Roundup: A ridiculous court appeal

Posted on by

There is a court case in Ontario, now being appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal, filed by election reform advocates claiming that the existing single-member plurality voting system is unconstitutional because it violates Charter rights. It was rightfully dismissed by the Superior Court judge, because obviously, but there is something I did want to remark on. No, I’m not going to go into another rant about why I’m not a fan of proportional representation systems, or how most of their arguments deliberately misconstrue how single-member plurality works, but rather about how this is yet another attempt to use the courts when you lose at politics.

Beyond this kind of challenge being just on this side of lawfare, what gets me is how these kinds of groups seem to have zero conception of just what they want the courts to order in terms of a remedy, because that’s a pretty big deal. You want the courts to declare that the current system violates the Charter? Ignoring for the moment that their arguments are specious and jejune, what exactly do they think the courts are going to do? Order the federal government to implement a PR system? Which one? Because that’s kind of a giant sticking point. One of the main reasons why the electoral reform committee in Trudeau’s first parliament failed is because the recommendations in that report were hot garbage—design a bespoke system with a bunch of factors that rendered it virtually impossible to achieve without some major constitutional changes. PR is not one system you can just plug-and-play—there are so many variations of it that can wildly affect outcomes that it’s not inconceivable that it would degenerate into a major fight for years, while the court’s declaration of invalidity hangs over them. How does that work, exactly?

There are similar problems with other court challenges, such as the ones purportedly launched by youth over climate change. What exactly do they think the courts are going to propose as a remedy in that kind of a situation—and if you say “follow the science,” you deserve a smack upside the head, because science is a process, not a declaration. Science is not policy. The courts cannot impose policy, which is why it’s a really dumb idea to resort to the courts when you lose at politics. But that’s what we’re getting a lot of, and it means using the wrong tools and wasting a lot of time and energy to attack the problem in entirely the wrong way.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian drones attacked an oil storage depot in western Russia, causing a massive blaze, as a way of unsettling voters ahead of their presidential election.

Good reads:

  • While in Iqaluit, Justin Trudeau and his youngest son took time for some on-the-land activities including dog-sledding in between meetings with territorial officials.
  • Trudeau will be chairing a Cabinet retreat in Montreal this weekend, and Mike Moffatt will be briefing them on housing issues as part of it.
  • The Star has a deep dive into the dispute between the City of Toronto and the federal government on housing asylum seekers, and the dollar figures in question.
  • The estimated lifetime costs of the Cyclone helicopters are climbing as Sikorski hasn’t even been able to finish delivering Canada’s full order for lack of parts.
  • The Bank of Canada is busy redoing their macroeconomic models in the hopes of making them more resilient and responsive to the way the world works now.
  • The Business Council of Canada want changes made to CSIS’ enabling legislation so that they can warn businesses and institutions about threats they’re facing.
  • Blaine Higgs is taking his transphobic policies on a fundraising tour in BC, Alberta and Toronto, because apparently so many bigots want a chance to meet him.
  • There are calls for a public inquiry into the Alberta Energy Regulator after they were found to downplay environmental liabilities and withholding information.
  • Douglas Judson calls out Conservative MP Eric Melillo for claiming to be an LGBTQ+ ally and then refusing to meet with local Pride groups threatened by the far-right.
  • Matt Gurney is unimpressed with the way responses to Sabrina Maddeaux’s candidacy are hypocritical, and how the faux-victimhood tropes are just as bad.
  • Keldon Bester recounts the significance of the competition law changes happening in Canada, and why this is a big deal for a country built on oligopolies.
  • Paul Wells digs deeper into Poilievre calling the mayors of Montreal and Quebec City “incompetent,” his doubling down, and the movement he is building around himself.
  • My weekend column looks at the changed political landscape in Alberta that Rachel Notley leaves behind as she announces her departure.

Odds and Ends:

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