It should come as little surprise that in a constitutional monarchy that an oath to the monarch was considered to be constitutional by the courts. No, seriously. This was an actual court challenge. But reading over the judgement, there are some very good things in there – things like the fact that the Queen is the embodiment of the country and its laws so swearing an oath to either instead would really still be an oath to the Queen, just indirectly. It affirmed that the Canadian Crown is a separate institution from its UK counterpart, which is an important concept that many people forget. It gave a thorough trashing of the false notion that the Canadian monarchy is a foreign imposition, but rather that because of our particular evolution as a country leading up to the constitutional patriation in 1982, the monarchy is an expression of a modern and equality-protecting Canadian democracy. It also points to the value of loyal opposition, and that nothing stops them from advocating for republicanism once they’re citizens. It’s a fantastic judgement and an affirmation of the values of a constitutional monarchy, which is what these three non-citizens are seeking to be a part of after all. Pretending that you can take the Queen out of that equation is more than a little ridiculous.
Tag Archives: The Monarchy
Roundup: In no hurry to fill vacant seats
Stephen Harper says that he’s currently in no hurry to fill the five vacancies currently in the Senate. Which is all well and good, but he can’t let this reluctance to fill seats go on too long before he finds himself in breach of Section 24 of the Constitution. The appointment of Senators is an obligation – not an option.
In advance of the Liberal caucus retreat in PEI, which starts tomorrow, here’s a look at how the whole Trudeau pot admission is a calculated strategy to present him as a different kind of political leader compared to the others, and that this will hopefully outweigh the attacks about his perceived lack of judgement.
Roundup: Pamela Wallin’s questionable claims
So, that was the audit report into Senator Pamela Wallin’s expenses – that she had a pattern of claims that were questionable even though she said that she was told they were acceptable (such as for attending functions at Guelph University, where she served as chancellor), that she had retroactively tried to change her calendar – supposedly on the advice of Senator Tkachuk, which he denied – and her belief that they applied rules retroactively is bunk. In fact, it’s addressed directly in the report that they didn’t, and there are even handy charts as to what rules were in place at what point, where they overlap, and so on. (That hasn’t stopped her few defenders, including Senator Hugh Segal, from trying to repeat this fiction in the hopes that it will become a truism). Oh, and Wallin spends most of her time in Toronto, for what it’s worth. It was enough that the Internal Economy committee has decided to forward this to the RCMP to let them sort out the discrepancies to see if there was anything untoward or deliberate, which now makes it all four embattled senators under RCMP scrutiny. Other Senators are taking exception to Wallin describing herself as a “different kind of Senator” who’s more “activist,” which let’s face it, is pretty self-aggrandising, given that most of them are active in their communities and in promoting causes. (I muse more about that here). PostMedia offers a primer on Senate expenses. And while some critics are (finally) pointing to the fact that this should affect the credibility of the Prime Minister given that three of the four are his appointees, it has been sadly pointed out that the focus remains on the Chamber itself and not the PM, which is a problem, as he is person who is supposed to be held to account.
Roundup: A federal factum of expediency
The federal government has submitted its factum to the Supreme Court on the Senate reference with great fanfare yesterday, with newly minted Democratic Reform Minister Pierre Poilievre insisting that they don’t really need to open up the constitution, and that they wouldn’t really need to get unanimous consent of the provinces to abolish the Senate. Yeah, somehow I doubt the Court will agree. Reading the factum over, it’s an underwhelming document, full of “these aren’t the droids you’re looking for,” “Squirrel!” and plenty of “don’t worry your pretty heads about the actual longer-term consequences of these changes, just look at right now.” Yeah. Paul Wells’ take on the factum pretty much says everything you need to know, though I would hasten to add that some of the arguments the government makes are spectacularly moronic. But hey, it’s not like we should actually worry about the constitution when we could be focusing on short-term political expediency – right?
Roundup: About those “robust” audits
Two new reports from the Auditor General show that the honour system is alive and well in both the Commons and the Senate, and it was all just a cursory look without digging into any MP or senator’s expenses. While the Senate has been making reforms to their internal processes before the current spending scandals erupted, the Commons has not, and it seems that only Justin Trudeau has been championing a more robust audit process by the AG. To hear Thomas Mulcair tell the tale, as he was all spring, the AG did a thorough and comprehensive audit and found no problems, which clearly is not the case.
Roundup: The premiers say no
As expected, the premiers unanimously rejected the Canada Jobs Grant programme as it is currently structured, not only because it was done without consultation and would demand a rollback of funds they’re currently receiving while demanding that they pony up more money. It also has to do with the fact that as is, it would largely benefit large companies to the detriment of smaller businesses who could use the training dollars, and it has little in the way of incentives for disadvantaged minority communities like First Nations to get training. Jason Kenney said that sure he’d meet with the premiers about the programme – but only to explain how great it is, which somehow I don’t think they’re going to be too keen on. Economist Stephen Gordon thinks the money should go directly to trainees by way of income, never mind the level of governments demanding control – especially as the problem of “skills shortages” are largely a non-existent crisis that would be sorted by offering higher wages. John Geddes reminisces about when “open federalism” was the buzzword of the Harper government, and look how well that’s turned out.
Roundup: Holding off on a committee investigation
The Commons transport committee met yesterday, some ninety minutes after Transport Canada handed down new rules when it comes to rail safety, based on the two letters that the Transportation Safety Board sent them last week in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic disaster. And while the NDP wanted an immediate study of the rules, the Conservatives and Liberal decided that now was not the time, with as many as nine investigations ongoing or soon to be underway, and that it could either distract or draw too many people away from the front-lines of the investigation. But yes, they would study it, just later.
Roundup: Heir to the Canadian throne
So there we have it – a future King of Canada has been born, and everyone’s delighted. No, seriously – everyone, though the NDP’s official statement of “warmest congratulations” was pretty lukewarm. And it was even more disappointing that the official Canadian Crown Twitter account was using the #BritishMonarchy hashtag rather than, you know, the Canadian Monarchy, which this baby is also heir to. Also, it seems that royal babies are good for business. Who knew?
Quebec’s attorney general has decided to weigh in on the challenge of the royal succession bill at the Quebec Superior Court, and he too believes that the provinces have a role in making such a change, as the constitution would otherwise indicate. The federal government says it will fight the challenge, since they would rather let political expedience trump the constitution.
Roundup: A feel-good committee for MPs
The NDP wants the Commons transport committee to meet over the summer to discuss rail safety and possibly hold a forum in Lac-Mégantic – you know, playing politics before the facts are known, drawing causal links but then quickly saying they’re not, and totally not trying to gain advantage from a tragedy. Yeah, it sounds like a brilliant idea, and one designed to simply make themselves look like they’re doing something about the tragedy. Fortunately, the Conservative chair of the committee seems to agree that such a move would be premature.
Roundup: The AG and the power of compliance
While Transport Canada went on record stating that three of the deficient areas found by previous audits were going to be rectified within a specified timeframe that had to do with an “extension” granted by the Auditor General’s office, the AG’s office said that they’re not in any position to grant any extensions because they don’t have enforcement mechanisms – it’s all Transport Canada’s responsibility to ensure compliance. So, yeah. Well done Transport. Elsewhere, Maclean’s has breakfast with the president of Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, where he sort of clarifies some of his comments from the previous day.