Things with the CRA seem to be taking a turn for the bizarre as they are getting into a fight with well-known charity Oxfam over the charity’s stated goal of trying to prevent poverty around the world. According to the CRA, that’s not an acceptable goal – they should only try to alleviate poverty, as preventing it might benefit people who are not already poor. Yeah, I’m still trying to figure that one out too. According to CRA, the courts haven’t found that that the risk of poverty is the same as actually being in need, so this splitting of hairs means that they can’t put “prevention” in their purpose statement. And it’s not like this is part of the supposed “crackdown” on charities either – this had to do with a regular process of renewing Oxfam’s non-profit status, but it has been noted that Jason Kenney singled them out earlier in the year over their opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Why the CRA would play petty politics for any minister – especially one that they don’t report to – sounds a little too odd, but this whole situation is just so strange that it will invite conspiracy theory.
Tag Archives: The Monarchy
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: Leave it to Peter
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.
Roundup: Pushing back out of the gate
The new privacy commissioner, Daniel Therrien, went before the Commons justice committee yesterday to talk about the “cyberbullying” bill, and the moment that Therrien did his job and pushed back against the bill – pointing out the overreach into lawful access provisions, the lowered test for getting warrants, the lack of oversight mechanisms, and that the bill should be split so that the more technical aspects of those lawful access provisions could get more detailed study, the government lashed back, turning against him immediately with the bizarre accusation that he hasn’t been a police officer. Apparently because police demand more powers, the government feels that they need to fall all over themselves to provide them, no questions asked – despite the fact that we have a history of showing that when authorities are given new powers without adequate oversight that they tend to be abused (for entirely well-meaning reasons, no doubt). Also of concern is that information could be requested not only by peace officers, but also by “public officers,” which includes elected officials, certain airline pilots and fisheries officers. No, seriously. Peter MacKay, meanwhile, brings up the child porn defence for these new measures, despite the fact that he hasn’t provided an excuse for why they wouldn’t need a warrant to get this kind of information. As well, NDP MP Randall Garrison tried to put in an amendment to the bill to see that transgendered people are protected from hate – you know, like cyberbullying – and the government shot it down for no real logical reason. Well done, everyone.
Roundup: Quebec’s “death with dignity” complications
It’s not really a surprise that the federal government is saying that Quebec’s “death with dignity” law is a violation of the Criminal Code, and will likely be challenged in court. That was kind of the point of the way the Quebec law was structured, however – to fit under the rubric of the provincial responsibility of healthcare so as to not trigger the Criminal Code, but it will likely take the Supreme Court to determine if they can justifiably do so. The Supreme Court is already set to hear a case regarding overturning the ban on physician-assisted suicide, so by the time the Quebec law hits the courts, there may already be new jurisprudence that will help to change the calculus around it. And yes, all parties are divided on the issue. Predictably, opponents of the law insist that euthanasia cannot be medical care, and want more palliative care instead. Administrative law professor Paul Daly puts this new law in the context of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on a case involving judicial discretion, and how prosecutorial may wind up filling the gap between the Quebec law and any decision to charge anyone who makes use of it.
Roundup: Victoria Day and the Canadian Crown
Given that yesterday was Victoria Day, here is a look at how it’s a particularly idiosyncratic Canadian holiday, which combines the celebration of the monarch who founded our country along with the official birthday of the reigning monarch, and has a history wrapped up in things like Empire Day, but remains uniquely Canadian all the same.
Roundup: Prince Charles, PC
Prince Charles and Camilla have landed in Halifax for the start of a four-day Royal Tour visiting Nova Scotia, PEI and Manitoba. Charles was sworn into Her Majesty’s Privy Council of Canada – which he will one day lead upon ascending to the throne – which is also a rare national honour to be bestowed upon him. Also on this visit will be the launch of Charles’ Campaign for Wool in Canada, which seeks to reacquaint people with the properties of the natural fibre for all sorts of purposes.
Roundup: An amended Reform Act?
Conservative MP Michael Chong is introducing another reform bill today, which would approach his proposed reforms to leadership reviews from another angle, via the Parliament of Canada Act, rather than the Elections Act, especially to address concerns brought forward by his caucus. That said, it still doesn’t address the fundamental issues of leadership selection, and the consequences of maintaining our current system of membership selection rather than caucus selection, or what happens to the legitimacy of a sitting Prime Minister when a caucus orders a leadership review, which is kind of a big deal. I will also be interested to see if this version contains the provision for a provincial nominating officer instead of a riding one, but there remain other problems with the original Reform Act that Chong tabled, so we’ll see how many this new one corrects.
Roundup: Reorganizing Elections Canada?
It sounds like the election reform bill will be tabled soon – possibly this week – and sources are saying that it will reorganize Elections Canada, removing the Commissioner of Elections from the organisation into its own standalone office. It also sounds like the Chief Electoral Officer has not thus far been consulted on the bill, so we’ll see just how problematic that actually ends up being.
Roundup: Useless polls make populist noise
A CTV-commissioned poll shows that 69 percent of Canadians don’t think the Senate is useful. (Broken down, the numbers are 34 percent “strongly disagree” and 35 percent “somewhat disagree” with the statement of whether “The Senate of Canada performs a necessary and useful political function.”) The problem with that is that it goes back to the very same issue of asking people a question that they’re not taught anything about. Sure, people have heard about the Senate, but most of what they hear is either a) scandal; or b) distortion, largely arising from scandal as it affects a very small percentage of its membership. Most Canadians, if we’re honest, don’t really know the first thing about the Senate and what it does, and the media hasn’t done a stellar job in covering their good work either, which makes this kind of poll particularly fraught from the get-go. But hey, now we can use a big number to say that populist sentiment doesn’t agree with the constitutionally bound makeup of parliament! One has to wonder if the same kinds of numbers would arise if we asked whether people agreed that their pancreas serves a useful and necessary function in their bodies, or if we’d get the same kind of facile comment of “I don’t know what it does, therefore let’s just get rid of it” that this kind of ridiculous Senate polling results in.