MLI's Brian Lee Crowley on Quebec Separation, the Clarity Act, and the NDP

Brian Lee Crowley, managing director of The MacDonald-Laurier Institute (MLI), hits the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP for signaling that Quebec separation should permit Quebec to initiate its separation from Canada.

The editorial shows the importance of the Quebec vote to the NDP, whose surprising strength in Quebec catapulted it to the Official Opposition in 2011.

Also, check out what else MLI has to offer.

From Crowley’s editorial:

Both the Bloc Québécois and the NDP are busy advertising how cheap they hold their country’s integrity and future. The BQ, for whom secession is the raison d’être, may perhaps be forgiven for returning to the charge with another bill to set the bar on achieving Quebec independence as low as possible, and abolishing the Clarity Act into the bargain.

The NDP, however, is another matter. This party has frequently stood four square behind Canada in the face of the separatist threat, and its courageous past leaders, such as David Lewis, Ed Broadbent and Alexa McDonough spoke out passionately for Canada. Yet today the heirs of this proud tradition stand in the Commons and, without blushing, say that a majority of one vote in a referendum should be enough to set Quebec on the path of separation from Canada.

…

These things are so fundamental to fairness and legitimacy that we don’t permit mere governments or even electoral majorities to change them on their own. We require big majorities before we allow these “rules of the game” to be altered. In the case of amendments to the Constitution, for example, most of them require the agreement of Parliament plus at least seven of the 10 provinces representing a majority of the population. That is a triple majority: a majority in Parliament and among the population and a two-thirds majority among the provinces. And some changes require all the provinces to agree.

The government of Canada could hold a referendum to get approval to change the Constitution and they could get 90 per cent of the population to vote yes and nothing would happen unless the change was approved by Parliament and two thirds of the legislatures representing a majority of the population. That’s not anti-democratic. It is the essence of democracy that fundamental rules require special procedures and broad consent to be changed.

That is what the Supreme Court meant when it said a clear majority of Quebecers needed to vote yes to a clear question before the rest of the country must sit down and discuss secession. Even after negotiating, both sides would have to ratify a constitutional amendment to effect secession. And those negotiations would have to consider the rights of minorities like aboriginal people, and those who voted not to leave Canada.

The logic behind this is impeccable and, like it or not, it’s impeccably democratic too.

Morning News Wrap: "Cyber-NORAD," CAN-U.S. Border and Generic Drugs, Toronto’s Mayor Wins Stay, U.S. Loses Out at WTO, Canada’s Provinces Steal the Show, and More

By Keith Edmund White, Editor-in-Chief

Woodrow Wilson Center’s Canada Institute Talks NORAD and Cyber-Security @ 1 PM.  Cyber-security and protecting critical infrastructure are big (and irksome) issues facing both Canada and the United States.  You can watch the event here.

From WWC: 

Experts expect that cyber attacks from hostile nations and rogue actors will represent one of the most dangerous threats to Canada and the United States in the coming decades. The perils are numerous and the consequences are severe for such an attack. However, there are many measures that both nations can take, individually and collectively, to ensure peace and prosperity, free from the threat of a "cyber Pearl Harbor" disaster. The Canada Institute is pleased to host a distinguished panel to discuss these threats as well as the most effective measures and best practices that the private and public sector actors can use to make both countries more secure. The panel will discuss many issues including: the vulnerability of our linked supply chain system, the role of the private sector in enhancing the national security of the United States and Canada, policy options for creating a better information sharing process while respecting privacy rights, threats to energy production in Canada, and the possibility of creating a “cyber-NORAD” to help deal with our shared threats in the most efficient way possible.

Provincial Politics Take Center Stage.  The Globe and Mail offers an excellent province-by-province political round-up piece.  (Note to self:  copy G&M.).  In short:  Alberta—character politics are beating out attempts for Alberta’s Conservatives to push a national energy policy; British Columbia—the NDP seems on course to capture to provincial parliament; Quebec—between the Charbonneau corruption commission and the PQ’s PR blunders (they tired to remove the Maple Leaf from Quebec’s parliamentary building!), the great fear a of a resurgent PQ and separation anxiety has been allayed.    

Generic Drugs Crashes Canada-U.S. Border Policy Competing Economic, Security, and Public Health Demands.   Prescription Drugs + Border Security + Generics + Health Advocates = Border Policy Nightmare.  From WSJ: 

The White House has alerted police and border agents to prepare for a possible influx of addictive pain drugs from Canada, where cheaper, generic versions of OxyContin will soon become available. U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske also called Canada's health minister last week to discuss the issue and offer assistance to address the wave of prescription-drug abuse sweeping both countries, Mr. Kerlikowske's office said. In an alert to law-enforcement agencies sent Tuesday, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy warned law enforcement to be on the lookout for cheap copies of OxyContin, which it said could hit the market as soon as next month.

Will Toronto’s Mayor Be Out Next Week, Or Live to Appeal in Office?  Globe and Mail offers real-time court updates.  Update:  Rob Ford won a temporary stay, and will stay in office while his conflict-of-interest case is appealed.

America Given Deadline to Comply With WTO Country-of-Origin Meat-Labeling Rules.  The ever-fast wheels of international trade justice!  Having lost on an meat-labeling case to Canada and Mexico in June, the United States has been given a May 2013 compliance deadline.  The Kansas City Star reports on progressive unease with the WTO tinkering with U.S. labeling requirements: 

“Consumers in the U.S. have been clear: They want dolphin-safe tuna, and if we’re not able to label tuna in the way we want to label it, I think U.S. consumers are going to be pretty angry,” said Democratic Rep. Rick Larsen of Washington state, who likened the situation to having replacement referees decide the outcome of games in the National Football League.In the most recent development, Larsen and 21 other members of Congress sent a letter last month to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, complaining that the WTO is threatening to turn back the clock to the days when tens of thousands of dolphins were killed each year "in a tuna fishing free-for-all." Critics say the WTO is running roughshod over U.S. laws that govern everything from the environment to food safety and public health.

Joan Crockatt Gets the Hill Times Treatment.  And in a nice ‘slice of life’ piece at The Hill Times, Bea Vongdouangchanh writes on one of Parliament's newest members:  Joan Crockatt.

From The Hill Times: 

Prior to getting elected, Ms. Crockatt was an outspoken pundit who appeared on several political TV panels. Mr. Martin said he hopes the PMO, known for its tight message control, will allow her to continue to be a spokesperson on several issue.  “She’ll be as scripted as any of them [Conservative MPs], I’m sure, but Joan sometimes does freelance a little bit in her commentaries and that’s always a good thing. I hope they make her into a bit of a media presence because she does do good television. But if she takes one misstep, they’ll take her off the tube and never put her back on,” he said, adding that Ms. Crockatt does give a good first impression as an MP. “She’s always walked to her own beat type of thing and suddenly becoming shoe-horned into a borg-like group think is something that’s going to be a new experience for her.” Meanwhile, both the Liberal and Green parties increased their vote share in the byelection in Calgary Centre. The Liberals increased by 15.4 percentage points and Green candidate, Chris Turner, by 14.7 percentage points from 2011 election results. That increase came at the NDP’s expense, with Dan Meades losing 11 percentages points from 2011.

The Toronto Star tells Canada to look to the United States on climate policy.  From the op-ed: 

In other words, nearly three-quarters of U.S. gains will come from tougher regulation to curb emissions, “green” government procurement, grants and loans to promote renewable electricity, and fuel conservation in vehicles and buildings. Pollution taxes, higher oil pricing and emission trading systems will also have an impact. The implications for Canada, and Ontario, are obvious. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives has called for a coherent federal climate policy, including “a clear, nationally consistent carbon price” across the economy. And the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has urged more investment in low-carbon innovation, a major growth sector.
Until now the Harper government has adopted a wait-and-see-what-the-U.S.-does attitude, repudiated the Kyoto Protocol as too costly, and failed to come up with a credible plan to make the painful adjustments that will be necessary to develop the oil and gas sector in a more balanced and sustainable fashion, mitigating emissions. As things stand there’s no federal constraint on oilsands pollution, Pembina argues. Now Ontario, too, is falling short. The Americans don’t have all the answers. They remain huge polluters. But they are bending the curve in a better direction. We should aim to do no less.

Evening News Wrap

By Keith Edmund White, Editor-in-Chief

So, yes, this is a gross simplification of a BIG BIG week in news.  But we got news at the belly-aches in both nations' legal professions, tax-carping, election-updates, trade, top Canadian fiction, and more!

Canada-U.S. News

Life, death, and taxes…and Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Law in Canada.  Canada and the United States are in tax treaty talks, and it seems like Canadian banks are going to have to deal with the administrative burden of checking if their clients are dual citizens.  The lurking issue: dual citizens in Canada avoiding U.S. taxes.

Canada’s Late Entry to the TPP…Not a Huge Worry, But There’s Still Reason to Worry.  While slamming subsidies U.S. states use to lure companies, and how they hurt Canadian merchants, Peter Clark—in this detailed review of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade talks, it’s impact on Canada, and the global economy—says (1) Canada doesn’t have much to fear with it’s late arrival to the TPP and (2) concludes:

“It’s far too early to either dismiss TPP as a useless exercise or embrace it as a cure for what ails the global economy. While we see problems now, they can be fixed, with flexibility and compromise. If the TPP is a wine, it clearly needs some ageing before we can properly pass verdict on it quality.”

Canada News

Bye, Bye By-Elections!  Mark Abley, at The Gazette, talks on Monday’s by-elections in Canada, arguing that while Canada’s Conservative lost ground, a united Left is the only way to see a change in Ottawa.  Monday’s by-election results in brief: Conservatives held on to seats in Calgary-Centre and Durham, with a NDP-Green battle in Victoria going the NDP’s ways.

CETA Imbalance?  So What?  Paul Wells, taking note of imbalance concerns regarding Canada-EU trade talks, defends progress on the deal.  And at the National Post, Andrew Coyne gives his thoughts on the “logic of trade negotiations” in general:  “The whole situation is an absurdity.  It’s like a hostage negotiation in which both sides have guns to their own head.”

Moving Out:  Financial Post on the rough road ahead for Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney’s coming move to England; and the Globe and Mail on the importance of vetting cabinet officials and the resignation of Quebec’s environmental minister Daniel Breton. Added-Bonus:  Stephen Gordon at Macleans  on how much credit Carney should get from Canada’s robust post-financial crisis economic performance:

“What I take away from this is that we could have done much worse, but I don’t think we could have done much better. Stephen Harper and Mark Carney were dealt good hands and they played them well.”

Must-Read List.  The Globe and Mail picks the top 23 Canadian fiction books of the year.

Legal News

Going to (U.S.) Law School Worth It!  Lawrence E. Mitchell, Dean at the Case Western University School of Law, defends going to law school in the NYTimes:  

"We could do things better, and every law school with which I’m familiar is looking to address its problems. In the meantime, the one-sided analysis is inflicting significant damage, not only on law schools but also on a society that may well soon find itself bereft of its best and brightest lawyers."

Canada’s Lawyers in Crisis?  The Globe and Mail reports on the state of Ontario’s legal profession: “…it was clear that some of the country’s top legal minds believe their profession is, in effect broken.”

PQ’s Learning Curve: Just What the NDP Needs to Win in 2015?

Editorial

By Keith Edmund White

Ignore reports of slipping NDP support, which the Globe and Mail attributes to the Parti Quebecois's (PQ) narrow victory in Quebec last month.  The PQ may be just what the NDP needs to take Ottawa by storm in 2015. 

OK, first some background for those not hip to the Canadian political scene.  In what has been historically a two-party contest for Canada’s national government, the NDP—for the first time—offered a Canadian third way: crushing the once-dominant Liberal Party, but still failing to stop Canada’s conservative party—and Prime Minister Harper—from turning their minority government into a majority government (i.e. the Conservatives had been the biggest party in Parliament, but didn’t have a majority of votes until 2011).  So, now all three parties are plotting how best to approach Canada’s next election, slated to occur on or before October 19, 2015.

Now, all this Ottawa long-game chess-playing gets delightfully complicated by provincial politics.  Just like the first crack in the Obama 2008 coalition was a Republican winning Virginia’s 2009 gubernatorial race, the narrow victory of the Parti Quebecois (PQ)—a pro-Quebec secessionist party—has injected more drama in Canadian politics.  For better or worse, Quebec—owing to history and the ever-present chance another independence referendum—still grabs what some undoubtedly consider a disproportionate share of the nation’s media attention.  So the PQ’s victory has brought headaches—and opportunity—for Canada’s three major national parties.  But, don’t worry, the political pain is being shared, with the PQ already nursing some of their own political missteps.

Why should the PQ running Quebec worry the national Conservatives and NDP?  Well, for the Conservatives, beyond the PQ possibly dragging the country into a constitutional/secessionist crisis (unlikely given their minority government status), the PQ is Quebec’s left-leaning party.  (Note:  The NDP has not built a provincial party in Quebec, even though it owes its ‘government-in-waiting’ status to Quebec voters.)    What’s this mean?  The PQ, according to Paul Wells at Macleans, “is already doing the opposite” of the Harper government on spurring investment, immigration, and energy.  But the big issue here is taxes.  From Wells’s jeremiad-bordering editorial: 

Marois’s new government is already doing the opposite of what Harper laid out at Davos. Systematically. It’s like she’s keeping a checklist.  

“Is it the case that in the developed world,” Harper told the Davos toffs, “too many of us have, in fact, become complacent about our prosperity, taking our wealth as a given, assuming it is somehow the natural order of things, leaving us instead to focus primarily on our services and entitlements?” 

 Marois replies: nope! There’s still plenty of time to take wealth as a given and to focus on entitlements. The university tuition increases that were the object of half a year’s protests are cancelled. But the increased student aid that was supposed to compensate for the tuition hikes remains in place. That’s tens of millions of dollars’ worth of increased burden on universities. “We will continue to make the key investments in science and technology necessary to sustain a modern competitive economy,” Harper said at Davos. Marois is digging a funding hole for universities that will make good science that much harder to afford.

Will this actually cost the Conservative votes?  For now, the overall consensus of the Canadian media elite is that the PQ leftward push is politically foolish and economically wrong-headed.  So, the PQ is doing just what the right-leaning party of Quebec—and the nation—needs to win, right?  Show voters hungry for a change that they should give the reigns to a right leaning, not left leaning party.  Naturally, the Liberals—decimated at the national level, but still strong in Quebec—can play this to their advantage: able to cherry-pick what works for the PQ while bashing what doesn’t, and position themselves as a changed and renewed party that offers the best bet for Quebec voters.

But I suspect the real winners of the PQ in Quebec will be the NDP.  For Conservatives and Liberals to get traction from the PQ, the PQ must fail.  But the NDP can strengthen its next national bid whatever the outcome of the PQ’s minority government.  Yes, the PQ’s victory froze attempts to create a robust, provincial NDP party in Quebec.  But let’s not overlook the obvious advantage the NDP gets in a short-term (the PQ minority government will likely fall well before the next federal election): the chance to learn from every misstep and success of the left-leaning PQ government.

PQ policy subscriptions are—with the exception of succession—pretty close to those of NDP voters.  What’s the NDP missing?  Support of new and current Liberal voters.  How better to see what messages work—and perhaps witness their economic impact—than to have the PQ try push its own independent agenda.  If they succeed, the NDP can make these provincial policies successful national talking points, without the dead-weight of Quebec independence.  And if certain PQ policies crash and burn, the NDP has the time to distance and differentiate their national plans before 2015.  In short, it’s a no-lose for the NPD, barring an NDP debacle of such cataclysmic proportions that Quebec voters become lock-step Harper-ites (unlikely).

So, ignore the polls.  In 2015, the Conservatives will be the classic hangers-on—needing a resurgent economy and new ideas to hold onto Canada’s parliamentary reins for a fourth, yes fourth, time in a row.  The Liberals, well, are in the middle of a leadership contest that could be confused with a nostalgia-heavy spirit quest.  (Yes, I freely double-dip Paul Wells pieces whenever I can; but, do read Gerry Nicholls's compare and contrast piece on Stephen Harper and Liberal upstart/heir-apparent Justin Trudeau.)  And the NDP now has a PQ party too weak to sink their brand in Quebec, but just strong enough to goad Harper, and show the NDP how—or how not—to win in 2015. 

My advice to NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair:  don’t sweat the polls or the PQ.  Focus on using the PQ and Conservatives as foils to create an attractive center-left alternative.  Oh, wait.  He already is.

Canada, Divorce, and Anonymity: The Toronto Star Reports on the Privacy Divorce Debate

By Keith Edmund White, Editor-in-Chief

 

Is the Scarlet Letter alive and well when it comes to divorce?  The Toronto Star reports on whether Ontario should follow Quebec’s practice of only using initials when referring to parties in divorce proceedings.  Is this sensible privacy protection, or a lamentable proposal to erode judicial transparency?  With help from Fareen Jamal, CUSLI-Nexus explores Canada’s legal pluralism when it comes to a balancing privacy and transparency in divorce proceedings.  

In Sunday’s Toronto Star (and CBC.com), Allison Jones reports on whether “the rest of [Canada] should follow Quebec’s model of only referring to parties in family law decisions by their initials.”

A pillar of open court systems is that court records are public.  Why is this so important?  Well, first, it ensures that developments in the law can be followed by the public.  Second, it keeps the courts accountable.  While a thoroughly undemocratic institution, court records do keep the judicial system from running amok:  since any wrong move will be seen by the general public, and—perhaps more importantly—by the legislators who have the power to reshape the court system.

But, as any first-year law student can tell you (or avid ‘Law and Order’ watcher), there are times where privacy trumps transparency.  Two obvious examples:  sexual assault and crimes perpetrated by minors.  But how should privacy and judicial transparency be weighed when it comes to the sensitive and, perhaps, special case of divorce proceedings?

Using the initials of parties, instead of full names, can protect individuals from having their neighbors going on search engines and reading the sultry—and perhaps embarrassing and baseless—accusations and admissions that sometimes come about during divorce proceedings.  And privacy protection may be more at play since these proceedings may have a special impact on the litigants’ children, who might be suffering the collateral damage of divorce litigation.

Right now, in Ontario, the decision of whether to grant anonymity to parties in divorce litigation is up to the judge.  And even if the judge grants anonymity, the order can—according to Jones’ report—include “a recitation of the allegations each side has made against the other.”  Two natural outcomes appear to flow from this approach to divorce proceeding anonymity:  (1) a lack of institutionalized consistency when it comes to what parties are given anonymity, and (2) a privacy shield that likely doesn’t go far enough for some divorce litigants.

Fareen Jamal, a family law attorney in Ontario, adds some substance to this topic in a 2011 Ontario bar association article.  Boiled down—with some interwoven thoughts of my own—the article adds three issues to the mix:

(1)     Why keep a 21^st century ‘Scarlet Letter’?  Jamal argues that the naming process in divorce, historically, was used to shame the ignominious party.  Or, as he puts it, is “a vestige of the fault-era that should be eliminated.”  (OK...but is this really a factor's in 21st century divorces?)

(2)    Due process/fair trials concerns are fundamentally different in divorce cases.  Jamal argues that divorce cases are a ‘special’ category of litigation not needing the due process protections that judicial transparency ordinarily is relied on to give litigants.  Result:  if publishing the names of divorce litigants in court records does not help litigants in any way, why keep it?  So, how is divorce  ‘special’?  Jamal has three reasons:  

a.       divorce is not a crime anymore—so why identify parties like courts do for crimes?;

b.      lives aren’t on the line—divorce cases don’t result in people going to jail; result:  the need to protect parties from not receiving due process and keeping the vigilant eye of the public on crazy courts seem less needed here than, say, a murder case or multi-million civil case; and

c.       there’s no impact on costs to the judicial system—in law review speak, there’s no need to fret over ‘conservation over limited judicial resources’ because there’s no cost to changing the parties names to initials.  (To be fair, Jamal doesn’t give a fair shake to this argument.  Why?  In contentious divorces, dueling spouses don’t have to go to court, there’s always arbitration.  Interesting thought question:  If the publicity aspect of divorce litigation is removed, would that incentivize more or less cases to shift from judicial to arbitral settings?)  

(3)    Identity theft concerns.  Ontario divorce litigation forces parties to publicly release financial information—through mandatory financial disclosure forms—that is ordinary private—and can be the first tool used by savvy financial swindlers.  (This is a concern that has been seen in the United States as well—but is this more actual concern of identity theft, or simply an aspect of making it harder for neighbors to see your financials?)

So will Ontario and the rest of Canada follow Quebec’s lead?  There doesn’t yet seem to be a groundswell of support for a change.  But in the age of online court records, I wouldn’t be surprised if this gets more attention in the near future.  Though, in the era of overexposure (read:  iPad, Google, and Facebook) is privacy, not the purported shaming aspect of divorce, the true relic of the 21^st century?  

Like this post?  Be sure to check out Justin McNeil's related post on Ontario's new privacy tort.

Morning News Round-Up

A roundup of attention-grabbing Canada-focused headlines:

Want to Solve America's Problems?  Vote Canada.  The BBC reports on a Canadian comedy team’s new book,  America But Better:  The Canada Party Manifesto.

B.C. Premier Steps In It, And Enjoys a Session-Free Fall.  B.C. Premier Christy Clark says Victoria is steeped in a “sick culture” with “no real people.”  Predictably, she’s grabbing headlines—especially since the Premier is not having a fall sitting of B.C.’s parliament, and there's that provincial election next May.

Understanding Canada’s Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair.  John Geddes offers a lengthy and fascinating portrait of NDP leader Thomas Mulcair raise to power and worldview in Macleans.  Here’s a particularly relevant snippet:

By his own account in an interview with Maclean's, backed up by the observations of some who have worked closely with him, Mulcair’s upbringing in such a large, tightly knit, complex household remains the template for his important relationships. Aides and allies say he maintains unusually close contact with family and old friends, cultivating an intensely personal network and leaning on time-tested loyalties more than most top politicians. While he is no longer an observant churchgoer, Mulcair’s brand of left-leaning politics flows directly out of his home province’s distinctive and deep well of progressive Catholicism—a powerful influence on seminal Quebec politicians of the past, including Pierre Trudeau. As for Mulcair’s Irishness, Graham Carpenter, an old family friend and long-time aide, alludes to his “Irish world view,” and not jokingly, as an explanation for Mulcair’s storied scrappiness and more. “There’s mystique to it,” Carpenter says, “that’s for sure.”

Canada’s Health System and Graying Population.  The Ottawa Citizen explores why the graying of Canada’s population hasn’t derailed the healthcare system of the Champlain district.

Rock the Canadian Rockies this Summer.  The Calgary Herald reports on Banff National Park’s preparations for its annual foliage tourist rush.

PQ Officially Take the Reins of Government in Quebec. Yesterday was the first day of Parti Quebecois (PQ) government in Quebec.  CTVNews reports on the PQ cabinet’s photo-op, and explores just who is holding the reins of Quebec government.  Of particular focus:  Alexandre Cloutier’s appointment to the newly created minister for sovereigntist government. 

U.S. Solider Avoiding Iraq War Service in Canada is Ordered Out By Day’s End.  Kimberly Rivera, a war resister who’s been in Canada since 2007, is told to leave Canada because she won’t face “punishment, torture, or loss of life if deported.”  (Source:  iPolitics)

Gamer-Free Vancouver?  Canadian Business reports on why the Vancouver’s video-game industry is moving east.  Why?  Two drivers:  Ontario’s lower cost of living and tax incentives. 

Canada's Parliament Returns From Summer Break: Previewing the 2012 Fall Session

CUSLINexus rounds up assessments of Canada's upcoming fall 2012 parliamentary session.

5 Issues That Will Dominate the Fall Session of Parliament, Kieron Lang, CTV News. CTV News outlines and even offers a video segment on the key issues of Canada’s Fall Parliamentary Session. In short:

(1) Trade. EU and Trans-Pacific Partnership deals will get high priority, along with the government's review of a state-owned Chinese company bid to buy Canadian energy producer Nexen).

(2) Quebec. Will the PQ’s return to power in Quebec prompt another referendum. If so, they’ll be headaches in Quebec City and Ottawa.

(3) Government Contracts. There’s been criticism of how the government is handling non-competitive government contracts its administrating.

(4) Courts.  As many as 4 Canadian Supreme Court justices may step down before Harper’s term is up—talk about legacy-making stuff.

(5) NDP.  Last year, the NDP wowed the Canadian political world with a 2nd-place finish. Then, tragically, its leader—Jack Layton died of prostate cancer. Now the NDP’s new leader, Thomas Mulcair has to define himself and the party that needs to show the Canadian public it can take the reigns of Canada’s government.

 
Hoping for a Changed Tone in Parliament? Don’t Hope Your Breath,  Michael Den Tandt, Times Colonist and The Province. Writing for two leading Vancouver publications, Den Tandt previews the fall session—finding it will be much like the last—and again emphasizes trade and Quebec, but highlights the critical role Ontarian voters will play in the 2015 election:

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has as yet shown no inclination to back away from his “Dutch disease” theme, which holds that the high Canadian dollar, driven by booming resource revenue, is harming Canadian manufacturing, to the benefit mainly of Alberta and the detriment mainly of the rest of Canada.

That ensures the critical political battleground this fall, and likely for the next three years until election 2015, will be economic, with the NDP and Conservatives vying primarily for hearts and minds in Ontario, in particular in the industrial heartland of the southwest, where most Ontarians live and where the economy still rests on automobile manufacturing.

The Conservatives and New Democrats will co-operate, to the extent that both will seek to sideline the third-place Liberals. The Grits will seek to capitalize on their leadership race, which concludes next spring, to maintain visibility. To that end, look for a Liberal leadership candidate or candidates to emerge with a platform that is aggressively conservative economically and just as aggressively progressive on social issues. All eyes now are on MPs Justin Trudeau and Marc Garneau, who are expected to run but have not yet publicly announced their intentions.

Canada’s MPs Set to Return, More Polarized than Ever, Mark Kennedy, Calgary Herald, seconds the polarization while suspecting the Conservatives will push hard to deliver on their platform:

Moreover, emboldened by the majority power they secured in the May 2011 election, the Tories are intent on using that clout for the remaining three years of their mandate to press ahead with an agenda that includes billions of dollars in government cuts, diminished federal environmental oversight on private-sector energy projects, and cuts to the public pension system for future generations of seniors. All have sparked controversy.

But Harper is not backing down, even as public opinion polls showing the Tories’ popularity has dropped, leaving them in a tie with the NDP.

“We’re putting our foot on the gas,” the prime minister said in early July, explaining that he was sticking with the same cabinet ministers because he wants them to continue with the Tory agenda this autumn.

“I’ve told officials in Ottawa the majority is not time to rest.’’

“I think that one step at a time, I think we’re moving the country in the right direction,’’ said Harper.

A Rough Guide to the Fall Sitting, Aaron Wherry, Macleans, gives us a concise, tongue-in-cheek run-down. One aspect worth mentioning, some other debates that will be gripping Parliament:

Stephen Woodworth’s motion on the legal definition of a human being is due to be debated this month. Conservative MP Rob Clarke wants to overhaul the Indian Act. Conservative MP Russ Hiebert wants to change the rules for financial disclosure by unions. And Pierre Poilievre has mused of making it possible to opt out of paying union dues.

Fallout From Cuts Follow MPs Back to Parliament, Jennifer Ditchburn, Chronicle Herald. This Halifax-based publication focuses on the local--emphasizing constituent concerns over Conservative budget cuts:

The Conservative caucus meets for the first time Monday since Parliament packed up for the summer, but the catching-up chatter won’t all be about cottages and barbecues.

Many MPs have had to cope all season with the fallout from last spring’s budget cuts, some of which hit local services in areas such as train travel, the coast guard and interior waterways.

The lobbying has been going on hard in some cases to try and mitigate the impact of the decisions on constituents.

Foie Gras Dimsum - What China Can Learn from Canada

By David R. Kocan
Canada-U.S. Law Institute Managing Director & CUSLI-Nexus Chairman

Anyone who believes Canadian politics is boring wasn't watching last Wednesday's Quebec elections. After electing Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois to Premier, she narrowly escaped an anti-separatist's assassin's bullet. Just another chapter in the big book that is the Canada-Quebec relationship. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, tensions have arisen again in the Hong Kong-Mainland China relationship, as people flooded the streets to protest PRC efforts to introduce patriotism classes in city schools' curricula. Interestingly, Hong Kong also faced an election significant to its autonomy: last Sunday the city for the first time held a public poll to elect over half the Hong Kong legislature. While the pro-China faction won in the overall result, pro-democracy candidates still showed considerable popular support and hold enough seats to veto any changes to Hong Kong's constitution. 

In many ways Quebec and Hong Kong are quite similar. Both were transferred from one government to another. Both have subcultures distinguishable from their national governments'. Each has its own languages, food styles, customs, etc. Both have at times shown strong self-identification while at other times national pride. Moreover, both are economic powerhouses in their own right that benefit their greater societies. Many in China hope that Hong Kong's transition to the PRC will go smoothly and someday serve as a model for integrating other territories.

If Confucius were alive, today perhaps he would say "[s]tudy [Quebec's] past, if you would divine [Hong Kong's] future." In Quebec's case, tensions have ebbed and waned ever since its capitulation to the British following the Seven Year's War. British common law stipulated that the laws and customs of Quebec should remain in tact. But shortly after its transfer, the British King tried to "Anglicize" the newly acquired territory by implementing British common law and preventing Catholics from holding office. This led to a swift negative reaction which forced a British "retreat": the restoration of Quebec's customs and laws. Since then the national government has allowed Quebec to maintain its civil law system. Even so, Quebec's relationship with greater Canada has ebbed and waned as national interests conflict with provincial purvey.

The story of Hong Kong's transition from British to Chinese rule is much shorter but already exhibits similarities to Quebec's story. In 1997, the Chinese officially regained control of Hong Kong in terms with the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which among many things preserved the city's capitalist system and way of life for fifty years. This requirement also covered Hong Kong's British style legal system, which comprised the city's law and governance. By 1997, this legal structure became a part of Hong Kong's identity, inspiring aspirations for democracy.

For sure, the PRC has been much more careful with Hong Kong than Britain was when it obtained Quebec. China has, at least arguably, acted in accordance with the agreement and international law. But adherence to the law is often not enough. For instance, in FG Hemisphere v. DRC it appears the Hong Kong Supreme Court was influenced by a PRC letter that urged an outcome consistent with PRC policy. In FG Hemisphere, the issue was whether a government's assets were protected by sovereign immunity. Hong Kong common law provided no immunity from suit whereas the PRC granted absolute immunity. In its holding the Court justified its deference to the PRC by referencing the Hong Kong Basic Law, which granted the PRC authority over international matters. While there have been reports about the PRC influencing Hong Kong court decisions, this ruling came with little notice. Meanwhile, when the mainland attempts to influence Hong Kong's social issues, for instance, by mandating schools to teach to teach Chinese patriotism, the reaction is stronger. These interventions while legal, are often met by larger public dismay.
 
While Sunday's election has ended, the details of Hong Kong's planned transition to full democratic rule in 2017 still need to be hammered out.  So, in the meantime, Hong Kong and China may find value in looking to the lessons of Canada?

PQ Leader/Quebec's New PM Pauline Marois: "...I wouldn't trust her to run a lemonade stand."

By Keith Edmund White

Has the PQ's much smaller-than-expected victory Tuesday ushered in the year of the PQ-CAQ?  

Thank you Yahoo!News Canada for this fantastic take on the just how long the PQ will hang onto their minority government:

Gerry Nicholls: Well, when it comes to Marois' management skills, I wouldn't trust her to run a lemonade stand. Next election will be in the Fall of 2013.

Bruce Hicks: If Marois governs judiciously, she could govern for two years before she might herself decide to go to the polls and try to get a majority. If she tries to do many things without trying to get the support of MNAs outside her party she will probably be brought down by the opposition in 12-18 months.

Gerry Nicholls and Bruce Hicks are both political scientists, and part of Yahoo!News Canada's expert panel on politics.  Conservative commentator Nicholls, self-professed as one of Canada's Top Five Political Minds, hails from Southern Ontario, and offers this fantastically written blog.

Bruce Hicks, who is now a Visiting Scholar at Carlton University, offers the more measured take on the PQ's chances.  Hicks boasts a career in political strategy, journalism, and--most relevant to boviations on Quebec politics--he was an Associate at Montreal University's Canada Research Chair in Electoral Studies (CRCES).  You can find more of his work here.

Beyond the doubts in Marois' management skills, perhaps supported by the PQ coming dangerously close to blowing a sizable lead in the polls last week, Hicks brings up a crucial point:  how is the PQ going to govern, since it will need votes from either the Liberals or right-leaning CAQ?  Well, time will tell, but the CAQ--a conservative coalition party that puts right-leaning reforms ahead of independence issues--seems ready to work with the PQ.

While the PQ and Liberals are ideologically more in sync, the ever-so slim defeat for the Liberals coupled with the CAQ's likely desire to build off their somewhat disappointing third place finish, may lead to a tepid PQ-CAQ partnership.

Note:  It would be remiss to omit a reference to the tragic shooting at the PQ's post-election celebration on Tuesday, which resulted in one death, one critical injury, and a third person's treatment for shock.

Quebec Election 2012: The Significance of a CAQ Win

by Keith Edmund White

Yes, the PQ is still leading polls.  But after a reader comment directed me to review the parties' economic platforms, two things became very clear:  (1) the conservative CAQ are definitely in contention and (2) a CAQ government in Quebec would mean big changes to the economic and spending policies coming out of Quebec City.

Quebec Party Platforms

After a reader comment on an earlier post regarding the PQ’s economic platform, I thought readers might appreciate having a few resources on policy positions of Quebec’s three leading political parties: the PQ, the Liberals, and the CAQ.

One can find these parties full platforms at CBC News. (Side-note: to get the PQ’s platform in English, check out this Google-Translate page).

And for those wanting a quick primer, Reuters offers this crib sheet of these parties’ respective economic platforms.

Political Recap: PQ Leads, but CAQ Is on the Rise

The Gazette, a leading Montreal newspaper, offers an excellent report on the dynamics of the 2012 Quebec election. The PQ leads (with around 33%), but is unpopular, and is now shifting its attacks from its Liberal opponents (who have slipped to third place) to the CAQ. Both the Liberals and PQ are polling in the high 20s, but the Liberals are slipping, while the CAQ is on the assent.

The possibility of the CAQ winning a three-way race against the PQ and Liberals is itself a historic and significant development in Quebec politics. As the discussion below of the parties respective platforms will reveal, the CAQ has the opportunity to push a drastically more conservative approach to government spending and taxing in a province where a majority of the voters favor left or center-left on economic policies. Oh, the joys of modified parliamentary systems!

The Economic Politics of Quebec: Left (PQ) vs. the Center-Left (Libs) vs. the Conservative (CAQ) 

Now while I can’t comment on previous governing records in Quebec, the Reuters report allows a few conclusions to be drawn of these parties economic plans. 

1. Balancing the Budget:  All three parties are committed to balancing the province’s budget by 2013-14. 
2. Spending:  The PQ and Liberals favor government spending, but the Liberals’ spending plans are half of those of the PQ. 
3. Taxes:  All three parties are pushing tax increases, but the CAQ’s revenue plans only increase the estate taxes of second homes.  But guess what?  This revenue goes to paying for an income tax cut.

Conclusion

PQ is pushing (by to use American standards) and pretty liberal economic plan, Liberals are pushing what could be viewed as a center-left plan, with the CAQ’s plan that would probably find a lot in common with the Republican economic platform.

And on a final note, I find myself a touch envious that when Quebec voters go to the polls next week, they'll actually know--to a surprising degree of detail--what policies they're voting for.  The U.S. 2012 election, for all the focus on the role of government in the economy, has yet to see either major party lay out any real details on government spending. 

Marc Garneau on the 1982 Constitution Act and the Quebec Question

Canada’s interesting constitutional history, as discussed by Liberal MP Marc Garneau from the l’Institut du Nouveau Monde’s round-table 30 Years after the repatriation of the Constitution:  Where are we now? earlier this summer.

One interesting note for our American readers:  the 1982 Constitution Act, including Canada’s Charter of Rights, has never been approved either by the Quebec national parliament, the governing party, or public referendum.

For a succinct review of the history of Canada's 1982 repatriation, check out Professor Norman Hillmer's summary at The Canadian Experience.

From Marc Garneau's presentation:

...

In my opinion, repatriating the constitution and entrenching the Charter had benefits for all provinces, including Quebec, even though there were major political consequences.

I will close by stating again that this is not an ideal situation.

It would be better, in my opinion, if the National Assembly were to approve Canada’s Constitution Act.

But before negotiations can begin, there will have to be a very clear understanding among Quebeckers — in other words, a very strong consensus — about the changes they would like and that would make it possible for them to sign.

Quebec Election 2012: The (Inward Looking?) PQ Is Back, Liberals Fall, and the Center-Right CAQ Shows Its Staying Power

By Keith Edmund White

For American political junkies bored by the Democratic and Republican conventions, I would recommend tracking Quebec’s provincial election, taking place Sept. 4. Not only is the three-way race close, a center-right party is in striking distance of taking power in Quebec for the first time in modern history.

Admittedly, after four nights of debate, a poll has the Parti Quebecois (PQ)—a party supporting Quebec sovereignty and separation from Canada) in the lead, with 33% of the vote. And this might be the lead story, since 2007 saw support for the PQ implode, and give the party its first third-place finish in decades.

But most dramatic, to me, is the tie between the Liberal Party and the Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ)—a new party combining the former conservative Action Democratic Party and parts of the Parti Quebecois, standing at 27% and 28% respectively. Also, of note: the same poll found CAQ leader Francois Legault out-performed his rivals, the PQ’s Jean Pauline Marois and the Liberal’s Jean Charest.

Quebec has been governed by the Liberal Party for the last nine years, and either the Liberals or the PQ have held Quebec's parliament for the last forty years. (Side-note: anyone with a chance to visit Quebec City should really take a tour of the gorgeous parliament building and note the distinct lack of Canadian flags until you enter the near-by Parks Canada Fortifications of Quebec, a national historic site).

Most immediately, the PQ’s rise now has Quebec sovereignty issues grabbing headlines. First, the PQ has found itself twisting over its position on the timing of yet-another referendum on Quebec independence. The issue: whether only a petition of 15% of Quebec’s citizens would trigger a third referendum on independence, or if provincial parliamentary approval would be needed before a referendum took place. The significance: With only 30-40% of Quebec's citizens supporting independence, many voters see focusing on cultural or independence issues—instead of say, focusing on economic issues—not a thrilling prospect.

Second, the PQ is also facing criticism for some pro-sovereignty planks in its platforms. The PQ now wants a French language test for anyone running in provincial or municipal elections and a secularism charter that bans public servants from wearing of “conspicuous” religious symbols.

The National Post probes this inward lurch the PQ, interviewing critics and opponents of the PQ’s platform, gets at two conclusions: (1) demographic changes do show that Montreal may become minority French-speaking within two decades, a troubling development to Quebecers in favor of preserving the city’s French culture; (2) while easily characterized as intolerant, the moves do support PQ’s central goal of independence: (a) both proposals will likely be slapped down the Canadian Supreme Court, making it easy for the PQ to show Quebec doesn’t ‘fit’ into Canada’s federalism and (b) they are measures, if enacted, which could lead to next decade’s young voters pushing a independence reference over 50%.

But more interesting, to me, is the raise of the center-right CAQ. First, it is important to note, that in the 2007 provincial elections, its pre-merger Action Democratic Party finished second, taking advantage of an imploding PQ. But now, even in the face of a reinvigorated PQ party, the newly-minted CAQ is showing that center-rights politics in Quebec aren’t fading fast.

Sympathetic to Quebec’s French identity, the CAQ supports Quebec nationalism, but has promised a moratorium on independence for 10 years. In doing so, it has transformed the election from one between a left-leaning federalist party and left-leaning separatist party, but one that promises either a durable center-right opposition party, or even a possible center-right government in Quebec. In fact, the only thing that seems to be holding the CAQ from getting even more supports are doubts that the CAQ, like the PQ, will push for Quebec’s independence from Canada.

In short, this election matters. Will the PQ hang onto their lead, but then find its return to political power short-lived: with squabbling over a third referendum and court battles robbing it of public support? Will the Liberals hang on, stoking fears that a PQ and CAQ win will focus Quebec politics on independence and culture issues, at the expense of more pressing issues, like the economy and healthcare? Or will the CAQ quash doubts about its commitment to Canadian federalism, and break the left-leaning strangle hold on Quebec politics?

Accessing the Impact of Jack Layton’s Death on the Newly Empowered NDP and What Does Having this Party as Official Opposition Mean to Canada-US Relations?

By Erwin Braich
Staff Writer

Before becoming Prime Minister, in a speech to the conservative American think-tank Council of National Policy, Stephen Harper described Canada’s New Democratic Party (NDP), in the following way, “basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.”[1] Since its founding in the early 1970s, this unapologetic left-leaning party Harper seems to scorn, has been an integral part of the Canadian political order. In fact, it was the NDP’s first leader Tommy Douglas who introduced universal healthcare, something that today you cannot leave out in the very first sentences describing Canada. More recently, the party was led from 2003 until this past summer by Jack Layton. Throughout his tenure, Layton passionately promoted his party’s principles while at the same time attracting more voters.[2] His savvy leadership translated to huge political gain for the NDP. In the federal election this past spring they surprised everyone. Layton was able to secure 103 seats for his party, and even oversaw a massive victory in Quebec, a place that the NDP had never even attempted to contend in.[3] Ultimately, Layton’s party leadership led to the utter collapse of one party (Bloc Quebecois) and the taking of the throne for Canada’s center-left spotlight, from the other (Liberals). But tragically, as the nation’s political scene was being reshaped by the emergence of the NDP as the Official Opposition, Layton succumbed to cancer in August. Which leads to the question: who will get behind the wheel of this reinvigorated political party? And in what direction will they steer Canada’s New Democrats?

There is no doubt Layton will be missed. Across Canada, only one-in-five think the NDP will be able to find a new leader as strong as Layton, while two thirds (66%) of Canadians disagree.[4] As of now, long-time NDP strategist Brian Topp is the sole registered leadership candidate, which will be formally decided at the party’s convention in 2012.[5] He has a stance on every Canadian hot-button issue such as advocating Canada must formally recognize Palestinian statehood, to being vehemently opposed to the Keystone XL oil pipeline project linking Alberta to the Gulf Coast.[6] Other potential candidates exist, among them Quebec MP, Thomas Muclair who gains popularity day by day. According to a poll released last week 28 percent of Canadians would vote NDP if Muclair is chosen to be the party’s leader, while 25 percent who would vote NDP if Topp is chosen.[7]

There is an important side note for any American observing the NDP leadership race. Canada has extremely tight campaign finance laws. Under the new rules, the maximum contribution an individual supporting one of these candidates can contribute is $1,200, but the NDP has instituted an internal policy that reduces this to a mere $1,000.[8] Also under Canadian law, corporations and other businesses are completely prohibited from contributing altogether. Needless to say, this is a vastly different campaign finance regulatory structure than seen in the United States.

So how will this impact the party’s effectiveness as Official Opposition? For one, it is the first time in history the NDP has held this position. So, if you combine this with the fact that they entered this Parliamentary session without real leadership, at first glance things can look somewhat unpredictable for the party. However, the NDP is now the sole voice coming from the political left in Ottawa. Given the huge blow dealt to the more centrist Liberals, (the Official Opposition for the previous five years) we can be sure that Harper’s Conservative government is going to be contested with more passion than ever before. Yet one thing to keep in mind is that any effectiveness is going to be tempered, because at the end of the day, the Conservatives have a majority government. In Canada it is only in extreme cases that an MP votes against his party. That said, any Opposition party’s role in a majority government will be more-so to stimulate public debate while waiting for the next election rather than directly affecting policy outcomes.  

            What could the NDP being the Official Opposition mean for US-Canada relations? Let’s be honest, the party has never been particularly friendly with the US. Expect Parliamentary debate to be reflective of this. The NDP have historically been known as the “anti-American” party extremely skeptical of American power. At one point they even called for Canada to pull out of NATO, because of their suspicion of American intentions.[9] And just this week NDP Immigration Critic (the formal Opposition “shadow” position to the Immigration Minister) MP Don Davies, called for Canada to ban former Vice President Dick Cheney from entering Canada for a scheduled speaking engagement, because of his role in the Bush administration.[10] While the Opposition’s current Foreign Affairs Critic, NDP MP Paul Dewar (another possible leadership candidate) has made clear that his party will closely examine any perimeter security cooperation between Canada and the US. [11] Alexander Moens, writing in the Fraser Institute’s most recent report on Canada-US relations, blames Canadian nationalist sentiment and specifically the NDP for creating what he terms the “political albatross” preventing progress on the Prosperity and Security agreement.[12] During Layton’s campaigning in 2011 he reiterated the NDP stance on Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan. He spoke on numerous occasions about how the party has been strongly in favor of bringing Canadian troops home since 2006 and immediately ending the military mission altogether.[13] The Conservatives on the other hand, are more in line with Obama’s plans of scaled down perseverance in Afghanistan. On every occasion the NDP has almost automatically opposed Canadian cooperation with the United States. We can anticipate that the NDP will be quick to challenge the Prime Minister on everything he decides to do regarding relations with the US. This is not only because it is the role of any Opposition to be the proverbial thorn in the governing party’s side, but also because there could not be more diametrically opposite sets of beliefs regarding Canada-US relations in Parliament.

Yet there is hope that things could gradually warm up between the Opposition Party and their stance towards the Americans. With the NDP’s new foothold in Quebec, they will now have to appeal to that province’s voters, who have historically been somewhat more supportive of Canada-US cooperation. Actually, amongst English-speaking Canadians, it is a well-known joke that when in Quebec, you will be treated more warmly if you tell them you are American rather than from another province. And from a policy standpoint they have always been Canada’s exception. One pertinent example is with regard to trade. In 1993, the NDP (and frankly most Canadians) had been staunchly against Canada’s commitment to NAFTA, but the opposition to the free-trade agreement was remarkable lower in Quebec where almost half of the population actually supported it.[14] This illustration is particularly germane to today, because the NDP under Layton’s leadership had advocated completely renegotiating the trade agreement. So might there be a chance the newly the acquired Quebecers lessen the party’s disdain towards the free trade pact? It is on key Canada-US issues like these, in which the new leader will have to balance traditional party positions with the interest of maintaining support in their newly conquered province.

Ultimately, Jack Layton’s legacy will be reflected by the strong position in which he left his party. As Official Opposition the NDP are going to be effective as determined critics of any move Harper’s Conservatives make, and at least for the meantime this critical voice should be at its loudest when it comes to Canada-US relations.

---

[1] Text of Stephen Harper's speech to the Council for National Policy, June 1997 http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/harper_speech.html

[2] Ian Austen, New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/world/americas/23canada.html

[3] 2011 Federal Election Results http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/results.html

[4] Angus-Reid Poll http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/43998/canadians-remember-layton-fondly-support-state-funeral-to-honour-him/

[5] NDP Party Website http://www.ndp.ca/leadership-2012

[6] Brian Topp, Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/

[7] Joanna Smith, Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1058971--ndp-would-do-best-under-mulcair-poll-finds?bn=1

[8] Elections Canada http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&document=index&dir=lim&lang=e

[9] John Ibittson, Globe and Mail http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-foreign-defence-policy-differs-from-tories-in-style-more-than-substance/article2036769/?service=mobile

[10] Canadian Press Release, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/09/26/dick-cheney-canada-visit-ndp-ban-bar-don-davies_n_980609.html

[11] John Ibittson, http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-foreign-defence-policy-differs-from-tories-in-style-more-than-substance/article2036769/?service=mobile

[12] Alexander Moans, “Skating on Thin Ice: Canadian-American Relations in 2010 and 2011” p. 26 [Google Books] http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mBLlGi0kAakC

[13] NDP Party Website http://www.ndp.ca/press/canadian-leadership-in-afghanistan

[14]Guy Lapachelle, “Quebec under free trade: making public policy in North America” p. 255 [Google Books]

http://books.google.com/books?id=E40tHMkPlUkC