« Collective soul-searching | Main | Careful with that quote »

April 11, 2008

Clamouring for Clyde

A group has cropped up on Facebook to campaign for Clyde Wells, the former Newfoundland Premier, to fill the new vacancy on the Supreme Court of Canada.

It's spearheaded by Ed Hollett, a former aide to Wells, who runs a well-read Liberal blog called the Sir Robert Bond Papers.

The Star's Tonda MacCharles (who is a Newfoundlander, and has noted that there's never been a Newfoundlander on the bench) speculated about this when she appeared on CTV's Mike Duffy Live to talk about the Supreme Court vacancy created this week by the retirement of Justice Michel Bastarache.

Wells is most remembered for his role in helping to unravel the Meech Lake constitutional accord in 1990 (though it died officially in Manitoba, at the hands of aboriginal MLA Elijah Harper).

That other Harper, Stephen, was also a foe of Meech Lake - a fact he doesn't broadcast too often to Quebec these days. 

Now that the Prime Minister seems fixated on the idea of getting more seats in Quebec in the next election, perhaps enough to form a majority, it seems doubtful he'd appoint a man who has come to symbolize rejection of Quebec's desire to be a distinct society in Canada. And a Liberal, at that.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf8f353ef00e551c8d20f8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clamouring for Clyde:

Comments

It seems that Clyde Wels was doing his bit to torpedo Meech Lake at the behest of Trudeau, and that is enough of a reason to not have him nominated for Supreme Court Judge.

Isn't it true that if people seem so thrilled with Stephen Harper's leadership, that he definately has a riding to go back to, to get re-elected? You can always see him in parliament as an MP, but you don't have to vote for the Conservatives for just that reason. Here in Ontario, John Tory found out you can be the leader of the party, but not hold a seat. Stephen Harper can still be leader of his party, that's up to his party, (for the most part). But you don't have to vote for his party in order to have him in parliament. You vote for policies, and he will always be there stating his policies if his riding allows him to do that, in the House of Commons.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Susan Delacourt on Politics


  • Susan Delacourt, the Star's Senior Writer in Ottawa, has covered federal politics for more than two decades as a reporter and bureau chief.