So, Senator Patrick Brazeau, arrested and held in police custody on suspicion of domestic violence, possibly sexual assault. Stephen Harper reacted immediately by expelling him from caucus – so far so good. But then came the immediate and not unexpected boneheaded comments from the commentariat with its ad homenim attacks and visceral hatred for the Senate, apparently based solely on the received wisdom of the ages, and not upon reality. For example, NDP MP Charlie Angus insisted that Stephen Harper remove Brazeau from the Senate entirely – err, except that he can’t do that. You see, there’s a reason why Prime Ministers can’t arbitrarily remove Senators – because it’s the job of the Senate to hold the executive in check. If a Prime Minister could remove Senators at will, then he would do so anytime they became a nuisance to him, and replace them with more compliant models. That kind of protection from arbitrary removal is actually a design feature – it allows them to speak truth to power without fearing for their jobs. And while yes, they can be removed through an internal process, it’s a pretty high bar that’s set in order to ensure that their jobs aren’t under threat when they oppose the government of the day. And yes, many Senators do take advantage of that, even when it’s inconvenient to the Prime Minister that appointed them, because that’s their job. While the received wisdom is that they are all hacks napping until their retirement, a lot of good work happens in the Senate that simply isn’t talked a lot about, mostly because there isn’t a lot of drama behind it. Add to that this concern-trolling about being “democratic” or “accountable” without actually understanding what those terms mean in their holistic contexts, and it’s when things start to spiral out of control.
Tag Archives: Tough on Crime
Roundup: Knee-jerk populism vs. the Charter
In another stunning bout of knee-jerk populism, Jason Kenney has seized on the story of a Canadian dual-citizen blowing up a bus in Bulgaria, coupled it with a dubious Private Member’s Bill about stripping the citizenship of dual-citizens who engage in acts of war against the country, talked about amending it to include terrorism, and viola – ready for the media. How predictable, and how so very, very flawed. For one, it’ll never stand up to the Charter, because Canadians, no matter where they may have been born, are all equal under the law. Also, it shows contempt for process because he’s trying to hijack a PMB that probably shouldn’t have been voteable in the first place. It’s worse that Kenney wants to try and ram through unconstitutional measures into the PMB process, which would get a mere couple of hours of committee study before heading back to the Chamber for a mere two more hours of debate. Yeah, he may need to rethink this whole proposition.
Roundup: Irresponsible unanimous passage
MPs, in their infinite wisdom, decided to pass the royal succession bill at all stages unanimously with no debate. That’s right – an unconstitutional bill that de-patriates our constitution and relegates us to the status of Crown colony passed with zero debate. Way to go, MPs. Provide that oversight! So yeah. Here’s hoping the Senate will do it job and actually put a stop to this nonsense. Meanwhile, here’s more condemnation of the bill, this time from James WJ Bowden.
The government has unveiled its 2013 Tough on Crime™ agenda. Because apparently there’s no rest for the wicked.
Government backbenchers say that the high-profile nature of the Parliamentary Budget Officer has made them gun shy about asking him for reports. Because you know, it might be unseemly for backbenchers to be seen to be doing their job of holding the government to account.
QP: Twisting words
It was a frosty Monday in Ottawa, with a bitter wind blowing from the west. None of the three main party leaders were in the House, but the ranks weren’t quite sparse enough to consider it a Friday QP on a Monday. Things started off with David Christopherson angrily reading off a question about protecting pensions, to which Gary Goodyear touted the ways in which the government has improved pensions. He then moved onto the topic of the supposed “quotas” for EI and Diane Finley apparently calling EI recipients “bad guys” (even though she did not such thing, but called people who abuse EI bad guys, and hey, remember when the NDP were all in a knot about the “bald-faced lies” about the carbon tax farce? Funny how that works, no?) John Baird — apparently the back-up PM du jour — insisted that Finley never said that, and yay for stamping out fraud. Nicole Turmel was up next, asking the same questions in French, and got the same responses from Goodyear and Finley. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, asking about youth unemployment and demanding a freeze on “payroll taxes.” Baird was back up, touting their Economic Action Plan™, for what it’s worth. Stéphane Dion closed the round, decrying the “job-killing EI reform” and how it would destroy seasonal industries. Small surprise, Diane Finley got up to deny that was the case.
QP: Benefitting all Canadians
As Wednesdays are caucus days, the MPs tend to be fired up, and QP a little more boisterous. Today was about average when it comes to energy levels and decorum, for what it’s worth. QP got underway with Thomas Mulcair reading off questions about youth unemployment costing the economy $21 billion. Harper responded that job creation and economic prosperity was his government’s top priority and look at all of the jobs that have been created. Mulcair ended by asking pretty much the exact same question on First Nations education as the previous two days, to which Harper touted the 250 newly-built and renovated schools on reserves. Jean Crowder was up next to ask about releasing documents to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Residential Schools, to which John Duncan said that they were reviewing the court decision on documents but intended to comply with the spirit of it. Bob Rae asked about low First Nation graduation rates, and why their issues weren’t mentioned in his caucus speech that morning. Harper said that their commitment to economic prosperity was to all Canadians. Rae moved onto the issue of EI and those without public transport, quoting Diane Finley’s explanation for why she bills for limo service as there is no transit in her riding, so why not that single mother in PEI. While Finley had a good laugh, Harper assured Rae that EI will always available to those who need it. For his final question, Rae turned his attention to the replacement of the PBO, and Harper replied that the office will be there to provide non-partisan advice (which really does seem to be quite the insinuation against Kevin Page).
Roundup: Whistle-blowing potentially illegal instructions
A lawyer in the Department of Justice is taking his own department to Federal Court because of what he deems to be illegal instructions with drafting bills that could contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but without notifying Parliament. Think about all of the court challenges to those “tough on crime” mandatory minimum sentences, and how they’re being struck down. And for his efforts at transparency and accountability, he’s been suspended without pay. Because it’s not like this government is trying to politicise the civil service or anything – right?
Speaking of which, the Liberals want the Government Operations committee and the Clerk of the Privy Council to look into the issue of the M-4 Unit – err, Julian Fantino’s partisan letters on the CIDA website, even though CIDA staff insist it was all a mistake, that these letters were mixed in with a large volume of material they were uploading. Not that the Liberals are buying it.
Roundup: Launching a new Action Plan™
Stephen Harper launched a new Action Plan™ in Montreal yesterday – the Venture Capital Action Plan™, to create Jobs & Growth™ as part of our Fragile Economic Recovery™. Economist Stephen Gordon wonders how this jives with Harper’s reluctance for government control in any industry, or how it benefits anyone other than consultants and lobbyists.
AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo has been ordered by his doctor to take time off because of exhaustion, which given the events of the past couple of weeks is no real surprise. Meanwhile, Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence still refuses to end her liquid diet.
Here is a look at some of the projected costs of implementing the new safe drinking water legislation for First Nations reserves, and whether or not the government will fully fund it. Thomas Mulcair has taken to criticizing Harper’s approach to natural resource development, which he says is behind the Aboriginal unrest, and that Harper needs to sit down with the provincial premiers, as they are the key to resource revenue sharing with the First Nations.
Roundup: Harper sets his own terms
In a somewhat surprising move, Stephen Harper agreed to a meeting with Aboriginal leaders next week – but it’s not exactly on the terms that Chief Theresa Spence demanded. Harper set the date for the 11th, while the AFN had proposed the 24th and Spence wanted one within 72 hours. Spence also wanted the Governor General in attendance – never mind that it’s not his role – but it doesn’t appear that he’ll be there. And Harper will let the AFN determine the agenda of the “working meeting.” Spence says she’ll attend, but will continue her hunger strike until then regardless. Grand Chief Atleo, however, appears to have his own problems as First Nations leaders are questioning his role and his legitimacy through these kinds of negotiations. From the other side of the debate comes a look at how the government has been taking pragmatic and incremental approaches to changes to First Nations issues that hope to bring greater economic opportunity, but they are measures being protested currently. Here is yet another reminder why, under Responsible Government, it’s inappropriate for Spence and company to call for the Governor General to join these meetings. And Maclean’s rounds up a dozen different opinions on the Idle No More protests, while also putting together an interactive map of where those protests happen.
Roundup post: Retributive justice for mentally ill offenders
The release of a mentally ill offender has the government reaching for yet another knee-jerk response to a high-profile case. James Moore went on TV yesterday to say that making laws on single cases is bad policy, but those cases expose flaws in the system, and said that the government wants to put in place changes that will put the victim “at the heart” of the justice system. Now, if you know anything about justice or the rule of law, this should be setting off the big red klaxon because some of the most important features of the justice system are that it a) be blind, and b) not be retributive. Putting the victim “at the heart” of the system debases those two central tenets. Yes, the public reacts with outrage when someone is released after they have been treated for an illness which caused them to do terrible things, because they believe that they haven’t suffered enough, and that they’re using insanity as a way to get off easily – never mind that mental illness is real and can have terrible effects, and that when treated the risk the person poses to the community is minimal at best, and never mind that said person is also being supervised in order to ensure that they remain being treated. And even when the government says they want “science” to determine these things, we don’t see them putting additional resources into treatment or prevention by means of early detection of mental illness. It remains reactive and now, they want to add an element of retribution.
The Commons finance committee has recommended that there be a royal commission on the tax system in order to modernise and streamline it. Or you know, they could do it themselves, being as they’re a gods damned parliamentary committee and all. But no, doing it themselves would be unseemly as it would be terribly partisan and all of that.
QP: Somber questions on violence against women
Despite the previous afternoon’s tensions, the bulk of the Members’ Statements prior to QP were in recognition of the École Polytechnique massacre 23 years ago, followed by a minute of silence, and that kept the mood somber and tempers restrained. When QP began, Thomas Mulcair read off a question about a story in the Toronto Star that the government may be looking to weaken gun control laws further. Harper assured him that wasn’t the case, and the prohibited weapons category existed for a reason – namely public safety. Mulcair then read the same question in French, and got the same response. And then Françoise Boivin asked a pair of questions on the very same thing, to which Vic Toews assured her that no, they weren’t going to weaken the regulations. (Note: this is what happens when you stick to scripted questions and can’t think on your feet and actually debate like you’re supposed to). When Bob Rae got up for the Liberals to ask if Harper would consider adding the Chiefs of Police and the perspectives of domestic violence and suicide prevention groups to the firearms advisory council. Harper told him that he would take it under advisement because it is such a serious issue. For his final question, Rae asked if the government would table the KPMG report on the F-35s before the House rises for the winter break. Harper talked around the answer, and didn’t make such a commitment.