Supreme Court

Friday September 28, 2018

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday September 28, 2018

8 takeaways from the Brett Kavanaugh-Christine Blasey Ford hearings

The eyes of the country are on a small hearing room on Capitol Hill Thursday, where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused him of sexually assaulting her when they were both teenagers, are testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Trivia from the south

I’m watching right alongside you — and the nation. The testimony so far has been gripping — and the whole hearing, featuring both Ford and Kavanaugh, will be worth watching to get a full picture.

But several moments and themes have already stood out. Below you’ll find a contemporaneous set of takeaways that I think are worth taking note of as I watch the hearings live. Again, these takeaways are in the order of the actual hearing.

1. Ford is credible

2. The manner of questioning is, um, not great

3. Grassley’s tin ear

4. Hatch’s ‘attractive’ gaffe

5. Mitchell’s swings and misses

6. The silence of Senate Republicans

7. Kavanaugh’s angry and emotional opening statement

8. No one is more outraged than Lindsey Graham

(Continued: CNN) 

 

Wednesday June 1, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Wednesday June 1, 2016 Uncertain Senate awaits Medically assisted dying bill When C-14, the Liberal government's legislation to regulate medically assisted death, passed the House at second reading four weeks ago, the vote was 235 in favour, 75 against. That vote though was likely the easiest C-14 will face. At second reading, MPs are only asked to approve a bill in principle. A member with reservations can vote in favour and hope to see the legislation amended when it goes to a House committee for further study. On Monday night, with a slightly amended bill reported back to the House, the margin of approval was more than halved, with C-14 passing by a vote of 192 to 129. A series of amendments moved in the House were defeated immediately beforehand. Just one Liberal and one New Democrat voted nay at second reading, but upon further review, and having seen what amendments the majority was willing to accept, four Liberal MPs voted against, as did all NDP MPs. Still, 19 Conservatives were willing to support the bill, and with those votes on side, C-14 still passed comfortably. That result suggests the bill will pass again at third reading, a vote that is expected to occur as early as Tuesday evening. It is at that point that the C-14's margin for passage becomes somewhat mysterious. After passing the House of Commons, C-14 will be delivered to the Senate, an upper chamber in the midst of an experiment in legislative independence. "The outcome I think is beyond my ability to predict," says Liberal Senate leader James Cowan. It is seemingly unlikely the Senate will finish with the bill by June 6, the Supreme Court's deadline for new legislation, something Health Minister Jane Philpott seemed to concede on Monday. "We are at risk of not meeting the June 6th deadline," she said. "Having said that, it is my hope that we can see this piece of legislation put into effect at the very soon as possible date.Ó

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday June 1, 2016

Uncertain Senate awaits Medically assisted dying bill

When C-14, the Liberal government’s legislation to regulate medically assisted death, passed the House at second reading four weeks ago, the vote was 235 in favour, 75 against.

That vote though was likely the easiest C-14 will face. At second reading, MPs are only asked to approve a bill in principle. A member with reservations can vote in favour and hope to see the legislation amended when it goes to a House committee for further study.

On Monday night, with a slightly amended bill reported back to the House, the margin of approval was more than halved, with C-14 passing by a vote of 192 to 129. A series of amendments moved in the House were defeated immediately beforehand.

Just one Liberal and one New Democrat voted nay at second reading, but upon further review, and having seen what amendments the majority was willing to accept, four Liberal MPs voted against, as did all NDP MPs. Still, 19 Conservatives were willing to support the bill, and with those votes on side, C-14 still passed comfortably.

That result suggests the bill will pass again at third reading, a vote that is expected to occur as early as Tuesday evening.

It is at that point that the C-14’s margin for passage becomes somewhat mysterious. After passing the House of Commons, C-14 will be delivered to the Senate, an upper chamber in the midst of an experiment in legislative independence.

“The outcome I think is beyond my ability to predict,” says Liberal Senate leader James Cowan.

It is seemingly unlikely the Senate will finish with the bill by June 6, the Supreme Court’s deadline for new legislation, something Health Minister Jane Philpott seemed to concede on Monday.

“We are at risk of not meeting the June 6th deadline,” she said. “Having said that, it is my hope that we can see this piece of legislation put into effect at the very soon as possible date.”

The potential impact of any lack of legislation is a matter of some debate, but regardless of when C-14 receives royal assent, it still remains to be seen precisely how, and in what form, it will get there. (Source: CBC News)

 

Saturday April 16, 2016

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator Ð Saturday April 16, 2016 Landmark legal decision for CanadaÕs Metis, butÉ The Metis in Canada are generally considered to be a group descended from a mix of aboriginal prarie First Nation peoples and the Scottish, French, and other Caucasian fur traders of centuries past. In 1867 when Canada was formed and the new federal jurisdictions first laid out in the British North America Act, the Canadian federal government assumed responsibility for ÒIndiansÓ, including a financial responsibility while the Metis were simply not considered. Since then, and with the creation of the ÒIndian ActÓ in 1876 which consolidated many federal regulations concerned with CanadaÕs aboriginal populations, the Metis were again left out as they were still considered Ònon-IndianÓ and as such not federal responsibility. In 1999 prominent Metis leader Harry Daniels first began a legal challenge to have the Metis included as an aboriginal or ÒIndianÓ group in the eyes of the law. TodayÕs unanimous 9-0 rulling by the SCC says that the Metis and off-reserve Indians are included in the 1867 definition of the word ÒIndianÓ and as such are clearly and constitutionally, a federal responsibility. This ruling will affect more than 600,000 Metis and other aboriginals who live Òoff-reserveÓ. Both Chris Andersen (professor and interim Dean of the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Alberta), and professor Larry Chartrand (LLM) of the University of Ottawa agree that the ruling does not automatically mean that the government will be financially responsible for what could amount to billions of dollars in support for Metis. They say what it actually means is that many other legal actions may now be begun between the two parties, (Metis/federal government) to determine such things as rights, benefits, land claims, and even who qualifies as ÒmetisÓ. Professor Andersen notes that other groups of mixed blood, not necessarily the tradi

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday April 16, 2016

Landmark legal decision for Canada’s Metis, but…

The Metis in Canada are generally considered to be a group descended from a mix of aboriginal prarie First Nation peoples and the Scottish, French, and other Caucasian fur traders of centuries past.

In 1867 when Canada was formed and the new federal jurisdictions first laid out in the British North America Act, the Canadian federal government assumed responsibility for “Indians”, including a financial responsibility while the Metis were simply not considered.

Since then, and with the creation of the “Indian Act” in 1876 which consolidated many federal regulations concerned with Canada’s aboriginal populations, the Metis were again left out as they were still considered “non-Indian” and as such not federal responsibility.

In 1999 prominent Metis leader Harry Daniels first began a legal challenge to have the Metis included as an aboriginal or “Indian” group in the eyes of the law.

Today’s unanimous 9-0 rulling by the SCC says that the Metis and off-reserve Indians are included in the 1867 definition of the word “Indian” and as such are clearly and constitutionally, a federal responsibility.

This ruling will affect more than 600,000 Metis and other aboriginals who live “off-reserve”.

Both Chris Andersen (professor and interim Dean of the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Alberta), and professor Larry Chartrand (LLM) of the University of Ottawa agree that the ruling does not automatically mean that the government will be financially responsible for what could amount to billions of dollars in support for Metis.

They say what it actually means is that many other legal actions may now be begun between the two parties, (Metis/federal government) to determine such things as rights, benefits, land claims, and even who qualifies as “metis”. Professor Andersen notes that other groups of mixed blood, not necessarily the traditional and politically active Metis of the western prairies are also included in the SCC decision

What it also means however is that it now sets our a clearer first step for what likely will be the beginning of a long process of further legal actions, both individually and collectively for Metis and non-status “Indians” (First Nations) in this country. (Source: Radio Canada)

 

Wednesday October 21, 2015

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator - Wednesday October 21, 2015 Justin Trudeau's turn to face the weight of expectations Stephen Harper is a goner, and humiliated, too, to the near-erotic ecstasy of Canada's chattering classes, who loathed him with such intensity it's hard to think of a comparison in modern politics. Well, maybe Dick Cheney, George W. Bush's Darth Vader. Suddenly, in Justin Trudeau we have a prime minister-designate who's banging on about hope and trust and inclusiveness and believing in yourself and being better and listening to everyone and diversity and all sorts of other happy thoughts. He even threw in tolerance for hijabs. Last week, Harper tried to say this wasn't about him, but it was. All those Conservative candidates he muzzled and controlled are probably wishing they'd grown some spine and stood up to those PMO staffers who've been ordering them around for years. The smile that spread across the lips of the Canadian elites during the last week of this election, when Harper was reduced to posing with Rob Ford and his brother in an attempt to shore up what amounts to the Canadian Tea Party vote, was almost wolfish. It won't be hard for Trudeau to keep his most prominent promise Ñ to run a deficit for a few years. Spending more than you earn is always easy. He may already be inheriting a deficit. But he's taking power at a time of tremendous transformation. A housing correction may be coming. Younger generations are struggling with debt. At the same time, entire cohorts of baby boomers are retiring. Try to trim their entitlements, which will almost certainly be necessary, and see what happens. Or try to force some competition into the Canadian banking sector. Or the almost closed-shop telecommunications sector. Or try to cut red tape at the border, and encourage true free trade with the Americans. Trudeau will need revenue to fulfill his agenda, but even Liberals won't be keen on restoring the taxes Ste

By Graeme MacKay, Editorial Cartoonist, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday October 21, 2015

Justin Trudeau’s turn to face the weight of expectations

Stephen Harper is a goner, and humiliated, too, to the near-erotic ecstasy of Canada’s chattering classes, who loathed him with such intensity it’s hard to think of a comparison in modern politics.

Well, maybe Dick Cheney, George W. Bush’s Darth Vader.

Suddenly, in Justin Trudeau we have a prime minister-designate who’s banging on about hope and trust and inclusiveness and believing in yourself and being better and listening to everyone and diversity and all sorts of other happy thoughts. He even threw in tolerance for hijabs.

2011-2015

2011-2015

Last week, Harper tried to say this wasn’t about him, but it was. All those Conservative candidates he muzzled and controlled are probably wishing they’d grown some spine and stood up to those PMO staffers who’ve been ordering them around for years.

The smile that spread across the lips of the Canadian elites during the last week of this election, when Harper was reduced to posing with Rob Ford and his brother in an attempt to shore up what amounts to the Canadian Tea Party vote, was almost wolfish.

It won’t be hard for Trudeau to keep his most prominent promise — to run a deficit for a few years. Spending more than you earn is always easy. He may already be inheriting a deficit.

But he’s taking power at a time of tremendous transformation. A housing correction may be coming. Younger generations are struggling with debt.

At the same time, entire cohorts of baby boomers are retiring. Try to trim their entitlements, which will almost certainly be necessary, and see what happens.

Or try to force some competition into the Canadian banking sector. Or the almost closed-shop telecommunications sector. Or try to cut red tape at the border, and encourage true free trade with the Americans.

Trudeau will need revenue to fulfill his agenda, but even Liberals won’t be keen on restoring the taxes Stephen Harper cut. They may not even really want a larger federal government.

JustinTrudeau-GalleryOur new prime minister might say he’s going to sit down and negotiate with Canada’s premiers “with deep respect,” but wait until he gets a load of what’s involved with that. His father knew.

What Trudeau can do, of course, is change the tone. That costs nothing, and a lot of Canadians want it to happen.

He can make Canada’s positions abroad more nuanced, less absolutist and replace Canada’s swagger at the UN with some actual diplomacy.

He can walk back the talk about how terrorists threaten us daily in our very homes, and perhaps speak honestly about the effectiveness of our combat mission in Iraq and Syria.

He may end up joining the rest of the Western world in supporting the nuclear deal with Iran, and perhaps even recognize that there are two sides to the question of Israel and the Palestinians.

But sweeping reversals of Stephen Harper’s legacy? It’s been almost a decade, and Harper changed the status quo. Even Trudeau himself seems to understand that. (Continued: CBC News)

 

Friday February 6, 2015

February 6, 2015

By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – February 6, 2015

Supreme Court strikes down assisted suicide ban

In a stunning reversal of its ruling 21 years ago, Canada’s highest court has struck down the law against assisted suicide and ordered Parliament to give desperately suffering patients greater control over how they die.
In a 9-0 ruling Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada declared the Criminal Code’s absolute ban goes too far in its attempt to protect the lives of “vulnerable people” by preventing competent, consenting adults suffering “grievous and irremediable medical conditions” from making core decisions about how they live and die.
The judges said the law is therefore an unconstitutional breach of three of the most basic rights: to life, liberty and security of the person, all enshrined in section 7 of the Charter, and cannot be justified in a free democratic society.
The court read those basic rights broadly and, agreeing with a B.C. trial judge, said the right to life is not limited to a “right not to die.”
“This would create a duty to live,” rather than a “right to life and would call into question the legality of any consent to the withdrawal or refusal of life-saving or life-sustaining treatment,” the court said.
It said that an individual’s response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition “is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy” and the absolute ban on seeking a doctor’s help to die removes their ability “to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care and thus trenches on liberty.” It said that by leaving patients to “endure intolerable suffering, it impinges on their security of the person.”
Because the law did not set out a scheme that would minimally impair those rights, it cannot stand, the court ruled. (Source: Toronto Star)