Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

QP: A day late to the concerns of the nation

Posted on by

After news that the prime minister was in self-isolation after his wife was sick, and Jagmeet Singh also stated that he was self-isolating after feeling “unwell,” the business of parliament carried on. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he gave his best wishes to the PM — for which he got applause — and then demanded more “decisive action” and claimed that passengers arriving from Italy were not screened, ignoring the pertinent information that everyone was screened before they were allowed to board. Chrystia Freeland addressed all Canadians to trust in the advice of medical experts, that things will get worse for it gets better, and that we are well prepared. Scheer raised potential shortages around equipment like ventilators, to which Freeland stated that the federal government was leading a bulk national procurement effort and they were working together with provinces and territories. Scheer lamented the lack of mandatory screening, quarantines or travel restrictions and demanded the evidence for those decisions. Freeland gave a bromide about our public health system, and assured him that enhanced measures were in place, and that they were following the advice of science. Alain Rayes demanded a plan to prevent large public gatherings, and Freeland repeated her first assurance for all Canadians in French. Rayes then demanded more “concrete measures” for workers who lose their jobs as a result of the outbreak, and Freeland read the changes to EI and promise for new measures as necessary. Christine Normandin led off for the Bloc, and after wishing the PM well, she demanded more resources for border screenings, for which Freeland addressed the PM’s situation, that he wasn’t sick but waiting for his wife’s results. Normandin again demanded “real” screening measures, and Freeland again read that they were following all public health advice. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, and again demanded that every worker who has to self-quarantine gets financial resort, to which Freeland reiterated the $1 billion COVID-19 package and that they were rolling out new measures. Rachel Blaney repeated the question with added condescension, to which Freeland calmly repeated the same response.

https://twitter.com/robert_hiltz/status/1238169023449268224

Continue reading →

Roundup: Party positions and individual agency

Posted on by

The weaponization of private members’ business continues unabated in Parliament, as the Conservatives put out an attack yesterday that claims that the Liberals want to “legalize” hard drugs because maverick backbencher Nathaniel Erskine-Smith tabled a private members’ bill that calls on the decriminalization of small personal amounts in order to better treat addiction as a public health issue and to not criminalize people with addictions – something that has worked in some countries. The lie, of course, is both in claiming that this was official government policy, and that it was calling for legalization – because who cares about truth or facts when there is fear to be mongered?

The bigger problem here? What it does to how private members’ business is treated in the House of Commons, and more to the point, there is a very big potential for this to blow up in Scheer’s face because of Cathay Wagantall’s sex-selective abortion bill currently on the Order Paper. And yes, let’s not be obtuse about this – the media feeds this particular weaponization, both in how they made this kind of abortion bill an Issue during the election, and how we both demand that MPs be both independent and yet castigate the leader for “losing control” when any MP shows any glimmer of independence. (And for the record, Scheer has not said anything about Wagantall’s bill, other than to have his spokesperson say that he “discouraged” such bills).

https://twitter.com/althiaraj/status/1234901634272178182

I know that everyone is going to be cute about these bills, and how if they get tabled the party “must” support the position because everything is so centrally controlled, and so on, but this is part of what poisons the system. Insisting that everyone be marching in lockstep from other parties ensures that the same insistence is made about your own party, and it removes any agency from MPs. They’re MPs, not gods damned battle droids. If we want drones to simply read speeches into the record and vote according the leader’s office, then why do we even bother with MPs? Why bother with parliament at all? The Conservatives’ release is embarrassing, and they should be ashamed of themselves for it (which of course would imply that they’re capable of shame, but I have my doubts about that one too).

Continue reading →

QP: Some clarity on a willingness to meet

Posted on by

After a number of statements about the need to stop bullying in support of Pink Shirt Day, things got underway for proto-PMQ day. Andrew Scheer led off, and he read a bunch of concern trolling about Teck Frontier, pretending that the project was economically viable when it was not. Justin Trudeau calmly responded that Teck pulled their own application and that they pointed to the need for credible environmental plans. Scheer then made up some bullshit about global commodity prices not bring an issue, to which Trudeau stated that you can have a jobs plan without an environmental plan. Scheer scoffed and stated that Trudeau had no plan, and blamed Trudeau for the problems in Western Canada, to which Trudeau responded that the statistics showed that they helped created a million new jobs, and lifted a million people out of poverty. Scheer blustered about how that couldn’t possibly be true, before switching to French to call Trudeau weak over the rail blockades. Trudeau stated that they needed to find a peaceful but sustainable resolution, and that aggressive and simplistic solutions like those the Conservatives proposed would not help. Scheer returned to English to claim that the Wet’suwet’en people really wanted the project and that Extinction Rebellion was listed as a terrorist organization (which is false), to which Trudeau said he was concerned that Scheer described the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs as “radical protesters,” which the Conservatives shouted him down over twice. Yves-François Blanchet wondered if Trudeau would unilaterally implement UNDRIP, to which Trudeau read that he was disappointed that the Conservatives stopped UNDRIP legislation in the last parliament. Blanchet reiterated the desire to immediately move ahead with such legislation, and would get Bloc support, to which Trudeau said they would table such legislation soon, before listing their accomplishments toward reconciliation thus far. Jagmeet a Singh was up next, and he demanded that Trudeau commit to meeting with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, to which Trudeau noted that the NDP was focused on simplistic solutions when it is complex and that the minister is willing to meet him at any point. Singh repeated the demand, and Trudeau stated that there is a diversity of voices in the Wet’suwet’en community, and he didn’t want to influence the community’s internal discussions by only sitting down with one group.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Holding off on enforcement

Posted on by

Indigenous protests continue across the country in support of those protesting the Coastal GasLink pipeline, with not only rail disruptions, but also blockades around legislatures and city halls (Halifax city hall being a target that nearly kept Chrystia Freeland from the building). Thus far, police have not cleared any of them despite warnings that enforcing the various court orders will be imminent, and even some Indigenous leaders are calling on their people to end the blockades. That doesn’t seem to have persuaded any of them just yet. (The Star hears from protesters themselves here).

While Jagmeet Singh is calling on Justin Trudeau to return from his foreign trip early to deal with the situation, and Andrew Scheer hinting that he wants politicians to direct the RCMP to enforce those court orders right away (which is a very bad idea and has led to past flashpoints with Indigenous communities), Trudeau says he and his Cabinet are monitoring the situation but are content to let the provinces continue to handle those issues that are within their jurisdiction – as well he should. I suspect that one of the reasons why the RCMP and OPP are holding off on any enforcement actions just yet are because moving too soon will simply generate more sympathy for the protesters and possibly escalate the situation across the country, whereas waiting another day or two will lose those protesters any sympathy as the inconvenience becomes too much for most Canadians, and that most of the protesters will get bored and go home on their own before too long.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt remarks on the impossible situation that Justin Trudeau has been placed in by this situation, while Chris Selley wonders how we can be considered a grown-up country if we can allow the disruptions to continue without treating it like a serious situation that it is for many people affected by it. As well, here is an explainer from last year about the dispute within the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, and how that affects the duty to consult.

Teck Frontier mine

I wanted to point you to this piece, written by energy economist Andrew Leach and environmental law professor Martin Olszynski, which puts a lot more facts and context on the table regarding the Teck Frontier mine application and what is really being considered by Cabinet. In particular, because market conditions have changed so much since the project was first proposed in 2011, and the (flawed) economic impact analysis along with it, it means that the expected economic benefits are far, far less than what was initially promised (when they assumed oil at $95/barrel; it’s currently hovering around $50/barrel), and that will have to weigh in on the government’s decision. After all, the decision tends to boil down to how much economic benefit is worth the significant adverse environmental impact of the project – and it will be significant. And if the benefits are far below what they were initially sold to be, does that make it worthwhile to approve the project knowing that the benefits won’t necessarily outweigh the impact. It’s certainly worth thinking on – especially as the provincial government is now casting aspersions on the First Nation that is balking after the lack of ongoing engagement, and the rhetoric continues to heat up to outsized proportions.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A sledgehammer solution

Posted on by

Talk about the sexual assault training for judges bill has continued, and the Conservatives have continued to float the idea that it should be expanded to include Parole Board officers. The problem there, of course, is that the bill deals with amendments to the Judges Act, which has bugger all to do with the Parole Board, and this too-cute-by-half tactic of the Conservatives betrays how boneheaded their tactics are.

Meanwhile, Gib van Ert, former Executive Legal Officer to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada (who heads the Canadian Judicial Council), has some thoughts on the bill and why it’s very problematic.

Some scholars have shrugged and say “Big deal if it means they get more training,” but the original legislation was far more insidious in that the reporting requirements were a threat do the administrative independence of the court as well. But I’ve spoken to former judges who say this is unnecessary. Another one responded to van Ert. Part of the problem is that there have been high profile cases where the judge has been very wrong on sexual assault law, and that tends to be overturned at the appellate level – but much of the time, the most infamous cases have been provincial court judges, which this doesn’t deal with.

So why are they doing this? Optics. MPs want to look like they’re doing something about the problems or perceived problems, and they’re taking the sledgehammer approach because it looks effective, even when it may not actually be. But that is so much of politics these days, which we need to start breaking out of.

Continue reading →

QP: Fictional legislation and crass quips

Posted on by

Wednesday, caucus day, and MPs were riled up in the aftermath. Andrew Scheer led off, and he recited some concern about the state of the Trans Mountain pipeline, to which Justin Trudeau expressed his satisfaction with the Federal Court of Appeal and that the previous government couldn’t get it done without boosterism. Scheer then tried to hand-wave about fictional “emergency legislation” around court challenges and worried about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a “new threshold” to prevent development, to which Trudeau called out the whole question as a reflection of how the Conservatives don’t understand how things work. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau called out the misinformation. Scheer switched to French to worry about the supposed “plan” to license media, to which Trudeau picked up a script to read that they would not impose licensing on news. Scheer changed to English and lied about what was in the report, as well as the media “bailout” fund, and Trudeau slowly enunciated that they would not impose licenses on news organisations or regulate news content. Yves-François Blanchet was up next for the Bloc, and he rambled about they English School Board of Montreal getting money to challenge the “secularism” bill, to which Trudeau started that the Court Challenges Programme awards aid to groups in an arm’s length way from government. Blanchet tried to make this an issue of provincial jurisdiction, to which Trudeau repeated that programme was independent of government. Jagmeet Singh was then up for the NDP, and complained about the backlogs for women regaining First Nations status after the law changed to broaden the criteria. Trudeau started that they have spent record amounts to Indigenous communities, and it takes longer because the delivery needs to be done in partnership with those communities. Singh then moved onto the Coast Gas Link pipeline dispute, demanding that the prime minister meet with the hereditary chiefs, to which Trudeau stated that the issue was entirely under provincial jurisdiction, which they respect.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/1225141168683606017

Continue reading →

Roundup: Rushing a resurrected bill

Posted on by

The government made good on their promise yesterday to re-introduce Rona Ambrose’s bill on sexual assault training for judges, and to their credit, they tabled an amended bill that does take into account most of the criticisms of the previous version of the bill that likely would have rendered it unconstitutional because it interfered with judicial independence in pretty much every respect. (See my story here). Not that you’d know it from some of the reporting – the CBC in particular has been absolutely allergic in looking into what the objections to the bill were, and why they made it unworkable and unconstitutional, preferring to blame the Senate as being an “old boys’ club” rather than objecting to an unworkable and unconstitutional bill – you know, like they’re supposed to.

But despite every party supporting the bill, that didn’t stop them from getting cute with it. The Conservatives, for example, suggested in Question Period that the government amend the bill so that it also includes training for Parole Board members – which is out of step for the language in the bill. Because, seriously, the Canadian Judicial Council is not going to provide that training, as the bill stipulates that they do for judges. And then Jagmeet Singh decided he too was going to be cute, after QP, and move that the House vote to pass the bill at all stages in one fell swoop, with no scrutiny. The Conservatives blocked that (possibly to put on a show about their floated notion about Parole Board officers), but seriously, Singh was completely offside in moving the motion in the first place.

The previous version of the bill was fatally flawed, but it passed the House of Commons unanimously because it hadn’t been properly studied. They sent it to the Status of Women committee, which has no expertise in the legal system and how it operates, and they focused on survivor-based training, which actually turns out to be problematic because it could potentially bias the training, particularly when it comes to the presumption of innocence before the law. It wasn’t until the bill reached the Senate that its flaws were actually discussed, but hey, it sounded like a good idea so all MPs passed it without thinking. Let me be clear – that’s a terrible way to pass laws, and it’s MPs abandoning their roles. As a former criminal defence lawyer, you would think that Singh might appreciate the problems inherent in the bill, particularly when it comes to bias and judicial independence – the latter of which I challenged him on in a scrum after QP – and he was completely oblivious to it, mouthing platitudes about sexual assault survivors. That’s not how Parliament is supposed to work. It would be great if our opposition parties could do their jobs, but it increasingly feels like it’s too much to ask. (The same goes for you, CBC).

Continue reading →

QP: Being too cute on parole and Quebec

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau was in town today, he was nevertheless absent from QP, for whatever the reason. Andrew Scheer led off, and he read a question about whether the government would support their Supply Day motion on committee study of the incident of the murder of a sex worker by a prisoner on parole. Bill Blair reminded him that they have ordered an investigation, and they should wait for answers before jumping to erroneous conclusions. Scheer then read a demand for parole board officers to get sexual assault training as the government plans for judges. Blair reminded him that the judges bill is important, but there was an investigation ongoing. Scheer demanded to know if the parole board officers who made that decision were still hearing cases, and Blair circuitously stated that they weren’t while laying out additional facts. Pierre Paul-Hus demanded the training for parole board officers again in French, got the same response from Blair, and Paul-Hus then demanded that the prime minister fire the parole board members, and Blair responded that the motion contains erroneous facts, but that the government would support it anyway. Yves-François Blanchet was up for the Bloc and, thinking he was clever, stated that if the government points to François Legault’s support for the New NAFTA, would they also support his demand for a single tax return form for Quebec, to which Diane Lebouthillier told him no, that was not going to happen. Blanchet then demanded the government respect the Quebec “secularism” bill, and David Lametti reminded him that groups were challenging it in the courts. Jagmeet Singh was up next for the NDP, and demanded the government stop court challenges of compensation for First Nations children, to which Marc Miller started that they would have a compensation model to propose by February 21st. Singh then raised the strikes in Regina before demanding National pharmacare and dental care, for which Patty Hajdu reminded him they were working on it, and that she welcomed his suggestions.

Continue reading →

QP: Trying to make Orwell happen

Posted on by

Monday of the second week back, and for the anniversary of the great Centre Block fire of 1916, the wooden mace was on the table for the day. Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were present, but most of the other leaders were not. Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, and he immediately raised the spectre of the torqued stories of government licensing media. Trudeau took up a script to say that the report stated that news was not to be licensed, that they believed in free media, but they continued to study the report. Scheer tried again, throwing out references to Nineteen Eighty-Four, China’s basic dictatorship, and Fidel Castro. Trudeau repeated the response, trying to be emphatic about it. Scheer then pivoted to the economy, talking down the figures, and Trudeau reminded him that they have made progress on tackling poverty and investing in growth. Scheer tried again, and Trudeau reminded him that they actually cut taxes. Scheer tried to then score points on the supposed $50 Million to MasterCard — really an investment in a cyber-security research centre — and Trudeau read back Scheer’s quotes about the importance of cyber-security from the election. Alain Therrien led off for the Bloc, worrying about the potential approval of Teck Frontier Mine. Trudeau picked up a script to read that they were evaluating the proposal and would come up with a response within a month. Therrien tried again, and Trudeau listed from memory the various measures they are taking to protect the environment. Alexandre Boulerice led off for the NDP, and he worried that the government was not calling out Donald Trump’s Middle East “peace plan” as it disadvantages Palestinians. Trudeau reminded him that the government’s long-standing policy is for a two-state solution negotiated by the parties involved. Brian Masse then railed about the Volkswagen settlement, and Trudeau read that the Public Prosecution Service made all decisions independently.

Continue reading →

QP: Putting the heat on Blair

Posted on by

While Justin Trudeau fled the capital to go sell auto workers the merits of the New NAFTA over in Brampton, Andrew Scheer was elsewhere. Candice Bergen led off with the story of the murder of a sex worker of a person on parole, and demanded a denunciation of the Board’s actions. Bill Blair reminded her that an investigation has been launched into the matter. Bergen asked about MasterCard getting $50 million from the government, to which Mélanie Joly said that the government was investing into a cyber-security centre. Bergen said that MasterCard can afford to pay for their own cyber-security, and bashed the investment again, and Joly responded about the importance of job creation. Luc Berthold was up next to ask about the Auditor General’s budget, to which Jean-Yves Duclos effused about the Middle Class before citing that they would work with the Auditor General. Berthold asked again in French, and Duclos responded with the record on growth and job creation. Yves-François Blanchet was up next to worry about Teck Frontier Mine destroying the Paris Agreement, and Jonathan Wilkinson responded that they were still making their determination on the environmental assessment. Blanchet also worried that said mine would require new pipelines and wondered if they were afraid of saying no to Jason Kenney, to which Wilkinson repeated that they were still considering it. Jagmeet Singh was up for the NDP, to once again demand limiting the tax break in order to fund dental care, and Bill Morneau reminded Singh that their tax cuts have benefited 20 million Canadians. Singh asked again in French, and got much the same response. 

Continue reading →