because I say so

Freelance writer and former talk show host's op/ed, rants and commentary on Canadian federal politics, BC provincial politics, education and occasional miscellaneous.

Name:
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

I'm a freelance writer, actor and former talk show host. Published work has appeared in Maclean's, The Vancouver Sun, The Province, The Victoria Times Colonist and others. I previously wrote a Canadian Politics column for Suite101.com.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Desperate times call for desperate (debate) measures

I'm sorry, you'll do what?

I didn't quite do an all-out spit-take (I could never match the prowess of the late, great John Ritter on that front anyway) but I did nearly leap forward into the car in front of me.

Paul Martin announced (well, "announced" usually implies some sort of organized, well prepared policy initiative but nonetheless) that if re-elected, he would pass a bill prohibiting the federal use of Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the so-called notwithstanding clause.

Talk about constitutional reform from the hip.

In twelve years of office, the Liberals have never, ever, expressed concern about the federal government's legal ability to make use of Section 33 to override a judicial decision made by the Supreme Court should the need arise. True, they've never used it but until now they gave no indication they wanted to eliminate their ability to make use of it.

Indeed, a bit of history is merited. It was the federal Liberals under the leadership of Pierre Trudeau who not only championed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but included Section 33 at the behest of provincial premiers who refused to sign on to the deal without it (hmmm.... another case of Liberal political expediency? We'll do whatever it takes to get the votes we need?).

Conspiracy theorists may point to the fact that much of the Charter was penned by Martin's arch-nemesis Jean Chretien, then the Justice Minister, as yet another poke from Martin at his constant internecine rival and in ordinary circumstances I wouldn't put that sort of political shallowness beyond l'homme de LaSalle-Emard.

But last night's anti-notwithstanding position reeks of something else: sheer, unadulterated, pathetic desperation.

Notwithstanding the fact the notwithstanding clause could be abused by a Conservative (or Liberal or NDP or Marijuana Party) government, an act that would place limits on any section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the single most powerful document in all of Canadian jurisprudence, needs not to be done without serious disciplined, research into the constitutional impact of such an amendment (which, by the way, could just as easily be un-amended by the next government).

Not to be drawn into a constitutional debate but Section 33 protects the Canadian people from extra-judicial decisions by an unrepresentative, unaccountable Supreme Court (appointed with no checks or balances by the Prime Minister). Its use is rare and should only ever be contemplated in the most serious of cases.

Mr. Martin's position isn't based on serious debate (there has been none to date, at least no publicly). The Prime Minister's attack on the notwithstanding clause was nothing more than a feeble minded, desperate attempt to draw Stephen Harper into the same-sex marriage debate, despite Mr. Harper's pledge never to use Section 33 on that issue.

It was a shameful display of political gamesmanship. You don't amend the constitution because you're behind in the polls. You amend the constitution because it's the right thing to do; and when you can show us you've done your homework on this one, Prime Minister, then we can talk.

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Wishing me a Happy New Parliamentary New Year

My Parliamentary Wishes
by David Russell

What will it take, for goodness' sake?

The final week of the old year marked yet another milestone for the continually scandal-plagued federal Liberal party as the RCMP launched an investigation into the actions of the federal finance department after allegations someone in the ministry may have leaked information to certain privileged - read, Liberal-friendly - investors about pending decisions regarding income trusts.

Ask Martha Stewart what usually happens to people who get trading information ahead of the rest of the public.

And still, the Canadian public responds with in its usual manner: ho-hum.

And Ralph Goodale, federal Finance Minister, not only refuses to resign while his ministry is the target of a criminal investigation - which, by the way, used to be the expectation in the parliamentary system at even the whiff of misconduct - for several days he was so deep into Saskatchewan campaigning he could not be reached for comment.

One wonders to what group of Luddites the minister was reaching out and if they even knew an election was forthcoming. Half the population within the vast majority of Canada that is reachable by telephone and television are not even aware a campaign has begun. On what cave door must he have been knocking?

Were it that this was the only example, as opposed to but one example, of potential Liberal misconduct the public could be forgiven for being so forgiving. But it isn't. The litany of Liberal misconduct in its twelve years in office is surely unparalleled in Canadian governance history.

There's no need to bring up the Gomery inquiry and sponsorship scandal: that's been covered ad infinitum to the point most people simply do not want to hear about it any longer.

But let's recall the myriad other times in this past dozen years our current government has badly bunged up their attempts at running programs: the Human Resources Development Canada scandal; the L'Affair Grand Mere with former Prime Minister Chrétien involved in questionable dealings with the Business Development Bank of Canada and personal properties in which he held ownership shares; the Canadian Gun Registry program, a $2 million program that at last count had reached costs well in excess of a billion dollars. Is there anyone left in the country that really believes this is a government capable of running the country competently and without dipping its party hands into the taxpayers' cookie jar?

Finally, some signs on the horizon may indicate the public is finally seeing the light. A recent Ipsos-Reid poll actually shows the Conservatives pulling slightly ahead of the Liberals. Both parties remain within the margin of error and I'm the first to confess that I always doubt the validity of election polling anyway, but it does at least give some hope that Canadians may actually be thinking about what we expect from government for a change.

In an ideal world, the parliament on January 24th will look like this: the Conservatives will form the government, at least a minority; the New Democrats, who frequently have conceived many of the best social policies, are Her Majesty's Official Opposition, providing some balance to the Conservatives' fiscal conservativeness; and the Liberals spend some well deserved time mired in third place reflecting on what a government ought to be.

Wishful thinking to be sure, but a New Year's resolution I'd be happy to help the country keep.