Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Roundup: Sovereignty via subcontract

Posted on by

Buried in last week’s KPMG audit of the F-35 programme was the revelation that the government planned to contract out air-to-air refuelling of the jets, seeing as the systems we have in place are currently incompatible. When this was pointed out two years ago, the government said, “Oh don’t worry, we’ll adapt our systems.” By adapt, apparently they meant subcontract. And nothing says asserting sovereignty over our airspace than getting the Americans or some other private companies to do our air-to-air refuelling for us. Great job, guys!

The Supreme Court handed down a split 4-2-1 decision on witnesses wearing niquabs – basically saying sure, but only some of the time, and here’s some guidelines to think about. Emmett Macfarlane examines the split and comes down on Team Abella – the single dissent that said while we’d like to see more of a person’s face than less, on the whole it’s not as big of a deal as it would be to have people to choose to not testify at all.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Undermining accountability with dollar figures

Posted on by

The government has started attaching dollar figures to who much it costs to answer Order Paper questions – in this case, $1.2 million in a three-month period. Oh noes! Parliament costs money! And really, using this tactic of putting dollar figures on basic accountability is underhanded and violates the very premise of Parliament, which is to hold the government to account by means of controlling supply. To do that, Parliament needs facts and figures, quite simply. And making it seem like a costly imposition for Parliamentarians to exercise their most basic function is, in a word, despicable.

The federal and provincial finance minsters met at Meech Lake yesterday, and while they didn’t come to any consensus over boosting the CPP, they did agree to study it and come up with a report for their meeting in June.

Not that it’s any big surprise, but former assistant deputy minister of procurement at DND, Alan Williams, said the F-35 process as “corrupted” from the beginning, but the main question remains why the cabinet went along unquestioningly when the bureaucrats barrelled ahead with the sole-source contract. Meanwhile, the Americans are already looking at developing a “sixth generation” fighter jet by 2030.

Continue reading →

Roundup: “Safe” countries and harsher rules

Posted on by

Jason Kenney released his list of “safe” countries of origin for refugee claimants, where claimants from those countries will be subject to an expedited process (which critics charge is an inadequate time to prepare a case), and no access to appeal. Included on the list are countries like Hungary and Latvia, where Roma populations have been targeted by far-right groups (and despite Kenney’s repeated claims to the contrary, they can’t actually seek asylum in other EU nations), but Mexico has not been (yet), to which Kenney says they are still deciding because of the security situation in that country. (Maclean’s has an interesting article about refugee claimants from Mexico who were targeted in that country because they were wealthy).

The Supreme Court upheld anti-terror legislation when weighted against other Charter rights.

As part of Leona Aglukkaq’s mandate to get Health Canada out of the business of doing anything at all, the department is now getting out of the medical marijuana business and turning it all over to approved commercial growers, which may make it easier to get, but also way more expensive, which is a problem for people on fixed incomes because they can’t work as a result of the conditions for which they are using said medical marijuana.

Continue reading →

Roundup post: Retributive justice for mentally ill offenders

Posted on by

The release of a mentally ill offender has the government reaching for yet another knee-jerk response to a high-profile case. James Moore went on TV yesterday to say that making laws on single cases is bad policy, but those cases expose flaws in the system, and said that the government wants to put in place changes that will put the victim “at the heart” of the justice system. Now, if you know anything about justice or the rule of law, this should be setting off the big red klaxon because some of the most important features of the justice system are that it a) be blind, and b) not be retributive. Putting the victim “at the heart” of the system debases those two central tenets. Yes, the public reacts with outrage when someone is released after they have been treated for an illness which caused them to do terrible things, because they believe that they haven’t suffered enough, and that they’re using insanity as a way to get off easily – never mind that mental illness is real and can have terrible effects, and that when treated the risk the person poses to the community is minimal at best, and never mind that said person is also being supervised in order to ensure that they remain being treated. And even when the government says they want “science” to determine these things, we don’t see them putting additional resources into treatment or prevention by means of early detection of mental illness. It remains reactive and now, they want to add an element of retribution.

The Commons finance committee has recommended that there be a royal commission on the tax system in order to modernise and streamline it. Or you know, they could do it themselves, being as they’re a gods damned parliamentary committee and all. But no, doing it themselves would be unseemly as it would be terribly partisan and all of that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Witness protection without oversight

Posted on by

The government introduced new witness protection legislation yesterday that the opposition sounds to largely be in favour of, though the proposal doesn’t include any provision for external review or oversight, which shouldn’t really be a surprise given this government’s apparent dislike of such things.

The PBO produced a report on public sector compensation for the sake of having baseline figures to use when looking at the impact of job cuts to government expenditures. And yes, he found some interesting figures about how its growth outpaced inflation and other levels of government. But all everyone will see is the “average $114K” figure, not think about what that includes or the range of salaries it encompasses, and will froth at the mouth about how horrible those bureaucrats are, and so on.

The Chief of Attawapiskat is engaging in a hunger strike in Ottawa to force a meeting with the Prime Minister about treaty obligations. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs has offered to meet with her, but we’ll see what happens with that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Making way for double bunking

Posted on by

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger! iPolitics has obtained documents that show that Corrections Canada is changing their policy to allow for double bunking to be normal policy, and to eliminate rules around maximum capacity. Not only does this violate our international agreements on corrections policy and it’s been proven to be bad for correctional behaviour period, but it’s like an invitation to a return to the era of prison riots. Well done, Vic Toews!

Here is your rough guide to the remaining stages of Omnibus Budget Bill 2: The Revenge in the Commons.

Ruh-roh! New documents show that the government was being briefed about the cost overruns of the F-35 fighters in advance of the Auditor General’s report. How much of this is just bureaucratic ass-covering is a question, but nevertheless, it looks like they knew more than they were letting on.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another Nexen decision delay

Posted on by

In a move that surprises pretty much no one, the government has extended the deadline on the Nexen deal by another month, giving themselves until December 10 to make up their minds. This is no doubt in large part because Haprer is off to India next week and wouldn’t be around to deal with this outcome, no matte what it will be, and considering how they worked until the last minute on the Petronas deal, they may still be hard at work on this file and need more time.

It looks like the skilled worker immigration backlog could be eliminated by the end of 2014 – three years ahead of schedule – because of plans to create a pool system where provinces and employers can cherry-pick the workers that best suit their needs. The whole thing could be scuttled, however, by an upcoming court case that deals with the plans to legislate away the pre-2008 backlog, because those would-be immigrants would have been denied due process.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Discovering the domain of private members’ bills

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Long-term damage and hidden changes

Posted on by

The former Chief Electoral Officer has big concerns about what Thursday’s Supreme Court decision on Etobicoke Centre means for future elections – especially when it come to people trying to vote at polls they’re not assigned to, and the future court challenges around those rules. Meanwhile, here are five of the outstanding issues that remain from the last election.

CBC delves in the Omnibus Budget Bill 2: The Revenge and finds 22 changes in the fine print to things like public sector and military pensions, changes to environmental legislation, eliminating boards, changes to the Indian Act, and so on. It’s definitely worthwhile reading. Oh, and those changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act? Are about navigation because of changes made to the bill through the back door four months ago when the government gutted the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in the first omnibus budget bill.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Opitz keeps his seat

Posted on by

In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the election result in Etobicoke Centre, allowing Ted Opitz to remain as the MP. It’s a difficult decision, because it leaves open some questions as to how many procedural errors we bother to enforce so long as we ensure that people can vote, whether or not it is actually proper for them to do so in that manner, rather than see anyone’s right to vote taken away. Here are the reactions, from Opitz, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Bob Rae, and others. Paul Wells parses some of the meaning of the split decision, the players on both sides, and throws some cold water on those conspiracy theories of stacked courts (and if anyone believes them, then they obviously haven’t paid any attention to the Supreme Court of Canada in the past). Emmett Macfarlane, who has literally written a book on the Court, discusses what he believes would have happened if they had ruled the other way. Adam Goldenberg uses this decision as a reminder about how our Supreme Court is not partisan, unlike the one in the States.

Continue reading →