Are you in a dispute with Revenue Canada as tax time approaches? Take heart. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is on your side.
At least that's the way I interpret his defence this week of his party's conduct in what is being dubbed the "in-and-out" affair.
Elections Canada said the scheme was illegal.
It said the people who took part were breaking the law and that the Conservative party was bilking taxpayers.
The Federal Court of Appeal agreed, overturning a lower-court ruling that found Elections Canada had overstepped its authority.
Not to worry, Harper said. What we have here is nothing more than an administrative dispute, a mere difference of opinion.
"There have been different court decisions on this particular matter, which has gone on for some years. For that reason, we will be appealing the most recent decision," Harper explained in question period, as the opposition parties took turns launching attacks on the issue.
That's a novel interpretation of how our court system works.
In the Harper view, one court matters as much as another. Nonsense, of course.
Unless the Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear an appeal and disagrees with the Federal Court of Appeal, the ruling issued last week represents the law in this country.
So the fact that Harper disagrees with its interpretation isn't really relevant. Or at least it shouldn't be.
If it is, as Harper suggests, then we should all feel better about having our own administrative disputes with the law and acting accordingly.
With the tax department, for example, or maybe even with the police officer who pulls you over for running a red light.
Before you try any of this, you might want to take the standard advice: Kids, this sleight of hand is being practised by professional politicians. Don't try this at home.
The ludicrous aspects aside, there is a serious issue here in addition to respect for the law.
It is the purpose of the law that the Conservatives were trying to get around.
The dispute -- or as Elections Canada sees it, the breaches of the Election Act -- occurred during the 2006 federal election that brought the Conservatives to power.
The national campaign was bumping up its spending limit for advertising, but it still had money left over.
So local riding associations were asked to take money briefly into their accounts and then spend it on national ads that would be modified to carry a tag-line acknowledging the local candidate.
In return, the ridings got to claim the amounts, which the Court of Appeal said closely mirrored the amount each riding had left in its spending limit, as an election expense, 60 per cent of which would be reimbursed by taxpayers.
Elections Canada rejected the claims, ruling that it was national spending on a national campaign.
Regardless of what the Supreme Court of Canada ultimately rules in terms of its legality if it hears the case, this was an acknowledged attempt by the national campaign to sidestep the spending limits.
And it's important to remember that these limits are not simply an arbitrary act of government.
In his earlier role as the head of the National Citizens Coalition, Harper had already challenged third-party spending limits as being unconstitutional.
In 2004, he lost at the Supreme Court, which acknowledged that while they offended the Charter, they were justified because by funding campaigns itself and limiting spending by other parties, the state was able to provide a voice to those who might otherwise not be heard and to restrict voices that are powerful enough to drown everybody else out.
That's a purpose worth supporting, not trying to evade.
Blog: www.vancouversun.com/craigmcinnes
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Harper+administrative+dispute+this+home/4389101/story.html#ixzz1FnVt0IYC
