New column day

Here, summarizing these posts on the dangers of setting up past advocacy as a barrier to a place in public life.

For further reading...
- Again, Sean Fine's report on the Cons' general ideological screening for judges is here. 
- Glenn Kauth reports on Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin's lack of concern about Justice Russell Brown's past comments.
- Rachel Aiello reports on how political parties vet candidates through their social media histories, while John Baglow follows up on the NDP's vetting policy. And Jamie Weinman argues that we should expect more than to play "gotcha" with candidates' past tweets. 
- And finally, John Selmey offers an appropriate reaction to the quotes the Cons have seen fit to highlight in their attacks on the NDP:

The Meet the NDP website is a hilarious example of party miscalculation. In its attempt to smear the New Democrats, the Conservatives only end up bolstering their support among certain demographics. Many of the would-be embarrassing quotes come across (to my eyes, at least) as self-evident and even insightful. Friends of mine have been sharing the link on the Internet as a way of saying, “Look at all the cool stuff these NDP MPs have said!”

On veto points

I'll follow up on this post by once again discussing another area where individuals' past comments are being treated as a basis for general exclusion. And the subject is particularly sensitive the midst of an election campaign - particularly in light of the issue where it's surfacing.

As in the case of judicial appointments, the starting point should be that past comments offer a reasonable basis for rejecting political candidates only if they meaningfully signal some general unsuitability for their anticipated future role (in this case representing constituents as a party's MP), not merely because they differ from one's preferred opinion. And in the political sphere, the assessment of candidates should take place first at the riding level through the nomination process, then through an election itself as the best means of assessing whether a candidate's views actually affect voter support.

Of course, party leaders have the ability to signal their own views about potential and actual candidates, and also have the statutory authority to exercise a veto. But the existence of that power doesn't mean it should be exercised as a matter of course.

Instead, I'd argue that leaders should do so only in the most extreme cases - a standard which doesn't apply to candidates such as Morgan Wheeldon and Jerry Natanine. And while the NDP may have concluded it's best off for now letting leaders' approval cut in all directions and playing it "safe" by jettisoning interested candidates at the first hint of potential controversy, there's a serious problem with the message that sends to its own supporters and activists.

That said, the longer-term fix should be to remove the systemic factors which both incentivize and permit the rejection of candidates on a standard of perceived inconvenience rather than genuine unsuitability. And on those fronts, the NDP is easily the best bet among the parties who have a prospect of exercising power - though there's room for it to do more.

For the moment, the promise of a system of proportional representation offers two related benefits to deal with similar problems in the future. Parties will have more of an incentive to appeal to principled candidates and voters, rather than seeing their future in votes by default in a winner-take-all system. And if one party is too quick to silence particular viewpoints, it will be far easier to develop a viable competing party willing to represent the points of view which are otherwise being limited.

That said, the leader's veto might remain a significant structural issue even under an MMP system.

Yes, a watered-down version of the Reform Act eventually managed to pass - but it leaves the decision as to who gets to approve nomination papers in the hands of the party. In contrast, the first-reading version provided for a nomination officer to deal with candidate approval at the local level.

Given that the Libs have already shown their hand on democratic reform and the Cons don't have any particular interest in it, there's an obvious opening for the NDP to promise to rein in the statutory power parties hold over the nomination process. And if Tom Mulcair recognizes that opportunity, then this may be the last election where undue top-down control over candidate selection remains a problem.

On powers of appointment

Andrew Coyne has rightly pointed out the gall the Senate is showing in nixing Michael Chong's watered-down Reform Act (even if there's something to a few of the criticisms). But let's not miss the most absurd suggestion of all as to who should be given increased power over a party's leadership (emphasis added):

“I just don’t think this kind of things should be left in the hands of caucus, when our process for electing leaders [is] in the hands of the grassroots,” [Con Senator David] Wells said. He suggested the bill be amended to require a minimum consent of 50 per cent of MPs and senators to call for a leadership review.

That's right: in the name of grassroots involvement, the Cons are actually arguing that unelected Senate hacks should have the authority to determine when a leadership review is necessary.

It's not entirely clear whether Wells wants a majority to be required in each chamber, or only based on the combined total in both. In the latter case, the Senate's new authority would extend to having the ability to force a review even when neither members nor elected MPs want one if the numbers allow it. (And lest that seem like a distant hypothetical, it would have been possible for Lib Senators to require a review without a single MP's support before they played around with their Senate affiliations.)

But even if Wells merely wants senators to have a veto over a possible leadership test, the end result would be to exacerbate what already makes the Senate toxic. Faced with the possibility that a party's senators might hold the power to force a leadership review, any Prime Minister would have a strong incentive to appoint the most beaten-down of trained seals rather than anybody willing to exercise an ounce of independent thought.

All of which figures to suit Harper and his party rather well. But it also highlights why Canada deserves better than a second chamber dedicated to assuring its own uselessness.