In another stunning bout of knee-jerk populism, Jason Kenney has seized on the story of a Canadian dual-citizen blowing up a bus in Bulgaria, coupled it with a dubious Private Member’s Bill about stripping the citizenship of dual-citizens who engage in acts of war against the country, talked about amending it to include terrorism, and viola – ready for the media. How predictable, and how so very, very flawed. For one, it’ll never stand up to the Charter, because Canadians, no matter where they may have been born, are all equal under the law. Also, it shows contempt for process because he’s trying to hijack a PMB that probably shouldn’t have been voteable in the first place. It’s worse that Kenney wants to try and ram through unconstitutional measures into the PMB process, which would get a mere couple of hours of committee study before heading back to the Chamber for a mere two more hours of debate. Yeah, he may need to rethink this whole proposition.
Tag Archives: Maple Crown
Roundup: Irresponsible unanimous passage
MPs, in their infinite wisdom, decided to pass the royal succession bill at all stages unanimously with no debate. That’s right – an unconstitutional bill that de-patriates our constitution and relegates us to the status of Crown colony passed with zero debate. Way to go, MPs. Provide that oversight! So yeah. Here’s hoping the Senate will do it job and actually put a stop to this nonsense. Meanwhile, here’s more condemnation of the bill, this time from James WJ Bowden.
The government has unveiled its 2013 Tough on Crime™ agenda. Because apparently there’s no rest for the wicked.
Government backbenchers say that the high-profile nature of the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made them gun shy about asking him for reports. Because you know, it might be unseemly for backbenchers to be seen to be doing their job of holding the government to account.
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: The politics of the Senate reference
The big move by the government yesterday was to send a list of reference questions to the Supreme Court with regards to Senate reform – and yes, abolition. The six questions – more like fifteen with the sub-clauses – come at a time when the notion is being mulled over by the Quebec courts at the behest of the provincial government, and the Supreme Court may opt to hold off on their deliberations until that decision is rendered, so that they can take it into consideration. And then comes the politics behind it all – the government claims this will “speed up” the reform process after years of opposition delay – never mind that this reference process could take up to two years, and the only ones stalling were the government themselves because they never brought their bills forward for debate (not that said bills were actually constitutionally sound). It also buys them time to keep the issue alive for the next election and as a fundraising issue for their base, but also provides them options when it comes to considering next steps, because they may need them if they want to continue this rather foolhardy pursuit. The Liberals are playing the smug game of “We wanted this reference six years ago – thanks for catching up.” And the NDP are accusing the government of “more delay” – even though they simply argue for abolition and give nonsense talking points about how much money they would save if that happened (forgetting of course that all of said “savings” and more would entirely be consumed in the interminable court challenges that would come from flawed legislation that would otherwise be caught in the Senate). And there are the legal arguments – is it really unconstitutional, or is the fact that the Prime Minister is still recommending appointments to the Governor General enough to avoid having to go the route of a constitutional amendment, no matter that they’re ensuring that these appointments are “elected,” and that the “democratic mandate” of these newly empowered Senators will have a tangible – and detrimental – effect on the way our system operates. I argue that the Supreme Court justices aren’t morons and will see a backdoor attempt for what it is and call bullshit. Other constitutional scholars aren’t so sure, and say that according to the letter of the law, it looks just fine. But politics – especially the way our Parliament operates – is more than just the letter of the law. It’s an organic whole, and surely that needs to be taken into consideration when a blatant backdoor proposal designed to get around doing the hard work of constitutional negotiation will have a serious and measurable effect on our democratic process. That has to count for something.
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.
Roundup: The omnishambles of a meeting that may not be
Here is the recap of yesterday’s omnishambles that was the drama over whether or not the First Nations meeting with the Prime Minister was going to happen or not. We’re still not sure. (It was so long that it became its own separate blog post). Here is a primer on some of the issues at play with the meeting, assuming it happens, and some of the broader First Nations discussions going on right now. This was the plan for the meeting – assuming it still goes ahead. The CBC looks at the issue with a group of diverse First Nations voices. Michael Den Tandt looks at Harper’s challenge in the meetings and the Aboriginal issue in the broader context.
Meanwhile, here’s a look at the blank slate that is what we know about Chief Theresa Spence’s history, which suits both her supporters and critics. We have learned that her partner and band co-manager has a history of bankruptcy, and yet he’s the one managing Attawapiskat’s books. Also, he claims to have been training for his CGA designation, and yet there is no record of that.
Roundup: Onto time-allocated debate
After a much shorter voting marathon than we’ve become accustomed to, all of the amendments to Omnibus Budget Bill 2: The Revenge have been defeated, and it moves onto a one-day time-allocated third reading debate today. Remember when the government promised they’d be open to amendments and stuff? Yeah, good times.
The “temporary” measure of having prisoners in segregation double bunking – as in, two people in a small space for 23 hours a day – has been going on for two years in some prairie institutions. Yeah, this is going to end well.
Oh dear – it looks like the M-4 Unit – err, Julian Fantino didn’t get his duotronic databanks updated when he was given his new portfolio. As it turns out, he’s not familiar with the five principles of effective foreign aid that CIDA is committed to upholding.
Roundup: Making way for double bunking
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! iPolitics has obtained documents that show that Corrections Canada is changing their policy to allow for double bunking to be normal policy, and to eliminate rules around maximum capacity. Not only does this violate our international agreements on corrections policy and it’s been proven to be bad for correctional behaviour period, but it’s like an invitation to a return to the era of prison riots. Well done, Vic Toews!
Here is your rough guide to the remaining stages of Omnibus Budget Bill 2: The Revenge in the Commons.
Ruh-roh! New documents show that the government was being briefed about the cost overruns of the F-35 fighters in advance of the Auditor General’s report. How much of this is just bureaucratic ass-covering is a question, but nevertheless, it looks like they knew more than they were letting on.
QP: No plans to privatise
Lacklustre and listless – two words that could easily describe today’s Question Period. Harper was absent, which is not unusual for a Monday, and he’d just finished entertaining the Prime Minister of Jamaica before getting ready to head to Toronto to pay his respects to Lincoln Alexander, currently lying in State at the Ontario Legislature. Thomas Mulcair read off his first two questions, in French and English, about the rejection of the Petronas deal, to which Christian Paradis responded that he was not convinced that it would be of net benefit to Canada. And hey, at least it was Paradis responding and not a back-up PM du jour. Mulcair’s third question was about the rumours that the government wanted to privatise the CMHC, which Ted Menzies stood up to say that no, they had no plans to do so at this time. Peggy Nash then stood up and said “At. This. Time.” And then proceeded to read her two scripted questions on privatising the CMHC, where Menzies gave her the very same answer twice more. Bob Rae was up for the Liberals next, and first asked just what constituted “net benefit” with regards to the Petronas rejection, not that Paradis deviated from his message. Rae then asked about the Indian Act – the subject of his private member’s motion that was up for debate – and when the government would consult and head towards true equality with First Nations. John Duncan stood up and accused him of wanting more talk when the government was taking action. For his final question, Rae asked for a judicial inquiry in to the Jeffrey Delisle spy case, to which Peter MacKay told him that the issue was still before the courts.
Roundup: Farewell to a needed watchdog
The former Inspector General of CSIS is decrying the dismantling of her former office, saying that the job of keeping an eye on CSIS from the inside, full-time, simply cannot be done by the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, and denied that there was any duplication of efforts (thus blowing away another of the talking point justifications for axing the office). But hey, why do we need someone to watch the watchmen? It’s not like we have anything to worry about – right?
Elections Canada’s investigators have traced alleged robo-call organiser “Pierre Poutine” as far an on open WiFi connection, where the trail grows cold.