The government announced yesterday that it will unveil its “comprehensive” election rules reform bill on Thursday to deal with things like misleading robocalls, and possibly the utter dogs breakfast that are the rules around leadership race financing. That said, the Chief Electoral Officer has not yet been consulted on said legislation, which you might think is a big deal (not that this government is big on consulting, as much as they might claim that they are). And before anyone says it, no, I don’t actually think that the Conservatives are trying to cover up activity in the last election done under their name. I’ve heard enough from the Conservatives that they are just as concerned about the issue as anyone else – despite some of their workers or volunteers feeling otherwise – and this will likely be a genuine attempt to crack down on the problem.
Tag Archives: Abortion
Roundup: Historical outrage and undermining the Court
A new book claims that then-Chief Justice Bora Laskin kept political leaders informed as to the status of the patriation reference in the days of the patriation negotiations with London, and now the Quebec government is calling it an erosion of the legitimacy of the court and wants the Prime Minister to turn over all of the records from the period. PMO says no, and the Supreme Court said it’ll investigate the allegations. But seriously – trying to undermine a branch of government for narrow partisan gain? Way to go, guys. Slow clap. Martin Patriquin puts this into perspective with the rest of the Quebec perpetual outrage machine.
Roundup: Heavy hand on the caucus
Today in the Warawa/MPs’ freedom of speech file, the motion was blocked again by the committee, which means that Warawa has the final appeal to the House itself if he so chooses. Meanwhile, other MPs, including Nathan Cullen gave their responses to Warawa’s privilege motion, and most of them resorted to hockey metaphors – because we have no other form of elegant discourse in this country, apparently. Oh, and it was a bit rich for Cullen to decry the partisan attack SO31s when his own party is increasingly doing the very same, and he once again asks the Speaker to rule rather than taking any kind of agency as a party for their own centralising behaviour. The Globe and Mail reports that caucus heard that Harper was explicit during Wednesday’s caucus meeting that he would use any and all means necessary to keep the abortion issue off the table as he has pledged to the electorate. Chris Hall looks at how this is an example of abortion politics masquerading as a free speech issue. Four Liberal leadership candidates respond to the question of what they would do with this situation – and no, Justin Trudeau was not one of the responders. And if you’re curious, PostMedia gives a breakdown of the current state of abortion laws and access in this country.
Roundup: Loyalty and tight lids on issues
On the continuing Mark Warawa “muzzling” drama, the appeal to the Procedure and House Affairs subcommittee on private members’ business met in camera yesterday, and we should find out their decision this morning. Warawa himself does his best to appear loyal to the PM, and doesn’t want to place the blame for this all on him. Aaron Wherry takes note of the circular logic that the NDP seem to employ when it comes to this debate – how it’s bad that the government muzzles, and yet they should absolutely keep the abortion debate under a tight lid. Bruce Cheadle looks back at caucus divisions over the abortion issue among the past governments of the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives. Chantal Hébert sees the possible seeds of a leadership challenge being sown in this Warawa drama. Andrew Coyne (quite rightly) points to the bigger questions of our parliamentary democracy that are at stake by the heavy hand of the leaders’ offices.
Roundup: On being anti-trade and avoiding another round of austerity
Economist Stephen Gordon has taken a second look at the budget, and declares that with higher tariffs on more countries, and tighter restrictions on foreign investment in Canada, the government is really more anti-trade than it lets on. He also calls out the logic about how the “preferential tariff” was some kind of a subsidy if its elimination means Canadian taxpayers end up paying more. Over in Hong Kong, Jim Flaherty says that the issue of the increased tariffs have not yet been raised, but closer to home, his plan to return to the issue of a single national securities regulator is still not getting a lot of traction from the more recalcitrant provinces. The NDP, meanwhile, have decided to call in the RCMP about the budget “leaks” that appeared in the media in the lead-up as part of the government communications strategy.
Roundup: Budget madness!
So, that was the budget – or Economic Action Plan 2013™ – A Responsible Plan For Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity© as the government would otherwise brand it. And there’s not a whole lot to it, with little in the way of new spending, little in the way of tax cuts or measures, extending a few of their existing incentive programmes, and one particular measure for First Nations, tying training dollars to making it mandatory for those receiving income benefits (which Thomas Mulcair dubbed as “workfare” and a slap in the face). It’s also going to fold CIDA into Foreign Affairs as a whole, but it’ll still keep its own minister, so Julian Fantino’s job is still safe. (Scott Gilmore considers this a good move because it will enhance the coordination of our foreign aid, which is often met with the two departments not speaking to one another). Canada Day, Winterlude and the Tulip Festival are being wrested away from the more independent NCC and being handed over to the Department of Heritage, which could be worrying if you hear the horror stories that I do about the competence of the staff in that department. Justin Trudeau predicts the budget will create friction with the provinces after it declared it would create the skills training program and that the provinces have to pitch in – while the government has consistently removed itself from a productive relationship with said provinces. And as if on cue, Quebec calls the budget a “frontal attack” on its economic interests, and “economic sabotage.” iPolitics gives you the nine most inane pieces of wisdom out of the budget. And if that wasn’t enough budget madness for you, iPolitics also has an e-print edition of budget coverage.
Roundup: A Métis victory
The Métis of Manitoba won a Supreme Court ruling yesterday that states that the government didn’t fully implement the 1870 promise that led to the creation of Manitoba in the first place. And while there was no remedy attached – so no, Winnipeg, you don’t have to worry about being displaced – it will be interesting to see how this moves forward now that there is this recognition.
Jim Flaherty met with private sector economists yesterday and declared that he was confident in the budget – whenever it may be tabled – thanks to good job numbers.
Jason Kenney says that the lower-than-promised refugee resettlement numbers are due in large part to the civil war in Syria. After promising to resettle a large number of Iraqi refugees who had fled to Syria, well, we can’t process them effectively with a civil war in that country having wreaked havoc with diplomatic missions and resettlement logistics.
Roundup: Brazeau and the pundit class
So, Senator Patrick Brazeau, arrested and held in police custody on suspicion of domestic violence, possibly sexual assault. Stephen Harper reacted immediately by expelling him from caucus – so far so good. But then came the immediate and not unexpected boneheaded comments from the commentariat with its ad homenim attacks and visceral hatred for the Senate, apparently based solely on the received wisdom of the ages, and not upon reality. For example, NDP MP Charlie Angus insisted that Stephen Harper remove Brazeau from the Senate entirely – err, except that he can’t do that. You see, there’s a reason why Prime Ministers can’t arbitrarily remove Senators – because it’s the job of the Senate to hold the executive in check. If a Prime Minister could remove Senators at will, then he would do so anytime they became a nuisance to him, and replace them with more compliant models. That kind of protection from arbitrary removal is actually a design feature – it allows them to speak truth to power without fearing for their jobs. And while yes, they can be removed through an internal process, it’s a pretty high bar that’s set in order to ensure that their jobs aren’t under threat when they oppose the government of the day. And yes, many Senators do take advantage of that, even when it’s inconvenient to the Prime Minister that appointed them, because that’s their job. While the received wisdom is that they are all hacks napping until their retirement, a lot of good work happens in the Senate that simply isn’t talked a lot about, mostly because there isn’t a lot of drama behind it. Add to that this concern-trolling about being “democratic” or “accountable” without actually understanding what those terms mean in their holistic contexts, and it’s when things start to spiral out of control.
Roundup: Succession and Senate consequences
University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé writes the definitive look at the Crown succession bill the government introduced last week, and proves how the government and its arguments are entirely wrong about it. Australian constitutional scholar, and the authority on succession issues, Anne Twomey, writes about the bill and how it de-patriates our constitution back to Britain, as well as is a telltale sign about the lengths the government will go to avoid dealing with the provinces.
Speaking of the lengths that Harper will go to in order to avoid the provinces, regarding last week’s other big news – the Senate reference – Paul Wells notes that Harper’s plan seems to have been to try to destabilise the legislative equilibrium by pushing what small changes he could and take advantage of the resulting free-for-all – which sounds about right. Over in the Globe and Mail, there is a look at what an elected Senate under the current proposal means regarding provincial parties running candidates in a body dominated by federal parties. The result is almost certainly chaos that would be largely unworkable, reduced to issue-by-issue coalitions, grinding the legislative process to a halt. Free-for-all that a PM could try to work some additional executive powers out of in order to “break the logjam”? Don’t discount the possibility.
Roundup: Farewell Canadian Crown, hello Crown colony status
The government did something well-meaning yesterday, but in the process, ended up doing something very, very bad. In what was no doubt a somewhat thoughtless attempt to circumvent the rules around constitutional amendments, they tabled their act to change the laws of succession for the Canadian Monarchy yesterday that evoked a moot section of the Statute of Westminster that basically said “whatever the Mother Country decides, we’re cool with.” And with that one fell swoop, the government of Canada has undone eighty-two years of Canada having an independent Crown, and has once again relegated us to the status of a Crown colony of Britain – and no, I’m really not being dramatic. (See the bill and the government’s nonsensical backgrounder here). You see, that section of the Statute of Westminster that they’re evoking – was repealed with the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Oops. And by simply assenting to the UK change, it means that the Crown of Canada is not a separate corporate sole from the Crown of the United Kingdom – which means that Canada is not a sovereign country. And because the Office of the Queen – which the rules of succession are a Very Big Deal regarding – falls under s.41(a) of the Constitution – that means a constitutional amendment requiring the unanimous consent of the provinces. Yes, it’s a little messier and will take a little more time, but we’ve got at least two generations of heirs in order to get it right, and there is little reason that any of the provinces would object to such common sense changes. But hey, for the sake of expediency, let’s treat the constitution like it doesn’t matter! Which seems to be the modus operandi of the entire political discourse of this country of late – between this, the NDP’s “Unity bill,” and Bob Rae thinking that the Governor General should be involved in political meetings with the First Nations and denying royal assent on the Wheat Board bill, we have pretty much proven that civic literacy in this country is in complete and utter shambles. How many other mature democracies treat their constitutions like they’re relative documents that you can project your own interpretations onto as they suit your agenda? Unbelievable.