Lawyers making new laws

Happening this week in Ottawa have been so bizarre that a scriptwriter for The Twilight Zone could never have been able to conceive of them.  We have had the spectacle of three examples of where our legal profession has decided to create new precedents that could have long ranging ramification in Canada.

Case one.  In the O'Brien-Kilrea dust-up over influence peddling, the defense lawyer accused Kilrea of lying about a conversation he had with John "Screamer" Baird.  Kilrea claims he did not talk with Baird about a Parole Board job (the centre of the prosecution of O'Brien).  Edelson, the lawyer, claims that Baird said that they did; based on a statement made by Baird to police.  After the courtroom revelation, Baird's political mouthpiece denied that Baird had the conversation with Kilrea and that Edelson was confused.  It appears that Edelson was indeed wrong.  Does that mean that he should to apologize to Kilrea?  Want to be he won't?

Lesson learned.  When you are defending the seemingly indefensible, it is OK to LIE!

Case two.  The Cons have Ruby Dhalla where they want her.  In a bizarre exercise of parliamentary powers the immigration committee has decided to become a kangaroo court.  They are into the realm of investigating and passing judgment... neither of which is within their purview.  But the genius of the situation is that none of the evidence or testimony heard or discovered at the committee can be used in a real court of law.  So even if Dhalla is determined to be not guilty she cannot get recourse, with the evidence of her innocence, to any court in the country.  She will be destroyed politically.  Thanks to the Cons.

Lesson learned.  If you are ever accused of any crime for apparent political reasons, it is best to get a file opened with the RCMP before the Cons can set up committee hearings.  At least then you can protect the freedom and continuity of evidence.

Case three.  Former Con PM Mulroney has decided to rewrite the Canadian Tax Code.  And he could, you know.  As PM, he is considered the top law maker in the country.

Mulroney admitted in his appearance before the Oliphant Inquiry that he received large cash payment from KH Schreiber in 1993.  However it took him a bunch of years to claim it as income.  Why the delay?

According to Mulroney, you only need to claim income in the year you want to use it, not when you earned it. That is probably news to Revenue Canada. According to the tax code, you have to claim all income made in the tax year except in certain cases, such as:

"* compensation received from a province or territory if you were a victim of a criminal act or a motor vehicle accident;
* lottery winnings;
* most gifts and inheritances;
* amounts paid by Canada or an ally (if the amount is not taxable in that country) for disability or death due to war service;
* most amounts received from a life insurance policy following someone's death; and
* most payments of the type commonly referred to as strike pay you received from your union, even if you perform picketing duties as a requirement of membership."

I suppose that Mulroney could classify the cash as a gift, but that would open many more cans of whoop-ass on his honourable self..

To compound his problems, Mulroney admitted to have $75,000 in payments squirreled away in a deposit box in New York for a bunch of years before he claimed it.  According to CRA web site, you must,

"Report foreign income and other amounts (such as expenses and taxes paid) in Canadian dollars. Use the Bank of Canada exchange rate that was in effect on the day you received the income or paid the expense."

 I suppose that the loop hole is that the clause does not state when you had to declare the foreign income, but that might be just splitting hairs.

Lesson learned.  When you become PM of Canada, change the laws to suit your personal needs before you leave office.