DOCSLIB.ORG

(Cpha) Question Period Monitoring Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Cpha) Question Period Monitoring Report June 4 – June 10, 2016 Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) Question Period Monitoring Report Contents Federal ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Physician-Assisted Dying ..................................................................................................................... 1 Ontario ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 Electronic cigarettes ............................................................................................................................ 7 Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act, 2016 ....................................................................................... 7 Northwest Territories ............................................................................................................................... 33 Ministers Statement on Medical Assistance in Dying ....................................................................... 33 FEDERAL Physician-Assisted Dying June 6, 2016: Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Senate Liberal leader James Cowan has now joined the growing number of Canadians saying that Bill C-14 is likely unconstitutional. Cowan said that this government legislation is so flawed that Canadians would be better off with no legislation at all. This bill does not respect the Supreme Court's decision, and it will be tied up in courts for years. Instead of ramming through Bill C-14, will the government listen to James Cowan and work on getting the bill right the first time? Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of the reforms that the Liberal Party made to the Senate over the past years removing partisanship and patronage from that place, there is no better example than the NDP highlighting the great work that the Senate is doing weighing in on an important piece of legislation. I thank the hon. member for her comments about the excellent work done by the independent voices in the Senate, and I look forward to hearing what the Senate has to say about Bill C-14 when it returns to us. Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government had the chance to do things differently with Bill C-14, but it decided to ignore experts, not to work with the opposition, and to limit debate. Warnings were coming in from all over. Quebec's health and social services minister called Bill C- 14 unenforceable. He thinks that the notion of reasonably foreseeable death is medically unfeasible and he refuses to include it in Quebec's law. Will the government finally realize that Bill C-14 must be amended? 1 Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as part of the debates on Bill C-14, we listened to many politicians from all the different parties share their views. However, we did more than that. We listened to doctors and Canadians. We consulted the public at large, across the country, to ensure that this important and transformative measure regarding medical assistance in dying would be properly designed to uphold Canadians' rights and freedoms while protecting the most vulnerable. That is the balance we have struck, and we are proud of it. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is not just Quebec that is protesting. Peter Hogg, Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, today testified that Bill C-14 fails to respect the Carter decision and will undoubtedly be struck down as soon as it gets to court. He said that the government cannot turn around and exclude a group of people that the Supreme Court clearly ruled have these charter rights. It is never too late for the government to do the right thing. Will the Liberals finally respect the charter and announce that they are willing to fix the bill? Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that this is a big step in the history of our country, and making sure that we do that in a responsible and thoughtful way, that both upholds Canadians' rights and freedoms while defending the most vulnerable, is exactly what we have done with this piece of legislation. On top of that, we made sure that we heard from Canadians and experts and we allowed and encouraged a free vote in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, it is disappointing that the NDP did not allow themselves a free vote on this issue. Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' stubborn refusal to listen to experts and work with the opposition will mean suffering Canadians spending years in court defending rights that they have already won. Kay Carter's family is also disillusioned with the current government. They said today that they felt betrayed. Today they called out the Prime Minister for his refusal to listen to Canadians. If the Liberals really disagree with the Alberta Court of Appeal, the Ontario court, and Canada's foremost constitutional scholar, will they at least now table the government's legal opinion on the bill, so that Canadians can judge for themselves? Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect of this government is to make sure that we are both defending the rights and freedoms of Canadians while protecting the most vulnerable, and that is exactly the balance that we have struck with Bill C-14. Throughout we have been open to amendments, including accepting amendments from opposition members. We look forward to hearing the deliberations that the Senate is carrying forward on this same piece of legislation. We are ensuring that this big step that Canada is taking, despite people who think it goes too far and others who think it does not go far enough, is done the right way. Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the medical assistance in dying bill is historic. The government should have done the right thing. That is exactly what it did not do. Knowing the timeline was tight, it nevertheless waited until April to introduce its bill. It refused to listen to the experts. 2 Today, Peter Hogg, one of Canada's most respected constitutional experts, once again said that Bill C-14 would not pass the test in terms of the charter or the Carter decision. When will the Liberals change course and do the right thing? Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have sought to ensure that we hear from a diversity of voices in this country with respect to this incredibly difficult and complex issue. To paraphrase the Supreme Court of Canada, the court does not have a monopoly on the protection and promotion of rights, and Parliament has to do its job to be an ally to the vulnerable. We have sought to find a balance between the diversity of views and perspectives in this country, balancing personal autonomy and protecting the vulnerable. Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is about the law, but it is, above all, about people. The Carter family fought for years alongside their mother to make it possible for people to die with dignity in Canada. Today, they are saying that they feel betrayed by the Liberal government. The government says that it listens to Canadians, but it listens only to those who agree with it. Now that the government has failed to get its bill passed by June 6, will it come up with a bill that is charter-compliant and in line with the Carter decision? Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly mindful of the deadline of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is incumbent upon parliamentarians to put in place a national framework around our medical assistance in dying to ensure that there are the appropriate and necessary safeguards in place, to ensure certainty for medical practitioners, and to ensure that there is access for patients who want to access medical assistance in dying. This is an incredibly complex discussion. We have certainly listened to the voices of Canadians, and it is the voices of Canadians who have contributed toward Bill C-14. June 7, 2016: Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, one of the most respected constitutional experts in the country stated that the bill on medical assistance in dying is unconstitutional. He added his voice to those of the Barreau du Québec, the Alberta Court of Appeal, and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. A lot of people are saying the same thing. Why does the Prime Minister want to force people who are suffering to take their cases to court? Why does he persist when he knows he is wrong? Right Hon. Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect the government to defend the rights and freedoms of Canadians but also to protect the most vulnerable. Medical assistance in dying represents an important step in the evolution of our society, and it is important that it be done right. For that reason we tried to find the right balance and to introduce conditions and a responsible bill that will defend the interests and the choices of Canadians while protecting the most vulnerable. That is what we did. Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister raised a red herring there. Actually, it is entirely possible to protect vulnerable people and guarantee Canadians' rights.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mr. Speaker, It's My Pleasure to Introduce to You and Through You to Other Members of the Assembly Ms Title: Thursday, March 22, 1990 2:30 P.M
    March 22, 1990 Alberta Hansard 213 Legislative Assembly of Alberta MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to other members of the Assembly Ms Title: Thursday, March 22, 1990 2:30 p.m. Molly Anderson, who is a teacher from the state of Florida who is here on a Fulbright exchange. Ms Anderson tells us she is Date: 90/03/22 very impressed with the education system in Alberta. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] head: Oral Question Period [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] Meech Lake Accord head: Prayers MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. Yesterday we learned that the Premier and his western counterparts have MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. agreed to set up a task force that will try to develop a common front among western provinces to deal with the constitutional Lord, forgive our excessive busyness as we seek to do our crisis. I'd say to the Premier that we welcome this initiative business. because we've watched with growing alarm the constitutional Grant us an awareness of these moments of life that we might crisis developing and the thought that our country could break take on a renewed sense of commitment as we seek to serve all up from lack of unity. At the same time, we are concerned that Albertans. the formation of this common front does not lead to a hardening Amen. of positions and that the committee will explore all avenues that head: Notices of Motions might lead to a solution to this current constitutional crisis.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Darren Praznik 125
    INTERVIEW WITH DARREN PRAZNIK 125 Interview with Darren Praznik 160 A good parliamentary system is about checks and balances. Ultimately, the majority will rule, as it should. But the minority members of the House have huge ability to make the government go through a lot of processes before they ultimately rule. - Darren Praznik Any minister who is not prepared to accept reasonable suggestions or improvements from the opposition or the public does so at their own peril. You look stubborn, you look like you're on an ego trip as opposed to being a good minister, and I think you're always better to be flexible in the process. .1 always respected those groups who 2003 CanLIIDocs 77 came to me and said `we're opposed to your public policy decision, but if you're going to do it, these things make it better'. I mean, why would you just want to make it hard for people for no reason? - Darren Praznik I. INTRODUCTION s a young lawyer, Darren Praznik was first elected to the Manitoba ALegislature in 1988. Under Premier Gary Filmon, Darren served as Minister responsible for a wide variety of portfolios, including Labour, Energy and Mines, Northern and Native Affairs, Health, and Highways and Transportation. Darren continued to serve as a member of the Official Opposition from 1999 until February of 2002. He has since served as Executive Director of Government Relations for Canadian Blood Services. Over eleven years in government, Darren was witness to a number of notable legislative crises, including the failure of the Meech Lake Accord in 1990 and the Manitoba Telephone System privatization debate in 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID's Collateral Contagion
    June 2020 COVID’s Collateral Contagion: Why Faking Parliament is No Way to Govern in a Crisis Christian Leuprecht The COVID-19 epidemic is the greatest test for the maintenance of Canada’s democratic constitutional order in at least 50 years, certainly since the October crisis of 1970. It is also a bellwether for the way the Canadian state manages risk. Risks that stem from globalization have a common denominator: by definition, no state can manage them alone. However, citizens still expect their state to act. Confronted with dire predictions of immi- nent Armageddon, politicians invoke largely performative measures to signal to citizens that they are acting – to manage a risk that is largely beyond their control. Managing risk has become to individual citizens the essence of the modern welfare state: unemployment insur- ance, health care insurance, mortgage insurance, etc. Such is the essence of “risk society”: the expectations by citizens that the state will manage risks, many of which the state cannot control, such as a global pandemic. Paradoxically, the less control and certainty the state has over a risk that is perceived as existential, the more heavy-handed is its approach. Precisely because of the threatening environment in which it exists and because it is shut out of many international organizations, Taiwan was well prepared for the pandemic and its reaction was measured. By contrast, much of the rest of the democratic world was ill-prepared, which explains the heavy-handed measures taken by many of these countries, including Canada. The author of this document has worked independently and is solely responsible for the views presented here.
    [Show full text]
  • Test Your Knowledge of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario! Discover What a Typical Day Is Like at Ontario's Parliament
    Test your knowledge of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario! Discover what a typical day is like at Ontario's Parliament. Fill in the blanks using words from the word bank below. 8:55 a.m. It is 8:55 a.m. and everyone is rushing around in the Legislative Building to get ready for the meeting of the , also called the House, which is about to begin promptly at 9:00 a.m. The sessional bells are ringing throughout the Legislative Building to summon all the Members of Provincial Parliament, or , to the Legislative Chamber. The young Legislative look dapper in their traditional as they scurry about getting the ready for the business day. They take their posts on either side of the Speaker and by the Chamber doors. The Pages serve in the House for approximately two to four weeks during each session. They are grade students from across Ontario, who are here to learn about the legislative process and how works. When in the Chamber, they bring glasses of water and deliver . 9:00 a.m. Each meeting begins with the entry of the Speaker into the Chamber. The is approaching the entrance to the Legislative Assembly. The Sergeant-at-Arms, carrying the mace on her right shoulder, leads the Speaker, the of the House, the Clerks-at-the-Table and two Legislative Pages into the . " !" says the Senior Attendant as the enters the Chamber. Everyone is standing as the takes his place on the dais. The Clerk and the take their places at the big table in front of the Speaker, and he Pages proceed to their assigned posts.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Priorities and Public Opinion: Representation of Partisan Agendas in the Canadian House of Commons* Erin Penner
    Legislative Priorities and Public Opinion: Representation of Partisan Agendas in the Canadian House of Commons* Erin Penner, Kelly Blidook and Stuart Soroka McGill University 5390 Words, + 2 tables, 3 figures Prepared for submission to the Journal of European Public Policy Abstract: Oral questions are a central feature of the Canadian parliamentary system, and a valuable indication of legislators’ issue attentiveness. Here, we consider parties’ behavior in Question Period, with a particular interest in Opposition parties’ representation of the public’s (and publics’) issue priorities. We do so using a content analytic database of oral questions covering three Parliaments from 1988-1999. We begin with some descriptive analyses of the distribution of oral questions across issues and parties, and then explore what drives parties’ attention to issues. Combining the oral questions database with public opinion data, we examine the relationship between the issue priorities of both parties and partisans. In doing so, we examine two different foci of representation: a generalized national constituency, and each party’s partisan constituency. * This research was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC). The authors are grateful to the Canadian Opinion Research Archive (CORA) at Queen’s University and the Library of Parliament for providing some of the necessary data. Previous versions of this paper were presented at Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, London, Ontario, June 2-4 2005, and at “New Directions in Comparative Public Policy: Policies and Institutions,” a conference held at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, July 1-2 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Calls of the Wild: Resignation Requests in the Canadian House of Commons 1957-2008∗
    Calls of the Wild: Resignation Requests in the Canadian House of Commons 1957-2008∗ Matthew Kerby [email protected] Department of Political Science Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Abstract This research focuses on a particular class of parliamentary question: the call for a minister’s resignation. First, attention is paid to providing an initial look at where calls for resignation are situated in time and space. The second objective of this research is to examine the real effect of a call for resignation. Do ministers actually resign when they are called to? The answer is “yes, ministers do resign when called to . sometimes.” However, a closer examination is required to establish the true cause and effect in this relationship. Data drawn from an original dataset which records every call for resignation in the Canadian House of Commons for the period 1957-2008 is used to provide a clearer picture of the nature and relevance of parliamentary questions not only in Canada but in other Westminster parliamentary democracies as well. If the essence of Parliament is Government accountability, then surely the essence of account- ability is the Question Period in the Canadian House of Commons (1985, p.51). Hon. James Jerome Speaker of the House of Commons, 1974-1980 1 Introduction Considerable attention has been directed to the subject of parliamentary questions in Western democracies. Parliamentary questions are visible, they are recorded, they are often linked to contentious political events and actors. Parliamentary questions lend themselves for analysis by single case or large n quantitative studies; they can be treated as dependent or independent variables.
    [Show full text]
  • Monday, September 28, 1998
    CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 127 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, September 28, 1998 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 8431 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, September 28, 1998 The House met at 11 a.m. how taxpayers feel on certain issues, for example, the credibility of political leaders in negotiating these types of deals. _______________ Even though it is taxpayer money that is used to find out what the taxpayers feel about particular situations, they are not being Prayers told. They are not being given the information. We have some _______________ serious problems with that. This is very reminiscent of what happened with Brian Mulroney in 1992 when the Tories refused to release the taxpayer-funded PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS polls on Charlottetown. It begs the question of why this taxpayer money is being spent. Why are these polls being held back? Why D (1100 ) are we not being apprised of the situation? [English] It boils down to a few reasons. One of the things the government likes to say is that somehow this will taint federal-provincial CALGARY DECLARATION relations. That was decided in court by Judge Rothstein. I will get into the quotes in a minute. In that case there was a determination Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.) moved: that the government did not have a legitimate case to deprive the That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause public of these documents.
    [Show full text]
  • RULINGS of the SPEAKER of the SENATE 39Th Parliament 2006-2008
    RULINGS OF THE SPEAKER OF THE SENATE 39th Parliament 2006-2008 April 2016 Prepared by the Chamber Operations and Procedure Office Introduction Ever since Confederation, the Speaker of the Senate has been appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Constitution does not, however, assign specific responsibilities to the incumbent. These are found in the Rules of the Senate, and they have evolved over time. Originally, the Speaker of the Senate was not given any broad power to enforce the Rules, emphasizing the equality of senators and the fact that the institution is largely self-governing. This evolved over time, with the Senate granting the Speaker broader powers. However, most of these powers have remained subject to appeal to the Senate. As of the Rules revisions of 2012, the Speaker’s primary roles are to preside over proceedings, to rule on certain procedural matters (points of order, the prima facie merits of questions of privilege and requests for emergency debates), and to preserve order and decorum during the sitting. Because of the Senate’s appointed nature and members’ long terms of service, there are times when the government – which is based on the party that has the confidence of the House of Commons – does not have a majority – or even a plurality – of seats in the Senate. These transitional periods can be especially challenging for the Speaker, who has to assist the Senate in functioning smoothly and fulfilling its major role as a complementary legislative chamber of sober second thought. The rulings of the Honourable Noël A.
    [Show full text]
  • Leung Sanney Sec. Nc 1996.Pdf (5.876Mb)
    EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION IN SASKATCHEWAN AND THE GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT 1986-87-88 A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in the Department of Political Studies University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By Sanney Leung Fall 1996 (c) Copyright Sanney Leung, 1996. All rights reserved. PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for the copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other use of material in this thesis in whole or part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of Political Studies University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK S7N OWO i ABSTRACT In the 1986-87-88 session of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly, the government of Grant Devine introduced Bill 5 an Act respecting the Organization of the Executive Government of Saskatchewan.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming Prorogation
    While the House of Commons could un- doubtedly amend its Standing Orders on mat- Reforming ters like the structure of Question Period, elec- tronic voting, or limiting the use of omnibus bills, the House of Commons alone does not Prorogation: possess the authority to regulate the exercise of the prime minister’s authority over prorogation. The Commons doesn’t have Regulating Prorogation the authority to regulate Prorogation ends a session of Parliament and thereby clears all business from the Order the exercise of the prime Paper as if it never existed (apart, since 2003, from Private Members’ Bills) and terminates minister’s authority over all committee business. The period between sessions of Parliament, the duration of the pro- prorogation — writes rogation, is called the intersession. The execu- tive authority over prorogation ultimately flows from the Constitution Act, 1867; section 9 vests James W. J. Bowden the general “executive authority in and over Canada” in the Queen, and section 38 vests in the Governor General the authority to sum- he federal Liberal Party pledged in their mon, and therefore by necessity, to prorogue, Telection platform from 2015 that they Parliament. The Prime Minister alone advises would never use prorogation for purely politi- the Governor General to prorogue a session of cal purposes or tactical considerations if they Parliament, either through an instrument of formed government. Instead, they would use advice or by telephone. The prorogation is pro- prorogation in a perfunctory way and end a ses- mulgated into force either by a set of two proc- sion once Parliament had passed their legisla- lamations published in the Canada Gazette or tive commitments that flowed from the Speech by the Governor General’s speech in the Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Economy and Constitutional Reform Hearings
    POLITICAL ECONOMY AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM HEARINGS BEFORE THE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE CONGRESS OF TUE UNITED STATES NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION PART 1 NOVEMBER 9, 17, 18, AND DECEMBER 16, 1982 Printed for the use of the Joint Economic Committee U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 14-523 0 WASHINGTON: 1983 JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE [Created pursuant to sec. 5(a) of Public Law 304, 79th Cong.] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SENATE HENRY S. REUSS, Wisconsin, Chairman ROGER W. JEPSEN, Iowa, Vice Chairman RICHARD BOLLING, Missouri WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana JAMES ABDNOR, South Dakota GILLIS W. LONG, Louisiana STEVEN D. SYMMS, Idaho PARREN J. MITCHELL, Maryland PAULA HAWKINS, Florida AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California MACK MATTINGLY, Georgia CLARENCE J. BROWN, Ohio LLOYD BENTSEN, Texas MARGARET M. HECKLER, Massachusetts WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts CHALMERS P. WYLIE, Ohio PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland JAMEs K. GALBRAIrH, Executive Director BRUCE R. BARTmrr, Deputy Director (H) FOREWORD By Hon. Henry S. Reuss, Chairman The Joint Economic Committee's hearings on Political Economy and Constitutional Reform, along with the papers and other mate- rial published in the Appendix, contain the observations and recommendations of some of the most thoughtful critics of the American political system today. During three days of hearings in November 1982, the Committee brought together more than a dozen academics, journalists, and former government officials and lawmakers to discuss how we could improve the performance of our political system, and the performance of our economy, by making changes in the structure of our government and, if necessary, in our Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Problem with the Administrative State
    Mancini Final (Do Not Delete) 9/28/20209/28/2020 3:12 PM THE POLITICAL PROBLEM WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE * MARK P. MANCINI ABSTRACT. This paper argues that, in the administrative state, political controls (such as appointments and reappointments) are a desirable and necessary tool to subject administrative actors to accountability. The paper exhorts human rights advocates to accept some element of these controls (and the risk of abuse of these controls) in the administrative state, while focusing attention on problematic uses of delegated power: particularly, those uses of delegated power that undermine the overall statutory scheme. KEYWORDS: administrative law, political control, delegation, administrative tribunals, independence, accountability. * National Director, Runnymede Society. J.D., University of New Brunswick, LL.M., University of Chicago. 55 Mancini Final (Do Not Delete) 9/28/2020 3:12 PM 56 JOURNAL OF COMMONWEALTH LAW [Vol. 2 I. INTRODUCTION There is a tension1 in administrative law between the principles of political control2 and independence.3 On one hand, political control (power over appointments, reappointments, and other forms of control over tribunals and decision-makers) comes from the desire to subject all power, including delegated power, to the scrutiny of Parliament and therefore the people.4 1 Lorne Sossin, ‘The Uneasy Relationship between Independence and Appointments in Canadian Administrative Law’ in Grant Huscroft and Michael Taggart, eds, Inside and Outside Canadian Administrative Law: Essays in Honour of David Mullan (Toronto University Press 2006) 50. 2 See Law Reform Commission of Canada, Political Control of Independent Administrative Agencies Study Paper (1979). 3 For the purposes of this paper, I distinguish, like the Supreme Court does, between “impartiality” and “independence”.
    [Show full text]