PDA

View Full Version : Meeting with my MP



cathaldj
01-20-2015, 01:19 PM
I'm meeting with my MP this evening over C42 (part of the consultation process).

I wanted to bring up the compatibility of the note 12 in the new bill that limits the CFO's power to restrict issuance of ATT's to the requirements of the Act, to the existing sentences 68 and 69 in the Act which allow the CFO's to deny the issuance of the ATT's and licences for "any good and sufficient reason".

If I understand this correctly, this is the clause that would allow the CFO to make the judgement call on eligibility that renders all of the bill's changes moot and contradicts the wording of note 12, as well as allowing them to ignore court orders. My idea is to remove that "good and sufficient reason" and put in something down the lines of "if the applicant does not meet the requirements of this Act".

Any other ideas of what to bring up in the meeting? ...Other than scrapping the Act, which I've beaten to death in other conversations with the guy.

blacksmithden
01-20-2015, 02:13 PM
Perhaps something along the lines of requiring a court order in order to refuse ? Something that a judge decides, not the cops ?

Weekend Gunslingers
01-20-2015, 02:18 PM
Perhaps the idea of a "shall issue" clause?

Edenchef
01-20-2015, 02:18 PM
Perhaps something along the lines of requiring a court order in order to refuse ? Something that a judge decides, not the cops ?
Wow! You expect due process of law? Give your head a shake, man. We are in the police state of Kanukistan, not Canada.

Cheers!

blacksmithden
01-20-2015, 03:31 PM
Wow! You expect due process of law? Give your head a shake, man. We are in the police state of Kanukistan, not Canada.

Cheers!

Youre right. Im sorry. I really should stop posting when Im high on diesel fumes. :p

Rory McCanuck
01-20-2015, 03:32 PM
^^Agreed. I somehow doubt a judge is going to be any more permissive than the popo.

cathaldj
01-20-2015, 04:40 PM
Perhaps the idea of a "shall issue" clause?

That's what I was getting at without actually saying "shall issue", due to it being such a hot button issue in the public's mind. The idea would be to frame the thing as trying to maintain continuity with the new bill, by limiting the CFO's discretionary powers we could achieve nearly the same result.

killer kane
01-21-2015, 12:15 PM
That's what I was getting at without actually saying "shall issue", due to it being such a hot button issue in the public's mind. The idea would be to frame the thing as trying to maintain continuity with the new bill, by limiting the CFO's discretionary powers we could achieve nearly the same result.

Give it a go, you never know what'll come of it. But if we don't keep trying, as well as bringing up common sense arguments for our position, then we're going to lose.

cathaldj
01-21-2015, 01:38 PM
End result of last nights meeting is that my MP is gonna submit my comments to Blainey as we both agree that 68 and 69 could overrule anything that C-42 intends to do, especially when it comes to limiting the power of the CFO. ATC's are off their radar, but if we could restrict the CFO's discretion it might achieve the same result.