Day 5 — March 30, 2011
Are you proud of the human rights Canadians now enjoy because of decisions made by the Supreme Court? Do you feel your personal rights are better protected under its family law clarifications? Have you found a friend in your disputes with Revenue Canada thanks to the Court's rulings? Are you feeling more confident about national unity because of guidelines set down by the court for matters of succession?
If so, who will select the candidates to sit on the Supreme Court of Canada during the term of the next government should be of vital interest to you, and every other Canadian.
Fully eight of the current nine judges are eligible to retire at the end of this year. Four of them must retire (because of the age cap of 75 years) within the next four years.
This means that in the next term of government — particularly true if one party is granted a majority by voters — will be able to appoint a minimum of four and up to eight new Supreme Court judges. Depending upon the age of those named to these important positions, the upcoming appointments stand to influence the flavour and tenor of Canadian jurisprudence for many years to come.
Who do you want to make these choices? As a matter of law, it will be our next Prime Minister. Please give some thought to who you feel would most accurately reflect your values, hopes and rights in making these important appointments.
I know who I want to pick the next crop, what about you?
Brief Supreme Court primer & other sources
The Supreme Court of Canada is the final appeals court for all judicial matters in the country. They hear appeals on matters ranging from tax to matrimonial to human rights to constitutional matters to corporate law. As such, the decisions of the Court have the potential to affect the lives and rights of all Canadians in a definitive and far-reaching manner.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the eight other judges are appointed by order-in-council appointments, that is to say made by the prime minister and his/her cabinet of the day. By convention, the Court’s composition reflects a regional representation and takes into account Québec’s different system of law, the droit civil.
The appointment process, under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice, draws names from those proposed by provincial judicial appointments committees. Supreme Court judges are predominately drawn from among judges currently serving on the provincial or territorial Superior courts or other specialty federal courts. Typically, one Justice is elevated directly from the practice of law. Prime Minister Stephen Harper made changes to these provincial appointments committees by increasing political appointee membership and adding strong law and order police representatives to their composition. These changes were very unpopular among the legal community.
The nominee(s) selected by the Prime Minister from the assembled lists will then appear before a parliamentary committee for a three hour period of questions — an interview board if you like. This committee has no veto power and it is ultimately the Prime Minister’s decision to withdraw a candidate’s name or proceed with an appointment to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Justices face mandatory retirement at age 75. As is the case with other jobs, employees may be eligible for their full pensions prior to mandatory retirement because of their length of service. By the end of this year, fully eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices will be eligible for their full pension benefits meaning they might be enticed to announce their retirements for personal reasons.
According to recent media reports, 4 of 9 current justices will face the mandatory retirement age within the mandate of a new government — assuming a 4-yr., majority government. By December 2015, Justices Ian Binnie (Ontario), Louis LeBel (Québec), Morris Fish (Québec) and Marshall Rothstein (Manitoba) will have retired from the bench.
Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin (British Columbia) must retire by September 2018.
See also articles on this subject by following these links:
Ottawa Citizen Feb 7, 2011
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Harper+could+position+revamp+Supreme+Court/4238146/story.html
Canadian Broadcast Corporation, February 28, 2006. Indepth article from News department
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/supremecourt/
Straight.com, Vancouver’s Online Source
http://www.straight.com/article-383660/vancouver/upcoming-supreme-court-canada-retirements-make-very-important-federal-election
Backgrounder about Supreme Court Judicial Appointments from MapleLeafWeb.com
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/supreme-court-canada-appointment-process
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
The Importance of Openness for a Thriving Democracy (Part Two)
March 29, 2011 Day 4 of the Federal Election Campaign
Yesterday, I spoke to “The light of day” as a concept that keeps democracies alive, accountable and focussed on its citizens. We examined 3 ways in which Canadian citizens are able to keep informed about what their government is doing, what they are spending, what they are planning and the whys behind their initiatives. Openness from the elected to the elector is required to ascertain if the government we’re getting is what we had in mind when we elected them.
Today’s post examines ‘the press’ as an important method for the flow of information from the government of the day to its citizens. My observations of the Harper Government™’s performance in the area of the press are provided in conclusion.
As you will see, they add up to more reasons I Want An Election.
The Press: A potentially ideal method for an open and engaged democracy.
Political affairs journalists, editorial writers and columnists can function as our educators, inquisitors, observers and interpreters. Freedom of the press is so vital to good democracy that their rights have been enshrined in constitutions. In anti-democratic regimes media offices are bombed and journalists killed, disappeared or assaulted.
Reporting is not immune to many of modern society’s challenges — corporate concentration and integration of traditional media outlets, technological delivery methods, pandering to the superficial and worshipping at the altar of celebrity. The Press is not without fault, in my opinion, for the decline of democratic vibrancy in Canada. Political reporting, in particular, seems to have sunk to an unending round of “Gotcha” journalism, inane trivia and the unearthing of scandals. A thoughtful discourse on matters of public policy appear to have taken up residence in museums with the dinosaurs.
Compared to Joe/sephine Average Canadian, the press is still generally better informed, better positioned to ask questions of politicians, better skilled at communicating and has access to cheap-to-consume media outlets (achieving fairly wide access to the public). When the Press does a good job they ask the tough questions, they attempt to break through the spin, they pursue the line of reasoning and analyse the big picture. The press can be an important tool for citizens wanting a healthy democracy.(A topic for another day: Why do we/don’t we consume, interact with and demand better of our press?)
To accomplish any of the above functions, the media need access. They need to have the Prime Minister sit down and take questions, they need to be able to interview Cabinet Ministers about policies in their departments, they need access to experts within the public sector.
Here the Harper Government™ has been most blatant in its lack of openness. Sitting in front of the bloodthirsty National Press corps is never any Prime Minister’s idea of a fun day or necessarily a productive one. But it is a cornerstone of democratic government. Even the President of the world’s democratic superpower regularly stands in front of the White House Press Gallery and fields their questions. Why doesn’t Stephen Harper?
Why are the location and times of cabinet meetings kept secret under Harper? Journalists would say it’s to avoid their pesky questions when they leave the meetings where all major governmental decisions are discussed and made. Why are some national affairs reporters left off the list for access to the Prime Minister? Because their questions or their media outlet’s political leanings are disliked by the PM?
Why are all departments mum on all matters unless a Message Event Plan (MEP) has been constructed and approved by the political appointees in the Prime Minister’s Office? Is this to stifle all Ministers of the Crown and further subordinate them to the PM? Or are they all incompetent fools who can’t be trusted to speak to the matters within their departments? Or is this just another tool to slow down government business to better reflect a far right agenda of much smaller government? We cannot know. We do not have the information.
I cite one small example of this stanching of information flow from the government. The Current, the CBC Radio One national morning news affairs program, requested air time or comment 57 times from Conservative Cabinet Ministers in its 2010 season. They were granted 6, of which one was a no-show, for a total number of 52 refusals by the government of the day to comment on matters before the public. Does this seem like open and accountable government to you?
I imagine politicians of various stripes will point to the gotcha style of journalism as a reason they have taken media relations courses, hired spin doctors and eschewed press conferences. No one wants to be made to look the fool, or be quoted out of context or lied about. But this cascade of actions and reactions becomes a self-perpetuating cycle — without access, journalists must fill their pages and airwaves with something. If they get ticked off enough, they’ll dish up lots of dirt. Until one side declares a detente and a fresh start, the press — politician relationship appears unable to fulfill their respective roles in the openness and accountability function of our democracy
The Harper Government™, in particular, has undertaken a deliberate, coordinated strategy of NOT communicating with the public about its governance. I find this to be extremely frightening and a massive failure to participate in the openness and accountability vital to democracy.
Yesterday and today’s posts add to the list of reasons I Want An Election.
What do you think?
Yesterday, I spoke to “The light of day” as a concept that keeps democracies alive, accountable and focussed on its citizens. We examined 3 ways in which Canadian citizens are able to keep informed about what their government is doing, what they are spending, what they are planning and the whys behind their initiatives. Openness from the elected to the elector is required to ascertain if the government we’re getting is what we had in mind when we elected them.
Today’s post examines ‘the press’ as an important method for the flow of information from the government of the day to its citizens. My observations of the Harper Government™’s performance in the area of the press are provided in conclusion.
As you will see, they add up to more reasons I Want An Election.
The Press: A potentially ideal method for an open and engaged democracy.
Political affairs journalists, editorial writers and columnists can function as our educators, inquisitors, observers and interpreters. Freedom of the press is so vital to good democracy that their rights have been enshrined in constitutions. In anti-democratic regimes media offices are bombed and journalists killed, disappeared or assaulted.
Reporting is not immune to many of modern society’s challenges — corporate concentration and integration of traditional media outlets, technological delivery methods, pandering to the superficial and worshipping at the altar of celebrity. The Press is not without fault, in my opinion, for the decline of democratic vibrancy in Canada. Political reporting, in particular, seems to have sunk to an unending round of “Gotcha” journalism, inane trivia and the unearthing of scandals. A thoughtful discourse on matters of public policy appear to have taken up residence in museums with the dinosaurs.
Compared to Joe/sephine Average Canadian, the press is still generally better informed, better positioned to ask questions of politicians, better skilled at communicating and has access to cheap-to-consume media outlets (achieving fairly wide access to the public). When the Press does a good job they ask the tough questions, they attempt to break through the spin, they pursue the line of reasoning and analyse the big picture. The press can be an important tool for citizens wanting a healthy democracy.(A topic for another day: Why do we/don’t we consume, interact with and demand better of our press?)
To accomplish any of the above functions, the media need access. They need to have the Prime Minister sit down and take questions, they need to be able to interview Cabinet Ministers about policies in their departments, they need access to experts within the public sector.
Here the Harper Government™ has been most blatant in its lack of openness. Sitting in front of the bloodthirsty National Press corps is never any Prime Minister’s idea of a fun day or necessarily a productive one. But it is a cornerstone of democratic government. Even the President of the world’s democratic superpower regularly stands in front of the White House Press Gallery and fields their questions. Why doesn’t Stephen Harper?
Why are the location and times of cabinet meetings kept secret under Harper? Journalists would say it’s to avoid their pesky questions when they leave the meetings where all major governmental decisions are discussed and made. Why are some national affairs reporters left off the list for access to the Prime Minister? Because their questions or their media outlet’s political leanings are disliked by the PM?
Why are all departments mum on all matters unless a Message Event Plan (MEP) has been constructed and approved by the political appointees in the Prime Minister’s Office? Is this to stifle all Ministers of the Crown and further subordinate them to the PM? Or are they all incompetent fools who can’t be trusted to speak to the matters within their departments? Or is this just another tool to slow down government business to better reflect a far right agenda of much smaller government? We cannot know. We do not have the information.
I cite one small example of this stanching of information flow from the government. The Current, the CBC Radio One national morning news affairs program, requested air time or comment 57 times from Conservative Cabinet Ministers in its 2010 season. They were granted 6, of which one was a no-show, for a total number of 52 refusals by the government of the day to comment on matters before the public. Does this seem like open and accountable government to you?
I imagine politicians of various stripes will point to the gotcha style of journalism as a reason they have taken media relations courses, hired spin doctors and eschewed press conferences. No one wants to be made to look the fool, or be quoted out of context or lied about. But this cascade of actions and reactions becomes a self-perpetuating cycle — without access, journalists must fill their pages and airwaves with something. If they get ticked off enough, they’ll dish up lots of dirt. Until one side declares a detente and a fresh start, the press — politician relationship appears unable to fulfill their respective roles in the openness and accountability function of our democracy
The Harper Government™, in particular, has undertaken a deliberate, coordinated strategy of NOT communicating with the public about its governance. I find this to be extremely frightening and a massive failure to participate in the openness and accountability vital to democracy.
Yesterday and today’s posts add to the list of reasons I Want An Election.
What do you think?
Monday, 28 March 2011
The Importance of Openness for a Thriving Democracy
“The light of day” is a concept that keeps democracies alive, accountable and focussed on its citizens. Citizens need to be able to know what their government is doing, what they are spending, what they are planning and the whys behind their initiatives. How else can we assess if the government we’re getting is what we had in mind when we elected them?
In this post I address three methods for the flow of information from the government of the day to its citizens and provide my observations of the Harper Government™’s performance in these areas.
Speaking directly to its citizens: Ideal method for open and engaged democracy.
Perhaps best suited to times long ago when populations were small, issues far less complex and the citizens more engaged politically. Unfortunately, not very productive in today's world. In 2011, citizens are occasionally given the opportunity to meet their politicians (e.g. standing on their doorsteps during elections) but how indepth can you get with questions of policy, intent and cost? Do you even know what questions to ask? Can you hold the politician’s feet to the fire long enough to get a straight answer to your question?
The Harper government’s primary method of direct communication has been through a series of Conservative party television ads, most of which have cast aspersions on the Opposition Leaders and do little to advance policy debate. (See March 26, 2011 blogpost). Another has been a tendency to tweet vindictive messages from the nasty and paranoid staff running his PMO. A failure in my opinion.
Speaking in the House of Commons: Acceptable method for open and engaged democracy.
Supplies a wider audience than your doorstep. What is said in the House can be widely communicated to the public. Alternate view points from other parties can be offered which permit citizens a frame of reference against which to judge the government’s statements. Opposition parties have official spokespersons who follow specific files and therefore have greater knowledge on specific topics than the average Canadian. They can ask, on our behalf, clarifying questions and raise objections either in the House or through public comment.
Question Period in the House of Commons is broken, in my opinion, and does nothing to advance public knowledge or policy discourse. Cheap political gamesmanship on all sides of the House has contributed greatly to the decline of political engagement by the Canadian public. An OK source of theatre, on the par with a high school cafeteria hijinks.
I do not fault Mr. Harper for this state of affairs, but as someone who campaigned last time on making government accountable and more democratic, he has done nothing to advance this promise. And for a government that has tightly coiled all official messages from the Prime Minister`s Office, Mr. Harper has frequently, and cowardly, left the defence of government initiatives or errors in the Green Chamber to his parliamentary pit bulls. Poor performance, Mr. Harper.
Commons Committees: Good method for open and engaged democracy.
Committees of the House of Commons are formed to address different areas of governmental business, e.g. Security and National defence, Fisheries and Oceans. Their membership is based on party standings. Generally members of parliament sit on committees for which they have some knowledge, interest or riding concerns. They are able to be better informed (than the average bear) about the specific issues in each portfolio. Public servants, witnesses, experts and concerned persons can be called to testify before these committees of Parliament. Opposition members can examine government proposals in a more fulsome and meaningful way, speak for or against them and suggest amendments for their improvement.
This is the score on which Mr. Harper’s government has fallen. By lying to the committees when called to account for decisions taken (Minister Oda and the Kairos funding refusal) and by failing to provide costing and information relevant to two large Conservative initiatives (new fighter jets contract and tough on crime legislation\penitentiary expansion), Mr. Harper has seriously impeded Canadian citizens’ right to know. I’m not certain how these actions could be construed as anything less than secretive. Or incompetent. Either the Government knows the answers and is doing everything it can to keep the Opposition, the press and ultimately us from knowing — or they don’t know what these jets and prisons and longer sentences will likely cost and the effectiveness of Kairos’ development record. If the latter is true, the government’s bragging about being the best fiscal managers of the public purse goes out the window. If it does know why can’t we, the citizens of Canada, know?
If these decisions are also being made solely or in part for Conservative ideological reasons – perfectly acceptable in a democratic society — let them so declare. And then let Canadian citizens decide if we want to live in a society with those spelled-out values. Let us have all the information, Mr. Harper and we will then tell you and all the other politicians what we want. You may have been found in contempt of Parliament, Mr. Harper, but what citizens need to realize is that this is, in effect and in fact, contempt for the Canadian public’s right to know. Massive Failure.
Tomorrow . . . the role of the press to an open, thriving democracy.
In this post I address three methods for the flow of information from the government of the day to its citizens and provide my observations of the Harper Government™’s performance in these areas.
Speaking directly to its citizens: Ideal method for open and engaged democracy.
Perhaps best suited to times long ago when populations were small, issues far less complex and the citizens more engaged politically. Unfortunately, not very productive in today's world. In 2011, citizens are occasionally given the opportunity to meet their politicians (e.g. standing on their doorsteps during elections) but how indepth can you get with questions of policy, intent and cost? Do you even know what questions to ask? Can you hold the politician’s feet to the fire long enough to get a straight answer to your question?
The Harper government’s primary method of direct communication has been through a series of Conservative party television ads, most of which have cast aspersions on the Opposition Leaders and do little to advance policy debate. (See March 26, 2011 blogpost). Another has been a tendency to tweet vindictive messages from the nasty and paranoid staff running his PMO. A failure in my opinion.
Speaking in the House of Commons: Acceptable method for open and engaged democracy.
Supplies a wider audience than your doorstep. What is said in the House can be widely communicated to the public. Alternate view points from other parties can be offered which permit citizens a frame of reference against which to judge the government’s statements. Opposition parties have official spokespersons who follow specific files and therefore have greater knowledge on specific topics than the average Canadian. They can ask, on our behalf, clarifying questions and raise objections either in the House or through public comment.
Question Period in the House of Commons is broken, in my opinion, and does nothing to advance public knowledge or policy discourse. Cheap political gamesmanship on all sides of the House has contributed greatly to the decline of political engagement by the Canadian public. An OK source of theatre, on the par with a high school cafeteria hijinks.
I do not fault Mr. Harper for this state of affairs, but as someone who campaigned last time on making government accountable and more democratic, he has done nothing to advance this promise. And for a government that has tightly coiled all official messages from the Prime Minister`s Office, Mr. Harper has frequently, and cowardly, left the defence of government initiatives or errors in the Green Chamber to his parliamentary pit bulls. Poor performance, Mr. Harper.
Commons Committees: Good method for open and engaged democracy.
Committees of the House of Commons are formed to address different areas of governmental business, e.g. Security and National defence, Fisheries and Oceans. Their membership is based on party standings. Generally members of parliament sit on committees for which they have some knowledge, interest or riding concerns. They are able to be better informed (than the average bear) about the specific issues in each portfolio. Public servants, witnesses, experts and concerned persons can be called to testify before these committees of Parliament. Opposition members can examine government proposals in a more fulsome and meaningful way, speak for or against them and suggest amendments for their improvement.
This is the score on which Mr. Harper’s government has fallen. By lying to the committees when called to account for decisions taken (Minister Oda and the Kairos funding refusal) and by failing to provide costing and information relevant to two large Conservative initiatives (new fighter jets contract and tough on crime legislation\penitentiary expansion), Mr. Harper has seriously impeded Canadian citizens’ right to know. I’m not certain how these actions could be construed as anything less than secretive. Or incompetent. Either the Government knows the answers and is doing everything it can to keep the Opposition, the press and ultimately us from knowing — or they don’t know what these jets and prisons and longer sentences will likely cost and the effectiveness of Kairos’ development record. If the latter is true, the government’s bragging about being the best fiscal managers of the public purse goes out the window. If it does know why can’t we, the citizens of Canada, know?
If these decisions are also being made solely or in part for Conservative ideological reasons – perfectly acceptable in a democratic society — let them so declare. And then let Canadian citizens decide if we want to live in a society with those spelled-out values. Let us have all the information, Mr. Harper and we will then tell you and all the other politicians what we want. You may have been found in contempt of Parliament, Mr. Harper, but what citizens need to realize is that this is, in effect and in fact, contempt for the Canadian public’s right to know. Massive Failure.
Tomorrow . . . the role of the press to an open, thriving democracy.
Saturday, 26 March 2011
The Politics of Fear
Day One --- We're Off! Federal Election Day in Canada will be May 2nd.
Are you paying attention?
PM Stephen Harper requested the dissolution of Parliament this morning from Governor General David Johnston. Harper's first public comments? To warn Canadians about the "threat" of an unholy coalition. Throw up a false boogie man in an effort to scare Canadians into voting for a majority Conservative government (more on what this could look like for Canada later).
For the record, in parliamentary democracies --- as Canada is --- coalition governments are a legitimate form of government to express the will of the people. They encourage cooperation and can cast a more inclusive net when citizens turn to a multitude of political parties to represent their hopes and dreams.
Is Mr. Harper criticising our form of government? Then say so. Don't try to suggest to Canadians that coalition governments are illegal and unacceptable. Because they are not.
Liberal Party leader Mr. Ignatieff has clearly stated that he is seeking a majority government mandate from Canadians during this campaign.
We might also ask Mr. Harper how he views other coalitions? Why was a coalition government an acceptable option for him and his party just a few years ago? Does he view the current coalition government in the United Kingdom as illegitimate? Or is it acceptable because it is lead from the right of the political spectrum? Certainly the British economy is in worse shape than Canada's. The British coalition government seems to have undertaken a strong, if unpopular, program of economic correction.
What about the NATO coalition fighting in Afghanistan, and of which Mr. Harper has been a staunch supporter and participant? Readers may also recall Egypt has had strong majority governments with Mubarak for many years, with its citizens going to the polls, casting ballots for one party that has promised stability . . . but made a mockery of democracy. Is that the sort of government that Canadians yearn for?
But what does the truth matter? Mr Harper has clearly demonstrated in the recent past that he has no qualms about spending large sums of money to air advertisements that (at the most generous interpretation) direct, nay mislead, Canadians about his opponents' intentions and character. The most egregious and stomach-turning of these ads have come at great expense and frequency from the Conservative Party coffers.
However, average Canadian taxpayers have also paid huge sums for air time for "Canada's Economic Action Plan" TV ads --- even after these programs have been implemented. Aside from the money spent to make the 'Harper Government(TM)' look good at our expense, these particular ads also further divide Canadians into categories and perpetuate a climate of "what's in it for me" political discourse.
This engenders a more subtle form of fear mongering. Is the East getting more than the West? Is Quebec getting more than the ROC? Do families get more than singles? Do labourers get as much as corporations? Are married folk better treated than singles? Who is winning at my expense?
How can this sort of conduct lead to constructive nation building?
A topic for another day --- Governing in a Climate of Fear.
Are you paying attention?
PM Stephen Harper requested the dissolution of Parliament this morning from Governor General David Johnston. Harper's first public comments? To warn Canadians about the "threat" of an unholy coalition. Throw up a false boogie man in an effort to scare Canadians into voting for a majority Conservative government (more on what this could look like for Canada later).
For the record, in parliamentary democracies --- as Canada is --- coalition governments are a legitimate form of government to express the will of the people. They encourage cooperation and can cast a more inclusive net when citizens turn to a multitude of political parties to represent their hopes and dreams.
Is Mr. Harper criticising our form of government? Then say so. Don't try to suggest to Canadians that coalition governments are illegal and unacceptable. Because they are not.
Liberal Party leader Mr. Ignatieff has clearly stated that he is seeking a majority government mandate from Canadians during this campaign.
We might also ask Mr. Harper how he views other coalitions? Why was a coalition government an acceptable option for him and his party just a few years ago? Does he view the current coalition government in the United Kingdom as illegitimate? Or is it acceptable because it is lead from the right of the political spectrum? Certainly the British economy is in worse shape than Canada's. The British coalition government seems to have undertaken a strong, if unpopular, program of economic correction.
What about the NATO coalition fighting in Afghanistan, and of which Mr. Harper has been a staunch supporter and participant? Readers may also recall Egypt has had strong majority governments with Mubarak for many years, with its citizens going to the polls, casting ballots for one party that has promised stability . . . but made a mockery of democracy. Is that the sort of government that Canadians yearn for?
But what does the truth matter? Mr Harper has clearly demonstrated in the recent past that he has no qualms about spending large sums of money to air advertisements that (at the most generous interpretation) direct, nay mislead, Canadians about his opponents' intentions and character. The most egregious and stomach-turning of these ads have come at great expense and frequency from the Conservative Party coffers.
However, average Canadian taxpayers have also paid huge sums for air time for "Canada's Economic Action Plan" TV ads --- even after these programs have been implemented. Aside from the money spent to make the 'Harper Government(TM)' look good at our expense, these particular ads also further divide Canadians into categories and perpetuate a climate of "what's in it for me" political discourse.
This engenders a more subtle form of fear mongering. Is the East getting more than the West? Is Quebec getting more than the ROC? Do families get more than singles? Do labourers get as much as corporations? Are married folk better treated than singles? Who is winning at my expense?
How can this sort of conduct lead to constructive nation building?
A topic for another day --- Governing in a Climate of Fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)