Roundup: Swift passage, but not for the better

Posted on by

In another surprising move, the Senate passed the bill to ban conversion therapy at all stages yesterday, with no committee study, meaning that it only needs royal assent now, which can happen at any time. But while this is a relief to many, it’s also a tad irresponsible.

The lack of study of the current bill in the House of Commons was a political gambit designed to keep the Conservatives from being trapped by their own social conservative members, and to avoid giving any more media clips about people supposedly overcoming “lesbian activity” and so on. The fact that this version of the bill is different from the one that passed the Commons in the previous parliament is relevant, and there are changes that deserved some actual scrutiny because there were live constitutional questions around them (and yes, I asked the minister about it during the press conference, and I asked other questions about the bill during the not-for-attribution technical briefing, but those are not on the parliamentary record). And yes, this matters because the Senate should have done the work that MPs opted not to do out of political expediency. That’s one of the reasons why the Senate is the chamber of “sober second though”—because they don’t have to deal with the political repercussions and ramifications when the politics wins out in the Commons.

Unfortunately, politics also won out in the Senate (which should be an indictment of its supposed more “independent” existence these days). Acting Conservative leader in the Senate, Senator Leo Housakos, in his speech to give the bill swift passage, said that this issue shouldn’t be made into a political wedge like the Liberals were doing. Which is ironic because it wasn’t the Liberals who were holding up the bill previously by slow-walking it, refusing to let debate collapse, and by putting up speaker after speaker to offer the same concern trolling. That wasn’t the Liberals being political—it was 100 percent on the Conservatives for that, and now they’re trying to shift that blame. Yes, passing this bill at all stages was the expedient thing to do, but from a process and a parliamentary perspective, it was not the right thing to do, and it’s going to make the courts’ jobs that much harder when this inevitably gets challenged and they have little on the record to go by.

Good reads:

  • Not unexpectedly, experts are panning the hasty border measures to contain the omicron variant, because they’re based on emotion and political calculations.
  • With complaints about quarantine hotels failing to accommodate passengers, Jean-Yves Duclos is ordering PHAC to shape up and ensure proper standards.
  • As expected, the bill to eliminate a swath of mandatory minimum sentences for drug and gun crimes is considered to be not good enough by all sides.
  • At a UN peacekeeping conference, Anita Anand announced more money for female peacekeepers, but made no mention of promised “rapid response” forces.
  • The Star interviewed Dominic Barton about the night the two Michaels were released from custody and made their way back to Canada.
  • The former head of military personnel has been formally charged with sexual assault and committing indecent acts.
  • The delegation of Indigenous leaders has postponed their trip to the Vatican because of concerns over the omicron variant.
  • The Speaker has ruled that Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall’s question of privilege is not accepted, and she has to provide proof of vaccine exemption.
  • The Conservatives spent their Supply Day calling for a special committee to examine the Afghanistan evacuation; the government says regular committees will suffice.
  • Heather Scoffield delves into Ontario’s fiscal accountability officer’s reckoning on the costs of climate change to the provincial government.
  • Susan Delacourt considers Canada’s participation in Biden’s democracy summit, and the shadow of a Trump revival that looms over it.
  • My column laments the unserious nature of the debate over housing policy in Parliament, both from the government and the opposition.

Odds and ends:

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

One thought on “Roundup: Swift passage, but not for the better”

  1. I doubt the cons will be so (phony) magnanimous when bills on abortion rights come along. Then again I’m not so sure that what comes from them in the senate could ever be construed as “sober” second thought. Or any thought at all.

Comments are closed.