Tag Archives: Nominations

Roundup: Honour and protocol

Posted on by

The government has declared today to be a National Day of Honour to mark the mission in Afghanistan, but not everyone is pleased with the way they’ve handled it. The fact that the last flag from Kabul is being handed to Harper and not the Commander-in-Chief – the Governor General – is a pretty major breach of protocol that really won’t endear Harper to the troops, especially as such a breach looks transparently like a photo-op. Some of us thought that Harper had given up on such outright breaches after Prince Charles was here for Remembrance Day a few years ago and proper protocol was suddenly observed once again. Perhaps Harper’s presidential envy has reared its head again? The Royal Canadian Legion’s Dominion President is none too pleased with the government for the short timelines and lack of communication when it comes to preparations, because it didn’t allow many of the branches across Canada time to plan anything.

A Silver Cross mother whose son died in Afghanistan has told Power & Politics the tale of her difficulties with the system following her son’s death, from being billed for cost overruns at the funeral to being denied support services because her son was unmarried. It’s a pretty awful and wrenching tale to watch, but one that everyone should. It certainly colours the government’s Day of Honour back-patting.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Whips and grandfathered MPs

Posted on by

Given that it’s the big March for Life on the Hill, reporters asked Justin Trudeau yesterday about the whole pro-choice thing for the party (I’m guessing since it’s a fun game to try and catch the Liberals out on being a nominally pro-choice party with a few pro-life MPs still in the caucus). Trudeau said that as was decided by the membership in the 2012 policy convention, the party is officially pro-choice, that such votes would be whipped, and that the existing pro-life MPs are being grandfathered in, but all future candidates must follow the pro-choice party line. “So much for open nominations!” the commentariat cries, ignoring the kinds of conditions – or indeed groupthink – that other parties employ with their own candidates. And pro-life Liberals like John McKay kind of shrugged and said that it’s normal to have some disagreements within a party and left it at that. And now everyone else will try to make hay of this, because that’s the way it works.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The Chief Justice hits back

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Inciting a feud with the Supreme Court

Posted on by

A rift between the government and the Supreme Court of Canada appears to be opening as a bunch of anonymous Conservative ministers and backbenchers bravely approached National Post columnist John Ivison under the cloak of anonymity and trash-talked Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, insinuating that she lobbied against Nadon’s appointment. The Executive Legal Officer of the Supreme Court put out a release that denied any lobbying, and said that the Chief Justice was consulted by the committee of MPs that were creating the short-list of nominees, and that because of the issue of appointing a Federal Court judge in a Quebec seat was already well known, the Chief Justice also advised the justice minister and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff that it could be an issue. This happened back in July. The PMO, late in the day, put out a release of their own, insinuating that McLachlin made a cold call to Harper, which he refused because it would be inappropriate to discuss a matter before the courts – only it wasn’t before the courts, because that consultation, which was made to his chief of staff and not Harper directly, was in July – a fact that they only confirmed when the Toronto Star pressed them on it. It’s really worrying that the PMO is trying to assert that the Chief Justice did something untoward as Prime Ministers and Minsters of Justice often consult with her when there are vacancies on the bench, because the Chief Justice can advise them on what particular subject areas the Court is looking for an expert to fill. In the context of advising on a replacement for Justice Fish, there would have been nothing wrong with McLachlin consulting the government, nor with raising the point of caution about Federal Court judges. That this government has made a mess of the appointment process with their opaque committee process under the window dressing of greater accountability and transparency – of which there is actually none – and to try and come after the Court like this, is extremely unbecoming of any government. Especially when they were warned there would be a problem and went ahead with it anyway.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A looming deadline

Posted on by

The clock is ticking, and there are some 300 amendments to go through in committee for the elections bill before Friday – which the NDP thinks is ridiculous. Err, except they agreed to the timeline, and they filibustered for days and used up said clock. Actions have consequences, and yes, it’s an important bill that is under discussion, so they had best get to work rather than complaining about it. The Director of Public Prosecutions did appear at committee and said that the biggest concern he has is of perception of independence rather than the independence in fact. Meanwhile, Michael Sona – the only person thus far charged with the Guelph robocalls though he protests his innocence – wonders that if criminals don’t register guns, why would people who make misleading robocalls register them? It’s kind of a good point, and points to yet another flaw in the bill.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Precious illusions and appeals to reason

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flaherty funeral draws out Harper’s human side

Posted on by

Jim Flaherty’s state funeral yesterday attracted some of the biggest names in politics, current and former leaders on both sides of the aisles both provincially and federally (video here). Everyone wore something green, be it a tie or a scarf, to give a nod to Flaherty’s particular sartorial trademark. Harper’s eulogy was largely lauded, especially for the humour he showed that almost never appears in his public persona here in Ottawa, which is really too bad. There are stories about his self-depricating jokes at Press Gallery Dinners past, before he became Prime Minister and made it a personal policy to not only not attend, but also remove any trace of humanity from any speech he gives. That certain other party leaders plan to use their knack for human engagement as a wedge against Harper makes one wonder about its use as a strategic decision all along.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No charges for Wright

Posted on by

News from the ClusterDuff file last night as the RCMP announced that they won’t be seeking criminal charges against Nigel Wright – not that it doesn’t mean that he didn’t do anything wrong. It just means that they didn’t have enough evidence to that they felt that they could secure a conviction, which is a long way off from exoneration. The end of the RCMP investigation means that Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s investigation into the activities can now restart, which doesn’t mean that Wright is free and clear (not that those sanctions will be too severe – a slap on the wrist and/or being named and shamed tends to be the extent of it). It also means that he is now free to be a witness in any other ongoing investigations, such as the one into Mike Duffy himself. Wright did put out a brief statement by way of his lawyer that said that he always knew his actions were lawful – but it’s still a stretch based on this turn of events to make that kind of a declaration. It also means that Harper can’t hide behind the excuse of an RCMP investigation when asked questions in the House – unless he tries to use the investigation into Duffy as the smokescreen, which I wouldn’t put past him. CBC put together a special At Issue panel to discuss this turn of events.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A damning pre-study report

Posted on by

All day long yesterday, word had it that Conservative senators will be recommending changes to the Fair Elections Act as a result of their pre-study, and that Senate Liberals will be recommending even more changes in a minority report. The nine major ones, however, have unanimous support. Pierre Poilievre said he’d “carefully consider” their ideas, which is pretty non-committal. Of course, if the House passes the bill unamended without having considered the Senate recommendations, it could set up for a confrontation between the two Chambers if the Senate decides to make an issue out of it. That of course, remains the danger – that the Conservatives in the Senate will buckle under the pressure of the PMO, as there are still too many operating under its influence. Incidentally, it seems that even if the bill passes and the sections on the robocall registry are unaltered, they may not be implemented in time for the next election.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Anders down in defeat

Posted on by

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).

Continue reading →