[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Some of the Provincial intervenors were were arguing the Constitutional provisions regarding the Senate could be amended by the 7 provinces with 50% of the pop formula.  No parties suggested it could be amended by way of a majority vote in Parliament.   What are you referring to?

Electing the senators by having the provinces conduct the elections is an example of it.  The current plan for the Conservatives is to abolish or reform the senate without the consent of all of the provinces.

[crazy canuck]

Some of the Provincial intervenors were were arguing the Constitutional provisions regarding the Senate could be amended by the 7 provinces with 50% of the pop formula.  No parties suggested it could be amended by way of a majority vote in Parliament.   What are you referring to?

The current plan for the Conservatives is to abolish or reform the senate without the consent of all of the provinces.

No

In fact the current plan of the Conservatives is not to abolish the Senate.  Abolition is a position being taken by some of the Provinces - eg Saskatchewan and the Federal NDP.  Other of the Provinces have taken the position that any change to the Senate would require the consent of all the Provinces, along with the Consent of Parliament and the Senate itself.  The Federal government has taken no position on that point as they are not seeking abolition.

The Federal Goverment is seeking to alter the manner in which the Prime Minister takes advice from the Provinces regarding who to appoint to the Senate and whether term limits may accompany those appointments.

[viper37]

Some of the Provincial intervenors were were arguing the Constitutional provisions regarding the Senate could be amended by the 7 provinces with 50% of the pop formula.  No parties suggested it could be amended by way of a majority vote in Parliament.   What are you referring to?

The current plan for the Conservatives is to abolish or reform the senate without the consent of all of the provinces.

No

In fact the current plan of the Conservatives is not to abolish the Senate.  Abolition is a position being taken by some of the Provinces - eg Saskatchewan and the Federal NDP.  Other of the Provinces have taken the position that any change to the Senate would require the consent of all the Provinces, along with the Consent of Parliament and the Senate itself.  The Federal government has taken no position on that point as they are not seeking abolition.

The Federal Goverment is seeking to alter the manner in which the Prime Minister takes advice from the Provinces regarding who to appoint to the Senate and whether term limits may accompany those appointments.

Evidence #1:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/bernier-calls-for-national-referendum-on-senate-abolition-1.1533249

Evidence #2:

In a reference case to the court, Stephen Harper's government wants wide latitude to act either on its own, or with the fewest possible number of provinces (seven of them representing half of the country's population), depending on the change. Most intervenors – provincial governments and two lawyers hired to advise the court – think changing or abolishing the Senate should be subjected to tougher tests

Here, 50% is enough.

Evidence #3:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/21/despite-stephen-harpers-rhetoric-abolishing-the-senate-is-practically-impossible/

Evidence #4:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/08/15/is-stephen-harper-planning-a-late-arrival-to-the-abolition-party/



In all likelyhood, it is a political ploy: "Let me reform the Senate the way I want to, or be damned with it".  Going from one extreme to the other, no middle ground.  I don't think the Supreme Court can invent a 3rd way, but I'll defer to you on this.

However, political ploy as it may be, saying the conservatives don't want to abolish it is simply ridiculous.  It's not their 1st choice, but they prefer no senate to the one they currently have.  And with good reason.  They represent roughly 1/3 of the Canadian's vote, they can't stay in power forever, they ain't stupid enough not to see that.  They also know the next government is going to do the same as all government have done: jam pack the Senate with their supporters.  That means, the next time they come in power, they might fave a Senate filled to the brim with Liberal & other left leaning  people who would hamper their agenda. 

Luckily for them, in a way, this time around, in 2005, the Senate had been filled with Senators 10-12 years earlier, so many where left to be replaced in the following years, and they waited as long as they could to full it with their own supporters, since a reform was nowhere in sight and they needed a majority.  But they might not get so lucky next time.

[crazy canuck]

Great, more of your twisted media speculation as "evidence".  Why dont you look at the media reports of the positions taken at the SCC

[viper37]

Great, more of your twisted media speculation as "evidence".  Why dont you look at the media reports of the positions taken at the SCC

So, in your world, if a Prime Minister and his ministers say "We want to abolish the Senate", it does not mean "they want to abolish the Senate".

Interesting point of view.  that's got to be some lawyer's trick, like "Die Bart, Die"?

[crazy canuck]

Great, more of your twisted media speculation as "evidence".  Why dont you look at the media reports of the positions taken at the SCC

So, in your world, if a Prime Minister and his ministers say "We want to abolish the Senate", it does not mean "they want to abolish the Senate".

Interesting point of view.  that's got to be some lawyer's trick, like "Die Bart, Die"?

Viper, you dont read your own articles very carefully.

At the Conservative convention in Calgary last week, Jason Kenney, minister of employment, social development and multiculturalism, told CTV's Question Period that a referendum would be a "distraction," and that abolition "would be very difficult to achieve" because of the requirement of all 10 provinces to vote for the constitutional amendment.

As I said it is Saskatchewan that is mainly taking the position before the SCC that the Senate can be abolished using the 7/50% formula.  For what it is worth I think they are wrong and the the Federal Conservatives are correct that it would require all 10 provinces to agree to such an amendment.

[viper37]

Viper, you dont read your own articles very carefully.

Did Maxime Bernier said or not that the Senate should be abolished? Did Harper said or not that the Senate should be abolished if it can't be reformed?  Did any Conservative Ministers say similar things over the past few weeks or not?

[crazy canuck]

Viper, you dont read your own articles very carefully.

Did Maxime Bernier said or not that the Senate should be abolished? Did Harper said or not that the Senate should be abolished if it can't be reformed?  Did any Conservative Ministers say similar things over the past few weeks or not?

Go back and read the article Viper.  It doesnt say what you claimed.

[crazy canuck]

Justice Minister Peter MacKay is fighting back against an emerging judicial revolt, accusing judges of breaking the law by refusing to apply a mandatory financial penalty to convicted criminals.

"Judges cannot ignore the role of the Crown in passing legislation in our democratically elected Parliament of Canada," Mr. MacKay said in an interview. "Therefore, they are there like everybody else to respect the law, not flout it."

He said that when he was a prosecutor in Nova Scotia, judges frequently used their discretion to ignore the financial penalty they were supposed to impose on offenders. "Listen, I stood in front of many judges in my day and without any consideration whatsoever of the victim or truly delving into the circumstances of the then-convicted criminal, judges would routinely waive the victim fine surcharge."

That surcharge is now mandatory, and judges in several provinces have denounced, evaded or just plain ignored it. The Victim Fine Surcharge is a penalty of $100 for each summary offence and $200 for each indictable offence that goes to fund victim services. That surcharge is not levied if a judge orders a fine instead – plus a government-ordered 30 per cent on top – to make the offender pay for victims services.

Judges who opposed the surcharge have made that fine as low as $1, or given offenders decades to pay the surcharge, or in at least one case ruled the surcharge an unconstitutional tax. A Kitchener judge has done newspaper and television interviews and called the surcharge "bizarre," lacking in compassion and running afoul of Parliament's own sentencing law of proportionality.

Mr. MacKay said Parliament views the surcharge as part of a fit and proper sentence. "A $100 or $200 surcharge is out of proportion to the rehabilitation and the respect that needs to occur in a justice system? I just fundamentally disagree with that. I certainly disagree even more strongly with the characterization that this is cruel and unusual punishment. I think that's preposterous."

The Conservative government has built its crime agenda on the notion that it puts victims first. "We believe as a government that giving victims a real role and respect within our justice system includes the Victim Fine Surcharge. Let's not forget what this is about. This is about them accessing services and support in provinces and territories and it's also about ensuring accountability for criminals' actions. These funds are not something that just goes up in smoke. They go directly into funding victims services, which are in many cases under a lot of pressure these days."

Some legal observers say the judges are using the wiggle room they have been able to find in the law, but Mr. MacKay disagreed. "I don't think there is wiggle room. They've been wiggling." He suggested that appeal courts, rather than his government, will keep the judges in line. "There are appeals under way. We believe that judges have to uphold the law and this is the law. The Victim Fine Surcharge is part of the sentence imposed on the offender."

When I read stories like this I dispair.  Conservatives are supposed to know about the Rule of Law.  They are supposed to know about the separation of the Court and the Executive represented by the Minister of Justice in Cabinet.  They are supposed to know about not commenting on cases that are sub-judice (governments sure like to avoid commenting on matters before the court when it suits them).

But instead what we have here is a Minister of Justice who is openly attacking the judiciary on an issue that is on appeal.  I find that to be offensive conduct.  Indeed if I was counsel for the accused in one of those cases pending appeal I might give some thought to having the Government's appeal tossed on the basis of these comments.

I dont think Josephus should be sending me a membership card just yet.  But I do despair.

[Josephus]

Damn...there goes my Christmas pressie to you!

Anyway, not to disagree with you for the sake of it, because, i admit, this topic is beyond my full understanding. But isn't he right when he says that they are flouting the law if they are supposed to fine convincted criminals? Or is it one of those things where it's routinely disregarded to the point of making it moot?

[Barrister]

Damn...there goes my Christmas pressie to you!

Anyway, not to disagree with you for the sake of it, because, i admit, this topic is beyond my full understanding. But isn't he right when he says that they are flouting the law if they are supposed to fine convincted criminals? Or is it one of those things where it's routinely disregarded to the point of making it moot?

From the criminal courts battlefield...

Right now judges are supposed to assess a "victim fine surcharge" on most people convicted of a crime, unless it's a "hardship".  The fine amounts are really modest - $50/$100 was the old rules, now $100/$200.  But, in my experience, judges almost invariable waive them.  It's almost a mild surprise when a judge goes "huh - I guess we should impose the surcharge in this case".

It's a situation where ideally the judge should have discretion.  But collectively, the judges have shown they could not properly exercise that discretion and parliament has taken it away.

It's a matter we as prosecutor's are often aware of.  WE have absolute discretion in a number of matters, but know that if we aren't very careful in how we use it, it will be struck down by some judge somewhere...

[Josephus]

By saying "parliament has taken it away," you mean that they are enforcing it? Or should be?

[crazy canuck]

By saying "parliament has taken it away," you mean that they are enforcing it? Or should be?

The question is the interpretation of the recent amendments to the Criminal Code which was an attempt to take away the discretion.  The first decisions interpreting the new amendments maintained a kind of discretion by giving terms to pay which effectively meant it wasnt really payable.  The question for the appellate courts will be whether the trial judges erred in making those kinds of orders.

That is my real beef with the Minister of Justice.  He should not be commenting on what he thinks the outcome should be before the Appellate Courts rule.  In my view it brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

Parliament passes laws and the Courts interpret them.  If the government believes those laws are being wrongly interpreted then it can appeal - as they have.  That is how our system is supposed to work.

I am not sure why this has got me so vexed as the issue itself is fairly minor.  It just strikes me as wrong for a Minister of Justice to be attacking the judiciary in this manner, or at all.

[Josephus]

well, fwiw, if what you said is correct, then I agree with you. 

[Grey Fox]

Prostitutions for everyone!