Guelph Mercury

Time for the public to weigh in on proroguing

The political community exploded with interest Monday when Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty unexpectedly announced he is resigning.

In an email sent to Liberal supporters, McGuinty reiterated his request to the party president to hold a leadership conference at the earliest possible time, at which point he will resign. Additionally, he prorogued the legislature, using the rationale of allowing discussions on public-sector wage freezes to “occur in an atmosphere that is free of the heightened rancour of politics in the legislature.”

Some have speculated that, in reality, the prorogation was due to other factors, including the contempt motion brought against Energy Minister Chris Bentley for allegedly delaying the release of documents related to the cancellation of two gas-fired power plants. McGuinty had acknowledged the seriousness of the contempt motion, noting that Bentley is at risk of being the first cabinet minister to be found in contempt of the Ontario legislature.

Continue reading

Standard
Guelph Mercury

Conservatives should have whipped cabinet on abortion vote

Kitchener Centre Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth’s private member’s Motion 312, which was defeated last Wednesday in the House of Commons, enraged many.

It proposed striking a special ad hoc Commons committee to review Criminal Code section 223 (1), which states: “A child becomes a human being … when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.” The motion proposed to review this, taking into account new medical and legal evidence.

According to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, private members’ motions mean “the government is not bound to adopt a specific policy or course of action as a result of the adoption of such a resolution since the House is only stating an opinion or making a declaration of purpose.”

Party discipline, for better or worse, constrains MPs from voting their conscience on important government bills and matters of confidence. This motion was not a government bill. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the party whip, and most of the Conservative cabinet opposed the motion.

Continue reading

Standard
Guelph Mercury

Should Canada be at ease with its judicial activism?

The Canadian Constitution, the supreme law of the land, allows judges to invalidate laws that are unconstitutional.

Constitutionality rulings can be thorny, as they often involve significant value judgements that pit constitutional rights against the objectives of legislatures. For example, earlier this summer a British Columbia judge gave permission for a terminally ill woman to commit suicide with the assistance of a physician. The case is currently on appeal to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

Assisted suicide is a criminal offence and physicians are deterred from providing it by current law. Justice Lynn Smith, in her ruling on the constitutionality of the prohibition on physician-assisted suicide, noted Canadians travel to Switzerland for assisted suicide at high cost and possible risk of criminal prosecution for relatives.

Continue reading

Standard
Guelph Mercury

Supreme Court ruling on wiretapping could have gone further

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released a landmark ruling in Regina-versus-Tse that strikes down the constitutionality of a section of the Criminal Code that allows police to intercept private communications in exceptional circumstances.

The court — ruling on a 2006 British Columbia drug-related kidnapping case — was unanimous in its decision, and the reasons were authored by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s two recent appointees. This case is interesting, since one of these appointees, Justice Michael Moldaver, sided with the Crown more often than his peers while sitting on the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The contested part of the Criminal Code allows police to intercept private communications without prior authorization by a judge if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that the interception is required immediately to “prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm.”

Continue reading

Standard