Ah, thanks. Even though Rocco's name was listed first in the style of cause, the case was indexed differently. And I was looking for a brand new decision, not for one from a week or two ago.
It's a good that the judge went to such great lengths to address the substantive issues raised by the application. Often judges will do that, saying basically: I rule thus on issue A, so issue B is moot; however if I am wrong about issue A, here is what I think re: issue B. That way if it goes to appeal, the higher court can rule on both issues.
The most important procedural hurdle in this case is convincing the court that the GG's decision is justiciable, and that the GG is a proper respondent. I find Justice Rennie's reasons unconvincing. One example is his quoting the Federal Courts Act for the proposition that MPs cannot be respondents:
(2) For greater certainty, the expression “federal board, commission or other tribunal”, as defined in subsection (1), does not include the Senate, the House of Commons, any committee or member of either House, the Senate Ethics Officer or the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to the exercise of the jurisdiction or powers referred to in sections 41.1 to 41.5 and 86 of the Parliament of Canada Act.
There, he is probably right. But why does he conveniently fail to address this provision when discussing whether the GG is a proper respondent? The Federal Courts Act does exclude a large portion of Legislature, but notably absent in that exhaustive list is the GG himself. The argument that the GG is part of the Legislative branch does appear to have some merit, but the fact is that his role is not stricly - or at all - legislative.
The judge also seems to justify his position with cases and acts of Parliament that took place before 1867. For the ones that are more recent, and subject to "the Constitution", he simply presumes that just because Parliament passed certain statutes during the Dark Ages of Canadian history (which IMHO extend well into the 1940s) they were constitutional just because no one bothered to challenge them in court back then.
I have applied for Canadian citizenship, but there was always a part of me that has been uneasy with the whole thing. Swearing allegiance to a person bothers me immensely, but more than that, I've always felt that, conceptually, being a Canadian is closer to being a subject than a citizen, as the term is understood in the US. This ruling, as well as the attitude that permeates many of this particular judge's decisions, only reinforces those feelings.
and get motivated by our voices.