Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Why? To overrule a law for mandatory minimums? This doesn't give criminals any freedom, or shorter sentences, or anything like that. It just gives the decision back to judges, who still have other sentencing guidelines to follow. Essentially by supporting it you are saying you have no faith in our justice system to handle criminals on a case by case basis and that the law is so wrong it must be forced. The justice system must be broken, right? Is our country broken and needs Pierre to save it by overriding charter rights? I guess he must know better than the Supreme Court. Why not approach it from a different angle? To me this does not at all call for the notwithstanding clause, because the alternative isn't just letting child predators do whatever they want.

The Justice Minister wants to introduce a bill to restore mandatory minimums and it should be tabled before the end of the year.

The federal justice minister says an upcoming bill will propose changes to restore mandatory minimum sentences for the possession and access of child pornography recently struck down by Canada’s top court.

In an interview, Justice Minister Sean Fraser said he supported mandatory minimum penalties for “heinous” crimes, namely those against children.

But he said many such laws were drafted broadly and unintentionally capture situations where they may be too harsh, leaving them vulnerable to constitutional challenges.

“There is a gap that exists today that I believe the government of Canada and Parliament needs to fill by adopting a legislative solution that would ensure that those serious cases of abuse are met with serious penalties, but does provide some opportunity for those circumstances which were not likely contemplated at the time the mandatory minimums were drafted,” he told National Post Friday.

To that end, he said he would table a bill by the end of the year that proposes legislation to restore or ensure the constitutionality of many such penalties that have repeatedly been struck down by courts. That includes those for the possession and access of child sex abuse and exploitation material.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...imum-sentences

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

That is how it’s supposed to work. SCC strikes down a law as unconstitutional and explains why it is so, parliament fixes the law so it’s constitutional. No need for the notwithstanding clause.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The Justice Minister wants to introduce a bill to restore mandatory minimums and it should be tabled before the end of the year.

The current Justice Minister that was the former Housing Minister that drove that portfolio into the ground? The former Housing Minister that was also the former Immigration Minister who also drove that into the ground?

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by chemgear

The current Justice Minister that was the former Housing Minister that drove that portfolio into the ground? The former Housing Minister that was also the former Immigration Minister who also drove that into the ground?

Is that the game we are playing now? So we can talk about how PP was the housing minister that built zero houses.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Wolven

Is that the game we are playing now? So we can talk about how PP was the housing minister that built zero houses.

Since when is it the federal government’s job to build houses?

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Since when is it the federal government’s job to build houses?

Didn't the deplorable promise 50,000 houses? lol

[Doctorfever]

15 years ago? When he was housing Minister?