VERY worthwhile reading (see excerpt)- The hot mess of the Nadon appointment
"A short while after Ms. Boivin had quizzed Mr. MacKay, Liberal MP Sean Casey took his turn, first (seemingly with some sass) pressing the Justice Minister on why the amendments were included in the budget bill and then on this matter of simultaneous legislation and reference.
Mr. Casey: In your opening remarks, Mr. Minister, you referenced a future government, and in response to Madame Boivin’s ...first question you referenced a future process. I take it from that, that the goal of these amendments is to have an impact on future appointments.
Mr. MacKay: Absolutely. Yes.
Mr. Casey: If that is the case, then, would you be amenable, Mr. Minister, to a delay in the implementation of these provisions, a delay in the coming into force of these provisions so that, in effect, we are not asking the Supreme Court a question and then effectively legislating the answer? My question for you is whether you would be amenable to delaying the impact of these provisions to allow the Supreme Court to speak unimpeded.
Mr. MacKay: Not at all. Absolutely not. Our intention is to clarify what we believe is the case and what we believe the Supreme Court will affirm.
Mr. Casey: So as I understand what you just said to me, you are not in favour of delaying the implementation until the Supreme Court has spoken. You want to have Parliament amend the legislation to say that this is the state of the law, and then ask the Supreme Court what the state of the law is. Do I have that right?
Mr. MacKay: Well, Mr. Casey, you’ve been here a little while now, and you recognize that there is something called the supremacy of Parliament when it comes to the passing of laws. So yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. We are telling the Supreme Court this is what the legislation means. We’re putting in place a declaratory provision to bring about a greater understanding of the eligibility rules, and at the same time we have sought an opinion from the Supreme Court. That’s how it works, sir.
Mr. Casey: So we’re going to ask them and tell them at the same time.
Mr. MacKay: You got it.
Mr. Casey: Brilliant."
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-hot-mess-of-the-nadon-appointment/
"A short while after Ms. Boivin had quizzed Mr. MacKay, Liberal MP Sean Casey took his turn, first (seemingly with some sass) pressing the Justice Minister on why the amendments were included in the budget bill and then on this matter of simultaneous legislation and reference.
Mr. Casey: In your opening remarks, Mr. Minister, you referenced a future government, and in response to Madame Boivin’s ...first question you referenced a future process. I take it from that, that the goal of these amendments is to have an impact on future appointments.
Mr. MacKay: Absolutely. Yes.
Mr. Casey: If that is the case, then, would you be amenable, Mr. Minister, to a delay in the implementation of these provisions, a delay in the coming into force of these provisions so that, in effect, we are not asking the Supreme Court a question and then effectively legislating the answer? My question for you is whether you would be amenable to delaying the impact of these provisions to allow the Supreme Court to speak unimpeded.
Mr. MacKay: Not at all. Absolutely not. Our intention is to clarify what we believe is the case and what we believe the Supreme Court will affirm.
Mr. Casey: So as I understand what you just said to me, you are not in favour of delaying the implementation until the Supreme Court has spoken. You want to have Parliament amend the legislation to say that this is the state of the law, and then ask the Supreme Court what the state of the law is. Do I have that right?
Mr. MacKay: Well, Mr. Casey, you’ve been here a little while now, and you recognize that there is something called the supremacy of Parliament when it comes to the passing of laws. So yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. We are telling the Supreme Court this is what the legislation means. We’re putting in place a declaratory provision to bring about a greater understanding of the eligibility rules, and at the same time we have sought an opinion from the Supreme Court. That’s how it works, sir.
Mr. Casey: So we’re going to ask them and tell them at the same time.
Mr. MacKay: You got it.
Mr. Casey: Brilliant."
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-hot-mess-of-the-nadon-appointment/
No comments:
Post a Comment