Tag Archives: Liberal Leadership

Roundup: Succession and Senate consequences

Posted on by

University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé writes the definitive look at the Crown succession bill the government introduced last week, and proves how the government and its arguments are entirely wrong about it. Australian constitutional scholar, and the authority on succession issues, Anne Twomey, writes about the bill and how it de-patriates our constitution back to Britain, as well as is a telltale sign about the lengths the government will go to avoid dealing with the provinces.

Speaking of the lengths that Harper will go to in order to avoid the provinces, regarding last week’s other big news – the Senate reference – Paul Wells notes that Harper’s plan seems to have been to try to destabilise the legislative equilibrium by pushing what small changes he could and take advantage of the resulting free-for-all – which sounds about right. Over in the Globe and Mail, there is a look at what an elected Senate under the current proposal means regarding provincial parties running candidates in a body dominated by federal parties. The result is almost certainly chaos that would be largely unworkable, reduced to issue-by-issue coalitions, grinding the legislative process to a halt. Free-for-all that a PM could try to work some additional executive powers out of in order to “break the logjam”? Don’t discount the possibility.

Continue reading →

Domesticity politics: the Winnipeg non-debate

Posted on by

“I’m sorry my dears, but you are up for elimination.” Ten words that should have been spoken, but one again, were not as the second Liberal leadership – well, “forum” – happened in Winnipeg. It was not a debate, but a series of one-on-one interviews with failed candidate Harvey Locke, whose uninteresting and frankly dull interview style did nothing to advance the plot of the leadership race. Someone pointed out that leaders do more one-on-one interviews than they do debates, so from that viewpoint it made a certain amount of sense – but one would think you’d need a competent interviewer and some actual questions of substance.

There isn’t a whole lot to be said about each of their answers, other than the fact that several of them had a tendency to ramble aimlessly around the topic without offering a substantive answer, and it didn’t help that the interviewer didn’t call them on it or try and keep it engaging.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The politics of the Senate reference

Posted on by

The big move by the government yesterday was to send a list of reference questions to the Supreme Court with regards to Senate reform – and yes, abolition. The six questions – more like fifteen with the sub-clauses – come at a time when the notion is being mulled over by the Quebec courts at the behest of the provincial government, and the Supreme Court may opt to hold off on their deliberations until that decision is rendered, so that they can take it into consideration. And then comes the politics behind it all – the government claims this will “speed up” the reform process after years of opposition delay – never mind that this reference process could take up to two years, and the only ones stalling were the government themselves because they never brought their bills forward for debate (not that said bills were actually constitutionally sound). It also buys them time to keep the issue alive for the next election and as a fundraising issue for their base, but also provides them options when it comes to considering next steps, because they may need them if they want to continue this rather foolhardy pursuit. The Liberals are playing the smug game of “We wanted this reference six years ago – thanks for catching up.” And the NDP are accusing the government of “more delay” – even though they simply argue for abolition and give nonsense talking points about how much money they would save if that happened (forgetting of course that all of said “savings” and more would entirely be consumed in the interminable court challenges that would come from flawed legislation that would otherwise be caught in the Senate). And there are the legal arguments – is it really unconstitutional, or is the fact that the Prime Minister is still recommending appointments to the Governor General enough to avoid having to go the route of a constitutional amendment, no matter that they’re ensuring that these appointments are “elected,” and that the “democratic mandate” of these newly empowered Senators will have a tangible – and detrimental – effect on the way our system operates. I argue that the Supreme Court justices aren’t morons and will see a backdoor attempt for what it is and call bullshit. Other constitutional scholars aren’t so sure, and say that according to the letter of the law, it looks just fine. But politics – especially the way our Parliament operates – is more than just the letter of the law. It’s an organic whole, and surely that needs to be taken into consideration when a blatant backdoor proposal designed to get around doing the hard work of constitutional negotiation will have a serious and measurable effect on our democratic process. That has to count for something.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Farewell Canadian Crown, hello Crown colony status

Posted on by

The government did something well-meaning yesterday, but in the process, ended up doing something very, very bad. In what was no doubt a somewhat thoughtless attempt to circumvent the rules around constitutional amendments, they tabled their act to change the laws of succession for the Canadian Monarchy yesterday that evoked a moot section of the Statute of Westminster that basically said “whatever the Mother Country decides, we’re cool with.” And with that one fell swoop, the government of Canada has undone eighty-two years of Canada having an independent Crown, and has once again relegated us to the status of a Crown colony of Britain – and no, I’m really not being dramatic. (See the bill and the government’s nonsensical backgrounder here). You see, that section of the Statute of Westminster that they’re evoking – was repealed with the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Oops. And by simply assenting to the UK change, it means that the Crown of Canada is not a separate corporate sole from the Crown of the United Kingdom – which means that Canada is not a sovereign country. And because the Office of the Queen – which the rules of succession are a Very Big Deal regarding – falls under s.41(a) of the Constitution – that means a constitutional amendment requiring the unanimous consent of the provinces. Yes, it’s a little messier and will take a little more time, but we’ve got at least two generations of heirs in order to get it right, and there is little reason that any of the provinces would object to such common sense changes. But hey, for the sake of expediency, let’s treat the constitution like it doesn’t matter! Which seems to be the modus operandi of the entire political discourse of this country of late – between this, the NDP’s “Unity bill,” and Bob Rae thinking that the Governor General should be involved in political meetings with the First Nations and denying royal assent on the Wheat Board bill, we have pretty much proven that civic literacy in this country is in complete and utter shambles. How many other mature democracies treat their constitutions like they’re relative documents that you can project your own interpretations onto as they suit your agenda? Unbelievable.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Like clockwork, here comes the decorum distraction

Posted on by

Like clockwork, Nathan Cullen unveiled yet another new idea for improving decorum in the Commons – giving the Speaker the powers to suspend misbehaving MPs and dock their pay. You know, something that’s unlikely to get signoff from everyone, while he ignores the name-calling that his own caucus engages in, or the fact that the Speaker has plenty of powers already but doesn’t wield them because it becomes a very slippery slope to determine what constitutes “misrepresentation of facts.” And, like MP Michelle Rempel tweeted in response, “Here’s a thought – we’re all adults, maybe we could take personal ownership for how we conduct ourselves in the House.” Because that might be too novel of an idea in an era where we infantilise MPs to the extent that they can’t even speak for themselves without being handed a script. (Aaron Wherry wonders about the question of incivility based on yesterday’s QP here).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Return of the Commons!

Posted on by

The Commons is back today! Hooray! Oh, my MPs, how I’ve missed (most of) you! Believe me, after weeks of instant constitutional “experts” lecturing me over the Twitter Machine about how we haven an absolute monarchy in this country, where the Queen and GG rule with iron fists and Responsible Government is but a figment of our imaginations, well, I’m ready for a change of pace. So bring on QP!

To prep you for the House’s return, here is Paul Wells’ take on how the three parties are positioning themselves as the sitting resumes. Mark Kennedy lists some questions that will likely need to be answered now. The Canadian Press looks at the fiscal situation, and how that will affect the conversation in the Commons. Michael Petrou shows you the five things that are most pressing on John Baird’s desk right now. Michael Den Tandt believes the energy file will be the one to watch this spring. An here is a look at some of the Private Members’ business coming up for debate.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An elegant climbdown?

Posted on by

And so, with some drumming and the signing of the thirteen-point declaration, Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence ended her hunger action. At a press conference that started off with the First Nations members present blaming the media for their woes, Spence was not present – she was at a local hospital getting checked out before she began eating solid food again – but Bob Rae chimed up to buy into the constitutional relativism about the kind of role that the GG should be playing with future First Nations meetings, and Romeo Saganash said that First Nations shouldn’t have to beg. To that end, he’s going to present a Private Member’s Bill to ensure that government legislation lines up with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Err, except that he’s number 167 on the Order of Precedence, whereas the Commons isn’t quite up to number 90 in terms of what’s been brought forward for debate, and even if he were much closer, a bill like that far exceeds the mandate of a PMB. (And once again, we have an example of MPs trying to govern from the opposition benches rather than doing their jobs of holding the government to account). Kady O’Malley rounds up the responses from the opposition parties, the minister and the PMO. Michael Den Tandt looks at the achievable goals within the 13-point declaration. Martin Patriquin looks at the forces of change versus status quo that played out around Spence and the Idle No More protests. And through it all, the person running Spence’s Twitter account called Senator Brazeau an asshole. Because you know, peaceful and helpful dialogue, and so on.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Debates, and a trip to James Bay

Posted on by

So, the federal Liberals had their first leadership debate yesterday, and it was…without a whole lot of sparks or drama. I mean, it wasn’t NDP dull and full of violent agreement, but there weren’t too many fireworks or memorable exchanges. Aaron Wherry liveblogged it here, here is the CBC recap, and Michael Den Tandt gives his thoughts on its tepid nature here. (I wrote up my own thoughts on the debate here).

Jonathan Kay visits several James Bay Cree reservations, including Attawapiskat, and finds that things are not necessarily as bleak as we might otherwise think – though Attawapiskat is noticeably poorer-run than the others. The other conclusion is that those communities that are doing best are doing it outside of the Indian Act system, which is something I’ve heard said about the successful First Nations communities on the West Coast. Nevertheless, Kay’s story is a must read.

Continue reading →

A few too many: the Vancouver Liberal leadership debate

Posted on by

Sunday was the first of five Liberal leadership debates, and it certainly showcased a few things – mostly the seriousness with which we should be paying attention to some of the also-rans, and how the field needs to be whittled down. Because it does. The nine candidates were about four too many in this round, and it should be whittled down even more as they proceed. I almost have this vision of the remaining debates being run like RuPaul’s Drag Race, where every week, the bottom two candidates must debate for their lives, at which point RuPaul will declare to one queen candidate “chanté, you stay,” and the other to “sashay away,” until we are down to the top three.

But a boy can dream.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Returning to untenable demands

Posted on by

The AFN is apparently back to their demands that Harper and the GG be at the table together at their next meeting – which is untenable. That a number of chiefs think that the GG can force Harper to deal with their issues is a gross misconception that they need to abandon. It’s even worse when one of them comes on Power & Politics and declares that the Queen got it wrong. Because you know, it’s not like she’s been on the job for the past 60 years or anything. Meanwhile, Tim Harper has a very disturbing tale of threats and intimidation going on in the internal politics of the AFN, which includes threats being made against National Chief Shawn Atleo and other regional chiefs. Paul Wells writes about Stephen Harper’s choice between cooperation and confrontation with First Nations.

Continue reading →