It’s not often that I’ll go out of my way to comment on poor reporting (as opposed to columns), but in this particular case, I’m going to make an exception. The story is the fact that Rona Ambrose’s bill on mandatory sexual assault training for judges has been stalled in the Senate. Ambrose appeared on Power & Politics to express her shock and dismay, but there was very little research done in terms of the concerns that have been raised with the bill to date, and the fact that its passage through the House of Commons was problematic in and of itself (most especially the fact that it was referred to the Status of Women committee instead of the Justice Committee in order to ensure swift passage, with a committee that was sympathetic and didn’t have the expertise on the matter). The written story on the CBC website was simply a recap of Ambrose’s interview with no comment from anyone else, or recounting any of the concerns or pushback from the debates on the bill.

So I decided to take twenty minutes and skim over the Second Reading debates in the Senate on the bill, and lo, there are some pretty important concerns being raised. Senator Jaffer, who is a lawyer who has done judicial training, pointed to the fact that the bill mandating written rulings in all sexual assault cases not only takes away from the fact that there are procedures for clear oral rulings that can be appealed, but that it will cause other delays. The training also disadvantages rural lawyers, and can tip the hand of a lawyer in a firm that they are applying to be a judge.

Senator Joyal, a formidable constitutional lawyer who had a career fighting for minority rights (and who helped write the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) expressed some serious concerns about the powers given to a federal commissioner to determine what qualifies for training. He raised the very real point that the bill stipulates that training must be done by sexual assault survivors and organisations that support them, which automatically biases the training and the presumption of innocence (and others have raised the point that these trainers are often called as expert witnesses, which creates further biases). Joyal also noted the constitutional implications of the bill given that judicial independence includes the ability to maintain control over their education.

Senator Pratte, while not a lawyer, raised the salient logistical issue that for every 500 judicial applicants, maybe 50 make it through, meaning that if everyone needs training before they can be appointed, it delays assessment of applicants and has the potential to create problems with the quality if the training. He also raised the notion that if sexual assault survivors are needed for this training, how long will it be before other victims’ groups demand to be heard for other judicial training?

Senator Fraser, whose objections were briefly noted in the CBC piece, also made points about the inappropriateness of the bill mandating that reports on the number of judges who have taken the training be tabled in Parliament because judges report to Chief Justices in their regions, not to the minister. As well, because the majority of these cases are actually heard in provincial courts, this could qualify as interference in provincial jurisdiction.

The story also went onto state that Senator Joyal, who chairs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee, wouldn’t give a date for when the bill will be studied, but it didn’t mention that government bills always take precedence at committee, and as you can see from the committee’s schedule, they have a pretty full slate for the coming weeks, possibly months.

Frankly, I’m more than a little dismayed at the lazy reporting on this bill. While it may look like a slam-dunk issue on the surface, there’s a lot beneath the surface that’s not being reported on, which is actually fairly irresponsible. Would that political reporters at the CBC take twenty minutes to do some actual research on their stories than simply transcribe an interview.

Good reads:

• Justin Trudeau will meet with other party leaders today to discuss the rights of Francophones – which also boxes in Andrew Scheer over his support for Doug Ford.
• In the wake of the Oshawa announcement, here are some analyses of the situation – that it’s not just about Trump tariffs, and that this is a decade in the making for GM.
• The New NAFTA is due to be signed on Friday, but they still don’t have the final legal wording, and the Americans keep trying to make changes that weren’t agreed to.
• At an event in Calgary, Bill Morneau pledged more vocal support for the oil sector.
• A study from the Parliamentary Budget Officer shows that lowering corporate tax rates to match those of small businesses would cost the treasury $11 billion/year.
• Apparently, the digital subscription tax credit is worth about two months of online news access.
• Reports show that CBSA acted on three percent of potential threats at the border…but we have no actual context for what that means.
• Canada Post says they’re posting big losses in part because of a pay equity ruling against them earlier in the year (but Xmas is their profitable season).
• In the last budget year, some 3000 veterans out of 36,000 waited for up to a year to get their disability benefits because of backlogs in the system.
• Here are some more revelations from the defence filings in the Mark Norman case.
• The big Parliamentary “joint committee” questioning of Facebook happened at Westminster this week, which included Canadian MPs.
• A group of senators wants the federal government to step in and perform a proper environmental assessment regarding a Nova Scotia pulp mill’s effluent.
• The RCMP and FINTRAC have been monitoring Raj Grewal’s spending for months, with “millions of dollars” spent at casinos. (His resignation still isn’t official).
• The Post has a lengthy glimpse into Maxime Bernier’s attempt to organise his political party at the grassroots level.
• At Queen’s Park, MPP Amanda Simard says she’s sticking with the party while trying to change their minds on the French-language service cuts.
• Gib Van Ert posts an interesting look at the problems inherent in the drafting of Romeo Saganash’s bill on implementing UNDRIP in Canadian law.
• Kevin Carmichael wonders if the Oshawa announcement is a sign that we brought this on ourselves by fighting for yesterday’s jobs at the expense of the future.
• Susan Delacourt notes Jerry Dias’ Trump-like rhetoric, and notes the changes to a green economy may yet challenge the Liberals electorally.
• John Ivison takes well-deserved exception to the $9.5 billion allocated in the fiscal update to “unannounced measures.” Come on, guys. You’re better than this.
• My column looks at how government aid for the auto sector and the oil patch is fundamentally different and can’t easily be compared.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.