2006 Annual Report

“Protecting the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through education, communication and litigation.”

2006 Annual Report

2 Table of Contents

A voice for freedom in Canada’s courtrooms . . . . . 4

Activists should turn to courts to protect individual freedoms . . 6

Issues, activities and events ...... 7

Chaoulli comes to Alberta ...... 8

Freedom of choice in health care ...... 9

Dissident Nisga’a clears hurdle ...... 10

The Nisga’a Agreement is unconstitutional . . . . . 11

Provinces fight to keep illegal tax ...... 12

Summary of media interviews in 2006 ...... 13

A welcome break for taxpayers ...... 14

Justice for all ...... 15

John Carpay, Executive Director of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, addresses the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, December 11, 2006, regarding taxpayer funding of the Court Challenges Program.

3 A Voice for Freedom in Canada’s Courtrooms

The Canadian Constitution Foundation is a registered charity, independent and non-partisan, with a unique charter which allows it to fund appropriate litigation. We rely on donations to carry out our educational and charitable work, and issue tax receipts for donations received. Our registered charitable number with the Canada Revenue Agency is 86617 6654 RR0001.

Our Mission

We protect the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through education, communication and litigation.

Our Vision

We envision a Canada where: • Every Canadian is equal before the law, and is treated equally by governments. • There is freedom from fear and oppression. • Canadians have the knowledge and motivation to recognize, protect and preserve their constitutional rights and liberties. • Individuals control their own destiny as free and responsible members of society. • Governments are held accountable to our Constitution in making and applying laws, regulations and policies.

Our litigation priorities

Through communication, education, and litigation, the Foundation supports:

• Individual freedom – the “fundamental freedoms” in section 2 of the Charter: freedom of association; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.

• Economic liberty: the right to earn a living, and to own and enjoy property, as part of the Charter section 7 right to “life, liberty and security of the person.”

• Equality before the law: the Charter section 15 should be interpreted to mean equal rights and equal opportunities for all Canadians, special privileges for none.

4 Our guiding principles for carrying out our mission • Frugality: We expend donors’ funds in the most effective manner. • Political neutrality: We are non-partisan. • Honesty: We subscribe to the highest level of probity and sincerity in our words and actions. • Optimism: We strive to maintain a positive outlook. • Competence: We strive to carry out our work at the highest professional standard

Our Board of Directors and Advisory Board

The Directors on our governing Board are West Vancouver businessman Claus Jensen (Chairman), Simon Fraser University criminology professor Ehor Boyanowsky, Vancouver lawyer Daniel Burns, Vancouver family physician Will Johnston, Vancouver businessman Mark Mitchell, National Post editorial board member Marni Soupcoff, Calgary community volunteer Monique Beaumont, and Ottawa lawyer Christopher Schafer.

Our Advisory Board members are Toronto lawyer Avril Allen, Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant in Calgary, and Eugene Meehan, Q.C., head of the Supreme Court Advocacy Group at Lang Michener, Ottawa.

Special thanks to all of our Donors

The Canadian Constitution Foundation is grateful for all donations received, regardless of the amount. We respect the privacy of donors, and provide public recognition only with their con- sent. The following individuals, foundations and businesses each donated $1,000 or more in the past year:

Paul Einarsson Mark Mitchell Dr. Kenneth Hilborn Sarah Mitchell

Richard Holbrook Gwyn Morgan

Dr. Will Johnston Roger Phillips Gerald McKay Marni Soupcoff

Jane McKay Dr. Michael Walker Atlas Economic Research Foundation

Aurea Foundation Our special thanks to Barbara McIsaac and Donner Canadian Foundation Howard Fohr of the Ottawa office of John & Lotte Hecht Memorial Foundation McCarthy Tetrault, which represented the Ca- nadian Constitution Foundation pro bono as Lansdowne Equity Ventures Ltd. we intervened on behalf of taxpayers before Pirie Foundation the Supreme Court of Canada in Kingstreet Investments v. New Brunswick, an important W. Garfield Weston Foundation constitutional case involving illegal taxation.

Activists should turn to courts to protect individual freedoms

By John Carpay rights, economic liberty, freedom of speech, commercial Montreal Gazette, Monday March 6, 2006 freedom, racial equality, and the right of parents to raise their children free from state interference. Advancing this libertar- In view of how powerful the nine lawyers on Canada’s high- ian philosophy, the Institute recently won a victory for est court are, the recent appointment of Marshall Rothstein Lillian Anderson to earn a living by braiding hair. The Min- should have earned far more media coverage than it did. nesota Cosmetology Board had shut down Ms. Anderson’s And the questions put to Mr. Rothstein by M.P.s, prior to his clean, professional hair-braiding salon because she had not elevation to the Supreme Court, should have been far more taken 1,550 hours of cosmetology training. Ironically, this probing. cosmetology training teaches nothing about hair braiding, while costing up to $14,500 in tuition. The Institute sued the Most Canadians don’t yet appreciate the full impact of the Cosmetology Board, which then agreed to change its rules Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was added to and policies. our constitution in 1982. Canada abandoned its Parliamen- tary democracy for an American model of “constitutional In Canada, judicial advocacy has been dominated by tax- democracy,” in which non-elected judges exercise substan- payer-funded left-wing groups like the radical feminist Legal tial legislative power. Before 1982, Canada’s Parliament and and Education Action Fund (LEAF). The Secretary of State provincial legislatures were sovereign; activism in the de- and the Court Challenges Program have given millions of tax mocratic political arena was the only way to bring about pol- dollars to special interest groups to advance their political icy change. But now Canadian judges -- like their U.S. agendas through Canada’s courts. LEAF and other groups counterparts -- play a very active role in shaping public pol- have argued that the Charter’s section 15 equality rights do icy on complex issues like abortion, the rights of criminals, not mean that the law must be applied equally to all people the definition of marriage, and the scope of health care and regardless of race, age, gender and other factors. Courts have other government programs. gradually adopted the view that section 15 equality rights should mean equality of condition, or equal outcomes, to the The Americans have had their constitutional democracy for detriment of individual freedom and true equality before the over 200 years, so they know that court decisions are inher- law. ently, necessarily and unavoidably political. For example, in the 1857 Dred Scott decision the U.S. Supreme Court upheld However, last year’s Chaoulli decision by the Supreme Court slavery, ruling that the abolition of slavery violates the prop- of Canada on health care is a welcome sign that litigation on erty rights of white men. Those who think that judges are matters of public policy need not always favour a philosophy more enlightened than elected representatives should con- of larger government at the expense of individual freedom. sider the words of Chief Justice Taney, who described blacks In striking down Quebec’s law which prohibited the purchase as “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associ- of private medical insurance, the court noted that access to a ate with the white race, either in social or political relations; waiting list is not access to health care, and that waiting lists and so far inferior that they have no rights which the white cause irreparable physical harm and even death. While not man is bound to respect.” expressly affirming property rights or other economic liberties, the court provided a positive outcome by ruling that a It is because Americans recognize that their judges do, in rigid government monopoly violates the Charter’s section 7 fact, exert vast political power that the President’s nominee right to life, liberty and security of the person. is subjected to questioning by Senators, who have the power to reject that nominee. In Canada, the very political process Looking to the Institute for Justice as a model, the Canadian of appointing judges still takes place behind the closed doors Constitution Foundation plans to build on the Chaoulli deci- of the Prime Minister’s office, without transparency or ac- sion by challenging repressive health care laws in other prov- countability. inces, as well as other laws which run counter to individual freedom, property rights, and economic liberty. In a constitu- In recognizing the courts’ power to shape public policy, tional democracy, where judges wield real power over public Americans have also created numerous legal foundations, policy, those who cherish individual freedom cannot afford which advocate philosophies from across the political spec- to remain silent in court. trum. For example, the Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C. represents individuals in their fight for private property John Carpay is Executive Director of the Canadian Constitu- tion Foundation. Carpay will speak at a Montreal Economic Institute luncheon on Thursday.

6 Issues, Activities and Events

The Canadian Constitution Foundation continues to support Chief Mountain’s litigation against the Nisga’a Agreement in north-western British Columbia, which sets up a race-based “Third Order” of government in violation of Canada’s constitution. In June of 2006, we intervened in support of taxpayers before the Supreme Court of Canada in Kingstreet Investments v. New Brunswick, a case involving illegal taxation. In August of 2006 we completed a substantive research project comparing aboriginal law and aboriginal policy in Australia, New Zealand, the U.S. and Can- ada. In September of 2006, we held a news conference at the Alberta Premier’s Office to John Carpay addresses a Montreal Economic Institute luncheon on announce our support for Bill Murray’s con- the subject of public interest litigation, March 9, 2006. The same stitutional challenge to Alberta’s health care week, the Montreal Gazette published “Activists should turn to courts to protect individual freedoms.” legislation.

Policy briefings about public interest litigation were presented by John Carpay at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver (September 2005), Toronto (October 2005) and Calgary (November 2005). John Carpay was invited to address the Ontario Conservative Youth Association in Ottawa in May of 2006 about health care reform and the Chaoulli decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. In July, John Carpay spoke at Liberty Summer Seminar, in Orono, Ontario, about the constitutional status of property rights in Canada today, and how they might be advanced in future. This Liberty Summer Seminar presentation can be viewed at: www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000644.html. More recently, John Carpay spoke about the Chaoulli decision and Bill Murray’s constitutional challenge to Alberta’s health care laws at Fraser Insti- tute policy briefings in Calgary (November 2006) and Vancouver (December 2006).

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights invited the Cana- dian Constitution Foundation to address the issue of taxpayer funding for the Court Chal- lenges Program and for the Law Commission of Canada. John Carpay addressed this Com- mittee on November 1, explaining why neither of these entities should receive funding from taxpayers. On December 11, John Carpay again made the case against taxpayer funding for the Court Challenges Program, this time to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. John Carpay and Michel Kelly-Gagnon, then President of the Montreal Economic Institute.

Chaoulli comes to Alberta

By John Carpay National Post, Tuesday, September 19, 2006, Page A17

A chartered accountant named Bill Murray has launched a constitutional challenge to Alberta's health-care laws, which are almost identical to the Quebec law struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada last year in the land- mark case of Chaoulli v. Quebec. Murray, like all Canadians, is prevented by law from spending his own money on comprehensive health insurance. Forced to rely on the government's monopoly system, he suffered from severe pain in his left hip for over a year before being able to see a specialist. The specialist recommended Birmingham hip resurfacing surgery as the best medical option. But the Alberta government refused to provide it, claiming that Bill Murray, at age 57, was too old to enjoy the benefits of this procedure.

Without the private medical insurance the law had denied him, Bill Murray paid out of pocket for this medically necessary treatment. But after successful surgery on his left hip, Murray encountered pain in his right hip. Again, the medical specialist recommended Birmingham hip resurfacing. But this time, Alberta denied him the surgery outright - the province wouldn't even let Murray pay for it himself. (He eventually paid for the treatment in Mont- real.) Murray's experience with the government's health care monopoly is not unique.

Canada's health system forces people to wait for months, even years, for necessary medical treatment. Many suffer irreparable harm to their health in the process. Physical pain is compounded by psychological suffering: the inabil- ity to work and to enjoy life. In its famous Chaoulli decision last year, six of seven Justices on the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that, under the circumstances, a Quebec law which prevents Canadians from seeking care outside of the government's health monopoly violated the plaintiff's Charter right to "life, liberty and security of the person." (The court was divided as to whether or not this violation is permissible as being "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.") Looking at the experience of dozens of countries around the world which allow private health care while also maintaining a public system, the majority of the Court ruled that a prohibition on private health care is not necessary to protect the quality of the public system. In fact, the World Health Organization has ranked Canada's public health system 30th in the world, behind 29 countries which allow private health care to co-exist alongside their public systems.

Despite the Court's pronouncement - and polls showing that a majority of Canadians support the availability of private health care as long as the public system is maintained - provincial governments have been slow to act. Provinces have continued to deny Canadians the choice of spending their own after-tax money to preserve their own health. Canadians can spend their money on gambling, alcohol, tobacco and pornography, but not on health insurance to provide better and faster access to quality medical care. Canadians can buy medical insurance for their pets, but not for their children. Alberta can respond to this court action by recognizing the concerns of Bill Murray and thousands like him. Alberta can amend its health care laws to allow for a private parallel system, in line with European countries which have better public health care systems than Canada does. Alberta can provide its citizens with choice in health care, instead of imposing an inefficient, dysfunctional and unaccountable monopoly on them. And in the process, Alberta can shorten waiting lists for everyone. Or, Alberta can defend against this court action, trotting out the tired old slogans of "equality" and preventing "two-tier" health care. But "two-tier" is already here: The wealthy can opt out of Canada's "wait care" system and pay directly for their treatment in the U.S., the U.K., India or elsewhere.

Politicians, professional athletes and the well-connected can skip the queue to receive care immediately. Further, Canadians know that throwing ever more tax dollars at an unaccountable monopoly will not help. Alberta, for example, has increased its health spending from $3.8-billion in 1995 to $10.5-billion today, but the problems remain. The edifice of the government's monopoly over health care is crumbling.

Alberta can deny the rot, and strive in vain to prop up a structure with fatal flaws. Or Alberta can take the lead, showing other provinces that when it comes to something as precious as a person's health, a free country should give its people the power to make their own choices.

8 Freedom of Choice in Health Care

Canada is the only industrialized democracy in the world which outlaws private health insurance for medically necessary services. The Canada Health Act – together with provincial laws – prevent Canadians from obtaining essential health care services outside of the government’s monopoly.

In the 2005 Chaoulli decision, six of seven Supreme Court of Canada Justices ruled that Que- bec’s ban on private health insurance violates the right to “life, liberty and security of the person” set out in section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These six Jus- tices were divided three-to-three as to whether this violation is justified because it accords with “the principles of fundamental justice.”

Bill Murray is a man of courage, launching a constitutional challenge to provincial health laws in Alberta to seek the entrenchment of the Chaoulli decision outside of Quebec. The Canadian Constitution Foundation is supporting his challenge, and hopes to support similar challenges in Ontario and other provinces.

John Carpay delivers Bill Murray’s Statement of Claim to the Office of Alberta’s Premier, Fri- day, September 8, 2006.

Plaintiff Bill Murray answers questions from assembled media.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

10 The Nisga'a Agreement is unconstitutional

The Canadian Constitution Foundation continues to support Chief Mountain’s constitutional challenge against the Nisga’a Agreement.

In violation of Canada’s Constitution, the Nisga’a Agreement has created a new Nis- ga’a “nation” in northwestern British Columbia, complete with a Nisga’a constitution, Nisga’a citizenship, Nisga’a government and Nisga’a laws.

The Nisga’a Agreement expressly states that Nisga’a law prevails over Ca- nadian law.

Further, the Nisga’a government has the power to determine who is – and who is not – a Nisga’a citizen and thereby entitled to vote. This means that Nisga’a politicians can effectively choose the voting population, creating a strong temptation for corruption and abuse of office, which would not exist if everyone had the right to vote. People who are denied Nisga’a citizenship and the right to vote must still pay taxes to the Nisga’a Nation. This Sga’ Nisim Sim’ Augit violates the ancient constitutional principle that there should be no taxation Chief Mountain without representation. It also denies the right to vote guaranteed by section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Chief Mountain rejects this race-based discrimination: “I have rights as a Canadian and a Nisga’a which are best protected under the Canadian constitution, not a constitution passed by a government controlled by family cliques.”

In March of 2000, before the Nisga’a Agreement came into effect, promi- nent legal authorities warned that it violates Canada’s constitution.

Retired Supreme Court of Canada Justices Willard Estey and William McIntyre, along with retired B.C. Court of Appeal Justice Michael Goldie, told the Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples that the Nisga’a Agree- ment would create “a third order of government . . . which will have virtu- ally all the powers of an independent sovereign state, including the power Nisibilada to make laws which will take precedence over the long established laws of Mercy Thomas Canada and British Columbia. … An independent self-governing nation state will be created within the boundaries of Canada.”

Alex MacDonald, former NDP Attorney-General of B.C., also stated that the Nisga’a Agree- ment violates Canada’s constitution, and that “a person may be arrested, fined and jailed pursuant to a [Nisga’a government] bylaw, yet have no voice in the government that made the bylaw.”

The late Mel Smith, Q.C. told Gordon Campbell, then B.C.’s Opposition Leader, that the trans- fer of federal and provincial authority to the new Nisga’a government “amounts to an irretriev- able delegation of legislative power.”

The three defendant governments (federal, B.C. and Nisga’a) continue to use procedural delays in an attempt to prevent the constitutional issues from reaching trial. 11

Provinces fight to keep illegal tax By John Carpay Brunswick maintains that repaying illegal taxes would in- Calgary Herald, Tuesday June 20, 2006. flict “financial shock” and “significant pain” on governments, which would then have no choice but to reduce ser- This Tuesday June 20, the Supreme Court of Canada will vices or raise taxes. hear four provincial governments argue that they should be able to keep money taken from taxpayers illegally, in viola- Our Alberta government has also entered the fray, arguing tion of Canada’s Constitution. that governments should not be held accountable for violating the Constitution. Alberta claims that, as long as a gov- The case of Kingstreet Investments v. New Brunswick arose ernment acts in good faith, it should be spared the “abrupt from an 11% provincial “user charge” paid by the owners loss” of being required to return money that was taken from of bars, pubs and nightclubs. This 11% charge imposed a taxpayers illegally. considerable burden on people who earn a living in the hospitality and entertainment industry. From 1985 to 1997, Holding governments accountable would cause “financial businesses were required to pay the 11% on top of the alco- chaos and inefficiency.” Alberta and other provincial gov- hol tax already included in the monopoly retail price set by ernments blithely assume that every tax dollar is spent the New Brunswick Liquor Corporation. wisely, and only on matters which further the public interest. Apparently there is no waste, mismanagement or inef- Bar and pub owners challenged the 11% “user charge” as ficiency in the public sector, not to mention misplaced pri- being an indirect tax, in violation of the Constitution Act, orities. 1867. Canada’s Constitution allows only the federal government to impose an indirect tax, such as an import duty, In the face of governments’ insatiable appetite for more paid by one person (e.g., a bar owner) in the expectation revenues, important constitutional principles are at stake in that it will be repaid by another (e.g., a bar patron). Can- Kingstreet. There should be no taxation without represen- ada’s provinces may only impose direct taxes. tation. All manner of taxes, rates, fees and charges should be extracted only under legal authority, pursuant to consti- At trial, a New Brunswick court agreed with the hospitality tutional principles. Governments should be required to sector, ruling that the “user charge” was an indirect tax and honour the Constitution, facing penalties or other conse- therefore unconstitutional, outside of the province’s taxing quences when they don’t. Taxpayers should have repaid to powers. Nevertheless, the trial judge believed that people them that which was taken illegally. who work in the hospitality industry suffered no financial loss, because the 11% tax was supposedly passed on to Fears of fiscal chaos are illusory, because illegally collected consumers in its entirety. While the government could no taxes constitute a tiny fraction of government wealth and longer collect this tax, it could keep its ill-gotten gains. income. Further, every government structures its finances so as to deal with unexpected revenue changes. Thankfully, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal over- turned the trial decision. Allowing the government to keep As for the claim that the owners and employees of New illegally obtained taxes would subvert the constitution, ef- Brunswick’s pubs and nightclubs suffered no loss, this ig- fectively rewarding governments for violating it. Further, nores economic reality. If some or all of this illegal 11% citizens need an incentive to challenge invalid laws – an tax was “passed on” to patrons in the form of higher prices, incentive that disappears entirely if governments are enti- these higher prices necessarily reduced sales and profit. tled to keep illegally collected revenues. Taxes also reduce the amount of money that small businesses have available to pay higher salaries to employees. The governments of B.C. and Manitoba have intervened in the Supreme Court of Canada, joining New Brunswick to But even if businesses do succeed in recouping part of their argue that governments should be able to keep illegal tax losses, governments should still be held to account when revenues. B.C. claims that illegally collected taxes are used they violate Canada’s Constitution. The rule of law, de- only for “publicly beneficial purposes” and would never be mocratic accountability, federalism and other constitutional spent on “discretionary or hedonistic purposes.” Manitoba, principles should not be sacrificed to satisfy governments’ while acknowledging that governments use “coercive au- practically unlimited desire for more tax dollars. Like eve- thority” to enforce their tax demands, would deny taxpay- ryone else, the government must take responsibility when it ers a right of recovery in the interests of “stable govern- 12 has done something wrong. ment revenues” and “the integrity of the treasury.” New Summary of Media Interviews in 2006 On Bill Murray’s constitutional challenge:

6 September – CHED Radio, Edmonton 6 September – Canadian Press 6 September - Calgary Herald 7 September – Dave Rutherford, QR77 live talk radio, Alberta 7 September - Mike Blanchard, QR77 live talk radio, Calgary 7 September – Calgary Sun 7 September – Calgary Herald 8 September – Edmonton Journal 8 September – AM 660 Radio News, Alberta 8 September – Business Insurance Magazine, New York 8 September – CBC French television 8 September – CBC English television 8 September - CBC English radio 8 September - CBC French radio 8 September - Global television 8 September - CTV Calgary 8 September – Calgary Herald 11 September – CKUA Radio, Edmonton 11 September – CFRA Radio, Ottawa 14 September – Edmonton Sun 15 September - Health Without Borders, CFUN Radio, Vancouver 25 September – Western Standard Radio, AM 1060, Southern Alberta 3 November – Western Standard – Health Care Challenge 30 November – QR77 radio 1 December – Lexpert Legal Magazine 6 December – Victoria Business Examiner 18 December -- National Review of Medicine (magazine)

On Chief Mountain’s constitutional challenge:

10 March – QR77 radio, The World Tonight 11 April – AM1060 radio (Calgary and southern Alberta) 20 September – Vancouver Sun 21 September – Canadian Press, Vancouver 25 September – CBC French television, Vancouver 25 September – First Perspective (monthly Aboriginal publication) 26 September - Aboriginal Forum, AM1060 radio, Southern Alberta

On other topics:

17 May – QR77 radio, The World Tonight, re: the process of appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada, and public interest litigation general 12 June – AM1060 radio (Calgary and southern Alberta) regarding the state of private property rights in Canada today and ways to enshrine them in our Constitution 1 November – QR77 radio, The World Tonight, re: Court Challenges Program

Welcome break for taxpayers By John Carpay In addition to LEAF, other groups have also re- Calgary Herald, page A10 ceived tax dollars through the CCP, to argue: Tuesday, October 3, 2006 • that prisoners convicted of serious crimes should have the right to vote (Sauve v. Canada (Chief Elec- Abolishing the Court Challenges Program (CCP) is toral Officer)) good news not only for taxpayers, but for equality. • that receiving welfare payments is a constitu- In the past twenty years, millions of tax dollars tional right (Gosselin v. Quebec) have been given to special interest groups to ad- • in support of Canada Elections Act restrictions vance their politically correct causes through the on citizens’ advocacy that is independent of political courts. The feminist group Legal and Education parties (Harper v. Canada) Action Fund (LEAF), which has received hundreds • that it should be a criminal offence for parents to of thousands of tax dollars from the CCP, has advo- spank their children (Canadian Foundation for Chil- cated: dren, Youth and the Law v. Canada) • that people are entitled to collect welfare re- • that persons convicted of importing large quanti- gardless of the income earned by a common law ties of cocaine into Canada should receive a lighter spouse residing in the same house (Falkiner v. On- sentence if they are black single mothers (R. v. Ham- tario) ilton and R. v. Spencer) • that non-citizens should acquire the opportunity that a Guatemalan citizen with a criminal record, to avoid deportation by giving birth to children in deemed to be a danger to the public, should have an Canada (Francis v. Minister of Citizenship and Im- automatic right to appeal a deportation decision migration) (Solis v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immi- • that a pregnant woman has a right to continue gration)) harming her wanted unborn child by sniffing glue (Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. D.F.G.) Some Canadians agree with the public policies • that more tax dollars should be spent on health which have been promoted through the CCP. But is services for non-citizens (Irshad v. Ontario) it right that all Canadians – including those who dis- • that physical fitness standards for firefighters agree – have been required to pay for this advocacy? should be lowered to accommodate women (Meiorin) How would LEAF supporters feel if their tax dollars • that freedom of political speech should be re- were used for court challenges to recognize the right stricted in the name of “equality” and “Canadian to life of unborn children? Or how would members values” (Kane v. Alberta Report) of the Canadian Labour Congress – a recipient of tax • that EI benefits should be extended to people dollars through the CCP – feel if their tax dollars having worked less than 700 hours in the preceding paid for court advocacy against compulsory union one-year qualifying period (Lesiuk v. Attorney Gen- membership? eral of Canada) that legally owned guns play a significant role in Individuals and organizations have every right to use perpetrating violence against women and children the courts to press for public policy change. But re- (Reference Re: Firearms Act) quiring people to pay for advocacy with which they disagree does violence to a person’s conscience. All Canadians have, through their tax dollars, paid Equality demands that governments refrain from to advance LEAF’s public policy agenda, whether spending tax dollars to favour one side of a contro- they agree with it or not. Eliminating the CCP puts versial issue. Ending the Court Challenges Program all groups on an equal footing, at liberty to raise creates a fair and level playing field for all Canadi- funds from their own supporters. ans, whatever their views might be.

“Protecting the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through education, communication and litigation.”

235-3545-32nd Avenue NE, Suite 641 Calgary, AB, T1Y 6M6 Phone: (403) 592-1731 Fax: (403) 592-1459