Former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley appeared at committee yesterday to give testimony on the Fair Elections Act, and said that unless vouching was reinstated, he could neither support the bill, and said that it could be considered unconstitutional. He also took issue with the provisions that would limit the CEO’s communications with Canadians, that allow parties to contact past donors without counting it as an expense, and for putting the Commissioner of Elections under the eye of the Director of Public Prosecutions – but you know that Pierre Poilievre will only focus on the things that Kinsley liked about the bill. Canadian Dissensus gives a superlative takedown of the bill and Poilievre’s defence of it.
Tag Archives: PMO
Roundup: Reading his own report wrong
Harry Neufeld, former chief electoral officer of BC and author of a report on voter irregularities in the last federal election wants it to be made clear that said report didn’t say there was fraud. Pierre Poilievre, who likes to cite that report, decided to double down and actually say that Neufeld was reading his own report wrong. No, seriously. Neufeld, incidentally, says that many of the incidents of “fraud” that people insist happen are urban myths that have been repeated so often that people start to believe them without actually witnessing it happen. Andrew Coyne shreds the Fair Elections Act and quite correctly points out that while there are a few good points in the bill, the closer one looks at it, the worse it gets and becomes untenable.
Roundup: Rail safety recommendations released
The Transportation Safety Board released their recommendations following the Lac-Mégantic disaster, which not only includes phasing out the DOT-111 tanker cars (though there is no mandated timeline), but also choosing the safest routes, better emergency measures along those routes, and limiting train speeds along the routes that carry dangerous goods. Routes should also be inspected twice a year. The government accepts the recommendations, but because things are complicated and the systems integrated across North America, talks continue between governments.
Roundup: The judge and his hockey pedigree
Justice Marc Nadon appeared before MPs yesterday afternoon as part of the meet-and-greet exercise that serves as a not-really-confirmation-hearing as part of the consultation process for judicial nominees that the government put into place. In a series of softball questions – which are all that are allowed – we learned a bit about Nadon, which seemed to be a lot about hockey. Apparently we now need to establish someone’s hockey pedigree before we can appoint them to a major office, if His Excellency David Johnston, Bank of Canada Governor Stephen Poloz and Justice Nadon are anything to go by. Also, Nadon claims to have been “drafted” by the Detroit Red Wings when he was 14, though there is no record of this, and makes one wonder if he chose the wrong word, or if he remembers things a little more glorified than they really were. Regardless, any attempt to get an insight into his judicial thinking was rebuffed, so we were left with another round of questions that would have only been improved if one MP had bothered to ask Nadon which Spice Girl he would be if he could be a Spice Girl. (Incidentally, those demanding that MPs have a more active role in the final decision should also remember that in our system of Responsible Government, the accountability for appointments rests with the PM so that he can be held to account – either at the ballot box or by maintaining the confidence of the House – as giving MPs that power would muddy the accountability). Over at CTV, there is a clip of law professor Carissima Mathen explaining her reservations about the way the government has been making their Supreme Court appointments. Irwin Cotler, who began the process of opening up the Supreme Court nomination process to outside scrutiny, writes about the problems with this particular appointment process – especially the timelines laid out by the government.
Roundup: Terror in Nairobi
A terror attack on a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya killed two Canadians, including one of our diplomatic staff who was off-duty and shopping at the time. This is the first time in seven years one of our diplomats has been killed abroad. Word is the government will be closing the embassy in Nairobi for the time being because of security concerns, which is going to be a major problem in the region because that embassy is sitting on a lot of visa applications and refugee paperwork (that is already backed up by something like five years), and with few other resources in the area, backlogs could get considerably worse.
Roundup: The ostracism of Maria Mourani
The Bloc Québécois has expelled one of its few MPs – and it’s only woman, visible minority, and Montreal representative in caucus – over her criticisms of the Quebec “Charter of Values.” Maria Mourani ran for the leadership of the party and lost to Daniel Paillé, who doesn’t have a seat, and her expulsion leaves them with a caucus of four white male MPs. And it’s too bad, because Mourani was one of their best MPs. I doubt, however, that she will join up with the NDP as some have speculated, because she remains a sovereigntist. Meanwhile, an Ontario hospital is releasing ads targeting doctors in Quebec who are from religious minorities, trying to attract them to move to Ontario instead. Justin Trudeau writes that he knows that Quebeckers are better than the divisive politics that Pauline Marois proposes with the “Charter.” Paul Wells traces more of the roots of this particular “Charter” and the anxieties that lay behind it, while Andrew Coyne says that Quebeckers can no longer content themselves that this legislation isn’t offensive – but that the rest of Canada can’t pat themselves on the back either, given that in Ontario, Dalton McGuinty won an election on very nearly the same grounds. Michael Den Tandt looks at how this latest move could backfire on Pauline Marois.
Roundup: Demands for a debate over Syria
As the speculation on an international response to alleged chemical weapon attacks in Syria intensify, there are questions about whether or not Parliament will be recalled to discuss the issue. And thus begins a teachable moment when it comes to the Crown prerogative of military deployment. You see, the ability to deploy the military is a Crown prerogative – meaning that the government can do it without the consent of the Commons – because it maintains a clear line of accountability. When things go wrong, as they inevitably do, it means that the Commons can hold the government to account for the actions that were undertaken during its watch. But when parliaments vote on deployments, it means that they become collectively responsible, and by extension, nobody is responsible when things go wrong. As well, it breeds the culture of the caveats, which many European military units suffered under during Afghan deployments – because no parliament wants their men and women to really be put into harm’s way. Keeping deployments a Crown prerogative allows for that tough decision making to happen. (For more on this, read Philippe Lagassé’s study here). Stephen Harper has been trying to institute votes because it does just that – it launders the prerogative and the accountability. It also was handy for dividing the Liberals back during the days of the Afghan mission, but bad policy overall. Meanwhile, as people point to the UK parliament being recalled over the Syria issue, it bears reminding that their votes are non-binding in such matters, and as much as Thomas Mulcair may demand that Parliament discuss a deployment, demanding a binding vote is only playing into Harper’s hands.