The attempts by conservatives, both provincial and federal, to justify the use of the Notwithstanding Clause is in full swing, and it’s a bit fascinating to watch the intellectual contortions that they will go through in order to justify a) the abuse of process for Bill 5 in the first place, b) the need to ram it through during the middle of the election itself in order to interfere, and c) why they need to go to the mat and use the nuclear option in order to help Ford enact petty revenge. One of Ford’s MPPs wrote up her legal analysis, which is more than Ford or his attorney general have bothered to do, but it still didn’t explain the need for haste when an appeal of the lower court decision would have been the proper way to go about disputing its reasoning. Ford’s MPPs would go on TV and throw around the word “elites” as though that justifies the nuclear option, which, again, doesn’t actually constitute a proper reason for employing said nuclear option. Andrew Scheer, meanwhile, is falling back on the technicality that Ford’s using the Clause is “within the law” because municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction, which is beside the point – the point being that Ford is violating the norms of our democratic system for his own personal ends, and not calling out that violation of norms is troubling.

Even more troubling was that during yesterday’s raucous Question Period in Queen’s Park, Ford stated that we don’t need the Charter because people elected him – all of which just continues his particular inability to discern between popular rule and democracy. Popular rule is justifying breaking rules and norms because you got elected – democracy is those rules and norms that keeps power in check. That he can’t grasp the difference should be alarming.

Our democracy is upheld by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Horwath responds. "Does the premier think there should be any checks at all on his power?" she asks. Ford responds the bill was introduced to end the gridlock at City Hall. He's not answering the question.

— Jessica Smith Cross (@jessiecatherine) September 12, 2018

The LeBlanc Report

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued his report yesterday on whether Dominic LeBlanc violated ethics rules regarding the awarding of the Arctic surf clam fishery to a company that was headed (on an interim basis) by his wife’s cousin – the context is that he’s one of sixty first cousins, and his relationship with LeBlanc is at best described as an acquaintance. Reading through the report, it hinges upon the Commissioner reading the definition of family much more expansively than it is interpreted elsewhere in the very same regime, which is how LeBlanc interpreted it. LeBlanc took responsibility, vowed to do better in the future, but that hasn’t stopped the opposition from taking the usual route of wailing and gnashing of teeth to decry just how unethical this government is.

In the demonstrable instances, however, the ethics violations have been pretty small ball (i.e. Bill Morneau not properly reporting the ownership structure of the French villa he disclosed), or legitimate differences of opinion on relationships (whether the Aga Khan was a family friend in Trudeau’s case, or the closeness of the relationship between LeBlanc and his wife’s cousin in this case). These are not instances of influence being peddled, people being unjustly enriched (and I know people will quibble about the Bell Island vacation, but the Aga Khan is not some tycoon looking to increase his corporate holdings by way of government connections), so perhaps a bit of perspective is warranted. Should Trudeau and LeBlanc have cleared things with the Commissioner beforehand? Absolutely. But this performative outrage we’re seeing will only get you so far, and railing that there have been no consequences beyond naming-and-shaming means little considering that it was the Conservatives and NDP who designed this ethics regime back in 2006, and they could have designed a more robust system them – or at any point that it’s come up for statutory review – and they haven’t.

Among the many amendments the Act needs is a clearer definition of relative by affinity. Does it cover second cousins? Uncles by marriage twice removed? I’d suggest beyond immediate family, the (already unclear) friendship test should apply.

— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) September 12, 2018

Good reads:

• At the Liberal caucus retreat, Justin Trudeau threw some shade at Andrew Scheer and Doug Ford, and is doubling down on carbon pricing.
• Word is that Bill Morneau is looking at targeted measures to help businesses compete with the US rather than broad-based corporate tax cuts.
• Here’s a profile of Mary Ng, and her task of trying to get companies to look beyond exporting only to American markets.
• A year after CETA was implemented, we’re not seeing a lot of new European cheese in our markets, in part because of how complex they made the system.
• The veterans’ ombudsman is pointing to unacceptable service delays still plaguing the Veterans Affairs system.
• The government has settled a class action lawsuit with disabled veterans.
• Here’s a look at how a newly emboldened anti-abortion movement is making itself into a political force in Canada.
• Not unsurprisingly, there is a growing urban-rural rift in the Liberal caucus over the possibility of a handgun ban.
• Celina Caesar-Chavannes talks about why she stepped down as a parliamentary secretary, in part because the backlash she got online impacted stakeholders.
• Oh, look – Jagmeet Singh is saying ridiculous things about the electoral system.
• Here’s some more about the dire state of the NDP’s finances and operations (which says a lot about how it was being run during Mulcair’s “interim” leadership).
• Andrew Coyne makes the case for diversity and the positive effect it’s had on our politics.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.