#c407

How to ignore the Supreme Court, push moderate Québecois away from federalism, and put partisan opportunism above the interests of the country.

Bob Rae recently distributed a flyer to some households in Toronto-Danforth personally attacking our MP, Craig Scott. I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to the demonstrably incorrect errors that Mr. Rae has made in this attack ad.

The flyer starts with a reference to the 1980 and the 1995 referendums. Of course if fails to mention that in both 1980 and 1995, Tom Mulcair fought in the trenches defending Canada and federalism. Both Tom, and Jack before him, are federalists to the core. In fact, the point of Craig Scott’s bill is to reduce the possibility of secession and fix the mess that the Liberals left behind.

Mr. Rae refers to the fact that the government of the day sought an opinion from the Supreme Courts. He fails to note that Craig Scott is an internationally respected constitutional lawyer, and that the NDP Unity Bill actually addresses the Supreme Court’s opinion - something the liberally misnamed Clarity Act signally failed to do. It’s also worth noting that while the English Canadian press are divided on the respose to Craig’s bill, legal opinions are not divided - Craig Scott has brought real clarity to the issue in support of federalism.

Craig Scott is focussed on replacing the problematic Clarity Act with a framework that is more faithful to the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in the Quebec Secession Reference – unifying and not dividing Canada. The bill also reflects the House of Commons’ recognition in 2006 that the Québécois constitute a nation within a united Canada. The NDP appears to be the only party that believes that the will of Parliament as expressed in that motion cannot be treated as empty words. In other words the NDP is putting the interests of the country first - including respecting the aspirations of the people of Québec.

The final point I want to make is about 50% +1. Mr. Rae acts as if this is somehow anti-democratic. Let’s be clear that what this initiates is a discussion based on a clear question. Given how long the Conservatives, and the Liberals before them, have used the first past the post electoral system to actually govern with 35 to 45 percent of the vote irrespective of the voter turnout, 50% + 1 to start discussions is more than fair. I would pose the other side of the question. If there is a 50% +1 vote to start discussions on a clear question, how can we NOT respect that desire for dialog. To do anything else would foster ill-will, increase support for hard line separatists, and be anti-democratic.

The Liberal Clarity Act is a artfully constructed political shell game that fails to address both the Supreme Court’s opinion and the need for real clarity.

Mr. Rae’s letter to consituents is even worse. It mispresents both the facts of the case and refuses to acknowledge the way that Craig Scott actually moves this issue forward. He concludes the letter with a postage paid response form, a privilege he has as a Member of Parliament. The response is a survey for the Liberal Caucus, and I have to wonder if this is the best use of taxpayers money. Surely this survey should be paid for by the Liberal Party?