Liberal MP Anthony Rota is the latest participant in a tradition.
In a country that prides itself in its gender-equal cabinet, the question of whether or not Parliament Hill is a safe space for women is rarely discussed. From hateful and misogynistic comments to sexual assault, women in Canadian politics continue to be targets of violence at various stages of their careers.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has instilled confidence that this unifying approach to fighting hate will prevail. Learning the lessons of the M-103 experience provides an opportunity for Canadians from all walks of life to come together, transcend our differences and achieve the objectives we collectively espouse.
These town halls were unpredictable and, at times, the exchanges were intense. We shared frank conversations and emotional moments. But everywhere I went, I heard directly from you.
When Rebel Media sent out emails claiming that "Canada is on the verge of passing a law that would prohibit criticizing Islam" and that "If this motion passes, Canadians can be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Islam, even when warranted," I pointed out that M-103 is a motion, not a law, and that it will not change a single comma of existing speech legislation. Apparently, Prime Minister Trudeau disagrees.
Federal politicians of all stripes have been locked behind closed doors the last couple of days, preparing for what could be one of the most difficult sessions of Parliament in some time. Perhaps the biggest difficulty, however, comes from south of the border, where Donald Trump has now assumed the presidency of the United States.
The Cruelty-Free Cosmetics Act passed its second reading on December 14th, 2016 with strong Senate support. If the act becomes law, it seeks to ban cosmetic animal testing in Canada and the sale of cosmetic products and ingredients that have been newly tested on animals outside of the country.
However you interpret it, the Muslim-Canadian community is denied an opportunity for empathy and recognition. In effect, much of the value of such motions stems from the public's awareness of them. Without any exposure, such motions pass largely without effect.
Trudeau, by only appointing independent and non-partisan Senators, has blurred the line between government and opposition. Even the Government Representative in the Senate does not identify with the governing party.
Nobody likes to pay taxes. However, the pill is easier to swallow when everyone pays their fair share. It's increasingly clear that in Canada -- and in most industrialized countries -- many are not. We have a two-tier system where the wealthy and the corporations can escape their obligations, and the rest of us can't.
Canadian Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan's inaugural speech at the Shangri-la Dialogue this past weekend -- the Indo-Pacific's premier gathering of defence ministers and officials -- marked a promising beginning to a new security partnership with the region.
Bill C-14 reflects a reasonable, balanced approach to the criminal law dimensions of medical assistance in dying, where Parliament's jurisdiction primarily lies. Medical assistance in dying is different from all other forms of medical care in that, in the absence of an exemption, it is otherwise criminal conduct of the most serious nature. Bill C-14 also includes a critical set of safeguards that are designed to give Canadians confidence that life will only be ended where that is the genuine and firm wish of the person.
This was one of the first times when I fully disagreed with our prime minister's initial actions, but the quick and stormy actions of the Conservatives and NDP turned a reasonable concern into a farce. It's the overly polite, overly politically correct narrative that turns Canada into one giant joke for the rest of the world. This time, I was laughing with them.
The government was (perhaps understandably) reluctant to legislate either a) in support of medical assistance in dying "on demand" for anyone with an intolerable medical condition or b) in a manner that directly contravenes the relatively permissive parameters laid out by the Supreme Court.
While law makers deliberate over how to develop the best regulatory regime in light of the Supreme Court's direction, it's important to remember that every one of us is implicated in -- and responsible for -- the shared human endeavour that is governance through law.
After 83 days in power for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the House of Commons has resumed sitting. Ottawa will be back in full swing with hundreds of new staffers settling into their new roles. As ministers return to the question period briefed up, staffed up and, ideally, rested up from the holiday, we will see a more comfortable team working to deliver on the government priorities set out in their platform and Speech from the Throne: growing the economy for the middle class, providing Canadians with open and transparent government and fighting climate change.
When the Supreme Court of Canada strikes down legislation on the human body, it presents a challenge to government to respond. In each case, legislators responded ineffectively or did nothing. But, like it or not, the February deadline for legislation on physician-assisted dying is looming.
My name is Faisal Kutty. I am a lawyer, law professor, public speaker and writer. I write in response to testimony to your distinguished Committee on February 23, 2015 by a fear monger well-versed in McCarthyism, Mr. Marc Lebuis.In my opinion, Mr. Lebuis and Pointe de Bascule hold anti-Muslim, anti-Islam views. Often unable to identify real threats, they insulting law-abiding Canadians through innuendo and mischaracterization of tenuous or even non-existent links and associations.
Given the parliamentary majority that the Harper government currently enjoys, official effective opposition to its typically extreme legislative proposal lies squarely in the hands of the Supreme Court. Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau's respective decisions to stand aside the bill as it makes its way in the House of Commons, preferring instead to pitch oversight-related amendments as part of their prospective federal electoral platforms, reinforces this reality.
You're wrong about Canada. NBC, Global TV, CNN, ABC, on the news and on the screens. We've been through a lot since October 22, collectively, as a country. But how can you stand and say that we've lost our innocence, how can you print it like a litany, false sympathy for our tears?