It’s a court challenge that is probably understated in its importance and its longer-term implications, but the attempt to challenge Stephen Harper’s refusal to appoint new senators got a boost as the Federal Court rejected the government’s attempt to have it struck down before being heard. That means that the challenge can go ahead, and we’ll get a ruling from the Federal Court (which may possibly even make its way up to the Supreme Court) as to the constitutional requirement that a Prime Minister has to advise the Governor General on Senate appointments. The common retort about the obligation is that the constitution doesn’t specify when appointments need to be made – simply “from time to time,” but the plain reading of that text is that because there are no fixed dates as to when seats become vacant, there can be no fixed times as to when they are to be filled. That vacancies are allowed to pile up also goes against the representative nature of the Senate – those regions are entitled to their representation, and it should be as unconscionable that those seats are left vacant as it would be if they were seats in the Commons. This argument is being made in the challenge, “When shall a vacancy be filled? When it happens, not at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.” While the courts may make a declaration as to the constitutionality, it is unlikely they will be able to make a declaratory order that it be enforced, however, because it is in relation to a constitutional convention as opposed to a statute, but it still matters. Why this is important is not only for the obligation that Harper has made his decision not to appoint any more senators known (at least not in the current political climate), the NDP have also declared that they wouldn’t make any appointments either were they ever to form government, but good luck getting the unanimous consent of the provinces to make that constitutional amendment. They too would be bound by a positive declaration by the courts – that they are obligated to make the appointments. That Harper and Mulcair are on the same side of an issue, even if it’s for different reasons, is a curious state of affairs, and it’s very telling that the government tried to get it thrown out of court.
Tag Archives: Reform Act
Roundup: The Senate should strangle Chong’s bill
There has been a sudden flurry of concern regarding the state of Michael Chong’s Reform Act, currently in the Senate, because the bill is likely to die there. In fact, if there were any sense in the world, it would, but not before the pundit class starts wailing and gnashing their teeth about how terrible it is that the unelected Senate would defeat a wildly popular bill from the Commons. Of course, that’s immediately where my head hits the desk, because that’s exactly why we have the Senate we do – because sometimes MPs overwhelmingly vote in dumb things, and cooler heads in the Senate can talk them down and defeat them without fear of electoral repercussion. You know, sober second thought, the raison d’etre of the Upper Chamber. And let’s face it – the Reform Act is a spectacularly terrible bill that will undermine Responsible Government and our system of Westminster-style democracy pretty much permanently. And if you think the gong show that just happened with the leadership review in Manitoba was an exception, well, Chong’s bill would see to it that those become somewhat more the norm across the country. The bill will do nothing to “empower” MPs. It will do the opposite by disincentivising them from rebelling against their leaders, as has successfully overturned bad leaders in many instances (most recently Alison Redford comes to mind). What will empower MPs is for them to actually stiffen their spines and do their jobs, because they have all the power that they need already – a lesson that Senator Fraser reiterated in her speech against Chong’s bill. But contrary to Andrew Coyne’s assertion, the Conservative leadership in the Senate has been inclined to pass the bill, but there are a number of Conservative senators who have wised up to the fact that the bill is terrible and they would do well to kill it in one way or another. Other senators are keenly aware that even MPs who voted for the bill know it’s terrible but didn’t think they could be seen to vote against it, so they sent it to the Senate, where it could be killed there, and they could use it as political cover (and denounce those terrible, awfully, unelected and unaccountable senators for killing a bill that passed the Commons even though MPs knew it was terrible). The “pass it off to the other chamber” game is not a new phenomenon (second only to “let’s pass it off to the Supreme Court”), but it’s another sign of how spineless MPs have become. Not that Chong’s bill would do anything about that spinelessness, ironically. Instead, it looks like it will be up to the Senate to save MPs from themselves yet again, and MPs won’t learn their lessons about taking their responsibilities seriously.
The Senate always sits later than the Commons to finish passing bills. With so many on their plate, they will likely sit into July. 2/2
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
With another omnibus budget bill on the way, they will hold more hearings on it than the Commons will. But you know, "leisurely."
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
Also wondering how many senators @acoyne spoke to about the Reform Act. His take doesn't match conversations I've had with them.
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
I don't agree with all of her points, but she gives Chong a good kicking for his disingenuous use of terms in the bill. 2/2
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) May 12, 2015
Roundup: Hurry or not
It’s a curious thing, this notion of political expediency. When it comes to the issue of national security changes, for which you would think the government would want to take the time to get it right considering not only the Charter implications, but also the potential for major embarrassment to a government should things go wrong *cough*Maher Arar*cough* there should be an impetus for some due diligence. Instead, we’re getting word that they want to limit committee study to three days, because gods forbid that they might have to schedule a few extra committee meetings or sit into July to ensure that things happen. Meanwhile, on an issue such as doctor-assisted dying, where there is a ticking clock looming over them, the government instead prefers to push it off to the next parliament, insisting there’s “plenty of time” and don’t worry, they’re “consulting with Canadians” on the subject, which gives one the sense that they’re going to put pretty much as much effort as they did into the recent prostitution law, which is to say that it was a fairly sham process designed to give them a result that they could use to justify a solution that is unlikely to pass a second Charter challenge. Oh, and because they’ll be in a time crunch when they do get around to presenting a bill, it would allow them to insist that they need to use time allocation to ram though a bill without a lot of actual consultation with experts (assuming that the Conservatives form government again). This method of issues management makes no sense, but they apparently are under the impression that it works for them.
Roundup: Yes, governing is political
Your best political read of the weekend was a Twitter essay from Philippe Lagassé, so I’ll leave you to it.
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569515068326457344
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569515450780020736
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569515909972434945
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569516334192701440
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569516761273532418
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569517336677507073
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569517603938369536
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569517862274142209
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569518893456171008
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569530939325296641
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569531442990088193
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569532019685908480
https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/569532280991055872
Lagassé, who was part of the fighter jet replacement options analysis task force, reminded us then as reminds us now that we need to stop behaving like we should be in a technocracy, that there are political considerations and debates that need to be had, and that ministers decide things for which there is always a political calculation. This is not a bad thing, though we may disagree with the final decision. The great thing is that we can hold those who made the decisions to account – something you can’t really do in a technocracy, so can we please stop pretending that it’s the way our system is supposed to operate?
Roundup: Strong feelings following defections
In the wake of fairly stunning defections in both the federal NDP and the Wildrose party in Alberta are leaving a lot of hurt, angry and shaken people in their wake. With Glenn Thibeault leaving the federal NDP, his old riding association president says she feels like their work has been diminished, and a number of Thibeault’s former caucus colleagues say they’re feeling “hurt” by the departure. Over in Alberta, the Wildrose Party’s president has stepped down and a past president stepped into his place for the time being, and they insist they’re not defeated. I’m sure it will be a question as to how they decide to move forward, and what kind of leadership process they put in place in order to try and staunch the haemorrhaging that they’re feeling at present. Someone suggested that it’s something that Rob Anders could take on seeing as he’s been defeated in his quest for federal re-nomination twice, but still insists he wants to get that small-c conservative message about lower taxes out there. Then again, Alberta may be getting too liberal for Anders, which is what he blamed his lost nominations on. For many federal Conservatives, it’s more of a feeling of relief, no longer having their voter base split provincially (though how long said unity lasts is a question). The most incredible reaction to date, however, was NDP MP Linda Duncan, whose riding is in Edmonton, when she said that people in the province may be so disgusted that they’ll consider the NDP instead. I think this reaction says it best:
@journo_dale god that's adorable.
— Alheli Picazo (@a_picazo) December 19, 2014
Roundup: Live from New York…
Stephen Harper is in New York to attend the UN, so of course that means he’ll speak to American media and reveal things he wouldn’t here at home. So we learned that President Obama has asked for more support in Iraq than we have committed at present, but he won’t say anything more than that, other than “we haven’t out” anything as to what we might send. He also started waxing about something that sounded awfully close to the need to find the “root causes” of radicalizing youth. Harper even said that our deficit figures are smaller than expected, though his Wall Street Journal interviewer did challenge the methodology on some of his claims about just how great our economy is performing. He even made some claims about immigrant voters, which can be disputed once you drill down into the numbers. Suffice to say, it’s more than you get here at home, which remains a problem.
Roundup: Contempt, tempers, and losing the plot
Thomas Mulcair’s snide exchange with the Speaker during yesterday’s QP continues to resonate around Ottawa, with reminders that Scheer doesn’t currently have the powers to police the content of answers (MPs would have to agree to give him those powers), and musings about this kind of contempt of parliament and remonstrations about how this is what makes people cynical. And the worst part? That even over the Twitter Machine, Paul Calandra continues to play the part. It has also been noted, and I fully agree, that by losing his temper and going after the Speaker, Mulcair made the story about himself rather than Calandra and his utter nonsense.
Media upset with me, gee what am I to do? Tell you what, I will stand up for Israel who are on the front lines fighting terror every day.
— Paul Calandra (@PaulCalandra) September 24, 2014
It's not up to Speaker Scheer to discipline poor answers, and you lose focus on govt stonewalling when you attack the Speaker. #QP
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 23, 2014
Roundup: Crowing over a very little
The NDP spent an inordinate amount of time crowing over social media yesterday about how they scored a “procedural coup” and “forced” a debate on the report of the special committee on missing and murdered Aboriginal women. The problem is that it’s not really true. Yes, they moved a concurrence motion during Routine Proceedings after QP on Friday, as is their right – but they didn’t surprise the government or catch them off-guard, as Romeo Saganash said during QP that they would be moving such a motion. Giving 20+ minutes notice is not “catching the government off-guard.” And when they forced a 30-minute vote and proceeded to this concurrence motion, the government voted with them and agreed to the debate, which again, puts the “forced” or “coup” narrative to the test. The report itself doesn’t recommend a national inquiry, seeing as it was a Conservative-dominated committee, and while the NDP wanted to highlight their dissenting report appended to it, it still gave the government side plenty of time to discuss their version of said report. So with these facts in mind, you will forgive me if I find the social media triumphalism a bit much.
Roundup: Military assistance for Ukraine?
As you probably saw earlier, the President of Ukraine was in Ottawa, and beyond just giving a speech to Parliament, he’s also looking to expand on the $200 million loan arrangement, and wants more military assistance – not combat troops, but reconnaissance, as well as signals intelligence and satellites, and moving toward a free-trade agreement between our two countries.
Roundup: Ratifying the FIPA – everybody panic!
The big news is that Canada ratified the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement (FIPA) yesterday, after months of delays. Immediately the NDP freaked out, while Elizabeth May called it the worse day for Canadian Sovereignty since 1867 (never mind that Canada never actually got treaty-making powers devolved from the UK until the 1920s and control over foreign policy in the Statute of Westminster in 1931). Apparently ensuring fair treatment for Chinese companies in Canada, and perhaps more importantly Canadian companies in China – where the rule of law is not really the same as it is here – is a terrible, terrible blow to our sovereignty. Economist Stephen Gordon, however, is trying to remain the voice of reason:
There is a *huge* chasm b/w what foreign-investor protection agreements do and what excitable nationalists say they do.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 12, 2014
All that FIPAs do is ensure national treatment. Govts don`t get to jerk foreign investors around because they`re foreign.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 12, 2014
You want to regulate in the national interest, fine. Apply the same rules to foreign and domestic firms.
— Stephen Gordon (@stephenfgordon) September 12, 2014