Will their fellow Minister Jim Flaherty follow Hogg’s advice on FATCA too? While we are at it why not submit the text of the US model 1 FATCA IGA for a Supreme Court of Canada reference?
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2013/doc_32973.html
The Honourable Peter MacKay, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Central Nova, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, announced today the steps the Government has taken to clarify certain eligibility criteria of Supreme Court Justices.
A Reference will be launched by the Attorney General of Canada, in the Supreme Court of Canada, relating to appointments to the highest court. Declaratory provisions have also been introduced to the Supreme Court Act.
“Our Government will defend the eligibility of longstanding members of the bar in all provinces and territories to sit on the highest court in Canada,” said Minister MacKay. “Longstanding members of the Quebec bar should be, and are under the law, treated the same as lawyers in other provinces and territories in Canada.”
According to the legal opinion of former Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie, whose professional recommendation was sought before the appointment of Justice Nadon, someone who has been an advocate of the Quebec bar for at least ten years at any time during their career is qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. This view was also supported by both former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, the Honourable Louise Charron, and noted constitutional expert PETER HOGG.
If Peter’s Hogg’s advice is the best to follow for this then it certainly stands to reason it’s the best advice regarding FATCA as well!
I’m cautiously optimistic.
Ah, but then, the government isn’t following some of the advice I would hope Hogg would give regarding Mike Duffy. According to Duffy’s statement in the Senate yesterday, Harper told Duffy in February he had to pay back the $90,000, that it wasn’t about Duffy’s guilt or innocence regarding the rules, it was about the perception Harper’s precious “base” might have. As I believe Brazeau pointed out yesterday in the Senate, under Harper the Senate is where the rule of law and the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven in court (another guarantee under our Charter) goes to die. This government has no respect for democracy, no respect for Parliament, and no respect for our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, unless these things happen to conform to what Harper thinks his “base” (roughly 30% of the electorate, max) wants.
I have no optimism about anything coming from our current federal government, sorry. At least not as long as Stephen Harper is in the helm.
The only hope for protection of Section 15 rights under an IGA, if one is signed, is going to result from Jim Flaherty’s conscience, his ability to withstand bullying from Harper, and/or some perception that violation of Section 15 rights would upset Harper’s “base.” Or ultimately a Supreme Court of Canada decision or a defeat for the Tories in the next federal election (and replacement by a government willing to revoke any IGA signed by the previous government). Nothing else IMO.
My remote dream is the Conservative convention next week in Calgary calls for a leadership review, but I think the probability of that happening is vanishingly close to zero. I don’t think the current membership of the Conservative party have retained enough conscience, respect or understanding of Westminster Parliamentary democracy or rule of law, nor have the guts nor integrity, to go down that road. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.
I’m not a fan of Duffy, Walin, or Brazeau nor of what they and other Senators have been doing with expense claims, but you don’t threaten (never mind carry out a threat) to suspend Senators or MPs for “gross negligence” unless and until that charge has been proven in court, before a judge, with the opportunity for the accused and his/her lawyers to cross-examine witnesses and evidence before a judgment is rendered. As is supposedly guaranteed both in the Charter and in the Senate’s own rules regarding grounds for suspension or expulsion from that body, at least as I understand them. That isn’t happening, so far, in the Senate, and this sends some extremely disturbing signals to Canadians about what kind of government we now have and what they think about anyone’s Charter rights under any Section of the Charter. At least it does to this Canadian.
For all the concerns about the Obama administration’s respect for the US Constitution, I don’t see that we in Canada have any even remote reason to feel complacent or smug that things are any better here re our equivalent to a constitution.
@Schubert1975
Do you think that Harper’s base would support him flouting the law?