The government announced its intention to introduce new gun control legislation in the fall that will be “common sense,” designed to reduce red tape, but would include some new measures like mandatory safety courses and bans on firearms restrictions on those who have been convicted of domestic abuse. In particular, the government was motivated to ensure that those Swiss assault rifles are no longer prohibited, concocting a rather fanciful notion that owners of those weapons – which were reclassified as restricted – would somehow wind up in jail, though that has never happened with a gun reclassification before. Still, it was enough to rile up their gun enthusiast base. More troubling, however, was the fact that the minister referred to gun ownership as a “right,” which it most certainly is not in Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that gun ownership in Canada is a privilege and not a right. When asked about this contradiction, the minister stated that “it’s a right that has responsibilities, it’s a privilege.” Which of course makes absolutely no sense at all because it’s one or the other, and the Supreme Court has already ruled.
Tag Archives: The Senate
Roundup: Parsing the bribery charge
Mike Duffy says that he looks forward to his day in court, and wants it sooner rather than later. Considering that the court system is a little jammed, that may not happen sooner. In the aftermath of the charges, Kady O’Malley delves further into the reasons why Nigel Wright wasn’t charged with bribery even if Duffy was charged for accepting said bribe (hint: proving the intention of “corruptly” makes it a high bar for prosecutors), as well as the rules around sitting parliamentarians testifying before the courts. Stephen Maher looks at those charges relating to what Duffy was charging the Senate for partisan activity and wonders what the party knew about those expenses.
Roundup: Hostile witnesses
Kady O’Malley looks at how sex workers were treated as hostile witnesses at the Justice Committee, in particular by Conservative MP Stella Ambler – who, it should be noted, isn’t even a regular member of that committee. Any of their experiences in which they stated that they weren’t victims were often dismissed or challenged as being somehow untrue, which is unfortunate but not surprising given that the government has a narrative around this bill that they intend to push.
Roundup: Information sharing concerns
The Commissioner for the Communications Security Establishment has concerns that the information we share with our allies may be used improperly, and that they may not be properly protecting information about Canadians. Not coincidentally, there are serious concerns (paywall) that the American government won’t protect information on tax filings with those they deem “American persons” to comply with FATCA also aren’t going to be properly protected, and their Congress is already tabling laws that would ensure that said tax information on ostensible Canadians isn’t protected either. It underscores the dangers and uncertainties with information sharing – particularly when the Americans seem to feel that the rules that others abide by don’t apply to them.
Roundup: Mulcair’s high hopes for Alberta
Despite having already lost their star candidate for the riding, Thomas Mulcair remains confident that the NDP can still win Edmonton Centre in the next general election – never mind that the confluence of factors that favoured Linda Duncan aren’t really present in that particular riding. Mulcair then headed to Calgary, where he scoffed at the notion of Harper as national unifier, and pointed to the current voluntary national securities regulator project as an example of sowing divisions with provinces like Alberta, who don’t want to sign on. Erm, not sure how it’s relevant, or why the Supreme Court would shut down a voluntary scheme, but whatever.
Roundup: Conflating sex work with trafficking
The hearings into the prostitution bill wrapped up yesterday, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, along with amendments, will take place on Tuesday. Yesterday’s testimony included warnings not to confuse prostitution with human trafficking, which are different and human trafficking already has laws in place to combat it (though there have not yet been many charges). Of course, Conservative MP and booster of the bill, Joy Smith, says that the two are “symbiotically linked,” but again, separate regimes – just like talking about child sexual exploitation has nothing to do with adult sex work, and is a separate provision in the Criminal Code. Amongst the other nonsense that Smith went on Power & Politics to talk about included her assertion that maybe there are “one or two or three” sex workers who do it willingly, despite that being in complete contravention to testimony heard. It just didn’t fit with her established narrative, and as she often does, she rejects it outright. Surprisingly, a group of Anglican clergy have come out against the bill because of the effect it will have on those sex workers when it forces the trade further underground. And then, once the hearings wrapped, Conservative MP Stella Ambler sent out this gem, which pretty much shows you her belief that there is apparently only one side to this whole debate:
Apparently Stella Ambler thinks there's only one side to the debate on #C36. Cripes. pic.twitter.com/pkhcSJGt6m
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 10, 2014
Roundup: Conservative senators see looming crisis
Wouldn’t you know it, but Conservative senators are pressuring Stephen Harper to start making some new Senate appointments as the current number of vacancies is at eleven, and will be at 17 by the end of the year – almost a fifth of the Chamber. The lack of membership means committees are starting to be affected, and provinces are losing a good portion of their representation, which is a problem. And despite what Hugh Segal says, the Prime Minister actually does have a constitutional obligation to make appointments, and if he doesn’t, he risks triggering a constitutional crisis because he would be in breach of his duties. He certainly has options when it comes to how he makes appointments, especially because of the cloud he’s put himself under by making irresponsible choices in the past (because he was petulant and refused to make appointments until his hand was forced, it should be said), but they need to be made, sooner than later. I did hear from some sources that with the Supreme Court appointment issue out of the way, he could spend the summer making Senate appointments, but I guess we’ll see if that bears fruit. I recently wrote about this very looming crisis here.
Roundup: A doomed and dangerous challenge
Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati, of the Nadon case fame, is going ahead with his challenge of the government’s citizenship bill, but it’s a nightmare of a challenge because it’s based on a completely wrong-headed understanding of the way our system of responsible government works. Galati names the Governor General in the suit, saying that signing the bill into law went beyond his constitutional mandate. The problem is, of course, is that ours is not a system where the GG can refuse royal assent unless it’s a measure that is so egregious that he or she is willing to risk a constitutional crisis. Responsible Government is all about the Crown acting on the advice of government, and by granting royal assent, it does several things: it grants authority to the new law in the name of the Sovereign; it represents the people agreeing to live under the rule of law; and the Queen as the embodiment of the state, emphasises that we all live equally under the law. Galati argues that provisions of the bill are unconstitutional, but remember that it is still within the authority of the courts to strike down a law – that come under the powers of the Crown as the font of justice, whereas royal assent is a function of the Crown-in-Parliament. Galati seems eager to mix the two and would have the GG get legal opinions before any bill is signed into law – a complete distortion of our system of government and the separation of powers that exists between the Courts and Parliament. That Galati had tried to get the courts to block royal assent before it even happened is a further sign that he not only doesn’t understand the system, but is wilfully trying to undermine it regardless of the dangers or consequences of such moves. Only madness lies down the path Galati is trying to tread, but because he has no legal merit for the ruling, it won’t get very far, fortunately.
Roundup: Tony Abbott’s man-crush
Tony Abbott had his meetings with Stephen Harper and the Governor General yesterday, but it was really clear that his man-crush was on Harper. Or “Stephen,” as he kept calling him, with effusive and somewhat obsequious praise for his being a “beacon” for centre-right parties around the world. (This after Abbott inadvertently referred to the country as “Canadia” upon his arrival Sunday). Both took hard lines against carbon taxes, as Abbott is in the process of trying to repeal the one in his country (where the Australian Senate is holding it up and may continue to until the next Senate election in two years), while Harper literally finger-wagged about how at least he was honest about not wanting to kill the country’s economy. Harper also answered a question about the prostitution bill during the press conference, and gave the same line he used regarding Insite and the harm reduction measures there – that prostitution wasn’t harmful because it’s illegal, but it’s illegal because it’s harmful, and woe to all the harm it does. Err, except that the Supreme Court ruled that the illegalities that surrounded it made it so harmful that it killed the sex workers involved. We’ll see if Harper’s reason flies with the Supreme Court when it winds its way back there. Abbott also stood by the Five Eyes intelligence partnership, and said that countries should never apologies for doing what was necessary to protect themselves. Okay then.
Roundup: Filling the empty seat on the bench
The Prime Minister has finally announced his choice for the new Supreme Court Justice to fill the seat left by Justice Fish nearly a year ago. And yes, this one is qualified, as he currently sits on the Quebec Court of Appeal, where there isn’t a whole lot known or said about him. It has been noted that this is another male appointment – six out of seven for Harper, including Nadon, which keeps the gender imbalance on the bench. This appointment won’t face a “vetting” by a Commons committee, but considering how much of a face that process proved to be, I’m not sure that it’s any great loss.