Tag Archives: Tough on Crime

Roundup: Combing the document dump

Posted on by

The mass of WE-related documents were the subject of yesterday’s news fodder, and the fact that they largely corroborated the government’s assertion that the civil servants were the ones who suggested WE Charity be the vehicle to deliver the Canada Student Service Grant programme. They did, however, make a couple of notes that raised eyebrows – one was another communication between Bardish Chagger and the Kielbergers (though she has responded to dispel those concerns, saying it was a general comment she had made as the CSSG was not on her radar at the time), and the other were communications between Bill Morneau’s office and the finance department officials where Morneau’s office were described as “besties” with WE – which doesn’t necessarily prove that this was some orchestrated campaign to benefit WE. There were also documents wherein Jean-Yves Duclos was clearly not comfortable with WE being the only delivery vehicle for the programme because they don’t have sufficient depth in Quebec, though he was being assured otherwise.

To these revelations, and the fact that some of the pages had redactions on them (which is standard for both Cabinet confidences and instances where privacy is involved), the Conservatives and Pierre Poilievre in particular put on a melodramatic press conference full of air quotes and flung pages, and the howling accusation that there was a cover-up in the works. Because we all know that when you don’t find the answers you want, there must be a conspiracy at play. It’s not unexpected, and I’m not sure he won over any converts among the Canadian public, but hey, this is all theatre for him, like so many things in Canadian politics.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A curious case for declaratory legislation

Posted on by

A curious story showed up on the CBC website yesterday, wherein justice minister David Lametti stated that if it looked like pandemic delays were going to cause criminal trials to essentially “age out” of the court system as a result of the Jordan decision – meaning that once they reach a certain point, they are deemed to be stayed because they took too long and have become unconstitutional – that he would introduce legislation to “clarify” how the Supreme Court’s Jordan decision was to be clarified. It’s curious because it seems to be a bit of a made-up issue – the Jordan decision already stated that the 30-month timeline allowed for exceptional circumstances, and we can all agree that a global pandemic is by definition an exceptional circumstance. This isn’t to say that declaratory legislation isn’t a valid exercise, because it can be – but it just seems wholly unnecessary in this case, when there are other ways that the government could be better dealing with the criminal justice system and juries than worrying about the Jordan timelines.

In any event, here is defence lawyer Michael Spratt with some thoughts on the story:

Continue reading →

Roundup: Referenda as a subversion of parliamentary democracy

Posted on by

Over in Alberta, a new bill has been tabled that amends the province’s enabling legislation to run referenda, and upon reading what’s in the bill, the NDP critic immediately sounded the alarm on what’s in the bill – that it gives the premier sole power to determine whether or not these referenda are binding, the timing, and the wording of the referendum question, and more to the point, it allows for third parties to spend as much as $500,000 in advertising – and they won’t be audited if they spend under $350,000. (Remember that in the province, during a general election, third parties can only spend $150,000 on advertising). And when said critic labelled the bill as “undemocratic,” she has been ridiculed by the premier, justice minister, and any number of halfwits over social media who insist that there is nothing more democratic than a referendum.

They’re wrong. Referenda are actually deeply undemocratic.

Why? Because anytime there is more than two simple alternatives being put to the public – and alternatives are never simple or binary – then there isn’t actually a clear question being put forward, or a clear choice involved. And at the end of the process, the government then gets to interpret those unclear results as they see fit, which is actually a means by which the premier (or equivalent – this is the case with any referendum) simply uses those results to strengthen their own control. They use the façade of putting the decision to the people to tighten their own grip on power, and democracy as a whole suffers, especially because it reduces the role and function of Parliament (or provincial legislature in this case). I would recommend that people read The Will of the People: A Modern Myth by Andrew Weale, which, while predicated on the Brexit referendum, lays out why these exercises diminish Parliament. It’s important that people understand what exactly Kenney is doing by bringing this forward.

More to the point, the reason why Kenney is bringing this bill forward is advancing the agenda of his “Fair Deal Panel,” which aims to hold referenda on things like equalization (which can’t actually do anything), opting out of the Canada Pension Plan in favour of a provincial model (which should raise alarm bells considering how the province’s existing pension plan has made a series of bad decisions), or any other number of the Panel’s recommendations for opting out of federal institutions in favour of more costly provincial ones out of spite, or as a make-work project. It’s deeply cynical, and as we’ve established, actually undemocratic wearing the guise of populist democracy, and Kenney is going to do untold damage to the province with these tools at his disposal, but people won’t care because they’ve been fooled by his rhetoric. It’s all deeply concerning, but unless the province’s opposition can up their game and actually make cogent arguments to the public, then Kenney will continue to steamroll over them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Demands from the Parliamentary Black Caucus

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau was sporting a new haircut for his daily presser – a relief no doubt (some of us are counting the days until our appointment), but he was also a bit hoarse as well. He started off announcing that the government had extended the CERB eligibility for another eight weeks, which was no surprise given that this of all governments was not going to leave Canadians out in the cold if they still couldn’t get back to jobs (assuming they have jobs to go back to) – but that hasn’t stopped Jagmeet Singh and the NDP from loudly claiming victory. Trudeau then spoke about looking to international best practices going forward to see if CERB is working in the best way possible, so there will no doubt be more tinkering of the programme doing forward (and there was an attempt at added flexibility being put into the programme in the bill that failed to move forward last week – we’ll see if they also rush it through during the proper sitting later today). Finally, Trudeau said that they had agreed with the American government to keep the border closed to non-essential traffic until July 21st, which again should be no surprise to anyone paying attention.

During the Q&A, there was talk about how Trudeau was “looking at” removing mandatory minimum sentences (and the way in which Jody Wilson-Raybould framed her question on this on Monday about “red meat issues” seems to indicate she received some pushback from Cabinet on this in spite of it being part of the party’s gods damned election platform), and that he was following up on the deaths of two Mexican migrant workers, however much of it was taken up with talks of the list of action items forwarded to him from the Parliamentary Black Caucus, that was co-signed by a number of allies amongst the Liberals, NDP, and Greens (the Conservatives claim they weren’t invited and that this is a partisan game; Greg Fergus says Scheer wasn’t invited because he wouldn’t acknowledge the existence of systemic racism when pressed in a televised interview), and notably, half of the Cabinet signed on as allies, meaning they are essentially complaining to themselves about a lack of action. Trudeau said he was working with stakeholders, including the Black community, in trying to move forward on these issues.

Meanwhile, in the Senate, a number of initiatives are being put forward on the topic of systemic racism, including a move to haul several ministers before the full chamber in a Committee of the Whole to hear directly on what the government is doing to combat it, as well as a planned inquiry into the subject – presuming, of course, that the Senate can manage to get itself sorted on how to sit in the current situation (which is the subject of a current privilege motion).

Continue reading →

Roundup: Singh walks back his demands

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau’s daily presser was fairly scattershot – plenty of announcements therein, but most of them fairly small. There was news that the changes to the Canada Emergency Business Account eligibility were coming on Friday, and that the new food surplus rescue programme was now open for applications. Trudeau spoke of a new global AI partnership, which would house a centre of excellence in Montreal, and that Mary Ng was participating in a meeting about World Trade Organization reform. Trudeau mentioned our troops headed back to Ukraine, before citing that he had agreed to a UN request for airlift support to transport medical supplies and humanitarian assistance. And finally, he raised the fact that it was World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, and spoke about its importance.

During the Q&A is where some of the interesting developments for the day happened, because a number of reporters asked if he was going to extend the Canada Emergency Response Benefit for a few more months, and Trudeau kept responding that the programme was about ensuring people could stay home so that we could flatten the curve of infections, and that they would have Canadians’ backs, and that they would have more to say later in the week – not guaranteeing the same programme would carry on longer. Why this was important was because Jagmeet Singh made a big song and dance that his support for the Supply Bill coming up this week – a confidence vote – would be contingent upon the CERB being extended for four more months. And by end of day, Singh was on the political shows, walking back his unequivocal statements, instead insisting that he didn’t want to be prescriptive (when that’s exactly what he was), so it sounds like the Liberals have been hinting at him a little more strongly about what they will have as a transition post-CERB. We’ll see on Wednesday, but it will likely be enough that Singh can pat himself on the back and claim victory like he did on Trudeau’s promise to talk to the provinces about paid sick leave (which they still haven’t agreed to, by the way).

The bulk of the rest of questions for Trudeau were on the two RCMP shootings in New Brunswick last week and the issue of systemic racism and what he was going to do right away about it. Trudeau responded that they were busy looking over previous reports to see what could be done immediately, and that there was more to come in the near future. This was as Progressive Senator Lilian Eva Dyck made a public call for RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki to resign or be fired given that she was unable to comprehend the problem of systemic racism in her own organization, and that it was a sign that they needed different leadership at this time of trying to address said systemic racism. Trudeau says he still has confidence in Lucki, but Dyck has certainly pushed the conversation further.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Acknowledging anti-Black racism

Posted on by

It was not really surprising that right off the top of his daily presser, prime minister Justin Trudeau addressed the situation of the anti-Black racism protests across the country, saying that Canadians can’t pretend that it doesn’t exist in Canada, and that that he hears Black Canadians, that he’s listening to them, and says that the government knows they need to do better. From there, he announced that the federal government had accelerated the $2.2 billion allocation to municipalities via the federal gas tax fund, but this is an advance of existing funds which are earmarked for infrastructure. When pressed, Trudeau said they are willing to do more, but they can’t go ahead and do it because municipalities are the creature of the provinces, and they need provincial coordination for that to happen, again placing the onus on them. (Speaking of premiers doing things in their jurisdiction, BC banned commercial landlords from evicting tenants if they forgo the federal rent subsidy, so that’s something).

During the Q&A, Trudeau reiterated several times that when it comes to race-based data collection on the pandemic, the federal government has been working with the provinces on a data collection strategy to provide disaggregated data, and ensure that they’re all measuring the same things so that they can provide a more accurate picture of what’s happening in the country. But again, that relies on the provinces doing their part. Federalism! *jazz hands* When asked about the plans for the G7 being pushed back, but also Trump’s suggestion that Russia participate, Trudeau reminded everyone that Russia was kicked out of the G8 – returning it to the G7 – because of their illegal invasion of Crimea, and the UK later stated that they too agreed with that position.

In keeping with the messages about racism, here is Liberal MP Greg Fergus, and former Nova Scotia lieutenant governor Maryann Francis

Continue reading →

Roundup: The House un-suspends

Posted on by

The House of Commons is to resume ordinary sittings today, with the suspension motion having expired, but how long this state of affairs lasts remains an open question as the parties are negotiating new motions on what comes next for the next few weeks and possibly months, as we adapt to these pandemic times. The Conservatives want a resumption of regular sittings with a maximum of 50 MPs present, along with some kind of mechanism for electronic voting and for all committees to have their full powers restored – as they are especially keen on getting powers to summons back. The Liberals, however, are proposing that they extend the special COVID-19 committee to four days a week until June 17th, when they would rise for the summer, but come back four times in July and August. And it’s going to come down to which other parties either side can convince to join them.

I think the Conservatives are half-right in their proposal – the problem being the system of electronic voting, because that is a Pandora’s box that we do not want to open. Where the Liberals are going wrong is the fact that they think that the special committee’s remit of essentially holding extended QP-like sessions is good enough, when it makes a mockery of what Parliament is. Parliament is not Question Period, and yet they are acting as if that’s all it is, and it’s almost certainly a cynical calculation that preys on the popular perception that it is. But one of my biggest bugaboos is the fact that we’ve now had five pieces of emergency legislation that haven’t had anything resembling proper legislative scrutiny, haven’t had witnesses called, haven’t had any outside commentary or evaluation, and where everything is agreed to behind closed doors, and the government seems to think that’s good enough. It’s not, and we have more bills on the way. For them to carry on and pretend that this special committee and endless questions are going to satisfy the demand that we have a functioning parliament is frankly insulting.

Meanwhile, here’s a look at how the West Block has been adapting to pandemic life as MPs and staffers still show up to work – and yes, those “virtual” sittings still require staff to show up, and in fact require twice as many staff as in-person meetings, in case anyone thinks that “virtual” is somehow safer for all involved. It’s not, and people should stop pretending otherwise.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bullying through a motion on a false promise

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau once again began his daily presser talking about the tragedy in Nova Scotia, and recounted some of his conversations with RCMP members and Senator Stan Kutcher (who not only represents the province but has a background in mental health). He then turned back to the global pandemic, noting that it has made inequalities more pronounced, and with charities spread thin trying to provide support, he announced that $350 million was being set aside as part of an emergency community support fund. He then announced that the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy would be available as of Monday, and starting today, a calculator would be available on the CRA website for employers to calculate what they would be able to apply for. He also talked about the kinds of contributions that the innovation superclusters have been making to the current situation, for a bit of good news. During the Q&A, Trudeau had more information about the reports of the two planes that returned from China empty that he wasn’t able to answer during QP on Monday, this time noting that because of the severe restrictions in China as for how long they were able to remain on the ground, while supply lines to the airports have been frustrated with checkpoints and delays, it forced them to take off empty for the time being. Trudeau also said that the promised gun control bill was nearly ready to be tabled before Parliament was suspended for the pandemic, but wouldn’t promise that it would be tabled before regular sittings resumed. As well, regarding that meat plant shut down because of an outbreak, Trudeau said they were trying to ensure domestic supply though it could affect prices.

Meanwhile, the Procedure and House Affairs committee was meeting (remotely), and we found out that the Clerk of the House of Commons says that there’s no way they’ll be able to facilitate any kind of “remote” sittings until mid-May at the earliest, and that he told the Government House Leader this before the government bullied through their motion on Monday about one in-person sitting a week and two-virtual ones. In other words, they knew that the virtual ones couldn’t happen, but they acted as though they were, so they can say “Oh dear, looks like we can’t hold those sessions,” and stick to the one in-person sitting per week at a giant waste of resources to keep flying MPs in and out for a single day, rather than at least having the three in-person sittings per week which was perfectly reasonable. And no, this isn’t saving any of the staff exposure, because they would need to be in the West Block whether the MPs were there in person or “virtually” (which will include some MPs in the Chamber). Add to that, they only have the capacity to run at maximum ten “virtual” committee meetings between the Commons and Senate in a week, as the government also likes to pretend that they’ve been trying to ensure that as much of Parliament is functional under the circumstances. That’s not true, and even their planned “accountability sessions” for the next month are not actual sittings, but “special committee” sessions, even though some MPs have tried to paint them otherwise. It’s been one big exercise in preening that only makes the Conservatives look like they were right.

The Queen

Just a quick note to add that yesterday was the Queen’s birthday in her natural capacity. The Queen of Canada’s official birthday isn’t until Victoria Day, for the record. But the Queen and Prince Charles did send condolences to Canada for the tragic deaths in Nova Scotia.

Continue reading →

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 →