Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Roundup: NATO spending commitments

Posted on by

As that NATO summit gets set to get underway in Wales, it looks like the face-saving final communiqué will state that the 2 percent of GDP on defence spending that they hope members will achieve will simply be “aspirational,” since it’s not going to happen with some members like Canada (which would essentially doubling our current defence budget). Stephen Saideman explores why it’s wrong for NATO to focus solely on the spending levels of member countries than it is on capabilities. It also sounds like NATO members are going to discuss making cyberwarfare as much of a threat to member nations as bombs, which is quite true of the modern era. It also sounds like the attention will be split between the threats posed by Russia and ISIS. Michael Den Tandt notes that while Harper keeps sounding tough, there is no escaping that the Canadian Forces are badly under-resourced – possibly as bad as the “Decade of Darkness” – and we can’t have it both ways of doing good work on the cheap. Katie Englehart has more on the broader context of the situation here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hacker concerns and delays

Posted on by

The National Research Council had concerns about their IT security before the hack attack happened, and some of those concerns delayed their move to join Shared Services Canada. What the article doesn’t mention is that NRC also has a lot of legacy computer systems that wouldn’t integrate easily, and that was part of the concern with amalgamation. That said, amalgamation creates its own security risks because everything is in one place, so a well-placed hack there would have far broader implications than the current “federated” model, where individual systems can be isolated. Meanwhile, the Privacy Commissioner’s officer has confirmed that the attack breached a system that contained personal information, and they’re still assessing the damage.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A good kid

Posted on by

Correctional Services’ own reports show that Omar Khadr is a “good kid,” non-radicalised and highly compliant, but that hasn’t stopped the government from trying to paint him as a heinous war criminal as they continue to deny journalists’ requests to interview him in prison. It looks more and more like they are trying to protect the narrative about him that they have built up for political cover.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An apology owed

Posted on by

The International Commission of Jurists has looked over the dispute between Stephen Harper and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin around accusations that she was “lobbying” against the appointment of Justice Nadon. The ICJ declared that McLachlin did nothing wrong – and that Harper owes her an apology. In response, the PMO responded that they saw the response and “noted it.” At least it wasn’t yet another angry denunciation of “activist” judges protecting their own, or some other nonsense. Meanwhile, the Canadian Bar Association has responded to all of those Conservative MPs whinging that the courts are doing an “end run around democracy” by reminding them that the courts are an essential part of our democratic system, ensuring that rights are respected and that laws are applied properly. Not that it will soothe the sting being felt by sore losers, which is really what those complaints are all about.

Continue reading →

Roundup: 31 charges

Posted on by

Boom goes the ClusterDuff yet again, as the RCMP laid 31 charges against Mike Duffy, relating to fraud, breach of trust, and bribery. (RCMP statement here). These charges relate to his housing expenses, his travel claims, the consulting contracts to the tune of $200,000, and the $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright. Duffy will be in court on September 16th – the day after the House comes back. Duffy’s lawyer says that he’s content, which means that months of innuendo are over and it moves to a fair trial. The opposition reminds us that this is about Harper’s poor judgement. Kate Heartfield gives some questions that voters should be asking in the wake of this including who else benefitted from those payments, but absent from the list is the reminder that under the tenets of Responsible Government, Harper is the one who is accountable for appointing Duffy to the Senator. Don Martin writes about the political fallout of the charges today. Andrew Coyne wonders about Nigel Wright’s motives, and how it is that he wasn’t charged for giving the bribe (which leads one to believe that perhaps it was not so much his idea). Jonathan Gatehouse explores that issue a little more, and notes that Wright didn’t exactly benefit from the cheque, which may shield him from “corruptly” giving the cheque.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Missing the point about parties

Posted on by

In a piece that bothers me immensely, Susan Delacourt puts forward the notion of abolishing political parties, and then applies a bunch of marginal reasons like branding and narrowing voter pools. The problem is that she ignored the whole point of political parties under Responsible Government – to have a group that can maintain the confidence of the Chamber in the formation of government. Which is actually a pretty big deal and why coalition governments don’t really work as well in our system as they might in others. “Oh, but Nunavut doesn’t have parties” or “most municipalities don’t have parties” people – including Delacourt – will cry, but it’s a nonsense argument because they have a small handful of members, and it doesn’t scale up to 308 MPs on any practical basis. You could not adequately run a government or maintain confidence with 308 “loose fish.” Also, the notion that brokerage is “antiquated” is false – otherwise we’d see all kinds of “bridges to nowhere” riders in government bills to get MPs onside to win support – again something that would be endemic with trying to get the support of a chamber of independents. That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with parties right now, because there are, but the solution is to have more people engaging with them so that the power doesn’t remain concentrated – not to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, but Delacourt’s argument has no merit.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Conflating sex work with trafficking

Posted on by

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:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking apart MacKay’s assertions

Posted on by

The chair of the women’s forum at the Canadian Bar Association calls Peter MacKay out for the real consequences for women in the profession as they are being overlooked for judicial appointments, and that there is a need for more data on appointments, while Thomas Muclair thinks that this is more proof to demand MacKay’s resignation. Former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler, however, does the due diligence and systematically dismantles MacKay’s assertions, from his statements that law schools aren’t playing their role, to the claim that women aren’t applying, and most especially the notion that there apparently aren’t enough women who can be appointed on the basis of merit. Cotler takes MacKay to school over the issue, and it’s great to see a fact-based takedown and not more of this open letter nonsense and weird blaming that has thus far taken place.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Clarity for First Nations titles

Posted on by

The Supreme Court has given a unanimous ruling granting a title claim to the Tsilhqot’in First Nation in BC, over a large area of land in the south central part of the province, ending a 25-year court battle over forestry claims and a 150-year dispute between that First Nation and the Crown. Because most of BC’s First Nations don’t have treaties yet with the government, this ruling impacts them in particular, and will make sure that the government has a greater role to play in fulfilling its consultative duties to First Nations as more resource and pipeline projects come up. The ruling also declares that provincial governments have regulatory authority over land obtained by First Nations people through court cases or land claim negotiations. While the ruling has been said to give clarity to negotiations, it also raises the possibility that some First Nations will abandon their negotiations with the government in favour of turning to the courts to establish title or land claims, which should be a red flag seeing as treaty negotiation is a Crown prerogative, and we should be careful about delegating it to the courts. Terry Glavin gives the backstory to the whole dispute dating back to 1864 here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Leave it to Peter

Posted on by

Oh Peter MacKay. You never fail to disappoint any longer, do you? In amidst the storm over the lack of diverse judicial appointments, MacKay’s tone deaf explanation (and then whinging post on Facebook), we find out that he sent out memos to his department on Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, each with very different message. The Mother’s Day message was about making meals and changing diapers, while the Father’s Day message was about shaping the minds of future leaders. So yeah – very separate roles and fairly outmoded notions about gender-specified parental behaviours. MacKay really has been the gift that keeps on giving lately.

Continue reading →