-posted by Tonda MacCharles, Ottawa bureau
For years in Ottawa, the government has grumbled about how the Opposition holds up or obstructs the progress of bills, particularly crime bills, through Parliament.
Time and again, the Conservatives call on their opponents to fast-track bills through the legislative study stages.
Sometimes it works.
Under previous minorities, the Liberals offered to fast-track some bills– usually in exchange for flexibility on others. The Bloc Québécois supported the Conservatives in swiftly eliminating the right to seek day parole after a non-violent offender had served one-sixth of a sentence.
Now, in the past two weeks, we’ve seen the new Official Opposition, the NDP, with the Liberals’ consent, offer to fast-track the bill on “mega-trials” otherwise known as the Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act.
Except Green Party leader Elizabeth May weighed in and pressed for parliamentary scrutiny of the legislative proposals.
That happened today. Sort of.
The standing Commons committee on Justice and Human Rights whipped through the, uh, study of the “mega-trials” bill Monday morning.
It’s being reported back to the Commons for third reading without any substantive amendment.
Elizabeth May was there as an observer.
A couple of things came up in the brief session: no definition of “mega-trial” in the bill. No specific rights of appeal set out.
May, given permission to speak, reminded the committee that the Canadian Bar Association had objections to the bill.
She was scolded by a Conservative member.
But this was at least a nod to what the committees are supposed to do. Even if it only took about an hour or so.
What is odd about all this fast-tracking is the willingness of political parties to abdicate the responsibility to publicly scrutinize new laws, to put them to the test by sounding out witnesses in public hearings.
The thing is, the federal government – whether Conservative or Liberal - is always quick to argue in court, when laws are challenged, that judges ought to leave the tough policy decisions and law-making to the experts, ie. to parliamentarians.
Parliament, the government argues, is the best place for open policy discussion and debate; where options can be weighed; where the pros and cons of restrictive measures that may, say, deprive an immigrant of liberty, or impose a mandatory prison sentence on a small-time marijuana dealer can be properly aired and decided.
Courts, and judges, do not have the policy-making apparatus or access to the kinds of social science experts that Parliament has, and should defer to the politicians, the argument goes.
Except, now, increasingly, the politicians tell us we should just trust them.
No need for lengthy committee hearings. Reporters are told federal lawyers have “assured” ministers that proposed legislation is “Charter-compliant” – or will withstand a test in the courts.
And of course, those legal opinions – as advice to ministers – are not available to the public. They are protected as cabinet confidences, and not accessible to journalists under Access to Information laws.
And guess what, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently bolstered the government’s ability to keep its secrets in minister’s offices.
So, what are we left with?
Justice in Jig Time.
Recent Comments