Roundup: A court challenge goes ahead

Posted on by

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.

Good reads:

  • Not unexpectedly, legal experts agree that there’s not a lot that anyone can do about the government’s retroactive legislation to clear the RCMP for destroying those records.
  • As the debate debates rage on, the NDP are claiming that universities aren’t “neutral” enough to host them, while all opposition parties come to an agreement with the Consortium.
  • Cabinet is going to consider retrofitting a commercial ship to act as a naval supply ship, but it could make their actual Joint Support Ship procurement look worse.
  • The head of the Royal Military College was forced to apologise to a sexual assault prevention education after cadets harassed her during her seminar.
  • Jennifer Robson tests the various parties’ child benefit proposals against different “middle class” family models.
  • The Canadian Press’ Baloney Meter™ finds there to be “a little baloney” in the Liberal statement about the Conservatives’ economic growth record.
  • Over on Canadaland, I ask why the media is giving Michael Chong’s bill a pass despite its flaws, and not asking the Senate about their concerns.

Odds and ends:

Weapons and mischief charges have been laid against the wife of former Senator Rod Zimmer.

Senators will no longer be able to fly business class on short-haul flights.

After poking fun at Justin Trudeau for writing an autobiography, Thomas Mulcair will have his own published August 1st, meaning he’s no longer the only leader without a book.