too. When my friends ask me if I would rather see the Liberals in power, I answer by asking my own question - why not?

Here are the facts:

The Harper government's spending has been out of control since day one - 15% more spending its first two years in power despite an annual inflation rate of around 2 percent. That's more than the Liberals increased spending under Paul Martin.

How could the Liberals be worse?

Last year the Conservatives campaigned on a no-deficit platform, a promise they reiterated in November's economic update. When their budget in January included a deficit of $39 billion they said it was to avoid an economic disaster. Personally, I don't buy it, but even by its own logic, the argument made no sense. The "disaster" struck in September and October. Surely if a huge stimulus package was necessary someone would have known during the election campaign or, at the latest, by November. The inescapable conclusion is that either Canadians were lied to by the Conservatives about their fiscal intentions, or the Conservatives just delivered a Liberal budget to stay in power.

Hmmm... a Liberal budget? How could the Liberals be worse?

Then there is the whole issue of the credibility of the budget projections made by Flaherty and his team of experts. In November they were assuring us that there was no need for a stimulus package and that there would be no deficit. Two months later, in January, they delivered a budget with a $39 billion deficit. Four months after that they reported that the deficit would reach $50 billion this year, 28 percent higher than forcast in January. Now they are reporting that the deficit will be $56 billion, a further increase of 12 percent.

With a track record like this, how can anyone still say that the Liberals would be worse?

I'm not saying that people should support the Liberals, I'm saying that conservatives should stop drinking the kool-aid. Our party is treating us like stupid children and we, like the followers of the Pied Piper, are blissfully following along, playing the part to perfection.

By giving our party a pass on these issues, we grassroots conservatives, with the notable exception of those like Joseph and Gerry Nicholls, are letting Canada down. In the end, that's not just bad for the country, it's bad for the party too.
7

September 14, 2009
Gilles J. Rancourt: ...
why must a dedicated social/fiscal conservative hold their nose in order to vote for the Conservative Party when there is a better choice...The Christian Heritage Party...check it out at www.chp.ca
8

September 14, 2009
Stephen R. Leach, Lexington, SC: ...
While I agree with Gilles Rancourt about the other 'real' Conservative option of the CHP, I would only support that party if they dropped the 'religious' conontation to its name and replace it the word, 'Canadian'. Afterall, Mr. Harper is a 'christian' too, so is Barrack 'don't say my middle name out loud' Obama, as I'm sure everyone is when campaigning.
While voting for the minority Conservatives means Liberal Light, voting for the actual Liberal party is akin to supporting the globalist agenda of removing even more of our liberties (the few we still actually have left that is) and I can't support that, nor their radical agenda.
Harper had better learn to grow a pair real quick or Canada will be offically lost to the left for all intents and purposes. I'm not sure a new leader will do this because within the ranks of the CPC, are many drooling 'progressives' who have more in common with the liberals than conservatives; and that is no choice at all.
So....Christian Heritage Party...will you change your name or remain in obscurity forever? Even those who call themselves 'christian' won't vote for you. What does that say?
9

September 14, 2009
Ernst Domet: ...
I once read an estimate that some 50% of the world's lawyer live in North America. It follows that Parliament has an equally large share of lawyers.

To me, therefore, many laws and particlualrly regulations simply create more jobs for the boys (and girls!I'm sure the legal fraternity will just love the Court Challenges Program. Don't we have already enough "Rights" in this country? How about more personal responsibility?

Ernst Domet, Oakville
10

September 14, 2009
Michelle: ...
Steven Leach makes an excellent point about the CHP. By incorporating a theological aspect into its name and platform, it closes itself off to some of this country's most talented and articulate conservatives like Joseph, who is Jewish.
11

September 14, 2009
Kevin G. McDonald: ...
CHP also closes itself off to educated, well catechized Catholics who can't support its sola scriptura fallacy that a Christian's (and the CHP)sole authority is the Bible.

They are theocrats, not a modern,viable political party. They are destined to be tiny and fringe until they change their name to something like "CANADIAN HERITAGE PARTY" and acknowledge the contributions of non-Christians and non-protestants to our country.

They went from a tiny 126,000 votes at their inception to a mere 26,000 and they think that because they have a good leader (Jim is a good man) they can forget the fact that their party is philosophically flawed and perpetually doomed to electoral failure.

I can't vote CPC anymore since Harper won't help the unborn and he is harming the fabric of democracy by closing debate on it and other subjects -- doing the pragmatic thing and ignoring the right or moral thing to do.

I certainly can't vote for the poorly catechized theocrats in the "Fundamentalist Protestant Christian Heritage Theocratic Party" either because I know where they err theologicall and how doomed to failure their political strategy is.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions CHP: let others in beyond your group of frustrated pastors and mini-popes and you will see eventual electoral success.

More of the same is a waste of time and rude to Jesus, who, from what we know of him, most likely prefers political parties and countries to be inclusive, not exclusive.
12

September 14, 2009
Kevin G. McDonald: ...
Taken from the CHP's website:

Biblical Principles that Guide the Christian Heritage Party of Canada
Party principles are based on these Biblical ethics and are unalterable:

We Believe:
There is one Creator God, eternally existent in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ.


The Holy Bible to be the inspired, inerrant written Word of God and the final authority above all man's laws and government.


Civil government to be under the authority of God.


The purpose of civil government is to ensure freedom and justice for a nation's citizens by upholding law and order in accordance with Biblical principles.


Decision-making processes by civil government must not in any way contravene these Biblical ethics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

There you have it folks: a theocratic party based on the theological principles of Martin Luther and other Christian schismatics.

If you are a non-Christian or a Christian who does not subscribe to the inerrancy of Scripture and its supposed role as a Christian's sole authority (something the Bible itself doesn't even claim) then the party is not for you.

What a waste of time. You don't see the Bloc Quebecois enforcing belief in the goal of eventual sovereignty in religious codicils. The NDP is officially pro-abortion but you don't see them needing to use anything other than ordinary language in their party platform.

So, why can't the CHP go after all its good pro-life,pro-family goals by making them mandatory tenets of its platform and policies; that is: just writing them out in plain English, not relying on the protestant (not Catholic,Anglican or Orthodox translations of course) Bible?

Its a theocracy of men who wish they were pastors and a few who are. They are mixing up a Christian's role to evangelize with a citizen's duty to use politics to get good done and exclude evil.

CHP is the biggest disappointment to Christianity today in Canada because it could seek all the good goals it aims for by using strictly secular language. It could be officially pro-life, pro-family without any recourse to the Bible but it doesn't and it is just more evidence why schism is never justified.

Schismatic Christians who reject the authority of the bishop of Rome will run a party that, for all intents and purposes, excludes all men and women of good will who are non-protestants and non-Christians. All further proof it was not a "Reformation" but a continuous and ongoing "revolution" and a schism, something Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition do not support.
13

September 14, 2009
Don Allen: ...
What is happening to this country/ I think it is great that the rights of all our new Canadians are protected. What is happenung to the rights of Canadians? Should we bend all the time to the new rights or should the new Canadians be assimilated into Canada( whatever that is?). We are becoming the biggest suckers on earth. There are too many people who are abusing our system, and because of the privacy act we are unable to even ask a simple question to find out how much the system is being ripped.We also have one of the easiest finacial systems to rip off people. This includes the chater Banks. When is the govenment going to do something? Look at McGinty ! he gave 3 Million dollars to a TEmple in Miss. and they have on display the terrorist( As a martyr )who blew up the plane over Scotland. WE need some honest politicians, if there are any ?
14

September 14, 2009
Stephen R. Leach, Lexington, SC: ...
Kevin McDonald has made some well thought out points in standing against the 'religious' nature of the CHP. I'd like to point out a couple of things that need to be considered that no christian or non-believer would have a problem with.
I'm not a 'christian', but I do believe in the Word of God as being the absolute truth and inasmuch as this is true, we have to recognize that our civil laws and the Liberty we once enjoyed, were derived from the word of God itself.
I don't play church on Sundays, I don't gravitate to the confused religion of Christianity that ranges from radical hard left socialist ideology, to hard right theocracy.

The Bible itself is the Supreme book, and the Lord our God is declared to be the Supreme Sovereign in our Constitution, but civil law can be based upon the truth of Gods word without being considered a theocracy. That would mean a man made religion called christianity has authority like Islamic Iran has authority. We don't need to get invoved in this but we as citizens can recognize from where our Liberty is derived and where our just civil law is birthed.
I believe the founding Statements of the CHP reflect this, but it is also immediately compromised once religion is applied. The bible isn't a religious book nor does the Word of God endorse ANY religion, but the CHP is filled with religious christians of the thousands of denomiations that make up the religion.
Truth is truth, but religion isn't truth.


I
15

September 16, 2009
Kevin G. McDonald: ...
Change "Christian Heritage Party" to "Canadian Heritage Party", remove all references to God, the Bible and religion but keep the moral tenets of its excellent platform and you have a fair and inclusive party that can declare itself, one hundred percent and always pro-life and pro-family and not need recourse to sola scriptura arguments or the Bible.

As its stands today CHP is a sin against the unborn and the traditional family because it insists on sectarian principles and will not open itself to non-protestants.

They are good hearted, well meaning people who will stay on the fringes of our polity until they begin to think beyond the limits of sectarianism.

Its just a crying shame that they can't work well with others. They are shooting themselves in the foot and keeping so much talent and passion away from helping them.

They need to evolve from a theocratically-inclined party to a modern political party that remains faithful to life and family issues but does not define them in protestant, sola scriptura theology. You can believe the Bible is inerrant, but many of us don't. If you would show some common sense and flexibility and drop religion as a divise issue we could do great things for Canada.

Its your choice.
16

September 16, 2009
Anthony: ...
Do you have proof that this new program is starting up? Please provide it.
17

September 19, 2009
Anthony: ...
I found some info...what a mess.Good work... Liberal, Tory same old story.

http://www.media.uottawa.ca/mediaroom/news-details_1724.html
18

September 19, 2009
Dick Field: ... http://Canada Free Press
I totally agree with Kevin McDonald's comments. There are any number of Christian identity individuals and groups who are excellent promoters of justice, fairness and equality before and under the law. All are ethical upholders of Christian moral principles. I applaud all those that strive to do so.
However,so long as you tie your party to a "GROUP" identity, especially a religeous identity, you will lose politically. The Canadian Heritage Party sounds like a grant winner. More importantly a political possibility. Frankly, until we realize the disaster of the policies and laws foisted on us since Trudeau-Pearson, (including the Charter), we are a lost cause.
19

September 19, 2009
Kevin G. McDonald: ...
Dick and Stephen make good points and it is sad that CHP insists on being a theocratic movement based on the sola scriptura fallacy. They could make all their good moral policies dependent on the will of the party, not the belief that the Bible is without error.

The saddest thing is that I have met a few CHPers and corresponded with more and they are the nicest, decent folk you'd ever meet. It is just that they can't separate religion from morality and religion from politics.

They are destined to only represent fundamentalist Protestant (Evangelical) Christians.
20

September 21, 2009
Kim McConnell: ... http://www.languagefairness.ca
It is good to read Joseph C. Ben-Ami's very thoughtful article about the disastrous reinstatement of the Court Challenges Program. It is sad that the Conservative Party is still not aware of the misuse of the program to allow minority groups to use public money to impose their will on the majority. The hapless majority is left without any recourse to financial support except to go the public. As the public gets more and more disillusioned about the slow death of democracy, they are losing faith & are getting more and more apathetic. As Joseph pointed out, any minority interest group can hide under the umbrella of the language issue to further their agenda.

As a dyed-in-the-wool Conservative,I will continue to vote for the CPC as the Liberals are a greater danger to the country but, unfortunately, I won't be giving them any more money.
21

September 28, 2009
Jim Hnatiuk: ... http://www.chp.ca
The Christian Heritage Party: There are some conservatives who do not wish to see CHP Canada growing because they have some faint hope in the CPC. So when you see someone crushing the CHP and in the same breath talking about the resurrection of the CPC, do seek “The rest of the story”.
What the public sees in reading about the CHP is a solid conservative platform. It does not contain all these references to God as Kevin would have you believe. Check them out for yourself, go to www.chp.ca and click on Better Solutions
Our policies were/are presented as resolutions to convention, debated by our CHP delegates and voted on. Our CHP delegates come from many Christian denominations across Canada. Much to the dismay of Kevin, our CHP delegates are both Roman Catholic and Protestant and both our RC and protestant population are growing.
With Kevin’s reference to our CHP principles, I’ve explained that both RCs & Protestants were involved in producing them and almost all RC have no problem with the principles once this is explained to them. They also realize that they are joining a political party and not a church regardless of what some may wish to lead you to believe. Kevin's arguments are 'religion', not ours.
We are not a ‘theocratic movement’. Only people who totally lack knowledge of the CHP or those who intent to discredit our party, could suggest something so preposterous.
There are many non – Christians who support the CHP partly because they know CHP members are good people but more so because we will also protect the rights of all faiths.
The NDP & the Bloc have principles that you have to agree to. The NDP membership form asks you to sign agreeing to their principles but they don’t list them...hmm
The Reform party of Canada started out with what Kevin is suggesting the CHP ‘change’ to. Look at what happened to them...Why? – NO solid principles, instead they compromised.
The CHP will not make such a mistake. We are the only social/fiscal small c conservative party left in Canada, we are committed, dedicated, growing, will not quit and we will win!
CPC conservatives continue to join our ranks - more again did so last weekend.
22

September 30, 2009
JEM: ...
ARPA Note: In response to this article by Ben-Ami, we received a note from a reader letting us know that the federal government only resurrected the language section of the court challenges program. This is as a result of a legal challenge to the government's decision to get rid of it. But this does not apply to the equality section of the program that was cut and remains so.

According to Joseph Ben-Ami, the federal Conservatives have resurrected the infamous Court Challenges Program, used for years to fund legal challenges against the family (among other things). Read more about it here.
Well, that isn't so...
Please note message received from REAL Women of Canada re:
> Court Challenges Program:
>
> From: REAL Women of Canada - Toronto office
> [mailto: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it ]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 > Subject: Re: Concern re: Court Challenges Program
>
> >
> The Court Challenge Program was initially established in 1978 to
> provide funding for legal challenges on language rights only.
>
> In 1985, when S. 15 of the Charter (the equality section) came into
> effect, the Liberal government, under Jean Chretien, established the
> equality panel of the Court Challenges Program to fund legal
> challenges of equality rights under the Charter. As you know, that
> money went only to feminist and homosexual organizations. These funds
> were used to assist the legal arm of the feminist movement LEAF
> (Women's Legal Education Action Fund) in over 200 legal challenges.
> Accordingly to the homosexual organization EGALE, it never would have
> achieved same-sex marriage in the courts without the funding from the Court Challenges Program.
>
> In September 2006, the Conservative government disbanded the entire
> Court Challenges Program both the language and equality sections.
> According to some Conservatives, it is believed that this decision was
> one of the best decisions the government ever made. However, in 2007,
> some French language groups in Quebec brought a legal challenge of the
> disbandonment of the language section of the Court Challenges Program.
> A group of feminist organizations applied to intervene in that legal
> challenge, but for their application to intervene was rejected by the court.
>
> As a result, however, of the legal challenge by the Quebec language
> groups, the Conservative government agreed to re-establish the
> language section only of the Court Challenges Program. It has no
> intention whatsoever to re-establish the equality section of the Court
> Challenges Program.
>
> It would seem that Joseph Ben Ami has jumped to conclusions
> in his article on the Court Challenges Program as the Conservatives
> will not, unequivocally not, establish a panel to fund equality legal challenges.
>
> REAL Women is now watching the situation carefully to determine
> whether the feminists have the will and the funding to bring a legal
> action against the Conservative government for shutting down the
> equality panel of the Program. If so, I can assure you that we will
> be very quick to apply to intervene in that case as we have
> considerable documentation pointing out the bias and inadequacy of the
> former Program and how it completely failed to provide "equality" for Canadians.
>
> Hope this helpful.
>
> With all best wishes.
>
> Gwen Landolt
23

October 04, 2009
sell jordan shoes : ... http://www.jordanmvp.com
There you can find many different kinds of cheap Air Jordan Shoes .We are a wholesaler of the Air Jordan Shoes . Here we can offfer you traditional Air Jordan 1 shoes , beautiful Air Jordan 2 shoes and some other cheap Air Jordan Shoes , such as Air Jordan 10 , Air Jordan 23 and others .Both are in its superior quality .Also we can offer you with our best services for discount jordan shoes.
24

April 09, 2010

Write comment
Please note that you can no longer comment on this column after 30 days.

busy