Tag Archives: The Monarchy

Roundup: Irresponsible unanimous passage

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Succession and Senate consequences

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The politics of the Senate reference

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Farewell Canadian Crown, hello Crown colony status

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The use and abuse of Private Members’ Bills

Posted on by

Yesterday was an interesting day, in that three Private Members’ Bills dominated the political discourse. This, unfortunately, is becoming a more common occurrence, despite the fact that PMBs are intended to be small measures designed to correct oversights in existing legislation – part of the role of holding government to account. They are not supposed to cost money (lest they require a Royal Recommendation), and we should bear in mind that the role of backbenchers and opposition are to hold the government to account. It is further to be reminded that it’s the opposition’s job to oppose, and not to govern. Hence, it is the government’s job to govern, and in an adversarial system like ours, the opposition holds them to account. And with these facts in mind, let’s look at what happened.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The omnishambles of a meeting that may not be

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Moving the goal posts

Posted on by

Today in Idle No More news, hunger strike veteran Elizabeth May counsels Chief Theresa Spence to meet with everyone – especially Conservatives, whom she has been rebuffing to date. May also suggests there be a go-between that can meet with Spence and the PM, but Spence’s people rule that out. Spence’s people have also declared that she is no longer giving interviews, nor will she drop the demand that the Governor General be included in the meeting, even though he has stated his desire to stay out of the politics of the situation (as is proper under the rules of Responsible Government). AFN Grand Chief Shawn Atleo has called for a First Nations meeting on the 24th and has invited the PM and the GG to attend, and that could be a compromise that allows both sides to save face – err, except that Spence says that the 24th is too late, and that she intends to fast until the meeting happens (which, it should be noted, appears to be a case of goal posts being moved). And moving the goalposts even more, Spence apparently now demands that the PM and GG meet with aboriginal leaders within 72 hours or there will be “mass demonstrations” around the country – which doesn’t exactly sound either feasible (materials need to be prepared, schedules cleared and leaders assembled), and like a fairly top-down directive from what is supposed to be a grassroots movement.

In related news, Senator Brazeau says he’s getting death threats for his position on the Idle No More protests. Jon Kay looks back at the history of the Attawapiskat treaty, which is a pretty fascinating read (even if you don’t have to agree with his conclusions). Also, despite some of the torque in this piece, there are some pretty interesting questions being raised about the finances of Attawapiskat, where money does seem to be flowing through the reserve despite the third-world conditions there.

Continue reading →

Roundup post: Retributive justice for mentally ill offenders

Posted on by

The release of a mentally ill offender has the government reaching for yet another knee-jerk response to a high-profile case. James Moore went on TV yesterday to say that making laws on single cases is bad policy, but those cases expose flaws in the system, and said that the government wants to put in place changes that will put the victim “at the heart” of the justice system. Now, if you know anything about justice or the rule of law, this should be setting off the big red klaxon because some of the most important features of the justice system are that it a) be blind, and b) not be retributive. Putting the victim “at the heart” of the system debases those two central tenets. Yes, the public reacts with outrage when someone is released after they have been treated for an illness which caused them to do terrible things, because they believe that they haven’t suffered enough, and that they’re using insanity as a way to get off easily – never mind that mental illness is real and can have terrible effects, and that when treated the risk the person poses to the community is minimal at best, and never mind that said person is also being supervised in order to ensure that they remain being treated. And even when the government says they want “science” to determine these things, we don’t see them putting additional resources into treatment or prevention by means of early detection of mental illness. It remains reactive and now, they want to add an element of retribution.

The Commons finance committee has recommended that there be a royal commission on the tax system in order to modernise and streamline it. Or you know, they could do it themselves, being as they’re a gods damned parliamentary committee and all. But no, doing it themselves would be unseemly as it would be terribly partisan and all of that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Onto time-allocated debate

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making way for double bunking

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →