The Supreme Court has given a unanimous ruling granting a title claim to the Tsilhqot’in First Nation in BC, over a large area of land in the south central part of the province, ending a 25-year court battle over forestry claims and a 150-year dispute between that First Nation and the Crown. Because most of BC’s First Nations don’t have treaties yet with the government, this ruling impacts them in particular, and will make sure that the government has a greater role to play in fulfilling its consultative duties to First Nations as more resource and pipeline projects come up. The ruling also declares that provincial governments have regulatory authority over land obtained by First Nations people through court cases or land claim negotiations. While the ruling has been said to give clarity to negotiations, it also raises the possibility that some First Nations will abandon their negotiations with the government in favour of turning to the courts to establish title or land claims, which should be a red flag seeing as treaty negotiation is a Crown prerogative, and we should be careful about delegating it to the courts. Terry Glavin gives the backstory to the whole dispute dating back to 1864 here.
Tag Archives: Citizenship
Roundup: A doomed and dangerous challenge
Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati, of the Nadon case fame, is going ahead with his challenge of the government’s citizenship bill, but it’s a nightmare of a challenge because it’s based on a completely wrong-headed understanding of the way our system of responsible government works. Galati names the Governor General in the suit, saying that signing the bill into law went beyond his constitutional mandate. The problem is, of course, is that ours is not a system where the GG can refuse royal assent unless it’s a measure that is so egregious that he or she is willing to risk a constitutional crisis. Responsible Government is all about the Crown acting on the advice of government, and by granting royal assent, it does several things: it grants authority to the new law in the name of the Sovereign; it represents the people agreeing to live under the rule of law; and the Queen as the embodiment of the state, emphasises that we all live equally under the law. Galati argues that provisions of the bill are unconstitutional, but remember that it is still within the authority of the courts to strike down a law – that come under the powers of the Crown as the font of justice, whereas royal assent is a function of the Crown-in-Parliament. Galati seems eager to mix the two and would have the GG get legal opinions before any bill is signed into law – a complete distortion of our system of government and the separation of powers that exists between the Courts and Parliament. That Galati had tried to get the courts to block royal assent before it even happened is a further sign that he not only doesn’t understand the system, but is wilfully trying to undermine it regardless of the dangers or consequences of such moves. Only madness lies down the path Galati is trying to tread, but because he has no legal merit for the ruling, it won’t get very far, fortunately.
QP: Still making a decision
It was a rainy day in Ottawa, with the Ontario election going on, and the faint thumping sounds of the music being played at the nearby Franco-Ontarian Festival was heard through the walls on the Hill. Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair were present, while Justin Trudeau was off in New Brunswick to glad-hand with voters. Mulcair led off by pointing out that the expert review panel didn’t recommend the F-35s (indeed, they didn’t make any recommendations as it wasn’t their role), and would they hold an open competition. Harper stood up to say that they were still making a decision. Mulcair pressed and wanted the report made public, to which Harper reiterated that they were evaluating the report. Mulcair changed topics and asked point blank how many Syrian refugees were accepted into Canada, citing how Chris Alexander hung up on a CBC Radio interview yesterday. Harper responded that the number was over a thousand, before he slammed Mulcair and the NDP for their problematic spending. Mulcair kept at it, pointing out how many refugees other countries had taken in, but Harper reminded him that most of those displaced Syrians were temporarily displaced, and that they weren’t intended to be settled elsewhere permanently. Joyce Murray, leading for the Liberals, asked that the government turn down the Northern Gateway pipeline, to which Greg Rickford told her that they were still making a decision. Marc Garneau was up next and returned to the issue of the fighter jet replacement, and accused the government of being reckless with public money. Diane Finley assured him that the expert panel gave rigorous and impartial advice, which she thanked them for. Garneau demanded a fair, and open competition, to which Finley reiterated that they launched their Seven-Point Plan™.
QP: Hudak math and Kijiji data
For the first time of the week, all three leaders were in the Chamber, possibly for one of the last times before the Commons rises. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about cuts to job market research, wondering how it could be justified. Stephen Harper responded by insisted that it wasn’t correct and more resources had been diverted into the area, and by the way, we created one million net new jobs. Mulcair retorted with a crack about Hudak math, and looking for information on Kijiji, to which Harper noted that the information came from Statistics Canada. When Mulcair demanded that the hiring tax credit for small businesses be extended, Harper reminded them that they voted against that time-limited measure in the first place. Mulcair changed topics and moved to the fighter jet procurement, and if other companies could put in bids. Harper assured him that the report had not yet been considered by cabinet, but they would soon. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and noted that the previous chief of defence staff noted that the F-35 was not the only suitable plane for Canada, and whether the process was going to be open and transparent. Harper repeated that cabinet had not yet considered the report. Trudeau moved onto the Northern Gateway Pipeline and the widespread opposition to it. Harper responded that the government was in the process of reviewing the report of the National Energy Board, and they would be coming to a decision soon.
Roundup: Pushing back out of the gate
The new privacy commissioner, Daniel Therrien, went before the Commons justice committee yesterday to talk about the “cyberbullying” bill, and the moment that Therrien did his job and pushed back against the bill – pointing out the overreach into lawful access provisions, the lowered test for getting warrants, the lack of oversight mechanisms, and that the bill should be split so that the more technical aspects of those lawful access provisions could get more detailed study, the government lashed back, turning against him immediately with the bizarre accusation that he hasn’t been a police officer. Apparently because police demand more powers, the government feels that they need to fall all over themselves to provide them, no questions asked – despite the fact that we have a history of showing that when authorities are given new powers without adequate oversight that they tend to be abused (for entirely well-meaning reasons, no doubt). Also of concern is that information could be requested not only by peace officers, but also by “public officers,” which includes elected officials, certain airline pilots and fisheries officers. No, seriously. Peter MacKay, meanwhile, brings up the child porn defence for these new measures, despite the fact that he hasn’t provided an excuse for why they wouldn’t need a warrant to get this kind of information. As well, NDP MP Randall Garrison tried to put in an amendment to the bill to see that transgendered people are protected from hate – you know, like cyberbullying – and the government shot it down for no real logical reason. Well done, everyone.
QP: More questions on income splitting
With the three main leaders at the RCMP funeral in Moncton, it was due to be another relatively quiet day in the Commons. Libby Davies led off QP by quoting the Broadbent Institute report that said that income splitting won’t benefit nine out of ten Canadians. Kevin Sorensen said that income splitting was good for seniors, and that it would be good for families. After another fruitless round, Davis moved on to the procurement process for the fighter jet replacements, to which Diane Finley praised the independent review process that they undertook, but noted that they had not yet come to a decision. Sadia Groguhé repeated the same question in French and got the same response, her follow-up bringing up the promises for industrial benefits by some bidders, not that Finley’s response changed. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, bringing up the middling performance of our economy, hoping for something more than “mediocre talking points.” He was, however, disappointed as that was all that Sorensen had to offer. Stéphane Dion closed the round, lamenting the changes to the Building Canada Fund that would mean most municipalities missing an entire construction season, though Sorensen kept up with his good news talking points.
QP: Fears of anti-choice lobbyists
Despite it being a Wednesday and caucus day, only Thomas Mulcair anchored the chamber. Harper was off in Toronto to host his summit on Maternal and Child Health, and Justin Trudeau off in Quebec City to meet the new premier. Mulcair began by asking about the refusal to fund safe abortions as part of the Maternal and Child Health initiative. John Baird responded that they have done a lot of work on maternal and child health, and got a number of other countries on board. Mulcair noted that they refused to fund the UN Population Fund as part of the initiative because of pressure from anti-choice lobbyists. Deepak Obhrai touted the 1.3 million children’s lives saved by their Initiative. Mulcair changed topics and asked about the Temporary Foreign Workers programme not helping unemployed Canadians. Jason Kenney insisted that they employers had an obligation to seek Canadian employees first. Mulcair insisted that posting jobs for TFWs at minimum wage distorted the free market, eliciting roars from the Conservative benches. Kenney noted that those minimum wage rates were largely in the seasonal agricultural sector and that the prevailing median wage was posted for other jobs. Mulcair again changed topics, and noted the objections of Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner to the lawful access provisions of the cyberbullying bill. Peter MacKay insisted that the bill would protect children and the parents of victims of cyberbullying insisted that they pass the bill — not actually true. John McCallum led off for the Liberals asking about the TFW blacklist, to which Kenney insisted that those employers were no longer eligible to get new workers, and Chris Alexander followed up by claiming they were “cleaning up the Liberal mess.” McCallum found that hilarious and an evasion of responsibility, but Alexander insisted that they were indifferent to abuse and that they brought over exotic dancers “by the hundreds and thousands” with no corner for their welfare.
Roundup: Amendments during the meltdown
While the Rob Ford story goes into total meltdown in Toronto, the amendment process for the Fair Elections Act hit close to the halfway mark last night, with just one day left before the clock runs out – and it might go a bit faster if parties didn’t file nonsense amendments (postal codes on ballots? Veiled voting? Letting all candidates be photographed casting ballots instead of just leaders? Seriously?) or go on lengthy tirades about things. But hey, what do I know? Meanwhile, Conservative MPs have been talking to The Canadian Press about the fact that the caucus has had a great deal of input into the changes being proposed to the bill after they too were unsatisfied with the original form.
Roundup: Budget day highlights
So that was the budget – so close to being balanced, but apparently in a position to run a surplus next year – and just in time for an election, wouldn’t you know? Maclean’s gives you the highlights, like half a billion dollars for the auto sector, departmental freeze, money for bridges in Windsor and Montreal, $1.5 billion over ten years for research, internships and extending student loans to skilled trades, and vague promises to sic the Competition Bureau on those who perpetuate the price gap with the US (as problematic a promise as that is). Mike Moffatt points out how much more complicated the tax credits are getting in this budget, which increases the red tape and regulatory burden that they claim to want to be rid of, as well as nine changes in the budget that are likely to fly under the radar. Stephen Gordon shows how the Conservatives are aggressively reducing the size of government. Kevin Page wishes Jim Flaherty well if he reaches surplus next year and has to figure out what to do with it. And here are Maclean’s five key points from the budget.
Roundup: A new hope for leadership debts
One of the aspects of the new electoral reform bill that I was always wondering about – leadership fundraising – is being changed. Once it comes into force, contributions to leadership campaigns can be annual instead of lifetime, so that means that some of those former leadership candidates can start to fundraise from the same donors again. The bill doesn’t change the enforcement of those old debts, which was basically unenforceable. Meanwhile, Jason Kenney has said that the government would consider amending the bill at committee to include a ban on veiled voting, after a question by the Bloc about this. While David Christopherson may warn that it’s a dangerous game to find a wedge issue like this, he seems to forget that his party was also in favour of banning veiled voting when it was an issue in the Commons a couple of years ago. Stephen Maher points to the various flaws in the bill that require correcting – and all party support to make the whole endeavour legitimate. Andrew Coyne wonders just what problems the bill was intending to solve, because the provisions in the bill seem to be reflecting problems that aren’t actually there.