First, as the rumors surrounding a possible Liberal-NDP merger were just starting to swirl, but after Michael Ignatieff had pooh-poohed the idea—but before he backtracked and said he wouldn’t rule out cooperation—I published a piece calling for frank discussion of some electoral arrangement.

Second, after Montreal was knocked out of the playoffs, I contributed to a series on how to bring the Stanley Cup back to Canada. In typical conservative fashion, I argued that the key was to build a better economy.

And third, as part of a series on how to improve the three main Canadian political parties, I had a piece arguing that the Tories needed to be thoughtful, be confident, and be unafraid.

I’m not sure the Mark will want to publish me as regularly as once a week, so if an article doesn’t appear over there, I’ll publish it here; otherwise I’ll provide a link here. But I do recommend bookmarking and visiting The Mark regularly—they’re doing interesting things over there, and as the community develops the site will only get better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a rare public rebuke to close ally Canada on Monday, criticizing it for excluding key nations from a meeting to discuss the resource-rich Arctic. . . .

“Significant international discussions on Arctic issues should include those who have legitimate interests in the region,” Clinton said in a statement issued before the meeting had even begun.

“I hope the Arctic will always showcase our ability to work together, not create new divisions.”

Tuesday, March 30, 9:16 a.m.:

The United States would like Canada to stay in Afghanistan beyond 2011, the year Canada is scheduled to end its combat mission in the country, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told [the CBC].

Tuesday, March 30, 11:14 a.m.:

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper told U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan will end in 2011.

***

Now perhaps we shouldn’t be too quick to judge. Maybe this was an orchestrated pantomime by Clinton and Harper, with the Americans giving Harper cover to make withdrawal look like an assertion of Canadian sovereignty and independence. Or perhaps Clinton, in pursuit of American interests, wanted to goad Canada into a reaffirmation of its withdrawal commitment. But if we take everyone at their word, and assume no ulterior motives, this certainly seems like a diplomatic gaffe by Clinton.

Oh, and finally, it should be noted–and strongly emphasized–that the conduct of our foreign policy should not depend, in the slightest, on the pronouncements or mis-pronouncements of the American Secretary of State, or anyone else. Clinton was wrong to make her Arctic point the way she did, but Canada’s big enough to shrug it off, and it should have absolutely nothing to do with our decision to withdraw from Afghan military operations.

At the close of the debate I’ll re-post my material here, but for now please head on over to Catelli’s and check it out.

Here are President Obama’s remarks, delivered at the National Archives.

Here are Vice President Cheney’s remarks, delivered at the American Enterprise Institute.

Both speeches are long, but I think both are more than worth the time to read and digest. I think the two speeches illustrate an important, perhaps a fundamental philosophical difference between the current administration and its predecessor. I can’t say much more than that right now, but I’ll revisit the issue in due time.

BONUS: If you’re not speeched-out, I also heartily recommend President Obama’s commencement address at Notre Dame University. The President’s words about the presumption of good faith may sound familiar to longtime readers. His words about doubt should sound familiar to fans of John Milton.

The proposal is simply to adopt a single transferable ballot within each riding. Representatives (whether MPs or MPPs or what have you) will still be apportioned according to population within contiguous geographic bounds–i.e. ridings–but each voter within that riding will be able to indicate a second and even third ‘choice’ on their ballot. If no candidate receives a majority of votes within the riding based on first preferences, candidates receiving votes below a certain threshold will be disqualified and ‘their’ ballots recast according to those voters’ second preference. If there is still no majority winner, the process repeats until there is.

Having a single transferable vote system within ridings would–unless my math is wrong–eliminate the main objection to the First Past the Post System, namely its propensity in multi-party democracies to grant majority power to a party winning only a plurality of votes. If a government is formed by the party winning a majority of seats, and if each seat is held by a candidate who has ultimately received a majority of votes (whether first-preference or first-through-third preference), then a majority government will enjoy the electoral support of a majority of voters (assuming ridings are equal or roughly equal in population–and I’d be all for ensuring that this is, and continues to be, the case).

It’s not PR, by any means; but I happen to be one of the neanderthals who things that in a broad and diverse nation, expressions of geographic interest play an important role. In any case, it strikes me as being an incremental improvement that gets us closer to a truly proportional system of representation without scrapping the existing system entirely.

Thoughts?

Mr. Galloway received a preliminary notice of determination by the Canadian Border Services Agency that he might be inadmissible to Canada, I gather based in large part on his public admission that he provided funds to Hamas, a banned illegal terrorist organization, which would seem–on the face of it–to constitute grounds for inadmissibility under Section 34(1)f of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act.

Okay. Here’s my question: what is a preliminary notice of determination by the Canadian Border Security Agency? The Canada Immigration and Refugee Protection Act doesn’t mention preliminary notices. Neither do the regulations promulgated under the act. In fact the phrase “preliminary notice of determination” doesn’t appear on the Immigration Canada website.

So when Minister Kenney says, matter-of-factly, that Galloway “received a preliminary notice of determination by the Canadian Border Services Agency that he might be inadmissible to Canada,” I have to ask: what the heck is that? Neither the statutes nor the regulations provide for a pre-application determination of admissibility. Does the ministry regularly evaluate potential applicants? If so, under what circumstances? Terry Glavin has suggested that Galloway’s parliamentary staff contacted the Canadian High Commission regarding his speaking tour, and that the “preliminary notice” was written in response. That may be so; but is there any other documented instance of a potential applicant receiving a “preliminary notice of determination” in response to such an inquiry?

I should mention again that I don’t think Kenney did anything wrong here; indeed, I think that’s true even if the “preliminary notice” was sent on his instruction. But if that turns out to have been the case, it raises interesting and important questions about a minister’s ability to keep aliens out of Canada. As I argued last month, use of the “preliminary notice” effectively forecloses judicial review of that interesting and important question. In light of the judiciary’s over-reaching in other areas, I can understand why that may be politically desirable. But at the very least it’s worth noting.

Finally, notwithstanding my curiosity, at the end of the day I agree with Kenney on the fundamental point: Galloway was never refused entry to Canada, because he never sought it. Had he sought it, he could have pursued an appeal in the courts. I think the Federal Court erred in allowing his preliminary injunction suit to proceed; but the fact that Galloway didn’t actually seek entry demonstrates, to me, that for Galloway the goal was never access. It was publicity.

The Federal Court issued an opinion today ordering the Canadian government to request Omar Khadr’s repatriation from Guantanamo Bay. Two thoughts:

First, the opinion’s logic strikes me as flawed. The fundamental holding is that Khadr’s Section 7 Charter rights have been violated because (a) he has been detained at Guantanamo Bay as a ‘child’ and (b) while at Guantanamo Bay he has been subjected to sleep deprivation prior to interrogation. These alleged acts violate Khadr’s Canadian constitutional rights, notwithstanding the fact that they occurred outside of Canada and at the hands of non-Canadians, because Canadian government officials were complicit by virtue of their interrogation of Khadr in these circumstances. The court concludes that the only plausible remedy is an order compelling the government to exercise its heretofore-prerogative power to request Khadr’s return.

I don’t think the court’s logic follows. Khadr’s claim (as I read it) is not that the government must request his repatriation because his Section 7 rights have been violated; his claim is that the government’s failure to request his repatriation itself violates his Section 7 rights. The court blurs the distinction, but it’s an important one. If the rights identified by the court—detention while a child and sleep-deprivation—were violated, they were violated some time in the past. Khadr is no longer a child, and the allegations regarding sleep-deprivation relate to events occurring between 2002 and 2004. Given that these violations occurred in the past, how does repatriation now—when the violations are not alleged to continue—remedy the wrong? That doesn’t mean there should be no remedy at all; if the Canadian government was complicit in the violation of these rights, it seems to me the appropriate remedy is an action for money damages against the Canadian government. But I don’t think it follows that because Khadr’s rights were violated in the past, but are not being violated now, the Constitution requires the Canadian government to demand his return as a means of remedying the past wrong.

The second thought is a more general one. The court explicitly acknowledges that it is infringing on what is traditionally a prerogative power of the executive branch. Indeed, it can cite to no other case—anywhere in the world—that has infringed on this power in this way. The result is to mandate the appropriate exercise of this consular power; that is, the court’s decision erases any discretion the government has traditionally had, and declares that only one possible choice among the universe of policy choices in this circumstance is constitutional.

We seem to be seeing a lot of that these days—attempts to mandate a particular policy choice by determining that alternative policy choices are unconstitutional. But by mandating a particular policy choice, the deciding court places that choice outside the realm of politics, thereby foreclosing debate and discussion. That’s bad for democracy. There are good, honest arguments on both sides of the repatriation debate. Both sides should have the opportunity, and ability, to affect government policy. And if government policy ultimately strays from popular opinion on a particular choice, the people have an opportunity to alter that policy—at the ballot.

There is a great temptation, always, to declare an opposing policy alternative to be so wrong, so immoral, so contrary to received notions of good government, that it cannot be tolerated by law. But when we succumb to that temptation, we constrict the realm of politics, restrict our collective ability to make policy choices, and reduce the involvement of the electorate in the process of governance. That’s not my idea of democracy.