Tag Archives: Constitution

Roundup: Ford turns to the Notwithstanding Clause – again

Posted on by

The sudden comfort with which premiers are deciding to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause is getting a bit uncomfortable, as Doug Ford decided he needed to invoke it after a court struck down his attempts to limit third-party spending in provincial elections in a somewhat arbitrary fashion (given that unions get together to form American-esque political action committees in this province). While you can find a great explainer on Ford and his particular legal challenge in this thread, the more alarming part is the apparent need to reach for the “emergency valve” of the Clause before even appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada.

There is a perfectly legitimate reason why the Notwithstanding Clause exists, which as to do with keeping a certain amount of parliamentary supremacy in lawmaking, and it gives governments an avenue of recourse if there is a fundamental disagreement with a court’s interpretation of legislation. But lately, it’s being invoked by premiers who know they are trying to push through objectionable legislation – François Legault did it with Bill 21, which the courts have essentially said blocks their ability to strike down any portion of the law, and he’s doing it again with his Bill 96 on trying to obliterate any bilingualism in the province (the same bill that seeks to unilaterally amend the federal constitution). Ford had threatened to invoke it to ram through his unilateral changes to Toronto City Council while they were in the middle of an election, but ultimately didn’t because of a court injunction, and his decision this time is similarly dubious. This willingness to invoke the Clause at the first sign of court challenge or on the first defeat is a very big problem for our democracy, and we should be very wary about this abuse of power, and punish these governments appropriately at the ballot box during the next elections for these decisions.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402715067083280387

In the meantime, here’s Emmett Macfarlane with more thoughts on the court decision that led to this turn of events.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402711628978720772

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402712563960455173

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1402713058913525761

Continue reading →

Roundup: A flawed way to fix the CRA’s mistakes

Posted on by

Remember the issue with self-employed Canadians applying for CERB, and being told they were eligible for gross income only to later be told that no, it was really net, and they may have to repay it? And then the government came to the realization that they were going to find themselves in serious trouble (such as a class action lawsuit) if they didn’t change course, and let those CERB payments go ahead? Well, for the people who made repayments, they can get that money back – but they have to apply for it. And that becomes the real trick.

With that in mind, here is Jennifer Robson raising some concerns with the whole thing, because CRA is not doing this very well. And that could be a problem for some of the people this is supposed to have been helping in the first place.

Continue reading →

QP: Confusing rapid and PCR tests

Posted on by

For a Thursday with no ministers in the chamber, we had not one but two Liberals on the government benches — Mark Gerretsen, and Francis Drouin. Erin O’Toole led off, script on mini-lectern, and he complained there wasn’t a national rapid testing regime like Taiwan has, and then complained about the contract with Switch Health at the border. Patty Hajdu reminded him that he was conflating rapid tests – which they sent to provinces – with the PCR tests that Switch was contracted to perform at the border, and that if was worried about rapid tests, he should talk to premiers. O’Toole complained that Switch was missing its timelines in one in six cases, and 5000 cases that failed. Hajdu noted that those tests take longer because they’re PCR tests, and they were bringing on more corporate partners. O’Toole accused the government of changing the law rather than the company when it came to missing certain days, and Hajdu insisted this was incorrect, and that they were doing full due diligence to ensure travellers were protected. O’Toole then switched to French to repeat his first question, and Hajdu reiterate that O’Toole was conflating rapid tests with PCR tests, and that they are used differently. O’Toole then condemned the lack services in French at the border with Switch Health, and Hajdu agreed that this was essential, which is why Switch doubled their French capacity and they added another supplier.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she complained that the motion on Bill 96 didn’t pass, and wanted assurances that the province could use Section 45 of the constitution to make the changes — which is a trap. Mélanie Joly assured her that they were working to protect the French reality in Canada. Normandin assured her that this wasn’t a trap, and wanted those assurances, and Joly again would not give her the assurance she was looking for.

Jagmeet Singh led rose for the NDP in French, and he demanded the federal government stop banks from raising fees, for which Chrystia Freeland went into an assurance about the taxes on luxury goods. Singh repeated in English to add emphasis to the same question, and Freeland repeated the same talking points under the rubric of people paying their fair share.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bloc motion denied by Wilson-Raybould

Posted on by

The Bloc tried very hard yesterday to push a motion in the House of Commons that would essentially declare that the Commons agreed with Quebec’s Bill 96, thus trying to politically disarm any of the objections to the plans to unilaterally amend the constitution to insert clauses on Quebec being a “nation” and that its only language was French. They were thwarted by Jody Wilson-Raybould, who was the only one to deny them unanimous consent – as well she should, because everyone is trying to be too-clever-by-half on this whole thing, and that’s bound to wind up in tears at some point down the road.

Paul Wells explained some of this earlier in the week in his lengthy column on Trudeau’s quest for Quebec votes, and essentially Trudeau was saying that sure, Quebec could move this unilateral move to the constitution if it didn’t impact on other rights, which is the real trick – the whole point of Bill 96 is to weaken the rights of anglophones in the province, up to and including taking away their constitutional guarantee to be able to hear a trial in English. Jagmeet Singh similarly tried the same tactic in saying that the proposed constitutional changes are “symbolic,” and won’t impact anyone outside of Quebec (never mind that they will impact anglophones in the province). Everyone seems to think they’re clever and that there will be no long-term repercussions from this, because they all want to get on François Legault’s good side before the next election, whenever that happens, because he’s still wildly popular in the province (almost disconcertingly so). This is hardly a serious way to run a country.

Meanwhile, here’s Thomas Mulcair, a veteran of the linguistic wars in Quebec, explaining why Bill 96 is really a sneak attack on the linguistic rights that he spent his career fighting for, and it’s well worth your time to read, because it has some additional context on what the current provincial government has been up to leading up to this point.

Continue reading →

QP: Promulgating microbiology lab conspiracy theories

Posted on by

The prime minister was indeed present for his Wednesday proto-PMQs, in spite of it feeling kind of like a Tuesday because of the holiday Monday. Of course, the only other Liberal present was once again Mark Gerretsen. (We really, really need this pandemic to be over). Erin O’Toole led off with his script on mini-lectern, and he asked how a person with “deep connection” to China were able to get high-level security clearance to work in the National Microbiology Lab, and Justin Trudeau simply stated that the scientists were no longer employed by the government. O’Toole went on a tangent about the government’s “failure” in granting them clearance and demanded and end to all partnerships with China, and Trudeau read a statement about the research security working group. O’Toole kept insinuating that the two scientists in question were Chinese when they were in fact Canadian citizens, and Trudeau read more statement about national security agencies reaching out to research organisations to ensure that security was being taken seriously. O’Toole raised the supposed “cash for access” fundraisers Trudeau had with supposed Chinese agents early in his time in office, threw a bunch of non sequiturs against the wall, and then again demanded an end to all partnerships with China’s military medical institute. Trudeau read yet more talking points about the development of guidelines that take into account national security issues with research projects. O’Toole then repeated his first question in French, and got another scripted response about how the government takes espionage seriously and that Public Safety and CSIS were working with universities.

Yves-François led for the Bloc, and he wanted support for a motion coming to the House around support for Quebec’s bill 96, and Trudeau stated that he looked forward to it, reminding him of the 2006 Harper motion. Blanchet waxed poetic about the motion, and Trudeau stated that he will work to protect French and that they already declare Quebec to be a nation in a untied Canada.

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and decried that cuts to the Canada Recovery Benefit were on the way, and demanded the decision be reversed, and Trudeau reminded him that they would be there for Canadians, and that would not change. Singh then railed about banks raising fees, and Trudeau noted that they have been clear in discussions with these institutions that Canadians are going through a tough time which is why it’s important that everyone have their backs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Justice Abella’s farewell to the Court

Posted on by

Yesterday was a bit of a sad day at the Supreme Court of Canada, as Justice Rosalie Ahella, the senior puisne justice on the court and the longest serving judge in Canada, heard her last case before her mandatory retirement date on July 1st. She will have another six months to finish writing up any judgments that she sat on before the retirement date.

As her final speech, she spoke of being born a refugee, her parents Holocaust survivors, and they moved to Canada, in order to give their children a better life. Abella went to law school, was the youngest judge appointed to the provincial bench at age 29, and went on to have a very influential career chairing commissions and a royal commission, before she was appointed to the Supreme Court – the first Jewish woman appointed, and the first refugee – where she has been for 17 years. And it was a lovely speech. (You can see the video here).

It’ll be interesting to see who the government chooses as her replacement. Because it’s an Ontario seat, there will be an increased focus on finding a more diverse candidate, given that we have yet to have a person of colour on the Supreme Court, and there is more likelihood to find one who can also meet the bilingualism requirement that this government has deemed so important.

Victoria Day

As a reminder, Victoria Day is the official birthday of the Queen of Canada, so be sure to raise a glass in her honour (gin and Dubonnet being Her Majesty’s favoured tipple).

https://twitter.com/Canadian_Crown/status/1395810388319539200

Continue reading →

Roundup: From ombudsman to officer?

Posted on by

The current military ombudsman is trying to pitch the notion that the government doesn’t need to create a new independent body to investigate complaints about sexual misconduct – rather, he is pitching that his office can do it, if only parliament would loosen his shackles and let him report to them directly rather than to the reporting to the minister of defence. I am dubious, and a little alarmed.

For starters, I am not certain that he is actually the best-placed person to field those complaints, rather than a centre that specializes in it, that is properly trauma-informed and so on. There is a reason why the Deschamps Report called for an independent body to do this kind of work, and I’m not sure that the military ombudsman is independent enough (especially as many of those who fill the role have military backgrounds, and are just as likely to be inured to the highly sexualized culture in the Forces that is part of what needs to be changed). It also detracts from other work that the ombudsman should be doing around other aspects of military life than just this particular aspect of it.

The bigger part I am reticent about, however, is because the very last thing we need is yet another unaccountable Officer of Parliament, as we already have far too many, and some of them are problems. Look no further than the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is turning himself into a media darling and who is going far beyond his legislative mandate, but because he is accountable to no one – and because he is being encouraged to keep going beyond his mandate by the media – he is really pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable. As for a military ombudsman, you don’t have to go too far in history to see others who held the role who were also becoming problematic – one of whom was also becoming a media darling, and who got increasingly erratic as time went on (especially once he was no longer in the job). It’s not the kind of person who should be in a role that has no accountability, and if it’s happened once, it’s likely to happen again, particularly in the current environment. I’m not unconvinced that the current reporting mechanism of the ombudsman’s office isn’t a problem, but there needs to be another solution than creating another Officer of Parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre wants to lie to you about inflation

Posted on by

StatsCan released the April inflation figures yesterday morning, and for the unprepared, they look bad – a 3.4 percent increase year-over-year, when the Bank of Canada’s inflation target is around two percent. This may look alarming, but there is a very simple explanation for why it looks high, and it’s something they call the base effect – meaning, when you compare it to last year’s figures, you need to put those figures in context. In this case, when you look at the April 2020 figures, we were actually suffering deflation in the early throes of the pandemic, when the first real lockdown started, and everyone was being sent home. We’ve had a fair degree of economic recovery since then, and inflation is really still running a little below target, but that gets obscured by the base effect, and that will likely carry on for another couple of months.

The problem, of course, is that you have media outlets that won’t properly contextualise this, looking at how much year-over-year prices like gasoline have spiked – which again, ignores that a year ago, gasoline prices dropped to an eleven-year low because demand cratered as a result of the pandemic. It’s a better headline to talk about “price surges” rather than explaining that base effect. And to be fair, some prices have gone up for a variety of factors, while others haven’t – it’s why the consumer price index looks at a basket of goods and provides an average, where some prices rise and some fall, and they provide additional measures that will strip out some of the volatile indicators to see how the more stable ones are faring. And more to the point, the Bank of Canada knows what they’re doing, and if they see runaway inflation starting, they will tamp it down with the tools available to them, such as interest rates.

But more than just media outlets, we have the Conservatives and Pierre Poilievre in particular who are determined to light their hair on fire and lie about the inflation figure in order to denounce the government (blaming it on deficit spending) or by saying that the Bank of Canada is in cahoots with them (when they are independent of government and kept at arm’s length). And lo, Poilievre even produced a video that railed about the price of lumber to make his point – err, except the price of lumber isn’t increasing because of the monetary supply or deficit spending. It’s rising because there is a housing boom, particularly south of the border, and lumber exports can’t keep up with demand, hence the price increases. That’s basic economics, which you think that the party that bills itself as “good economic managers” and the “party of the free market” would understand, but apparently not. And more to the point, we can be assured that Poilievre will neither a) read a gods damned report from Statistics Canada beyond the headline to understand what’s going on; or b) tell the truth when he can whip up hysteria for the sake of scoring points. And because they will quote statistics in a way that strips it of its context, they will lie to the public, and the media will do very little about it – at most, both-sidesing the comment rather than calling out the simple falsehoods.

Meanwhile, Poilievre’s antics were perfect to turn themselves into memes. It’s probably just as well.

https://twitter.com/maxfawcett/status/1395103214681300992

Continue reading →

Roundup: Not taking constitutional amendments seriously

Posted on by

During his press conference yesterday, prime minister Justin Trudeau said that according to his legal advice, Quebec can unilaterally modify part of the federal Constitution that applies specifically to them – which is either untrue, or appeasement to the Legault government, because every party is trying to suck up to Legault and his overwhelming popularity.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394692157001412612

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394692818644393991

A plain reading of Section 43 of the Constitution states that where language rights are involved, the federal Parliament needs to have a say in the constitutional amendment, and it’s very much invoked in these proposals from Quebec. That Trudeau – or apparently the lawyers in the Justice Department – can’t see this is a problem, and raises some real questions as to the quality of advice the government is receiving from the department. (Hell, even other Liberal MPs are questioning it).

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394762687410753539

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394763319932764166

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394800378013790211

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394801217029746688

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/1394693812568694787

But what were people riled up over instead of an egregious violation of our constitutional norms? A photo of Trudeau at a laptop which was clearly an HP machine, with the logo covered over with an Apple sticker. The scandal!

Continue reading →

Roundup: The big endorsement

Posted on by

All three leaders were in Quebec yesterday, being one of the most important battleground provinces when it comes to getting out the vote. Justin Trudeau started off his day in Montreal to again make the pitch that voters need a progressive government and not a progressive opposition, and saying that this was the “dirtiest” campaign ever because of things like disinformation. From there, he made several stops on the way to Sherbrooke. The big news in the afternoon, however, was a tweet from Barack Obama, giving an endorsement for Trudeau’s re-election, citing the need for a progressive voice on the world stage (and taking some of the wind out of the sails of the Conservative claim that Trudeau has been some kind of “embarrassment” on the world stage).

https://twitter.com/b_momani/status/1184550642225991685

Andrew Scheer started his day in Saint-Jérôme, Quebec, then headed to Essex, where he promised higher penalties for ethics violations (possibly flirting with constitutional challenges of what constitutes an administrative monetary penalty versus a criminal sanction), and headed into Ontario, eventually making it to Hamilton, where he was in the riding of the Liberal incumbent who was at her mother’s funeral that day – to which Scheer insisted it was okay because he made a charitable donation. (We also found out that he switched the location he planned to make the stop, and the pub owner of the first location was brassed off because he spent $700 preparing food for the stop and putting more workers on staff).

As part of his Quebec tour, Jagmeet Singh was in Hudson, Quebec, the birthplace of Jack Layton, to make his pitch of trying to claim Layton’s legacy. Throughout the day, he started making more untenable promises, like reopening an emergency room in Winnipeg – something that is explicitly provincial jurisdiction, while hand-waving about “levers” he can use, which he actually has none – particularly not in the Canada Health Act. But hey, he wants people to “dream big,” and never mind the Constitution or the clear division of powers therein.

Continue reading →