Tag Archives: David Bertschi

Roundup: From a bad bill to a useless one

Posted on by

Rona Ambrose’s judicial training bill looks like it may have some life left in it, as Independent Senator Pierre Dalphond himself a former judge, has started making deals and compromises to see the bill go ahead in an amended form. Working both with the bill’s Senate sponsor and one of its critics, Dalphond has come up with an amended version of the bill which should address most of its critics, and apparently got a procedural deal passed in the Senate as a whole, which gave instruction for the legal and constitutional affairs committee to hold a special session next week to deal with the bill, outside of the normal process where it would be dealing with government business (which is the whole reason the bill hasn’t gone anywhere – the committee is loaded with government bills, which Senate rules state needs to take precedence).

The amendments would ensure that a judicial appointee must commit to sexual assault law training as designed by the Canadian Judicial Council, and administered by the National Judicial Institute – moves that address many of the concerns around judicial independence (which likely would have rendered the bill unconstitutional), and would have created conflicts of interest where the bill as it stands would demand that future judges need to be trained by sexual assault survivors groups – the same groups that would normally be called upon to be expert witnesses in trials. This help to address other concerns about the bill, such as access for lawyers who aren’t in urban centres, or that requiring training before application would tip off coworkers to those lawyers that they were applying for a position on the bench. I remain curious what other objections the Canadian Judicial Council still has about the bill, but I guess we’ll find out next week when they will likely appear at the committee.

This all having been said, we need to remember that the Canadian Judicial Council has been seized with this issue for a few years now and has been ensuring that there is better training for judges, which is as it should be – the system is already working. That means that Ambrose’s bill is really, if amended, just another bit of feel-good legislation that MPs keep burdening the Order Paper with. (Note that as it stands, the bill is likely unconstitutional and actually a very bad bill despite its good intentions). And as with so many feel-good bills, it takes up all of the space in the media for little actual benefit, but that’s politics these days, unfortunately.

https://twitter.com/adamgoldenberg/status/1132389428910088192

Continue reading →

Roundup: Obama and his populist rant

Posted on by

So, that speech by Barack Obama was quite something. Canada tends not to be a country of lofty rhetoric or grand and eloquent speechmaking, so it’s nice when we get to borrow it for a bit, but it is a bit of novelty. For all of his complementary rhetoric about Canadians and our progressivity, it was interesting to note the places where people in the Commons weren’t all unanimous with the applause (mentions of climate change and LGBT rights certainly didn’t endear the Conservatives), and he was very clever in the way he couched his criticism of Canada needing to do more to pull its weight with NATO, by timing it so that the applause had already started with is line about the great job that the Canadian Forces do when he finished the thought that the world wants them to do more. Clever that.

What was perhaps even more interesting and less rehearsed was the rant that Obama went off at the conclusion of the Three Amigos summit press conference, where he pushed back against the use of “populism” when it comes to the likes of Trump, Sanders, and the Brexit vote. While Obama was quick to paint Trump in particular with the terms of nativism and xenophobia, I’m not sure that he really addressed the core of the issue with the rise in populist sentiment that gets hijacked by those nativist and xenophobic elements. Why? Because he was quick to try and associate populism with only the positive benefits of helping the working classes to better themselves, and on the face of it, “populism” is about appealing to ordinary people. The problem is that it has a dangerous flipside about making that appeal in contravention to expert opinion and evidence, which is painted as elitist – something that Obama steered clear of. Meanwhile, populism has already overtaken the political discourse in Canada, when our one-time ideological parties on both the left and the right have abandoned their ideologies in favour of left and right-flavoured populism, eschewing that evidence or clear-eyed policy in favour of selling it to ordinary people, never mind that it would actually disproportionately benefit the wealthy (and yes, that applies equally to Conservative and NDP policy in Canada). When that ethos of casting off evidence and expert opinion reaches dangerous levels, you get the kinds of rhetoric you heard in the Brexit campaign, and with Trump and his supporters, but it’s on the same populist road. So you will forgive me if I don’t subscribe to Obama’s embrace of populism as solely a force for good. It has a dark side that needs to be acknowledged, lest it get as out of control as it clearly has been doing of late.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dodgy contracts and sophomoric pranks

Posted on by

The start of week two in the big trail, and Crown apparently regained some ground –getting the Senate’s HR clerk to note all of the things Duffy either tried to charge for and was rebuffed, or did end up charging for by means of the apparent clearing house that his former camera man started on his behalf, and all kinds of non-Senate related things were paid for that way, be it photo framing or personal training. No doubt Duffy’s lawyer will try to argue that in the absence of enough rules or controls, it should be treated as acceptable, but perhaps I’m getting pessimistic. Here is Nicholas Köhler’s piece of the kinds of nostalgia that the trial is evoking. Meanwhile, the NDP have been trying to have their juvenile fun at the expense of the Senate over the course of the trial to date. Last week it was small boxes with pieces of Camembert and crackers, and this week it was handing out their “Senate hall of shame” hockey cards, with the new addition of Senator Nancy Ruth – because apparently making a deadpan joke is a scandal. But hey, whatever distracts them from having to justify their own expenses scandals with those improper mailings and satellite offices, right? Imagine what they could accomplish if they put their energy to productive use rather than the sophomoric pranks and snarky press releases that they seem to be so heavily invested in as they chase the impossible dream of Senate abolition (which, I remind you, will never, ever happen ever).

Continue reading →

Roundup: A few notes on the Gallery feud

Posted on by

I didn’t really want to wade into this, but I think it bears saying that much of this dispute between Press Gallery members over proposed changes to the constitution is nonsense. There was apparently an incident of harassment against another gallery member, and since it’s not being handled by an employer, it means it was likely allegedly done by a freelancer. Certain paranoid individuals with a grudge against the gallery executive spent the weekend stoking fears that these changes would allow government staffers and MPs to lodge baseless “harassment” complaints against journalists in order to silence or intimidate them – despite the fact that such a supposition would mean that the Gallery’s Board of Directors would be complicit in such actions of silence or intimidation, which defies credulity. Add to all of that, concern trolls over the Twitter Machine fuelled the flames into a full-blown fight, and some of those responsible for fanning the flames are marginal members of the Gallery at best, while members of the general public who’ve decided to weigh in with conspiracy theories that the PMO is trying to manipulate us are just turning this into a gong show. Everyone needs to calm down and trust that the Gallery Directors aren’t out to screw with them, and the concern trolls and Harper haters should probably mind their own business and let the members of the Gallery have their own discussions in a calm and rational manner. I’m sure the AGM on Friday will be interesting, but not if everyone comes into it with it all blown out of proportion in their own minds.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A largely fictitious distinction

Posted on by

While the battle over what’s happening at Veterans Affairs continues to rage, we are continually reassured by both the Prime Minister and the Original Series duotronic computer system known as Julian Fantino that we shouldn’t worry – that any cuts that have been made are all “back office” bureaucrats, and that front-line services haven’t been affected. Really! And while the example of cutting 12 photocopy clerks by moving to digitised medical records may be an example of those “back office” cuts, we should stop kidding ourselves – there is no neat dividing line between what is a front-line service position and a back-office bureaucrat because it’s the job of those bureaucrats to process the work of the front-line providers. If anything, this notion that back-office positions are being eliminated means anything, it’s that it forces more front-line workers to do the processing work themselves, essentially increasing their workload and making them less able to help veterans because they’re the ones busy processing the paperwork rather than focusing on the service aspect. Using the excuse of it being “back office” is largely a fictional distinction made for the sake of optics – but then again, that is the way that this government likes to operate, by photo op and announcement rather than by actual results, so this really should surprise nobody.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Wynne questions the prostitution law

Posted on by

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has announced that she has grave concerns about the anti-prostitution bill, which came into effect on Saturday, and that she will ask her Attorney General for a legal opinion on the law so as to be sure that the province is not being asked to uphold an unconstitutional law, given the concerns that were outlined in the Bedford decision by the Supreme Court. It’s a fairly interesting challenge that Wynne is making, having a provincial government coming out against federal legislation in this sense, but as the province has the duty to enforce the Criminal Code, her asking for options so publicly is an interesting case. As Emmett Macfarlane notes, it’s also interesting that she didn’t directly ask the Ontario Court of Appeal for a reference and their opinion on the law, but that could still come once the Attorney General and her office have had time to weigh in. It probably won’t make Wynne any more popular in Harper’s eyes, and will be one more reason for him to avoid meeting with her, but it could also be the first shot in a Supreme Court challenge of the legislation, which could conceivably be much faster-tracked than it would be if we had to wait for a Charter challenge the traditional way, which could conceivably help save lives, going back to the thrust of the Bedford decision in the first place.

https://twitter.com/HisFeministMama/status/541696722196787200

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/541659937022414848

Continue reading →

Roundup: Refusing to appoint senators

Posted on by

Stephen Harper says that he’s in no rush to appoint senators because legislation is still getting passed, so no big deal, right? The question arose because the new Senate Speaker, Pierre-Claude Nolin, remarked that there are concerns about regional representation becoming unbalanced, and I’ve heard from other Conservative senators who are not-so-quietly complaining that they are being overloaded with committee work because they’re having to sit on several committees given that we’re soon to be at seventeen vacancies – almost one-fifth of the Chamber. It’s a significant figure, and the added danger is that a Prime Minister – either Harper, or a new one post-2015 – would appoint a big number at once, stressing a system that is designed to absorb two or three new ones at a time. It also demonstrates a kind of contempt that Harper is showing toward the system and the specific role that the Senate plays within it, preferring instead to treat it as a rubber stamp that he is ramming legislation through. Nolin pointed to several passages from the Supreme Court’s reference decision during his presentation, and noted one of the roles of the Senate is to provide reflection to legislation that passed the Commons in haste. In this era of time allocation, that would seem to be more needed than ever – and yet, the government’s senators are doing their own best to rush things through, which Nolin quite blatantly called out today, saying that he aims to remind all Senators of their obligations as laid out in that decision. Nolin also said that he thinks the worst of the Senate’s spending woes are behind it, as we wait for the AG’s report next spring, and offered his own take on what happened on October 22nd.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MacKay’s turn to blunder

Posted on by

Another day, another minister who appears tone-deaf to the issues of their files – in this case it was Peter MacKay on questions of gun control as we reach the anniversary of the École Polytechnique shootings. It shouldn’t have been a surprise – these kind of questions get raised every year, and the Conservatives have fairly consistently made some kind of gaffe, but normally it’s the Status of Women minister who gets into hot water. This time, MacKay made a couple of nonsense answers during Question Period about the gun control aspect of the anniversary, when he fell back on his bog standard “respect for victims, punish offenders” talking points rather than addressing the issue at hand. The government could sell a case for their bill, C-42, if they would actually bother to do so rather than just accuse the Liberals of trying to resurrect the long-gun registry (which, for the record, Trudeau has said that they would not do), or bringing up the supposed plight of the law-abiding duck hunter. Instead, MacKay put his foot in things again, tried to claim the reason for the shooting was mysterious, tried to backtrack when he got called out on it, and again the government looks worse for wear.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Theatrical tough talk

Posted on by

It’s a bit of a strange thing, but we’re told that Stephen Harper decided to play tough at the G-20 summit in Australia, where he apparently told Russian president Vladimir Putin to “get out of Ukraine” while shaking his hand. And while the PMO tried to spin it as Putin “reacting negatively,” what the Russians say the response was, was “That’s impossible because we’re not in Ukraine.” This should have been predictable given the series of denials to date, while the only other response would logically have been “Make me,” thus calling Harper out on his bluff since we don’t exactly have the military capabilities to take on Russia. We just don’t. Harper’s chest-puffery follows on that of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who had previously apparently told Putin off for the downing of that Malaysian Air flight over western Ukraine, as it contained 38 Australian nationals. Given that we know that Harper and Abbott are members of the mutual admiration society, that they would engage in copycat techniques is not unsurprising, but still – it all comes across as stagey the whole way through – especially the way the PMO started boasting to the media there. Shortly before that, while in New Zealand, Harper said that he wants to ensure that any fight in the region of Iraq is against ISIS, and not against any government, meaning the Assad regime in Syria. He doesn’t want to go there, feeling the solution to that civil war remains a political one.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Exiting Afghanistan

Posted on by

The Canadian Army lowered the flag for the last time in Afghanistan, as our troops officially pull out of that country after our longest military engagement ever. Not that the job is really done, but we’re now turning it over to domestic security forces, as nascent as they are. Our ambassador says that Canada will remain engaged in the country and will help to rebuild their economy, and in particular their resource sector.

Continue reading →