Environmental Defence. PEN Canada. Amnesty International Canada. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Canada Without Poverty. The David Suzuki Foundation.
What do these organizations have in common — aside from all doing great work?
All are registered charities.
All have been publicly critical of Stephen Harper’s government.
And all are undergoing audits of their political activities by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
What’s this about? Here’s what you need to know.
In the past few years, the Harper government has aggressively pursued its own agenda without due regard for the Canadian Constitution, the rights of the provinces and the rights of the most vulnerable Canadians. It has pushed for Senate reform, tougher criminal laws, and even subtly attempted to shift the balance of the Supreme Court of Canada by appointing judges with a conservative bent.
Stephen Harper may have hoped that his five appointments to the Supreme Court would influence the outcome of the cases before it, but a recent string of well‑deserved thrashings in court have demonstrated that the Supreme Court is truly an independent, non‑partisan body, able to act as a check on the government’s (inappropriate) actions.
Recently, a number of environmental groups represented by Ecojustice brought a series of judicial reviews alleging that the federal government has unlawfully failed to protect four species due to delays: the Pacific Humpback Whale, Nechako White Sturgeon, Marbled Murrelet and Southern Mountain Caribou.
Without a recovery strategy, the species are not fully protected under the federal Species At Risk Act, which depends on the recovery strategy for some protections to kick in. All four species’ habitat lies along the controversial proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline and shipping route in northern B.C.
In the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline hearings, there were about 34 listed species at risk that the panel considered, most of which did not have protected critical habitat in a recovery strategy. In January, environmental groups started other legal proceedings dealing with endangered species and other issues specific to those hearings.
Recently, the Federal Court of Appeal released a decision on a procedural issue in Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v. Canada (National Energy Board), 2013 FCA 236 (CanLII). Forest Ethics is suing the government over recent changes to the National Energy Board Act which it claims “unreasonably restrict public comment on project proposals.” At issue is a new section introduced in one of the large conservative budget bills which limits participation on issues before the National Energy Board (NEB) to those who are “directly affected.”
In the decision, the Federal Court of Appeal had to decide whether Enbridge and Valero – two oil and gas companies – would have standing to become respondents or intervenors in the case against the government. Ironically, the court had to interpret section 303 of the Federal Courts Act which also uses the “directly affected” test.
Continue reading “Nesting dolls of “directly affected” in federal law under judicial review”
In mid‑March 2012, a number of news outlets reported that the Harper government is looking at significant changes to the wording of the Fisheries Act after they were leaked to Otto Langer.
Continue reading “Proposed Changes to Fish Habitat Provisions of the Fisheries Act”
Subscribe to our RSS feed
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter