Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Roundup: Some answers on the Senate question

Posted on by

That Senate bat-signal? It came with air raid sirens today. To recap, the government named Senator George Furey as the new Senate Speaker, which was a positive step, then they handed down their plan for their new appointment process, and amidst this all, Conservative Senator Jacques Demers quit caucus to sit as an independent. So where to begin? Well, with Furey’s appointment, it lays to rest issues around whether the government would ignore their obligation to make the appointment, and to the questions of what to do with Housakos after the allegations of his breaching senators’ privilege with the AG leaks. Senator Elaine McCoy was disappointed that Senators couldn’t choose their own Speaker, but I’m not sure she’s aware that it would require a constitutional amendment for that to happen (but one with a minor amending formula, granted). And then there the appointment panel – it’s designed much like the Vice-Regal Appointments Commission, with three permanent federal members and two ad hoc members per province with a vacancy, and they will draw up a short list for each vacancy for the Prime Minister to choose from. It’s constitutional and creates the atmosphere for the Senate to change from within, based on the recommendations from Emmett Macfarlane. The plan is to draw up a temporary process to name five Senators quickly in the New Year (two each for Manitoba and Ontario plus one for Quebec, where the representation levels are getting low), and the permanent process will then take over and fill the remaining vacancies, plus new ones as they happen. The plan is also that the provincial will give input on the appointment of board members from their province (though the federal government will appoint them for the temporary process). Christie Clark said that she’s not interested in participating, which is fine – the government can appoint BC representatives for the committee without her government’s input, and the same with Brad Wall if he joins her obstinacy. It was also announced that one of those five first appointments will be named the government leader in the Senate, but that they won’t be in cabinet and will be more of an administrator or a legislative coordinator, thus impacting on the accountability aspect (which I will write about in a future piece). It does provide a bit more clarity, however, but much remains to be worked out. As for Demers, I have little sympathy for his whinging that he didn’t want to vote on certain bills when he was in caucus, but he did it out of loyalty “to the team,” and to Harper. He had a choice. He singled out Bill C-377, which four other of his colleagues either voted against or abstained on in the final vote when they found the intestinal fortitude to do so. He could have joined them but chose not to, and only now leaves once Harper is gone. He’s a grown-up and had choices all this time.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/672432061702017024

Continue reading →

Roundup: Waiting for details on Tuesday

Posted on by

As things are being finalised, the government has said that they will announce the final details for the Syrian refugee plan on Tuesday – including full costs – leaving some to wonder about the government’s communications strategy throughout the whole thing so far. It’s true that in most cases, the ministers ‘ offices still haven’t been staffed yet and it’s making it difficult for them to effectively handle their media requests. It’s also worth asking if it’s entirely fair to criticize them for waiting until there were actual announcements before they went ahead and announced them, instead of giving a bunch of half-answers that could change because things haven’t been finalized. John McCallum did note yesterday that many of the details that have been leaked to the media are outdated, so as to manage the expectations around them. It does seem a bit odd to be demanding answers that don’t exist yet, or that to keep harping on the self-imposed deadline rather than to acknowledge that there is a process being followed – and one that has been relatively transparent in terms of what we’ve come to expect over the past decade, where you have ministers talking almost daily about aspects of what’s going on, where we can see the heads of CSIS and the RCMP meeting with said cabinet ministers and talking to the media about issues related to the refugees (including giving blanket reassurance that no, the security screening is not an issue despite what concern trolls may say), and where we can see the tenders going out as the military looks to rapidly winterize some of their facilities. All of this is being done in the open. Do we have all of the answers right now? No. But we have constant updates as to process and as of Friday, a date when the answers will be given. That’s not something we would have seen from the previous government, so it’s worth giving credit where credit is due.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau’s troubling QP pledge

Posted on by

In an interview with Huffington Post, Justin Trudeau mused somewhat about his proposed changes to Question Period, where he is looking to institute a once-weekly Prime Minister’s Questions Period, akin to Prime Minister’s Questions in the UK, but wouldn’t commit to showing up any more days than that. Under Harper’s time in office, he went from three days to one or two, and only answering the questions of the other leaders when he did show up. Even if a theoretical Prime Minister Justin Trudeau were to show up once a week and answer all of the questions put to him, I’m a bit sceptical because it does limit availability. Part of what’s been the beauty of our QP as we have structured it is that the PM can be called upon to answer any question on any day, with no advance notice. That’s not the way it works in Westminster, where the PM is given questions in advance. Trudeau is also talking about staying out on the road to connect with Canadians, but insists that it’s not a diminution of parliament but rather the opposite, because he’ll have a capable cabinet that can handle things in his absence and it not be a one-man government. Fair enough, but anytime politicians insist that their time is better spent away from Parliament Hill is diminishing the role of parliament. We have a representative democracy, which means that people send their representatives here to debate and make the decisions. If those representatives decide they have better things to do, then what’s the point? I do find it a troubling sentiment because parliament matters. Pretending it’s a distraction from “the real issues” or just a “bubble” ignores that the work that does go on here is important and needs to be accorded with some actual respect. There is more to governing a country than doorstep issues, and it might behove a future Prime Minister to acknowledge that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: About that “costed” plan

Posted on by

The NDP released their “costed” fiscal plan yesterday, which was not in fact the full costing that they had promised, but rather a broad-strokes framework, full of vague line item names like “Helping Families Get Ahead” and “Help Where It’s Needed Most” rather than actually talking about their childcare plan, and their promises around the healthcare escalator. (That escalator, incidentally, has confused a lot of reporters in the room). It’s kind of ironic that after a week spent baiting the Liberals on releasing their costed platform, the NDP didn’t actually deliver theirs. Suffice to say, the analysis to date seems to be that the NDP platform relies on the Budget 2015 numbers – numbers which are no longer relevant as the price of oil has crashed even further, and GDP growth is nowhere near what was projected and likely won’t be anytime soon, which blows a hole of several billion dollars into the assumptions. It also relies on the same austerity that the Conservative budget is built upon, despite what the NDP insists. The Conservatives and Liberals immediately panned the document, but that’s not a surprise. Being as I’m not an economist, I’ll leave the comments for those who are, and they have plenty to say (with some background on how to read these kinds of documents from Kevin Milligan here):

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644266217994215424

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644266726171869184

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644267141714149376

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644267656929918976

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644268654381563904

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644269099938283520

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644269679876288512

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/644270215551848448

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/644258642158596096

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/644306950700724224

https://twitter.com/rolandparis/status/644332078855815168

Continue reading →

Roundup: Defining recession

Posted on by

While I fear this may becoming a quasi-economics blog over the course of the campaign, it’s numbers yet again in the national consciousness as we learn today whether or not we’re in a technical recession, though there’s a bunch of political dispute over what a recession means. Jason Kenney was on Power & Politics on Sunday trying to broaden the definition to say that it would need to be over a number of sectors rather than just the energy sector as we seem to be seeing in Canada, and while that may be a perfectly reasonable explanation if it was anyone else, it was however his own government who put the definition of two quarters of shrinking GDP into their “balanced budget” legislation just a couple of months ago. Oops. To that end, Rosemary Barton writes about deficit and recession politics on the campaign trail, while Mike Moffatt calculates the projected federal deficits for the next few years based on current economic indicators. And Stephen Gordon gives us some food for thought:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trying to politicize the RCMP – again

Posted on by

Trying to cash in on the Duffy trial, the NDP decided to send an open letter to the RCMP Commissioner yesterday, essentially demanding that the case against Nigel Wright be re-opened and expanded to include current chief of staff Ray Novak, for some unknown reason. Oh, and they want a “clear response” as to why there are no charges. There are a few problems with this approach, so let’s list them, shall we?

  1. The RCMP don’t have to answer to the NDP. Sorry, but they don’t. They don’t have to explain why they didn’t press charges for someone else’s partisan gain.
  2. We’ve pretty much determined that in order for a bribery charge to be even feasible, they would have to establish the mens rea – the intent – that the $90,000 cheque was intending to buy influence. It wasn’t, and we have Wright’s testimony under oath to that effect. Are there no lawyers in the party that can explain this?
  3. And this is the big one – the NDP are explicitly trying to politicise the RCMP by making them part of their campaign against the Conservatives in the campaign.

Whoever in the NDP brain trust decided it was a good idea to drag the RCMP into the election should give their heads a shake because it’s kind of gross. The NDP brought them into a previous election – you’ll remember the December 2005 letter from the RCMP that the NDP used against the Liberals in that election, and when Harper won the election, how there were plenty of curious appearances of ties with the then-RCMP commissioner and Harper. (An investigation, it should be noted, that amounted to nothing). One would think that the RCMP would have learnt their lessons, and that they’ll be more circumspect. I guess we’ll see if they are, but suffice to say, the NDP trying to repeat that particular cheap stunt is not particularly endearing, and they should rethink trying to drag nominally non-political actors into the fray. No good can come of it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Delving into Wright’s emails

Posted on by

Nothing too explosive in the Duffy trial yesterday, but more those emails from Monday are certainly creating a bit of a stir, showing the PMO ignored the scandal for the first while, how Harper’s lawyer ended up disagreeing with Harper on the residency questions, and how Duffy didn’t want to repay anything because it would have made him look guilty, which he certainly didn’t think he was. Most of those players in the emails are still around Harper today. Incidentally, Pamela Wallin’s travel claims also come up in the emails. Andrew Coyne meanwhile has sorted through them and come to a conclusion on his own, so I’ll let him:

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986747455471616

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986757727334400

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986770817732608

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631986779369902080

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631987013223325696

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631987971177058304

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631988803641716736

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631990423058284544

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631994776401903616

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631994906102374408

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996316156063745

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631996679747731460

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997695675211777

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997702117703680

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631997707570311169

https://twitter.com/jenditchburn/status/631888561139286016

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631998561178161152

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/631999339955666944

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stacking the panel

Posted on by

The government has unveiled how they’re going to respond to the Supreme Court’s ruling on doctor-assisted dying, and it could not be any more spineless if they tried. Having first ignored the issue in Parliament for decades, they waited for the courts to tell them to do something, and by something, they decided to appoint a three-person panel to hold more consultations and come up with recommendations. In other words, outsourcing their response. But wait – it gets better. Two of the three members of this panel are opponents to doctor-assisted dying, and testified on the government’s behalf during the court cases. The third member, a former Quebec cabinet minister, is vested in the issue of provincial jurisdiction. In other words, the government has decided on the outcome they want, and stacked the panel in such a way as to deliver it. We shouldn’t be surprised by this response, considering how closely it mirrors what happened with the Bedford decision on prostitution. Rather than actually heed the decision and what it said about safety and security for sex workers, the government stacked their consultations in favour of opponents and religious institutions, dismissed as much expert testimony as they could in committee hearings, and drafted a bill that substantively does not change the situation for those sex workers when it comes to their safety, and will in fact just drive the industry further underground by criminalising buyers, and all the while touting that they were listening to the responses from their consultations. Watching them do the same with the assisted dying issue is proof positive that this is a government that refuses to make any hard decisions. (On a related note, here’s an interesting analysis of the Court’s decision in the case from Michael Plaxton and Carissima Mathen).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Tweet storms over Greece

Posted on by

On an otherwise hot and sleepy Monday in the Nation’s Capital, an otherwise innocuous-sounding tweet turned into a bit of a flap, which of course feeds the broader narrative of the coming election.

Suffice to say, both positions were both pretty ridiculous. Ashton (who later made it clear this was a personal position and not a party one) being ridiculous of course in trying to infer that there is some kind of oppositional dynamic between democracy and austerity (would a “yes” vote have been anti-democratic? Really?), while Poilievre ridiculous in trying to make any kind of economic comparison between Canada and Greece, even if Canada were to have an NDP government. It would take decades of structural and even cultural factors for us to even approach a Greece-like situation, but that doesn’t fit well into a tweet. Poilievre kept on, tweaking the opposition parties about their previous support for joining a Greek bailout, which would mean that Canada would now be on the list of countries owed billions, had we opted to do so. And then both the NDP and the Liberals chipped back with both Harper’s mediocre economic record and the ridiculous comparisons to Greece. So, I guess it gave us all something to talk about, but it’s still kind of lame – and did I mention ridiculous?

Continue reading →

Roundup: Getting out the leg irons

Posted on by

It was the image that launched a thousand attack ads – or probably will, at any rate, as Dean Del Mastro was marched out in handcuffs and leg irons, off to spend the night (at least) in an Ontario prison after being found guilty of breaking election finance laws. “Cheating is cheating,” the judge noted, and that it was a serious enough crime to warrant some kind of jail time, so she decided on a month – though he may get out by tomorrow on bail pending the appeal of his case. Del Mastro’s lawyer also tried to get other exceptions for Del Mastro – jail on weekends, numerous exceptions for the eventual house arrest provisions – because he has a farm and needs to feed the animals, and a job in Toronto, and so on. The judge didn’t appear to be buying it, and made a point about needing a jail sentence onto only to show the severity of the crime (hence denunciation and deterrence), but also the issue of time to reflect on his actions, thought may be asking a lot from Del Mastro, as he walked into the courtroom convinced of his own innocence, and has shown no remorse whatsoever, even though the judge noted that Del Mastro was prepared to falsify his own statements to try and get away with his overspending. Many will argue that leg-irons and jail time are overkill, give that he’s not a dangerous criminal, but it relies on the same logic behind putting white collar criminals behind bars as well – because making them pay a fine or just house arrest aren’t considered punishment enough for the severity of their crimes. Disagree with it all you want, but we have made this choice though our legislative regimes, and if we want to change that, well, there’s an election coming up. Meanwhile, Stephen Maher says the Conservatives’ treatment of the man who testified against Del Mastro leaves a lot to be desired.

Continue reading →