Politics in 2014

[Edward Campbell]

Personal opinion: I use a large clinic which has several physicians, one of who is my "family physician" and who I see most often. There is a lab, there will be an imaging department next year or the year after, there are, also, nurse practitioners who staff a walk-in clinic and so on. There are also some specialists, including a dietitian and a traditional Chinese doctor. I like the range and speed of services ~ "one stop shopping" for my annual check up. I also understand, from my "family doctor" that she much prefers the system to her previous private practice. I'm told that it is good (at least better) use of money because they do more work than the same number of private practitioners ~ they get paid for what they do, of course, but they are more productive.

 

[Edward Campbell]

According to this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, Prof Tom Flanagan's new book should be a good read:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-harpers-former-adviser-to-release-book-in-early-may/article17911256/#dashboard/follows/

Harper’s former adviser to release book in early May

KATHRYN BLAZE CARLSON
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Apr. 10 2014

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is reputed to be a man with a penchant for control, a leader with a grip on the Conservative communications machine.

So when one of his former advisers several years ago wrote an insider book called Harper’s Team, the Prime Minister’s Office, the author says, asked him not to publish it.

That writer, Tom Flanagan, now is back with a forthcoming book, Persona Non Grata: The Death of Free Speech in the Internet Age, that speaks of Mr. Harper in “Nixonian” terms, as a man who “believes in playing politics right up to the edge of the rules, which inevitably means some team members will step across ethical or legal lines in their desire to win for the Boss.”

Bruce Carson, a former senior Harper aide facing charges of influence peddling, is also slated to release a book soon. 14 Days: Making the Conservative Movement in Canada, set for publication in June, promises a “rare behind-the-scenes account of the Harper Conservatives,” according to the publisher.

The PMO produces 24/7,a weekly online video summary of government news and events, but unvarnished portrayals of Mr. Harper behind closed doors are harder to come by.

The books are unique for their access, offering a look at Mr. Harper’s leadership from the perspective of people who once worked closely with him (in Mr. Flanagan’s case eight years ago, and in Mr. Carson’s case five years ago).

Revelations about the books’ contents coincide with questions concerning Mr. Harper’s judgment, particularly when it comes to appointments and who he approves for top jobs.

Mr. Harper’s former director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, resigned as Conservative Party executive director last month amid controversy, as did his former chief of staff, Nigel Wright, last year. Three senators Mr. Harper appointed are embroiled in an expenses scandal.

When asked about the books, the Prime Minister’s chief spokesman, Jason MacDonald, said Mr. Harper “has not had a relationship with Dr. Flanagan for years.”

In Persona Non Grata, Mr. Flanagan discusses freedom of expression, weaving in his path to persona non grata status after he publicly expressed doubts about, in his words, “the necessity of putting people in jail if their only offence was to look at child pornography.”

But Mr. Flanagan also outlines his professional trajectory, including his time as “Harper’s chief organizer, under various labels.” By 2006, he writes, he was worn out from trying to work with the party leader.

“He can be suspicious, secretive, and vindictive, prone to sudden eruptions of white-hot rage over meaningless trivia, at other times falling into week-long depressions in which he is incapable of making decisions,” Mr. Flanagan writes. “I feared, as I still do, that he might some day bring himself down Nixon-style by pushing too hard against the network of rules constraining authority in a constitutional government.”

Mr. Flanagan, who also describes Mr. Harper as intelligent and hard-working, said the Prime Minister frequently treats people as “disposable.” The disposed, he writes, include former cabinet minister Helena Guergis, the three senators, Mr. Wright and former prime minister Brian Mulroney.

“So I can count myself in pretty good company among those who have been crushed by Harper’s PMO,” Mr. Flanagan writes. The author said his personal relationship with Mr. Harper ended when he refused to kill Harper’s Team.

After the child-porn comments, politicians and organizations publicly repudiated Mr. Flanagan. Andrew MacDougall, the Prime Minister’s communications director at the time, tweeted that the remarks were “repugnant, ignorant, and appalling.”

Mr. Flanagan said someone he knows in the PMO told him later the phones were “melting down” after the YouTube video of his comment went live, and that they had to distance themselves.

Mr. Carson said that, given the reaction to Mr. Flanagan’s 2007 book, the Prime Minister “won’t like anything written about government,” but says he thinks Mr. Harper will consider 14 Days “fair comment.”

The book looks at the Conservatives’ rise to power, starting in the early 1990s, Mr. Carson said. He said about one-third of it centres on the Harper government.

Mr. Carson , who is under RCMP investigation for allegations of illegal lobbying, said he is headed to court at the end of May on the influence peddling charges. “I pled not guilty and will be fighting tooth and nail,” he said.

Mr. Flanagan, whose book comes out in early May, could not be reached on Wednesday.

I tend to trust Prof Flanagan's opinions on partisan political issues.

My own sense is that Prime Minister Harper has good, even excellent policy judgement but that he is weak in personal judgements ~ I think his own, highly partisan, political opinions colour his views on people. He ends up valuing personal and political loyalty over e.g. competence. It is, I think a fairly common political disease: consider e.g. Jean Chrétien and Jean Pelletier and Alfonso Gagliano and, eventually Charles Guité. A fair, half decent, policy idea got mangled by political partisans and morphed into a crippling scandal.

 

[Remius]

I will likely give Prof. Flanagan's book a read. 

But will skip anything to do with Carson.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think it's no secret that I am not a fan of the Conservatives' "law and order" agenda. I think it is counterproductive, my sense is that it probably creates as many criminals as it actually punishes, and it panders to a segment of society that I think is wrong headed. But I don't say much about it because I am confident that the Supremes will set things right ... as, the Globe and Mail reports they have on the issue of "a law that applied retroactively to non-violent offenders, taking away their easy access to early day parole, violates their constitutional rights."

The "law and order" people want to pick and choose which rights we have ... it doesn't work that way.

And, once again, the Supremes do what's right, they fight for law, not just order.

 

[Kirkhill]

And with every loss that the Laurentian Consensus hands Harper how do you suppose his chances look?

My sense is that his "supporters", wavering though they might be, will only be strengthened in their conviction that it is them against the world.  I can't see that doing him any harm.

Those that oppose him will be chuckling but they have been chuckling on the opposition benches for eight years now.  I don't see that this materially affects the balance.  It still just separates Harper from Mulcair/Trudeau.

Having said that - there are Liberals that wish to protect their property and see guns and hard sentences as part of that and many Socialists are social conservatives.  Prairie farmers and union labour found that in common.  I think they still have problems choking back their Waffles.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think you are quite right, Kirkhill. It is the same with the Fair Elections Act: the elites are terribly upset but my sense, including a chat in mt local just the other evening, is that no one else cares at all.

The "law and order" crowd knows that Prime Minister Harper is on their side and it's "the others," the "elites" and the "so called experts" (take that Sheila Fraser!) who are against them.

Edit to add:

Oh, and all the whining and hand wringing from the CBC and its (not many) supporters is also great free propaganda for the CPC: the hated enemy is being cut!

 

[Kirkhill]

A concern of mine, with all this pushing and pulling, is what happens when 20% of the population loses faith in national institutions then finds their "champions" ejected from power.

Do they continue to play by the rules or do they seek alternative solutions?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Play by the rules and "opt out" where possible, unless the rules become too onerous and they are forced to "opt in".

In the 21st century, it is too easy for a few motivated, intelligent, and disgruntled people to create grief all out of proportion to their numbers.  People who want to take government too far away from the moderate middle are the danger.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Play by the rules and "opt out" where possible, unless the rules become too onerous and they are forced to "opt in".

In the 21st century, it is too easy for a few motivated, intelligent, and disgruntled people to create grief all out of proportion to their numbers.  People who want to take government too far away from the moderate middle are the danger.

Agreed.

Even when the mushy middle is wrong, it is "the people," writ large.

I support Stephen Harper's desire to make Canada a more conservative (by which I, of course, mean more liberal) country or, at the very least to make it less beholden to the Laurentian Elites, but Canadians will not be moved too far, too quickly. We are, indeed, a people of the "moderate middle" and, by and large, moderation works ~ or, as former Ontario Premier Bill Davis said, "bland works." A series of bland, grey men gave Ontario good, solid, bland government for nearly 30 straight years and they, being good Canadians, responded to it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In the recent past both the Conservative Party of Canada (when Kim Campbell was leader) and the Liberal Party of Canada (when Michael Ignatieff was leader) have slipped below 20% of the vote share in a general election, but, in general, I think we can safely say that each has 25% of pretty nearly rock solid partisan support; in other words half of Canadians will cast votes for either a Grit or a Tory with little or no regard to any real policy or even personal integrity issues. The NDP has, about, 15% of the vote and 5% of Canadians (22.5% of Quebecers) will vote for a nationalist party almost every time.

That really means that 30% of Canadians can be persuaded to vote Bloc, Conservative, Green, Liberal, NDP and so on based upon current issues. That, the real independent voting block, is the largest of all the groups but it will, almost without fail, divide: that's why either the Conservatives or Liberals can and do win majority governments with 40% (often a wee, tiny bit less) of the popular vote. (No party has won an absolute majority of the vote since Brian Mulroney, in 1984, won with 50.03%. Pierre Trudeau never got above 45% or so in popular support. The last time any Liberal got over 50% of the popular vote was in 1940. (Diefenbaker won a landslide victory - 53% which is HUGE in a four party system, as we had then and as we have now - in 1958.)) A full third to half of the independents usually go to one of the major parties, giving that party its 25% core plus 15% for a majority.

Politics in 2014 (and even more in 2015) means appealing to the 15% of independent Canadian who can be persuaded to vote Conservative or Liberal. They, those independents are 'moderates,' they worry, a lot, about so called pocket book issues (which is not the same as fiscal policy) and they don't like spending on defence or high culture.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is an interesting graphic, which come from EKOS Research via iPolitics.ca:

This is terribly gross. I'll assume "Fiscal issues" refers to taxes and spending, while the "Economy" is an amorphous mass of 'issues' related to people's pocketbooks. But what are "Social issues?" Healthcare? Probably. Law and Order? Maybe that, too? Immigration? I guess.

In any event the big trend is that Canadians care less and less and less about "Social issues" and more about the "Economy" and little at all about either "Fiscal issues" (taxes) and "Ethics & accountability."

 

[Edward Campbell]

... reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

My emphasis added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liepert-defeats-anders-for-conservative-nomination-in-calgary-signal-hill/article17949858/#dashboard/follows/

Liepert wins Conservative nomination in Calgary Signal Hill

CALGARY — The Canadian Press

Published Sunday, Apr. 13 2014

The man who defeated controversial Calgary MP Rob Anders for the nomination in Signal Hill took aim at one of the most powerful members of Stephen Harper’s cabinet late Saturday night.

Moments after the results showed he’d won by a comfortable margin former Alberta cabinet minister Ron Liepert took exception to the fact that Anders had received the endorsement of cabinet heavyweight Jason Kenney.

“Quite frankly I think Minister Kenney should mind his own business. He should go into his own riding and try and get re-elected in his own riding and quit monkeying around at other nominations...anywhere in this province,” said Liepert, who made it abundantly clear that he was angry at the interference.

“You’re damn right I am. Why? Because it’s none of his business.”

Liepert, 64, who held the health, energy and finance portfolios as a member of the Alberta legislature before opting not to run in the 2012 election, has never been afraid to speak his mind.

He added that he wasn’t worried about any repercussions for his criticism of Kenney.

“I don’t care. It might and I’m quite prepared do deal with it if it does,” he said.

More than 3,200 memberships were sold in Calgary Signal Hill which takes in part of Calgary West, the riding Anders has held since he was first elected in 1997 as a Reform party member. Party officials said 2,400 votes were cast Saturday.

Anders had accused Liepert’s campaign of signing up Liberals and NDP supporters in an effort to unseat him. He released the names of known Liberals Liepert recruited.

During the race, Conservative party officials chastised Anders for what they said were misleading phone calls. His campaign placed calls to party members that might have left the impression they were coming from Liepert’s campaign. If the target of the call was unsure about who they would support, the caller proceeded to criticize Liepert.

Liepert said the fact the negative campaign failed should serve as a warning to other candidates across the country.

“We’re not into negative politics and I hope this is a good lesson for everyone running going forward that you should run on your record,” he said.

“Talk about what you’ve achieved, what constituents want and stay away from the negative stuff because if there was one thing I heard from residents it was their disgust with the negativity.”

Anders is known for his strong social conservative views and gained attention for his sometimes inflammatory statements, including his opposition to granting honorary citizenship to Nelson Mandela, branding the South African leader a communist and a terrorist.

He once compared the 2008 Beijing Olympics to the 1936 Berlin Games, which were held when Germany was under the control of Adolf Hitler.

In 2012, Anders was dropped from the Commons veterans affairs committee after he lashed out at a veterans support group that had criticized him for falling asleep during a committee meeting. He later apologized for saying his critics were NDP “hacks.”

“We fought the good fight. I’m very proud to have fought for tax cuts, for standing up for families. We’ve taken a lot of great stands on a lot of great issues and it’s been fun,” said Anders.

Anders said his only regret was that the government didn’t cut taxes more.

He said it’s too soon to say whether he might consider seeking a nomination in another riding.

Liepert said constituents made it clear they were unhappy with the job Anders was doing.

“We felt right from day one we had a very motivated electorate that wanted to come out and participate and they did,” he said.

“The feeling in this riding was that it was time that we had an open, democratic nomination. Certainly the riding residents felt that way and they expressed their views. This is democracy.”

 

[Remius]

Glad to see him gone.  He is the type of conservative that damages the brand.

 

[Crispy Bacon]

Nothing to stop Anders from running in another riding. There are plenty of ridings that will be happy to get anything more than a paper candidate, let alone an incumbent MP who's been sitting for 17 years.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Re: the Fair Elections Act

There is a somewhat disturbing article on the LSE (London School of Economics) website by British scholar Matthew Flinders* entitled Low voter turnout is clearly a problem, but a much greater worry is the growing inequality of that turnout.

Let me set out my, personal, biases early:

      1. I think - no proof that I can muster - that the poor (a dreadfully broad and loaded term) are poor because they are poorly educated and I'm not fussed when the uneducated don't vote;

      2. I believe that low voter turnout amongst young people rectifies itself over time, as they grow up they grow more responsible.

There are two HUGE problems with my beliefs: the first one clashes with my notions of liberty and responsibility going hand in hand and Prof Flinders' article suggests that  belief in the evolution of voters is not well founded.

I still don't think that it is, in any way, wrong to require that people identify themselves before they vote even as I understand that this will operate, mostly, against those who already have the most trouble voting.

_____
* I don't know if he is any relation to the famous 18th century British navigator and cartographer Capt Matthew Flinders RN.

 

[a_majoor]

The idea of giving the educated or landholders the vote is actually a very old concept; the ancient Greeks called it Timocracy and used it to ensurre that the people who had a stake in the outcome were the ones who were entitled belong to the Ekkesia, sit on juries and otherwise take part in the political life of the Polis. The  Serenìsima Repùblica Vènetaevolved a republican system based on income and property, and the founders of the American Republic also started off with a very restrictive pool of eligable voters.

By all means the poor should have the opportunity to partake of much better education than is provided by the Public School system (vouchers, charter schools, charities giving out scholarships etc.) since they, like everyone else also "vote" every day in the marketplace with their dollars, something which political junkies often fail to take into account (the shifting of markets and demographics is creating a "New Canada" which is much different from what the members of the Laurentian Consensus see or desire).

Like Edward, I would prefer a system where the people who are involved are actually engaged and knowledgable, but like so much else in life, this is a DIY project for a generation. I strongly suspect that the current political and social elites actually are much more comfortable with an unengaged and "uneducated" electorate who don't interfer with their schemes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well, our friends in the Liberal Party of Canada are at it again, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen. What the Liberals are 'at' again is winning on campaigns that overspend on borrowed money, on borrowed money which need never be paid back because, although overspending and not repaying debts are offences under the Canada Elections Act, the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, says he cannot enforce the law ... not against Liberals, anyway.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Liberal+candidates+byelection+campaigns+into/9793223/story.html

Liberal candidates ran byelection campaigns into the red

BY GLEN MCGREGOR,
OTTAWA CITIZEN

APRIL 30, 2014

OTTAWA – Star Liberal candidates in last fall’s byelections ended up with campaign debts, despite being heavily bankrolled by the federal party.

Reports filed with Elections Canada show that the campaign of former journalist turned star Liberal candidate Chrystia Freeland ended up owing $24,348 to her party after winning in Toronto Centre, while former Quebec MLA Emmanuel Dubourg’s campaign owed $23,505 following his win in the Montreal riding of Bourassa.

Both campaigns to hold the longtime Liberal seats were heavily financed by the party, which transferred $52,634 to Freeland’s local campaign account and $71,300 to Dubourg’s.

The party’s two candidates in Manitoba byelections, who ran stronger than expected but still lost as expected, received cash transfers of $15,300  and $30,300 from the Liberal Party of Canada. In Brandon-Souris, Liberal Rolf Dinsdale’s campaign ended up with an unpaid claim of $36,468 and in Provencher, Terry Hayward owed $17,291.

Neither of the Conservative candidates in Manitoba, Ted Falk and Larry Maguire, reported unpaid debts, nor did the New Democrats who ran against Freeland and Dubourg in Toronto and Montreal, according to Elections Canada records.

Unpaid campaign debts and loans have bedevilled the Liberals in the past, particularly involving leadership candidates. Some of those have never fully paid off their 2006 leadership debts. Some candidates in the 2013 leadership race are still trying to whittle down steep unpaid debts and loans.

But the Liberals say these byelection campaign debts are only temporary.

Liberal Party national director Jeremy Broadhurst said each of the financial reports filed with Elections Canada in February represents “a snap-shot in time” and said none of the campaigns would end in a deficit position.

“It’s not unusual for campaigns to show unpaid claims when campaign returns are initially filed,” Broadhurst said in an email.  The plan, he said, was for the campaigns to repay the amount they owe to the party using rebates from Elections Canada.

All candidates who get 10 per cent of the vote in their ridings are entitled to a reimbursement from Elections Canada of 60 per cent of eligible expenses.

The amount the party directs to byelection campaigns is done in consultation with the provincial campaigns, local riding associations and candidates, Broadhurst said. In Freeland’s case, the Toronto Centre Liberal riding association had transferred $80,000 to  the federal party to pay for pre-writ activity, he said.

Under Elections Canada rules, candidates have four months from election day to clear their campaign debts. The Commissioner of Canada Elections has admitted, however, that the way the law was drafted made it impossible for him to enforce, a problem the government says it will remedy with the Fair Elections Act currently before Parliament.

Freeland was hand-picked by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau to run in the riding vacated by former interim leader Bob Rae and was promoted as an expert on economic issues, particularly those affecting the middle class.  Trudeau also named her to his panel of economic advisers.

Freeland was able to raise $45,875 in donations for her campaign, far less than it spent. Donors included former Liberal foreign minister Bill Graham, Rae’s wife, Arlene, the late Jim Coutts (a former Pierre Trudeau adviser), and former broadcast executive Ivan Fecan and his wife, Sandra Faire.

The call centre Prime Contract was Freeland’s single biggest expense, at $22,502, followed by printing costs of $17,000. Most of her expenses were payments to individuals who, it appears, worked on the campaign.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia Network Inc.

The new Fair Elections Act aims to fix the "no need to repay debts" loophole ... maybe that's what the Laurentian elites are so opposed to it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If, and it's a great big IF, it is true (John Ivison is an unapologetically partisan, a pro-Conservative commentator), that "Beverley McLachlin, the Chief Justice ... lobbied against the appointment of Marc Nadon to the court" then there has been s serrious Constitutional beach and the CPC has reason to be upset.

But, only one side of the story is out; I'm sure there's another side to it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If, and it's a great big IF, it is true (John Ivison is an unapologetically partisan, a pro-Conservative commentator), that "Beverley McLachlin, the Chief Justice ... lobbied against the appointment of Marc Nadon to the court" then there has been s serrious Constitutional beach and the CPC has reason to be upset.

But, only one side of the story is out; I'm sure there's another side to it.

OK, here is (part of?) the other side, in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-alleges-supreme-court-chief-justice-broke-key-rule-with-phone-call/article18382971/#dashboard/follows/

Harper alleges Supreme Court Chief Justice broke key rule with phone call

SEAN FINE
JUSTICE WRITER — The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, May. 01 2014

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has accused Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of breaching a basic rule of her office, as a deepening conflict between the government and the country’s highest court breaks out into a public dispute.

The Prime Minister’s Office publicly asserted that the Chief Justice attempted to contact Mr. Harper about a court case, and said that he refused to take her phone call when Justice Minister Peter MacKay told him it would be “inappropriate.”

The case involved Mr. Harper’s Supreme Court appointment of Justice Marc Nadon, whom the court eventually ruled ineligible. Both the public dispute between a prime minister and a chief justice, and the allegation itself, are unprecedented.

“Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Justice would ever call a sitting judge on a matter that is or may be before their court,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement released early Thursday evening.

“The Chief Justice initiated the call to the Minister of Justice. After the Minister received her call he advised the Prime Minister that given the subject she wished to raise, taking a phone call from the Chief Justice would be inadvisable and inappropriate. The Prime Minister agreed and did not take her call.”

It does not specify when the alleged attempt at contact occurred.

Any attempt at contact about a case would be a serious breach of the separation between the judicial and executive branches of government, without a known precedent in Canadian history, according to Supreme Court historian Frederick Vaughan.

“It’s absolutely unheard of that a judge would call a member of cabinet or government in a case that is before the court. It’s an inflexible rule,” he said, adding that he thinks Chief Justice McLachlin would have to resign if she broke that rule.

Chief Justice McLachlin, the country’s longest-serving chief justice, who has been at the head of the court since 2000, was giving a speech Thursday night on women and the law at the University of Moncton, and a spokesman for the court said she was not available to respond.

But in a statement issued a day earlier, in response to a reporter’s questions, her spokesman, Owen Rees, said she had been consulted by the parliamentary screening committee on the government’s short list of candidates before the appointment was made, and commented on the needs of the court. She had also raised the question of a Federal Court judge’s eligibility with Mr. MacKay and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Ray Novak, he said.

Justice Nadon was (and remains) a judge on the Federal Court of Appeal. No Federal Court judge had ever filled one of the three spots on the court reserved for Quebec judges. The Supreme Court Act did not specify expressly that Federal Court judges were eligible.

“The question concerning the eligibility of a federal court judge for appointment to the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court Act was well-known within judicial and legal circles,” the statement from Mr. Rees said. “Because of the institutional impact on the Court, the Chief Justice advised the Minister of Justice, Mr. MacKay, of the potential issue before the government named its candidate for appointment to the Court. Her office had also advised the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, Mr. Novak. The Chief Justice did not express any views on the merits of the issue.”

The Prime Minister’s statement said it was issued in response to her statement.

Mr. Vaughan, author of The Supreme Court, a history of the court published in 1984, said he flatly does not believe it. “I don’t believe for a moment the Chief Justice would call the Prime Minister about the appointment of a judge. And especially Beverley McLachlin. This is pretty shoddy stuff. All it does is cast aspersions on the Chief Justice.”

The government has lost five major cases at the Supreme Court in the past six weeks, with only one voice of support from the court’s eight sitting members, just once.

One Conservative MP said the government wants it made clear it didn’t consult the Chief Justice on the Supreme Court appointment. The Tories feel there should be a firm wall between the bench and the decisions they make as to who should sit on it.

The key element, it seems to me, is in this bit: "she [Chief Justice McLachlin] had been consulted by the parliamentary screening committee on the government’s short list of candidates before the appointment was made, and commented on the needs of the court. She had also raised the question of a Federal Court judge’s eligibility with Mr. MacKay and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Ray Novak." I think it can be argued, as I believe many will, that she was just offering friendly, professional advice on a technical matter because her call came weeks (months?) before Justice Nadon was nominated and it related to a purely technical issue (eligibility). But it seems to be to have been wrong for the parliamentary screening committee to have consulted her and equally wrong for her to have responded. Can a lawyer help us with the ethics of this, please.

Dueling with a Supremes is a double edged sword. It will make one part of the CPC base very happy but it will trouble many, many more uncommitted Canadians unless the Chief Justice was, very clearly, in the wrong.

 

[Remius]

To be honest it does look a lot like a smear.  As far as the ethics question involved, I'm not sure.  When naming a CDS, is the current serving CDS brought in for his input?  Or any Governor in Council appointment like say the Auditor General?  Would Sheila Fraser be consulted on her replacement and would she have had input?  I realise the Supreme Court would be diffrent than a GoC appointment but it does not seem out of line that the Chief Justice be consulted or would have some input on technical, eligibility and procedural matters pertaining to an appointment.

We have seen this before.  When the CPC does not get what it wants or faces resistance it goes on the offensive and try to discredit dissenting voices.  Look at some of the accusations against the Chief Electoral Officer recently for example.