The International Commission of Jurists has looked over the dispute between Stephen Harper and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin around accusations that she was “lobbying” against the appointment of Justice Nadon. The ICJ declared that McLachlin did nothing wrong – and that Harper owes her an apology. In response, the PMO responded that they saw the response and “noted it.” At least it wasn’t yet another angry denunciation of “activist” judges protecting their own, or some other nonsense. Meanwhile, the Canadian Bar Association has responded to all of those Conservative MPs whinging that the courts are doing an “end run around democracy” by reminding them that the courts are an essential part of our democratic system, ensuring that rights are respected and that laws are applied properly. Not that it will soothe the sting being felt by sore losers, which is really what those complaints are all about.
Tag Archives: Beverley McLachlin
Roundup: The Chief Justice hits back
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada responded to the government’s media releases and included a timeline of events to show that there was no undue influence in the Nadon appointment. One could question if it was appropriate to flag the issue on July 31, but it certainly doesn’t appear to have unfolded the way that the PMO has insinuated. Harper and company continued to make some baffling assertions, like Harper saying that he discounted any advice about potential problems with nominating a Federal Court judge in Quebec because coming from McLachlin, it would have been improper – it simply makes no sense. So is insinuating that McLachlin should have known that the case would come before her, since she’s not clairvoyant and wouldn’t know that Harper would appoint a judge in such a manner, or that a legal challenge would come. Former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, who appointed two Supreme Court justices under his watch, confirms that the Chief Justice would have been one of the people consulted in the process because she knows what kinds of expertise the Court needs at the time. Aaron Wherry rounds up more reaction to the dispute here.
Roundup: A cozy Vancouver sit-down
Stephen Harper went to Vancouver yesterday in order to meet the Board of Trade there and have a cozy little sit-down that wouldn’t be full of tough questions, and where he could repeat some talking points about how awesome the European Free Trade Agreement is going to be, and how he won’t approve pipelines unless they meet rigorous environmental standards. Of course, this message was interrupted by a couple of climate activists who got past security by coming dressed as wait staff, a stunt organised by a certain vapid narcissist whom I won’t be naming because I won’t give her the attention. Also noted in this conversation by Harper was his smacking of Barack Obama by saying that he “punted” the Keystone XL decision, which doesn’t seem to be the language of building bridges.
Roundup: Exit Ted Menzies, eventually
Minister of State for Finance Ted Menzies has announced that he won’t be running in 2015, and has taken him out of the running in the upcoming cabinet shuffle. With Vic Toews’ resignation said to be imminent (and I’ve heard this from caucus sources), this is likely the first of a number of such announcements to be made in the coming couple of weeks. It remains to be speculated if Menzies decision is a genuine desire to move on, of if this isn’t a face-saving exit with political capital intact if he was told that he wasn’t getting back in. Nevertheless, this fuels the shuffle speculation fire in the coming weeks.
Roundup: Shadow MPs, and the speaking fees plot
There was quite the commotion yesterday morning as the mayor of Montreal was arrested on corruption charges, but possibly more interesting was Saulie Zajdel, a former “regional advisor to the Minister of Heritage,” otherwise known as the Shadow MP that the Conservatives installed in Irwin Cotler’s riding. It was on Zajdel’s behalf that the Conservatives robocalled Cotler’s riding with the misleading message that Cotler planned to retire and would they support Zajdel in a by-election that followed – an action that the Speaker termed “reprehensible.” In QP, James Moore tried to put some distance between himself and Zajdel, saying that the charges stemmed to Zajdel’s time as a city counsellor and his role in the regional office was coordinating events, and more telling, giving the blunt statement that if Zajdel was found to have broken the law that they should throw the book at him.
Roundup: An absent report amid changing rhetoric
It has been noted that the scathing US National Transport Safety Board report on the Enbridge Kalamazoo leak has yet to be tabled with the Northern Gateway review panel. The CBC has a long analysis piece about how the federal government’s rhetoric is changing as the file gets increasingly complex, with numerous federal and provincial political calculations hanging in the balance.
The Globe and Mail has a lengthy profile of John Baird as Foreign Minister, and how he’s scrappy and looking to change the way we do things, yet there was very little critical mention from foreign policy scholars who will tell you how empty most of Baird’s gestures on the foreign stage (like all of the walk-outs at the UN he’s ordered) really are. It’s also conspicuously silent on Baird’s personal life as well, for what it’s worth. Baird, meanwhile, is in the Middle East and has announced new aid money for Syrian refugees.
On Justice McLachlin and the question of record keeping
While watching the Supreme Court hearing on the Etobicoke Centre election challenge this morning, I was struck by a couple of the arguments, and the questions put forward by a couple of the justices, and in particular, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. The issue in question was record keeping, or the lack thereof in some of the instances in question with the challenge.
The arguments put forward by Ted Opitz’s lawyer suggested that the issues were “mere technicalities” and shouldn’t be used to disenfranchise voters because of mistakes that Elections Canada officials made. This position was challenged – and rightly so. These rules exist for a reason, and the need for documentation and record keeping acts as a safeguard. Chief Justice McLachlin at one point said that the presumption seems to be that since we’re not Afghanistan, we shouldn’t worry about it, even though these kinds of breaches might be questioned in such a country. Justice Abella also at one point asked that if these technicalities don’t matter, then why bother having the Elections Act guidelines at all?