It’s a court challenge that is probably understated in its importance and its longer-term implications, but the attempt to challenge Stephen Harper’s refusal to appoint new senators got a boost as the Federal Court rejected the government’s attempt to have it struck down before being heard. That means that the challenge can go ahead, and we’ll get a ruling from the Federal Court (which may possibly even make its way up to the Supreme Court) as to the constitutional requirement that a Prime Minister has to advise the Governor General on Senate appointments. The common retort about the obligation is that the constitution doesn’t specify when appointments need to be made – simply “from time to time,” but the plain reading of that text is that because there are no fixed dates as to when seats become vacant, there can be no fixed times as to when they are to be filled. That vacancies are allowed to pile up also goes against the representative nature of the Senate – those regions are entitled to their representation, and it should be as unconscionable that those seats are left vacant as it would be if they were seats in the Commons. This argument is being made in the challenge, “When shall a vacancy be filled? When it happens, not at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.” While the courts may make a declaration as to the constitutionality, it is unlikely they will be able to make a declaratory order that it be enforced, however, because it is in relation to a constitutional convention as opposed to a statute, but it still matters. Why this is important is not only for the obligation that Harper has made his decision not to appoint any more senators known (at least not in the current political climate), the NDP have also declared that they wouldn’t make any appointments either were they ever to form government, but good luck getting the unanimous consent of the provinces to make that constitutional amendment. They too would be bound by a positive declaration by the courts – that they are obligated to make the appointments. That Harper and Mulcair are on the same side of an issue, even if it’s for different reasons, is a curious state of affairs, and it’s very telling that the government tried to get it thrown out of court.
Tag Archives: Michael Chong
Roundup: More pledges and hints of strategy
As part of the pledge not to raise personal taxes should he form government, Thomas Mulcair has added one that he would never appoint a senator. Never mind that he would be constitutionally bound to do so as it’s a listed imperative in the text, or that the mounting number of absences would start to grind the legislative process to a slow halt, or the fact that once a future government does start making appointments again, it’ll create a further shock to the system that will cause more problems down the road. But hey, it’s easy to make facile promises without thinking about them, right? Paul Wells parses this promise as well as Mulcair’s other promises, like biannual first ministers meetings, to get a glimpse of what Mulcair’s emerging constitutional strategy might look like. Michael Den Tandt looks at Mulcair’s economic promises and pokes holes in the conceits that they can grow the economy and attract investment while increasing taxes on corporations, especially if all of our pension plans are dependent on those corporations turning a profit.
Roundup: Prince Charles, PC
Prince Charles and Camilla have landed in Halifax for the start of a four-day Royal Tour visiting Nova Scotia, PEI and Manitoba. Charles was sworn into Her Majesty’s Privy Council of Canada – which he will one day lead upon ascending to the throne – which is also a rare national honour to be bestowed upon him. Also on this visit will be the launch of Charles’ Campaign for Wool in Canada, which seeks to reacquaint people with the properties of the natural fibre for all sorts of purposes.
Roundup: Precious illusions and appeals to reason
As part of their campaign against the Fair Elections Act, the NDP have taken to a number of…precious tactics, from Craig Scott writing to Pierre Poilievre to ask him to withdraw the bill in order to start over with all-party consultation (good luck with that), to targeting individual MPs and ministers to vote against the bill, Michael Chong and Bal Gosal thus far. Chong may seem like fair game considering his new role as the so-called “champion of democracy” with his Reform Act bills, and his curious defence of the elections bills thus far (or at least his evasion of taking a stand until they are through the committee stage). But if they think that Gosal is going to break cabinet solidarity on a government bill, they’ve really lost touch with our contemporary reality, and it makes one wonder how they feel about one of the most important conventions about how we form governments under our system of Responsible Government. Would an NDP government not speak with a single voice? I doubt that very much, which makes this particular tactic all the more eye-roll inducing.
Roundup: Anders down in defeat
The Conservative members of the new riding of Calgary Signal Hill have spoken, and Rob Anders will not be their candidate in the next federal election. Instead, former provincial finance minister Ron Liepert has managed to win the nomination, apparently by a “comfortable majority,” even though Jason Kenney had taken to not only endorsing but also voicing a robocall on Anders’ behalf late in the game. Liepert, after winning, told Kenney to mind his own business rather angrily, incidentally. Anders has indicated that he would sit the remainder of this parliament, but hasn’t indicated what he’ll do next, though there is some speculation that he’ll still try to contest another Calgary riding’s nomination. Anders had labelled this nomination as a fight for the “soul” of the Conservative party, his “true blue” version versus a more “red Tory” Liepert (but apparently not even really), and in the aftermath, Liepert has said that his victory shows where the mainstream of the Conservative party has moved. It also shows how open nominations give the grassroots members more of a voice for who they want to represent the party on their behalf, rather than being assigned that voice for them. Aaron Wherry tries to search for meaning in this nomination upset here. (And be sure to check out the Herald’s video from the aftermath).
Roundup: Poilievre’s new conspiracy theory
Pierre Poilievre’s narrative around his single-handed defence of the Fair Elections Act took another bizarre turn yesterday as he accused the Chief Electoral Officer of trying to gain more money and more power with no accountability to show for it. Um, really? Where exactly did that come from? And since when has it been cool to attack officers of parliament with impunity? Former Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted this particularly troubling development, but one has to admit that there has been mission creep among many of those Officers, entirely encouraged by the actual opposition parties who have been perpetually fobbing off their homework and responsibilities onto those Officers, effectively turning them into the real opposition to the government. So there’s that. Over on the Senate side, pre-study hearings began yesterday, and already there was much displeasure on the Senate Liberal side of the table, where Senator Serge Joyal said that there are provisions in the bill which are likely unconstitutional – opening it up to an immediate court challenge (and yes, Joyal is a constitutional expert, and he helped to draft the 1982 constitution).
Roundup: An amended Reform Act?
Conservative MP Michael Chong is introducing another reform bill today, which would approach his proposed reforms to leadership reviews from another angle, via the Parliament of Canada Act, rather than the Elections Act, especially to address concerns brought forward by his caucus. That said, it still doesn’t address the fundamental issues of leadership selection, and the consequences of maintaining our current system of membership selection rather than caucus selection, or what happens to the legitimacy of a sitting Prime Minister when a caucus orders a leadership review, which is kind of a big deal. I will also be interested to see if this version contains the provision for a provincial nominating officer instead of a riding one, but there remain other problems with the original Reform Act that Chong tabled, so we’ll see how many this new one corrects.
Roundup: A coming loss to the Senate
It won’t happen for six months, but the news came out yesterday that Conservative Senator Hugh Segal will be retiring from the Upper Chamber before his term is complete, in June. Segal, one of the remaining Red Tories and a bit of a rebel who has pushed back against some of the government’s more egregious bills and actions, will be taking on the new position of Master of Massey College. Given that he has been one of the voices of sanity in the Conservative caucus, it will be a definite blow to the Senate’s membership and to the quality of debate. It will also mean the loss of expertise in foreign affairs, as Segal has also been our representative to the Commonwealth, and served on the Eminent Persons panel that saw the creation of the Commonwealth Charter.