There’s this terrible idea that keeps circling, and here it comes again, which is the idea that we should enshrine environmental rights in the constitution. David Suzuki is going around trying to make this happen once again, concerned that like the coming Trumpocalypse in the States, that one bad election in Canada and any progress we’ve made on environmental laws would be set back. And while this kind of thinking – insulating environmental laws in a more robust constitutional framework – sounds good on its face, its proponents need a good smack upside the head.

Why? Because this is a democracy, and what they are trying to do is take the environment out of the role of the government, and put it in the lap of the courts. No longer should the people decide on an important area like the environment, but instead, we’ll ensure that unelected judges with no accountability are the ones who are now determining policy. Add to that, I’m not sure that the courts have the competency to do be making these kinds of policy determinations, and yes, that is an issue that this proposal doesn’t seem to talk about. It’s disturbing that Suzuki and his ilk are trying to diminish the role of democracy in favour of a more technocratic approach to government, no matter how much importance one places on environmental policy. We have a system of government which is supposed to hold the government of the day to account, and usually it’s pretty successful. It held the Conservatives to account after they abused the public trust on things like the environment file, and were duly punished for it at the ballot box, and when you look at recent elections like that in the Yukon where the environment was apparently an issue, the party that was more reluctant to take action was punished for it. You don’t need to yet again turn everything over to the courts in order to take action – just mobilize enough popular support to the cause. It can and does happen, but to simply suggest that politics has failed and the courts should handle it is the kind of thinking that makes me really, really uncomfortable because of where it leads.

Good reads:

• The government has met with investors about infrastructure projects in Canada, but the NDP think this is a conflict of interest waiting to happen.
• Post-Trump election, Trudeau reaffirmed our commitment to NATO and the upcoming Latvia deployment.
• It sounds like the government’s bill to repeal archaic sex laws will be part of their apology to gays and lesbians who were fired from government jobs.
• Bardish Chagger is invoking time allocation after opposition parties are trying to delay the CPP bill from passing.
• There are questions about how the new deficit figures incorporate any contingency reserve.
• The RCMP profiled 89 Indigenous protesters as being possible threats, particularly to critical infrastructure.
• There is some speculation that the government might prorogue Parliament in the summer, which would allow Senate committees to reset to add new members.
• A Liberal MP had to make a public apology and pay a fine for misstating his professional engineering credentials.
• It sounds like the government will support that Conservative private members’ motion on online-porn-as-public-health-crisis, which is a noxious American import.
• The Toronto Police Services Board chair has withdrawn his support for Kellie Leitch’s campaign. Leitch is also dodging questions about racists supporting her bid.
• Chris Alexander is also trying to distance himself from Leitch’s position, which is all the more curious given their history.
• Some high-profile Greens have joined the call to take out Conservative memberships in order to stop the likes of Leitch.
• Stephen Gordon tries to look at how Trump’s stated economic goals could impact Canada, while Andrew Coyne worries about campaign promises Trump might keep.

Odds and ends:

Here’s a look at the history of poetry-as-MP’s-statement in the House of Commons.

Over in the Law Times, I write about the hurdles the genetic privacy bill will face at committee.