RSS FeedMay v. Duffy
It’s one of the few times when a title like that won’t be a legal case.
Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, took on television journalist Mike Duffy.
Duffy suggests that May can say whatever she wants because she would never be in power. Some Liberals envision a Dion cabinet with May as Minister of the Environment.
But May doesn’t take issue with that swipe and instead objects with Duffy’s characterization of her quote, questioning his journalistic integrity.
h/t Deb Prothero
Updates
Update: Greens to be Represented in Leaders’ Debates
Just moments ago it was announced that Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, will in fact be appearing in the upcoming televised election debates.
The consortium of broadcasters - representing the CBC, Radio-Canada, CTV, Global TV, and TVA - decided today to allow Ms. May to participate in the debates.
It’s no secret that the reason for May’s exclusion was the pressure brought to bear by the leaders of the other parties. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP leader Jack Layton had threatened to boycott the debates if the Greens were allowed to participate.
It was claimed by the NDP and Conservatives that Elizabeth May was nothing more than Liberal leader Stephan Dion’s cheerleader, and that having both of them present at the same debates would unfairly skew the discussions.
While the Liberals and the Greens have indeed made strategic agreements to cooperate on some issues (and not to compete for a seat in May’s riding) they are still independent parties with independent agendas. Hopefully May’s participation in the debates will make this fact very clear to the Canadian public.
May cites the public outrage at the affront to democracy created by these “backroom threats” as the reason for the broadcasting commission’s change of heart:
“It’s grassroots power of the people,” she said.
“People from all walks of life were incensed … I had a lady this morning at the Pictou (N.S.) Tim Hortons say to me, ‘I’ve been Conservative all my life, I’m not voting Tory again,’ because she found it so offensive.”
(Source: CP)
After the NDP decided to back down from the boycott threat, the Tories quickly followed suit. Conservative spokesman Kory Teneycke took the opportunity to disown the policy, claiming that it was an NDP idea all along:
“It appears the NDP has changed their position. Our position has been to support the NDP on this point of principle. We are not going to be the only ones to boycott the debate,” [Conservative Spokesman Kory Teneycke] said.
(Source: Globe and Mail)
“The truth of the matter is the NDP took a position and we agreed to back them because we, like the NDP, thought that this was unfair on principle,” said Sen. Marjory LeBreton, the Conservative campaign co-chair.
“But if Jack Layton has decided to change his position, I mean, we’re not going to stand in the way of her participating in the debate.”
(Source: CP)
I for one am looking forward to a more democratic debate. It doesn’t matter which party you support; the more viewpoints and choices that Canadians are exposed to, the healthier our political process will be.
Green Party Barred from Election Debates
Déjà vu.
Though political support for the party continues to grow, a consortium of Canadian broadcasters has yet again decided not to allow the Green Party to participate in the leaders’ debates.
This is despite the fact that the Green Party, which is headed by Elizabeth May, recently acquired its first Member of Parliament when Independent (former Liberal) Blair Wilson decided to don the party colours.
Previously, the need to have at least one MP was put forth by the consortium as a prerequisite for participation in the debates.
As of last week, the Greens have an MP, but their request for participation was denied anyway.
Public interest - defined as having more than 5% support in a recent national poll - was another requirement.
According to the latest Strategic Council poll (PDF), the Greens have about 9% support across Canada. Out west, this number is as high as 12%, compared to just 18% for the Liberals.
Indeed, the Greens are ahead of the Bloc Québécois in nation-wide support. The Bloc is a separatist party with the explicit goal of tearing the fabric of Canada apart, and one which does not even field candidates outside of Québec. Nevertheless, while Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe will be appearing in the debates, Elizabeth May will not.
Michael Byers, the NDP candidate for Vancouver-Centre, supported the decision of the consortium. He is quoted calling May the leader of a “single-issue party:”
“My leader, Jack Layton, is running to be prime minister and so are the leaders of the other parties,” Byers told CBC News on Monday from Vancouver. “This is a leaders’ debate. It’s not an environment ministers’ debate.”
(Source: CBC)
The wholly incorrect perception of the Greens as a single-issue party is precisely the problem that Elizabeth May is unable to address now that she has been denied access to the debates.
May said in a statement that she is considering pursuing legal action against the TV networks. Not that I have much (read: any) knowledge of election law, but unfortunately I doubt that there’s a case here.
As undemocratic as it seems, the televised leaders’ debates are produced by private TV networks. Though the CBC is a Crown corporation - with the mandate to foster Canadian unity and promote the expression of diverse ideas - there is good case law suggesting that any legal action on May’s part would fail.
It’s been tried before.
In National Party of Canada v. Canada Broadcasting Corp. (1993), 106 D.L.R. (4th) 568 (Alta. Q.B.), the court decided that the CBC was not subject to Charter scrutiny when it denied the National Party the opportunity to participate in the leadership debates. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to grant expedited leave to appeal.
Along these same lines, in Natural Law Party v. Canada Broadcasting Corp. (T.D.), [1994] 1 F.C. 580, the Federal Court held that:
“In my view, the CBC is acting as a broadcaster and not as an agent of the government in its participation in the Broadcasters’ Consortium.”
and further that
“It is not the function of the government or indeed the courts to dictate to the news media what they should report. The broadcasters are exercising a function that is very central to the democratic process. But it is a function that they perform quite independently of government.
…
What the applicants are really asking this court to do is to dictate the content and the agenda of the political debate in the forthcoming federal general election. It is for the leaders of the various political parties to decide of their own free will and accord, without any coercion from this court, whom they want to debate and when and on what terms such debates should take place. It is not for this court to dictate the agenda of political debate.
The Green Party has retained Toronto lawyer Peter Rosenthal to spearhead the legal fight.
Law is Cool - Podcast #13
In this episode, Omar Ha-Redeye interviewed Caitlin Rose, a summering student with Fasken Martineau. A recent graduate of the McGill Faculty of Law, Caitlin was a co-founding Executive Editor of the McGill Journal of Law and Health (formerly the McGill Health Law Publication).
Following that interview, I discussed climate change policies in the context of the upcoming federal election campaign with Miranda Hussey and Jim Johnston. Miranda is a blogger from A View From The Left and the President of the Oak Ridges-Markham Young Liberals. Jim is the candidate of record for the Green Party of Canada in Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.
This podcast is cross-posted at devinjohnston.ca.
Interview with Caitlin Rose
Caitlin began by introducing herself. Caitlin studied law at McGill and worked for one summer in-house with Pfizer during her time there. Subsequently she joined Fasken Martineau as a summer student where she spent one month on secondment at Cirque du Soleil.
Omar asked Caitlin about the McGill Journal of Law and Health. The journal’s name was recently changed from the McGill Health Law Publication to reflect that it is an academic peer-reviewed journal. Caitlin was involved in founding the journal through her involvement in the McGill Health Law Club. She served as an Executive Editor of the journal in its first year of existence. Caitlin commented that the Dean and Faculty at McGill were supportive in helping to get the journal off the ground.
Caitlin also noted that the journal was intended from the beginning to be multi-disciplinary and bilingual. She discussed the broad range of contributors to the first issue including a Law Professor, an MPP, and members of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, as well as an afterword from the Honourable Mr. Justice Jean-Louis Baudouin.
Omar and Caitlin discussed some of the challenges associated with publishing a peer-reviewed journal, including the struggle to publish the journal on a regular schedule.
Finally, Caitlin commented on her experience interviewing for summering positions. She commented that it is important to have a diverse background that is not merely academic in nature. She found that her experience with the journal was an asset when looking for a job, but also warned that some interviewers may be concerned about whether the candidate wants to practice or pursue an academic career.
Climate Change and the Federal Election
The discussion began with some analysis of the news that Blair Wilson has joined the Green Party, becoming the Greens’ first ever MP. Jim noted that this news adds legitimacy to the Green Party. Miranda argued that Green Party leader Elizabeth May should be included in the leaders’ debate, adding that having a Green MP in Parliament may help the Liberals in the election because of increased attention on the climate change issue.
The panelists discussed the Liberal Party’s Green Shift proposal and similar policies advocated by the Greens. Jim noted that the object of tax shift policies is to reduce taxes on things the goverment wants to encourage and increase the cost of things the government wants to discourage.
The panel also discussed how social media will play a role in the campaign. Jim noted that he learned of his daughter’s engagement via Facebook to demonstrate the changing nature of communications technology. Miranda argued that effective use of technology is essential for political parties in order to engage youth in politics. In light of the prominence of the climate change issue, Jim stated that he believes Elizabeth May stands a good chance being elected in Peter MacKay’s riding of Central Nova.
Miranda and Jim concluded by agreeing that the upcoming election is difficult to predict at this point and much will depend on the weeks to come.
Podcast Feeds
