Same-Sex Obfuscation

It seems that University of Windsor Political Scientist Heather McIvor, reportedly an expert on the constitution and the Charter because she once led a seminar on the topic, was all over the media yesterday, attacking the Tories on same-sex marriage with her crass obfuscation of the meaning of the country's constitution.

Commenting about the SSM debate, she noted that "You can't use the notwithstanding clause to override the division of powers in the 1867 Constitution,".

No one is suggesting that the notwithstanding clause be used to override the federal power to define marriage--it would be used to make legislation (validly enacted by a federal government) immune to a Charter challenge. Furthermore, as scholars like Prof. McIvor should be aware, it is unconstitutional (and impossible) for one section of the constitution to override another.

The next time the news media wants some commentary on the legality of parties' policy proposals, perhaps they should speak to some high school civics students, many of whom probably have a better understanding of the Charter and the constitution's division of powers.

Putting SSM To Bed

Some might have mixed emotions about Tory Leader Stephen Harper's revival of the same-sex marriage issue just hours into Day I of the campaign. Admittedly, I was sceptical at first--especially as he brought the issue up at his behest--but it had the effect of:

a) Keeping the Liberals off-message. The Grits released their campaign ads Tuesday touting Canada's supposed economic strength, but this was page 8 fodder compared to the coverage of Harper's marriage commments.

b) Putting the "hidden agenda" accusations to bed. Whether one agrees with his view on the issue or not, at least Harper finally disclosed something that has been missing from the Tories' discussion of gay marriage since it first became an issue--that if same-sex marriage were repealed, presently constituted marriages would be protected. Not answering this question in the past provided, perhaps quite rightly, fuel for the "hidden agenda" fire.

Now let's move on to some real issues...

Gomery Fallout: On Canadians Not Giving a Shit

As the cynical may have expected, Canadians might not have an appetite for an election.

One man, appearing in a NatPost story on the fallout of the Gomery Report, was quoted:

"I don't think anything that would destabilize the government will be good for the public at large right now, especially (since) Martin's exonerated," said Andrew Himel.

The Post's preface to that quote: In downtown Toronto, one man said an election would be bad for the country.

Why do we even bother with elections then?

Gomery Fallout: WAKE UP PEOPLE! THE GOVERNMENT *CAN* FALL *AND* THE ELECTION DOESN'T NEED TO BE DURING DECEMBER

ALW links to a Reuters story indicating that Stephen Harper wants the government to fall but "doesn't like the idea of a December election"; the story further states that "[t]he first chance opposition parties have to bring down Prime Minister Paul Martin is on November 14, and if they succeed, there would be a vote at the end of December".

This canard is getting old, though I appreciate that it gives all four parties an excuse *not* to topple the government this autumn (perhaps they are all concerned about the recent volatility of the opinion polls).

There is no requirement that an election *must* be held within 36 days after the writ is dropped. This is only the *minimum* duration of an election campaign. The Canada Elections Act reads:

CONDUCT OF AN ELECTION

Writs of Election

General election -- proclamation

57. (1) The Governor in Council shall issue a proclamation in order for a general election to be held.

By-election -- order

(1.1) The Governor in Council shall make an order in order for a by-election to be held.

Contents

(1.2) The proclamation or order shall

(a) direct the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a writ to the returning officer for each electoral district to which the proclamation or order applies;

(b) fix the date of issue of the writ; and

(c) fix the date for voting at the election, which date must be at least 36 days after the issue of the writ.

Please, please tell me that someone in Ottawa actually realises this, and that the "December election" aversion is simply a consequence of how tepid all of the parties are of going to the polls sooner rather than later. There is no way, I suspect, that the a) if the Governor-General orders the issuance of the writ (in the instance that the Government falls on a non-confidence motion) that she would allow the election to take place at the end of December or b) that Cabinet (Governor-in-Council), if so permitted, would actually hold the election during the Christmas break, if only because *they* would fear engendering the ire of the electorate.

Joe Clark's government fell in December. We've had winter campaigns before. This is no reason to halt the removal of the government and governing party responsible for the worst political scandal in Canadian history.

It's dishonest for both the Opposition and the Government to delay what should be an inevitable vote of non-confidence premised on this artificial notion that "we simply cannot have an election in December" or that there is even a requirement that a November non-confidence motion would result in an December election.