The Reform Act 2013 has now been tabled, and it’s pretty much as has been reported, with the three key areas around the powers around nominations, caucus membership and forcing a leadership review on party leaders. (Text and sixty-second explainer here). Aaron Wherry rounds up some of the declared support today, including from the Conservative caucus, and those now outside like Brent Rathgeber, as well as some of the reaction and analysis to date. Alice Funke aka Pundit’s Guide looks at ways in which the provisions can be subverted by parties or leaders. Tim Harper points out the bill’s silence about a leader having to deal with an unsuitable candidate during an election. Andrew Coyne has a Q&A with Chong about the bill and tries to dispel some of the myths or concerns, but fails to ask some of the more pertinent questions around membership and inputs.
Tag Archives: Responsible Government
Roundup: Pat Martin vs. the spirit of the law
It has been revealed that Pat Martin’s legal defence fund for his defamation suit by RackNine was paid for by a loan from the NDP, and is being repaid by donations from unions. All of which is of course legal in the Conflict of Interest Code because he doesn’t actually see that money, but with corporate and union donations banned, it does set up a system that looks to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. Doubly ironic is that it’s happening to Pat Martin, and there are fewer MPs who are holier-than-thou and will rage with fire and brimstone about the ethical lapses of other MPs – and that he’s the one who helped create the Code with the Accountability Act back in 2006. And as one Liberal commenter said, by getting other people to settle his debts, Martin can no longer criticise Mike Duffy. Somehow, though, I suspect he’ll rationalise it all and keep up his moral outrage, one way or another.
Roundup: Votes on Syria and the question of Responsible Government
In the fallout of last Friday’s vote in the British Commons regarding military action in Syria, there are some very serious questions being asked about what it all means. In part, the concerns come from the nature of Responsible Government – if the House has not expressed support for the government’s foreign policy goals, which as a Crown Prerogative – then how can they continue to claim to have confidence in that government? How is foreign policy any different on a substantive level when it comes to the conduct of a government than a budget? Philippe Lagassé and Mark Jarvis debate the issue here, and I’m going to say that I’m on Lagassé’s side with this one – MPs can’t just deny the government the ability to exercise their prerogatives without also taking responsibility for it, meaning declaring non-confidence in the government. It’s not how Responsible Government works, and if they’re going to start changing the conventions of such a system of governance that works really quite well, then they need to think long and hard about the consequences of their actions. But that’s part of the problem – nobody wants to look at how actions affect the system as a whole, rather than simply patting themselves on the back for a nebulous and not wholly correct interpretation of what democracy means. And once people start tinkering with the parts without looking at the whole, then big problems start to happen, which we really should beware of.
Roundup: Thirteen new demands
The big news is that Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence will be ending her hunger action today, after it was reported that her own band council was issuing her an ultimatum to either end her hunger action or face removal as chief. But that wasn’t quite enough for Spence, who issued a thirteen-point resolution that needed to be met, and after speaking with Opposition leaders, got them to sign off on it – though I’m not exactly sure why. And so, there to be an “honouring ceremony” to end the hunger action held later today, plus a couple of press conferences – so I guess we’ll have to see what gets said. Meanwhile, the Manitoba chiefs have decided that they’ll stick with the AFN for now, but raise questions about the Assembly’s mandate – especially with regards to treaty negotiations. Jonathan Kay writes about how the AFN can no longer be all things to all First Nations in Canada.
Roundup: No end in sight to protests
While Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence continues to insist that the GG and PM meet with all of the chiefs, here is a reminder of the role that the GG played at the last Crown-First Nations gathering – basically the introductory speech, and then left. In other words, not at the table for the working portion, nor should he ever be. Meanwhile, the PMO says that they’ll be following up with National Chief Shawn Atleo on a follow-up meeting in the coming weeks, and have no intention of calling another big meeting with the GG. Apparently this means that the protests will continue. And the fact that NDP MP Charlie Angus is buying into Spence’s constitutional relativism and encouraging the GG’s participation in order to “draw down the rhetoric” is not only disheartening, it’s constitutionally irresponsible. I guess the “democratic” in New Democratic Party means that Responsible Government can be tossed away on a whim, and that we are subject to the whims of an activist monarch. Because that’s what he’s encouraging.
Spence, the GG, and political Calvinball
It remains to be seen whether or not that meeting between the Prime Minister and the First Nations will happen today because of the omnishambles that the process has become. The day began with the rather amazing feat – that Stephen Harper once again compromised. He asked the Governor General to host a ceremonial meeting at Rideau Hall for the Chiefs after the working meeting, and the GG accepted and extended the invitation. It was a wholly appropriate way of involving the representative of the Queen as the Chiefs were demanding. But then revolt happened. A group of Manitoba chiefs decided that they were going to follow the lead of Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence and say that unless the GG was at the table with Harper, then no dice. Of course, Chief Spence’s demands have had all the clarity of the rules of Calvinball, and her demands changed again today so that she wanted Harper and the GG at the table at the same time, and the premier of Ontario. You know, the one who’s tendered his resignation and is busy cleaning out his office while his successor is being chosen? Yeah, that one. And never mind that Chief Spence’s credibility has pretty much been reduced to tatters because of her erratic behaviour and demands – her demand that Harper and the GG be at the table together is completely and wholly inappropriate.
Roundup: Redefining status
The Federal Court has ruled that non-status Aboriginals and Métis should be classified as “Indians” under the constitution, and that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility towards them. This opens up a major can of worms in terms of the way that policy and duty to consult will have to happen going forward, as well as resources for those individuals based on what the government is obligated to provide, and this will be complicated more because the ruling does nothing to settle how the government will need to exercise this jurisdiction. This will doubtlessly be headed for the Supreme Court, so it may be some years before it is fully settled.
Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence’s boyfriend invites a forensic audit of the band’s finances to prove that there wasn’t any misspending – even though it’s been his job to provide the documentation that’s missing. He also defends his relationship and insists that he reports to the band council as a whole and that Spence doesn’t vote on conflicts of interests. Meanwhile, when Global News sent a crew up to Attawapiskat, they were kicked off the reserve and threatened with arrest – under Spence’s orders – while Spence’s camp on Victoria Island has also banned the media under the rubric that they are “printing lies.”
Roundup: Harper sets his own terms
In a somewhat surprising move, Stephen Harper agreed to a meeting with Aboriginal leaders next week – but it’s not exactly on the terms that Chief Theresa Spence demanded. Harper set the date for the 11th, while the AFN had proposed the 24th and Spence wanted one within 72 hours. Spence also wanted the Governor General in attendance – never mind that it’s not his role – but it doesn’t appear that he’ll be there. And Harper will let the AFN determine the agenda of the “working meeting.” Spence says she’ll attend, but will continue her hunger strike until then regardless. Grand Chief Atleo, however, appears to have his own problems as First Nations leaders are questioning his role and his legitimacy through these kinds of negotiations. From the other side of the debate comes a look at how the government has been taking pragmatic and incremental approaches to changes to First Nations issues that hope to bring greater economic opportunity, but they are measures being protested currently. Here is yet another reminder why, under Responsible Government, it’s inappropriate for Spence and company to call for the Governor General to join these meetings. And Maclean’s rounds up a dozen different opinions on the Idle No More protests, while also putting together an interactive map of where those protests happen.