Some More Thoughts

I have not been paying too much attention to the Emergencies Act Inquiry because hanging on every word of peoples' testimony is pointless. The person who will have the final word is Justice Rouleau, in about four months. Until then trying to come up with conclusions based on a particular day's testimony is silly. That has not stopped Conservative commentators, both professional and amateur from doing so. However, it is interesting that Pierre Poilievre is not taking up the narrative being pushed by Conservative commentators. He is lying very low and I imagine the reason for that is he does not want to inspire, convince or compel Justice Rouleau to summon him to the Inquiry. I will let you decide on why that might be.

It is interesting that Mr. Trudeau had what can be described as a confrontation with Mr. Xi last week and Conservative commentators are condemning him for it, taking the side of Mr. Xi. I am old enough to remember when Conservatives made some political hay over some statements made by Mr. Trudeau before he became PM, where those very same Conservatives had nothing good to say about China. I am told that partisanship is supposed to end at the water's edge but I guess Conservatives no longer believe that.

Apparently around 11 candidates who ran for Parliament in 2019 received some support from the Chinese government. Now some people are demanding to know who these people are. Such silliness. First, if the Chinese did interfere in the 2019 election then the government would be investigating that and they will not make any findings public until that investigation is complete. That is just how things are done and I believe those braying for the name know that but they are counting on their followers not realizing that. The second thing is I cannot believe any candidate, of any political stripe, would knowingly accept support from agents of the Chinese government. It is not like some person went to these candidates and introduced themselves as an agent of China and then offered to provide them with funds and other supports for their campaign and then having those candidates accept. What probably happened is the funds or support looked like it came from legal and legitimate sources so the candidates accepted it. It was only after the fact that they would have found out the source. That is probably the focus of any investigation, with the candidates being targeted as being a secondary concern.

So Donald Trump lost the 2020 Presidential election, he cost the Republicans to lose the 2020 Senatorial elections in Georgia he probably cost the Republicans control of the Senate and big wins in the House in 2022. As I have stated in this space before he is just a gift that keeps on giving for the Democrats. Now he has announced his intentions to run for President which should help the Democrats in the Georgia run-off election for the Senate seat still up for grabs. As well, there are some rumblings that if Donald Trump does not win the nomination for the Republicans he will run as an independent. That would almost guarantee the Democrats retaining the presidency as many Trumplicans support Donald Trump and not the Republicans. If he runs as an independent millions of his supporters would follow him siphoning off voters from the Republicans in the swing states. Donald Trump knows this of course but he does not care. He is not a Republican and he has no loyalty to that Party. Then again they do not have any loyalty towards him either so it's all good.

Going around stating that Canada is broken is not a winning election strategy so please continue saying so Mr. Poilievre. Certainly, it might play well to the base but the last three elections have demonstrated that the Conservative base is not enough to win. They have to win over the non-aligned voters, who have voted for the Liberals for the last three elections, and they will not respond the same way the Conservative base responds to the Party's rhetoric.

The US Did not Step Back from the Brink...

But maybe it stopped there to decide what its next move will be.

That could be one takeaway from the 2022 mid-term elections. Part of the reason for making such a statement is the fact that all of the candidates for election officials who believed Donald Trump won the 2020 election lost. Perhaps that will prevent a "legal" coup in 2024 if the Democratic candidate wins the Electoral Collage vote.

Of course, some pessimism is warranted. The results in Florida, where the Governor is showing clear signs of being an illiberal democrat, are cause for concern. I have stated here before that the US could fall into authoritarianism in one fell swoop during a Federal election or one state at a time. Those who cherish democracy should begin to take that seriously. We certainly know that those who do not cherish it have discovered that the states can be used to advance their cause.

Oh well, we will have to wait until 2024 to see if Americans will actually step back from the brink or take that final leap. 

The Notwithstanding Clause and other Constitutional BS by the Premieres

I am old enough to remember the debate around the Repatriation of the Canadian Constitution and the creation of the Charter. True I was a teenager so my awareness was not that great but I did study politics in University from 1984 to 1988 so we got to study the process and the players soon after the fact.

One thing that needs to be remembered is the Clause was demanded by all of the provincial premieres and the Trudeau government agreed because it was the only way to get the deal done. None of the provincial premieres liked the idea of the Charter stopping them from doing what they wanted and the Clause was a way to make that happen. From the time the Charter was created it was inevitable that the Notwithstanding Clause would be used as Doug Ford is using it in Ontario. The only surprise is how long it took.

One other thing to remember about the Clause is the five year sunset provision. That provision means that any law that is maintained by using the Clause is automatically void after those five years, unless the government invokes the Clause again. So, statements that Mr. Ford is destroying the Charter are very overblown. Right now he is being raked over the coals by people who are against these actions. You can see it in his demeanor and in the demeanor of Mr. Lecce that they are feeling the heat. It might occur to them in the coming days and weeks that while they might win the battle against CUPE they may lose the war in 2026. So in 2027 when it is time to invoke the Clause again the Ontario government will probably let the opportunity pass.

There is an opportunity here if people would look past the overblown rhetoric. None of the rights and freedoms in the Charter are absolute. They all have limits. For example, you cannot incite violence against someone or yell "Fire" in a crowding room without facing consequences, despite your right to free expression. The Notwithstanding Clause is no different. 

Perhaps some enterprising lawyer could launch a lawsuit claiming the Ontario government is using the Clause in a way not intended by those who drafted the Charter. Right now the Clause is a black box and no one has tried to challenge its use or to test its limits. Any judicial decision could impose such limits. Of course, there would be a risk that the courts would find for the Ontario government but I do not believe so. I think our courts are smart enough and non partisan enough to realize that the Notwithstanding Clause is not a get out of jail free card for politicians who want to deny the rights of Canadians for political ends.

One last thing about what Doug Ford is doing. There have been some suggestions that the Federal government should use the disallowance provision in the 1867 British North American (BNA) Act to stop Mr. Ford. On the surface that seems like a good idea but it is not. First the provision has never been used in the history of Canada. Second, the drafters of the BNA Act intended the Federal government to be the senior level of government in Canada with the ability of override the Provincial governments and it listed a bunch of powers in Sections 91-93 as examples. Then a couple of decades later (before the beginning of the 20th century) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) decided that those sections listing the different powers were exhaustive lists and not just examples, effectively knocking the Federal government off as the Senior government. From that point forward the use of the disallowance power would have lead to a legal challenge for which the Federal government would have lost. The same is still true today. If we want to stop Doug Ford or someone like him in the future it will be done by the courts and the voters, not the Federal government.

A word on the stupidity of the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan regarding their "Sovereignty" laws. These laws violate the BNA Act so they are not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause. If these governments try to enforce their new laws the Federal government will take them to court and the provinces will lose. Of course, that is the point of all of this anyway. It is a tried and true tactic of provincial governments to create tension between them and the Federal government because it has been demonstrated in the past that doing so can garner votes. This is the usual kabuki play that we have been seeing between the Federal government and the Provincial governments for over a century. It should be treated as such.