Friday's National Post column looks at the prospects for a reform of Alberta human-rights legislation. Readers outside Alberta will recall that Ontario's human rights commission was powerless to punish Maclean's magazine for the demographic jeremiads of Mark Steyn because it didn't have statutory power over expressions of opinion. Alberta's HRC does have that power, thanks to a stealthy 1996 change to the Human Rights, Citizenship, and Multiculturalism Act. But the opportunity exists for Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett to implement a reform while placating red Tories and liberals, and it appears he is interested in taking it. This would give Alberta something we aren't too familiar with for the past decade or so—a rising ministerial star with a genuine, solid individual accomplishment to his name.
Comments (14)
"Despite pressure of this sort, Premier Ed Stelmach has presented a cold shoulder to advocates of [blank]; indeed, he has not given much evidence that he understood the issue."
Now that's a sentence you could get a lot of miles out of.
Posted by Lord Bob | February 20, 2009 8:58 AM
Posted on February 20, 2009 08:58
I actually just have it in a Word macro.
Posted by Colby Cosh | February 20, 2009 9:02 AM
Posted on February 20, 2009 09:02
Er, "stealthy change"? It was changed by an act of the legislature, introduced, debated and passed three times, all in public, like each and every other act. "Stealthy" does not mean "I was picking my nose at the time and missed it".
Posted by ebt | February 20, 2009 11:48 AM
Posted on February 20, 2009 11:48
Right, because it's not like governments sometimes want to make changes to legislation without attracting a lot of attention to them. All bills are created equal when it comes to publicity, obviously.
Posted by Colby Cosh | February 20, 2009 11:56 AM
Posted on February 20, 2009 11:56
"All bills are created equal when it comes to publicity, obviously."
And when the MSM decides which bills to talk about on the evening news/in the daily newspaper, too.
[SARCASM OFF]
Posted by Garth Wood | February 20, 2009 12:17 PM
Posted on February 20, 2009 12:17
Again, "stealthy" does not mean "failed to rub my nose in it sufficiently". Or "did not scream until I gave them a headline". Does a news magazine have any independent duty to look at what the legislature is doing? Or does it exist only to print those headlines that the government wants, and no others?
Posted by ebt | February 20, 2009 3:43 PM
Posted on February 20, 2009 15:43
"Does a news magazine have any independent duty to look at what the legislature is doing?"
It has a duty to its shareholders not to waste their money by asking its reporters to read and interpret proposed legislation...
Posted by Tybalt | February 20, 2009 4:15 PM
Posted on February 20, 2009 16:15
So when you guys mentally picture Paul Wells or somebody working in the press gallery, you imagine that he reads the entire text of every single piece of legislation that's on the order paper, is that the idea?
Posted by Colby Cosh | February 20, 2009 5:44 PM
Posted on February 20, 2009 17:44
Well, Paul Wells specifically I can imagine actually doing that.
Posted by Lord Bob | February 20, 2009 7:05 PM
Posted on February 20, 2009 19:05
Another word macro...
And you newspaper guys wonder why you are losing readers.
macro off.
Is there anyone in Canada actually keeping account of what governments are doing by reading the products of their deliberations?
Derek
Posted by dkite | February 20, 2009 9:54 PM
Posted on February 20, 2009 21:54
I'm sure it will come as a terrible shock, but we have a system whereby the press gallery is assisted by government insiders, special interests, independent experts on individual issues, and curious readers. THIS HAS ALWAYS been how legislatures were covered. Parliamentarians rely on this system too, since it is impossible for one person to keep track of every comma of every bill in a typical session.
Posted by Colby Cosh | February 21, 2009 4:44 AM
Posted on February 21, 2009 04:44
Impossible for one person to keep track of all the legislation in a given session? It isn't even hard. It's just a bit like work, and not likely to be worth doing, so it's neither surprising nor scandalous if you don't bother to do it. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with ignoring the legislature. I'm just saying it's not the government's fault if you do.
And in any event, it looks like we are all in agreement that this was not a "stealthy" but a "routine" change?
Posted by ebt | February 21, 2009 3:03 PM
Posted on February 21, 2009 15:03
Impossible for one person to keep track of all the legislation in a given session? It isn't even hard.
As someone whose livelihood depends on understanding the nuance and detail of legislation, I think this is total bullshit.
It's barely even possible for one person to keep up with every detail of new federal tax legislation alone. In Canada's community of tax professionals there are very few people (there may be only one, David Sherman) who are familiar with every detail of each new proposed law and regulation regarding taxation. This, in an intensively competitive marketplace where we are only able to trade on our knowledge and expertise and rewards for that expertise are very high.
It just doesn't work like that, sorry to burst your bubble.
Posted by Tybalt | February 21, 2009 8:25 PM
Posted on February 21, 2009 20:25
No need to apologise. I know perfectly well how much new legislation the Alberta legislature deals with in a given session, even if you don't. It's easy to keep on top of it. It's just that no one has any reason to. Although I admit I find it surprising that a reporter covering the legislature wouldn't do so as a matter of course. It certainly isn't hard.
Posted by ebt | February 22, 2009 11:56 AM
Posted on February 22, 2009 11:56