The Supreme Court handed down its decision on the Whatcott case, which basically refined the definition of what constitutes hate speech in the country. They also said that the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument is not acceptable either when it comes to hate speech against gays, for what it’s worth. Emmett Macfarlane notes the issues around defining what a ‘”reasonable person” would constitute as hate, as the decision seems to indicate. Charlie Gillis laments the lost opportunity to affirm free speech, no matter the content, because human rights legislation is being abused as a blunt tool in the country. Jonathan Kay sees the decision as privileging anti-Christian censorship because they believe in the fire-and-brimstone retribution for gays, especially because the “love the sinner, hate the sin” argument holds value for Christians. Andrew Coyne laments that the judgement didn’t spend enough time prefacing the value of free speech. And Bill Whatcott himself? Plans to keep up his anti-gay pamphleting because apparently Christ has nothing better to do than ensure that Whatcott denounces the gays.
Tag Archives: Private Members’ Business
Roundup: The unravelling cases of Senators Wallin and Duffy
In the past couple of days of Senate revelations, we find that Senator Pamela Wallin has an Ontario health card and not a Saskatchewan one, which raises the question about her residency – no matter that she spent 168 days in Saskatchewan last year. Wallin also apparently repaid a substantial amount in expense claims before this whole audit business started, which is also interesting news. Senator Mike Duffy, meanwhile, could actually end up owing $90,000 plus interest on his living expense claims rather than the $42,000 that was cited over the weekend. Oops. Tim Harper looks at the sideshow that is Senator Duffy’s non-apology and smells a deal made to save his job. Senator Cowan says that repayment doesn’t answer the questions – especially not the ones about residency, which means he may not be up to protect Duffy – or Wallin and Patterson’s – seats. And those Senators who’ve been silent on their residency claims are now being called before the Senate Internal Economy committee to explain themselves. Terry Milewski goes through the entire housing claims allegations and fixes an appropriate amount of scorn on the idea that two ticky-boxes are “complex” on the forms.
Roundup: Mulcair’s PMB on the PBO
It seems that Thomas Mulcair will be putting forward a Private Member’s Bill after all – relating to strengthening the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Of course, Peggy Nash already has a similar bill tabled, so Mulcair’s will either have to be significantly different in order to meet the rules, or Nash will have to either withdraw hers or transfer it over to Mulcair (possibly by means of unanimous consent). They say that Mulcair’s will be different enough, but we’ll have to see what the committee in charge of these things says.
Well this is very interesting. It seems that the government approved two different sets of messages around its environmental reforms – one for First Nations, and another for industry, and no, they haven’t explained why there is that difference yet.
Roundup: The use and abuse of Private Members’ Bills
Yesterday was an interesting day, in that three Private Members’ Bills dominated the political discourse. This, unfortunately, is becoming a more common occurrence, despite the fact that PMBs are intended to be small measures designed to correct oversights in existing legislation – part of the role of holding government to account. They are not supposed to cost money (lest they require a Royal Recommendation), and we should bear in mind that the role of backbenchers and opposition are to hold the government to account. It is further to be reminded that it’s the opposition’s job to oppose, and not to govern. Hence, it is the government’s job to govern, and in an adversarial system like ours, the opposition holds them to account. And with these facts in mind, let’s look at what happened.
Roundup: Flaherty wants to stay put
Newsflash: Jim Flaherty says he wants to keep his job as Finance Minister until the budget is balanced, which likely means spring of 2015, in advance of a new election. While it’s unlikely that Harper will shuffle him out before he does his promised major re-shuffle a little closer to the next election, there have been some questions as to how long Flaherty will be sticking around as he’s been looking pretty tired and acting downright cranky the past couple of months.
Peter Kent is patting himself on the back for cancelling a proposed shallow gas infill project in Alberta, despite the fact that this was a decision that took seven years. Even more laughably, Kent is claiming the Orwellian-named “Responsible Resource Development” legislation from earlier this year as the reason for the cancellation – despite, as we mentioned, the fact that this has been a seven-year process.
As the government and the military continue to back away from the F-35s, General Tom Lawson now says the term “Fifth-generation” is unhelpful. Or should I say Fifth Generation™, since it’s a trademarked marketing term and not an actual description of capabilities.
Roundup: Discovering the domain of private members’ bills
Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti has a private member’s bill up for debate that proposes a tax credit for domestic travel that crosses three provinces – in order to help Canadians discover their own country instead of always travelling south. He calls it the “Discover Your Canada Act,” and it is a laudable goal, as domestic travel is ridiculously expensive in this country but – and this is a very, very big but – it’s not the domain of a private member’s bill. In fact, it is so far outside of the domain of private members’ business that it demands expenditure – which tax credits are in effect – and expenditure requires a Royal Recommendation if it’s not government legislation. And this is not government legislation, nor will the government endorse this because we’re living in an era of “fiscal austerity,” and it’s not a boutique tax credit that will appeal enough to the supposed Tim Horton’s crowd. But seriously – MPs really need to knock off this foolishness of trying to make government policy from the opposition benches. Private members’ business has its place, but these kinds of stunts, while trying to capture the populist imagination, just end up looking ridiculous.
Update: I’m reliably informed that tax credits are a way of getting around the requirement for a Royal Recommendation – but that kind of technicality doesn’t mean that this is still the domain of private members’ business. My criticism of this kind of stunt stands.