QP: Torquing the Supreme Court’s rulings

Posted on by

While the PM was in town and had a press conference scheduled for shortly after QP, he was absent from the Chamber, as were all other leaders, though the deputy PM was present, for what it’s worth. Luc Berthold led off, and he gave a misleading statement about what the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday, and demanded that the government do something about this. David Lametti said that the fact they are eligible for parole does not mean they will get it, and the parole board will determine if the Quebec City mosque shooter will get it…in 25 years. Berthold then pivoted to affordability, and mischaracterised the effect of the carbon price, ignoring the rebates, to which Chrystia Freeland recited that inflation is global, but that they were taking action such as dental care, a one-time housing benefit and tax credits. Berthold accused the government of lacking compassion, to which Freeland listed measures to help the vulnerable. Dan Albas took over in English to demand price controls on gas, and Freeland listed benefits that are indexed to inflation. Albas railed about prices rising, and Freeland repeated her list of indexed benefits.

Alain Therrien led for the Bloc, and he railed that the federal government would challenge Law 21 at the Supreme Court, insisting this was a matter of democracy (ignoring that liberal democracies protect the rights of minorities). David Lametti lamented the pre-emptive use of the Notwithstanding Clause, and said the government has concerns about provisions in the law. Therrien accused the government of trying to pick a fight with Quebec, roping Law 96 into the conversion, and Lametti reminded him that he too is a Quebecker and that plenty of people have concerns about this law.

Peter Julian rose for the NDP, and in French, lamented that the Deschamps report gathered dust and wanted the Arbour report to be implemented. Anita Anand read a script about accepting the Arbour Report, and having a conversation with the prime minster about it, and that they agree with the significant issues identified in it. Lindsay Mathyssen repeated the question in English, and Anand read the English version of the same script.

Round two, and Melissa Lantsman demanded the public health advice on travel measures be made public (Duclos: 173,000 deaths could have been avoided in the US if they had a higher vaccination rate but we still have work to do), Brad Vis worried about the backlog of Nexus Pass applications (Duclos: 690,000 hospitalisations could have been avoided in the US in the omicron wave if they had higher vaccinations), Michelle Ferreri wanted travel mandates ended for the sake of tourism (Alghabra: Airports across the world have similar problems but we have been investing in resources and procedures to clear bottlenecks), Tracy Grey made a similar demand (Alghabra: We are glad to see businesses returning to normal; Gould: Passport processing in other counties is just as elevate as it is here right now).

Denis Trudel railed that Law 96 was “democratically adopted” and the federal government should not interfere (Lametti: We will follow the implementing to ensure this does not exceed provincial authority; Rodriguez: We have 35 Quebec MPs who reflect the opinions of their constituents and they have the rights to speak their own minds, and the Bloc can’t determine who is a real Quebecker), and Martin Champoux decried that the search for a new CRTC Chair was “French-speaking preferred” instead of mandatory (Rodriguez: It is important for this government to ensure this chair can express themselves in both languages).

Rob Moore returned to the Friday decision by the Supreme Court, albeit without quite as much disingenuous torque (Lametti: We acknowledge the pain of victims, but nothing in the decision changes that people convicted of murder serve a life sentence and are ineligible for parole for 25 years), Karen Vecchio railed that the Supreme Court allows for an automatism defence (Lametti: We are committed to ensuring rights are protected and we are looking carefully at this decision as we are troubled by it, but it only applies in extreme cases), and Michael Cooper railed about the parole decision (Lametti: The decision was clear and unequivocal).

Lori Idlout demanded more funding for communities with unmarked graves instead of going to the RCMP (Miller: Communities have asked us for supports and we are providing them), and Niki Ashton complained that the government is moving too slowly on Indigenous issues (Miller: We have a duty to provide resources and some communities are not ready at this point, so we are giving them time).

Round three saw questions on YouTube creators worrying about the broadcasting changes (Rodriguez: The creative community needs this bill; Platforms are in and creators are out), gun violence in Montreal (Damoff: We are finalising transfers to help prevent gun crime), a demand to ban handguns (Damoff: We are taking action to prevent handguns from falling into the hands of criminals), labour shortages in Quebec (Fraser: We have invested to boost processing times),  removing fuel taxes (Ng: Business are looking to grow and we have cut their taxes), a local group sending medical supplies to Ukraine (Sajjan: Get in touch with my office), fisheries quotas (Murray: We are reviewing the science), a 24/7 barrier-free safe space for MMIW in Winnipeg (Hussen: We announced funds for shelters over 16 projects, and I will work with the member to support projects in Winnipeg), and the Taliban’s regime of “gender apartheid” (Joly: Canada condemns the Taliban’s actions, and the Taliban will judged on their actions and not their words).

Overall, it was rowdy at points today, but nothing too out of the ordinary for the final sitting stretch of the season. In particular, there was some jockeying around the third round about the veracity of what the minister was saying around the broadcasting bill, and when Rachael Thomas exhorted him to “tell the truth,” the Deputy Speaker was put in a bit of a bind because that is technically unparliamentary in that the insinuation was that the minster wasn’t telling the truth. Of course, Thomas was being cute with the statements she was cherry-picking to quote, and to that end, the CRTC already has the power to regulate user-generated content if they so chose, but they don’t, because that would be a ridiculous waste of time and resources. But that’s not the impression Thomas wants to leave in the social media clips she’s generating, so she frames this as there are contradictory statements, and that the minister must be lying. It’s not the case, but it’s hard for anyone to point this out (particularly as the government refuses to explain facts).

Otherwise, the Bloc’s questions on Quebec laws being challenged in the courts seem to misunderstand how democracy works. A liberal democracy like Canada’s ensures protections for minorities and isn’t just majority rule. That’s why the Charter exists, which, of course, is why the Quebec government has pre-emptively invoked the Notwithstanding Clause—because they know that they are trampling on minority rights. For the Bloc to sound wounded that this was about somehow trampling on democracy in Quebec is more than a little rich, and they should feel some shame about this particular stance.

Sartorial speaking, snaps go out to Blake Richards for a tailored medium-blue with with a crisp white shirt and purple spotted tie, and to Jenica Atwin for a black suit with a white v-necked top. Style citations go out to Mary Ng for a fairly shapeless off-white dress with red and pink florals, and to Arif Virani for a sand-coloured suit with a white shirt, black tie and dark blue pocket square. Dishonourable mention goes out to Julie Vignola for a dark yellow jacket with a black and silver striped top and black slacks.

One thought on “QP: Torquing the Supreme Court’s rulings”

  1. In your defence of minority rights you seem to forget that minority rights of Francophones in Canada have been trampled in every anglos province for the last 154 years. It’s funny how Anglos in Canada I have this Blindspot they can never see that.

Comments are closed.