It really was a blow to Stephen Harper, and his judgement when making appointments. The Supreme Court in a 6-1 decision rebuked not only the appointment of Justice Nadon to the Supreme Court, but also the declaratory provisions passed in the omnibus budget implementation bill that made the appointment okay. Nadon never was a Supreme Court justice and remains a supernumerary justice on the Federal Court of Appeal, his appointment and swearing in ceremony null and void. There was a lot of reaction to the decision, including from Justin Trudeau who pointed out that this is a sign that Harper couldn’t even get the big things right, which puts his judgement into question (ironic, since that’s what the Conservatives are trying to attack Trudeau about). The Toronto lawyer who brought forward the challenge wonders why it was left up to him, a private citizen, to do something about the government’s attempt at subverting the constitution, and on his own dime. Adam Dodek walks Maclean’s through the decision, and in a separate op-ed says the ruling represents the entrenchment of the Court’s constitutional independence, and a serious blow to the “transparent” appointment process that Harper put into place. Emmett Macfarlane goes further into the repudiation of the appointment process, and says that the consequences of this decision will almost certainly mean doom for the government’s Senate reform reference. Carissima Mathen, who appeared at committee and said that the declaratory provisions were doomed to fail (and was mocked for it) gets the last laugh. Liberal MP and former justice minister Irwin Cotler draws the lessons from the whole affair as to the flawed appointment process, the government’s own delays in selection, and their ignoring the warnings that Nadon’s appointment was going to present a problem.
Tag Archives: Afghanistan
Roundup: An office to serve non-existent MPs
The NDP are trying to open yet another Hill branch office, but this time in Saskatchewan – where they don’t have any MPs. In other words, trying to claim that it’s for parliamentary work is utter bunk. And “outreach officer” is not a Hill staffer position, by the way. When they claim that they need to be in touch with all Canadians, that’s not the job of Hill staffers – that’s the role of the local riding associations. Their associations are supposed to be the interlocutors between the local communities and the parliamentary party and caucus, a model that is ever weakening in the age of instamembers for leadership votes, and power centralized in leaders’ offices. That the NDP are trying to knock down those barriers between party work and Hill work is another worrying trend about the level of centralization that they are employing.
Roundup: Exit Flaherty
Out of the blue, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced his resignation from cabinet yesterday, but not his seat (just yet). This after Flaherty promised that he was going to run again, while simultaneously dropping hints that he was ready to wind down his political career. And it looks like Joe Oliver will be tapped to replace him as Finance minister, but no word on who would then take over the Natural Resources file. Here are some facts about Flaherty and his career, and a look back at his best ties, which were pretty much all green, which was kind of his shtick. Here’s Paul Wells’ profile of Flaherty from a couple of months ago.
Roundup: A branch office in Montreal
The Liberals have big questions about the NDP’s “branch office” in Montreal, which they claim is totally for coordinating parliamentary work and is totally not doing any partisan work – really! Note that the NDP complained when the Bloc had an office set up in Montreal paid for out of Parliamentary funds, but when they do it, it’s not problem. What I find intensely curious about the whole affair is not only the way in which several of these staffers have dual titles, and that a number of them are labelled as “outreach.” The thing that I finds a little disturbing is the way that this points to a concerning level of central control when it comes to their MPs and staff, far and above the particular level of centralisation they already have with staffers on the Hill. Suffice to say, it all does look a bit suspicious.
Roundup: Condemning an illegitimate referendum
As expected, Stephen Harper has denounced the “referendum” in Crimea, and said that it would lead to further isolation for Vladimir Putin. Said vote, which was done on ten days notice, with no voters list, and with the only options of seceding from Ukraine or seceding from Ukraine and joining Russia, is said to have a result of 95 percent in favour of joining Russia, but given that it’s illegitimate and dubious at best when conducted under what amounts to military occupation, it’s only real use will be for Putin to legitimise his occupation of the region. (Incidentally, Justin Trudeau tweeted that the government did the right thing to condemn the vote; Thomas Mulcair tweeted a photo of himself pouring beers for St. Patrick’s Day).
Roundup: No ruling on “reasonable”
A Federal Court judge has declined to rule on whether a three-year delay in an Access to Information request is “reasonable” under the legislation, saying that it’s Parliament’s decision to make, not hers. This could make the Information Commissioner’s job much more difficult, if she doesn’t have a proper definition of what constitutes a reasonable delay to go by.
Roundup: Denying a green light
Drama in the Liberal ranks in preparation for a by-election in Trinity Spadina, as the nomination front-runner was apparently refused a green light from the Ontario Campaign Co-Chair because Christine Innes and her husband, former MP and junior minister Tony Ianno were accused of intimidating and bullying volunteers. Apparently they were telling these volunteers that their futures in the party would be over if they were on the “wrong side” of a nomination battle, meaning the future riding redistribution and their support for Chrystia Freeland. Innes put out a statement alleging backroom strong-arm tactics and that she refused to be “assigned” a riding to run in, which went against the promise of open nominations. The party responded that it was a request to keep candidates focused on the by-election, and not future nomination battles against incumbent MPs, which sounds like what the intimidation was about. As the battle waged over Twitter, the partisan concern trolling from all sides got cute, but the accusations of sexism because she was denied the green light over the actions of her husband do seem a bit over the top.
Roundup: Exiting Afghanistan
The Canadian Army lowered the flag for the last time in Afghanistan, as our troops officially pull out of that country after our longest military engagement ever. Not that the job is really done, but we’re now turning it over to domestic security forces, as nascent as they are. Our ambassador says that Canada will remain engaged in the country and will help to rebuild their economy, and in particular their resource sector.
Roundup: Ignoring previous suggestions
Our Officers of Parliament are saying that Mark Adler’s “witch-hunt” bill to ensure that they don’t have partisan pasts rings hollow considering that they jointly sent suggestions to the Commons about making their offices more transparent in the wake of the Christiane Ouimet affair, and nobody followed up on that. Of course they didn’t, as there wasn’t any partisan advantage to it.
Roundup: Partisan questions over a move
The partisan machinery got ramped into full gear over the weekend after CTV aired a story saying that retired General Andrew Leslie legitimately claimed $72, 000 in moving expenses upon his retirement when he bought a new house in Ottawa. Most of that was apparently real estate fees, which the expenses are allowed to cover. But apparently after the years of service he put in, this figure is “shocking” for critics. Sackcloth and ashes, everyone! What wasn’t aired or put in the web version was Leslie’s explanation, which is not only the universality of that programme, its rationale, and the fact that he didn’t know the figure because it was handled by a private company. All of which raises questions as to why that number found its way into CTV’s hands. Not able to resist making a partisan swipe, as Leslie is now an advisor to Justin Trudeau, Defence minister Rob Nicholson announced that he was going to take a look into the expenses, while Leslie explained himself by way of Facebook. Even the head of the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation decided to get in on the game and said that Leslie was an embarrassment to his ancestors and compared him to Mike Duffy. Because he’s classy like that, I guess. I am also struck by the fact that everyone is blaming Leslie for bilking the system, when he made it clear that he wasn’t involved – a private company was. Perhaps they are the one who should be answering the questions, not Leslie.