James Cowan, the leader of the Liberal Party in the Senate, says it with a little more gentility than I do in the subject line to this post but the takeaway is pretty clear: Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's claims that the Liberals in the Senate have been blocking the Conservative justice bills is a bunch of hooey – and Nicholson ought to admit it.
February 4, 2010
The Hon. Rob Nicholson, P.C., M.P.
Minister of JusticeDear Minister Nicholson,
I am writing concerning several statements made by you on Friday, January 29 when defending Prime Minister Harper’s appointment of an additional five Conservative Senators. In the past 12 months, Prime Minister Harper has made an unprecedented 32 appointments to the Senate – the most Senate appointments made by any Canadian Prime Minister in a 12-month period since Confederation.
I was puzzled to read press reports in which you defended the latest Senate appointments as necessary to allow your Government “to move forward on [y]our tackling-crime agenda.” You accused the Liberal opposition of having “obstructed that agenda in the Senate.” According to a transcript of your press conference, you said:
“The Ignatieff Liberals have abused their majority in the Senate by obstructing law and order bills that are urgently needed and strongly supported by Canadians.”
I can only assume that you have been misinformed as to the progress of anti-crime legislation. In fact, as I am sure your Cabinet colleague, Senator Marjory LeBreton, would tell you, the overwhelming majority of your Government’s anti-crime bills had not even reached the Senate when Prime Minister Stephen Harper chose to prorogue Parliament. Indeed, an honest examination of the record compels one to acknowledge that the greatest delays to implementation of your justice agenda have resulted from your own Government’s actions – sitting on bills and not bringing them forward for debate, delaying bringing legislation into force, and ultimately, of course, proroguing Parliament. That action alone caused some 18 of your justice-related bills to die on the Order Paper.
As a Canadian Press report described, “Indeed, [Prime Minister] Harper himself has done far more to delay his own crime legislation, by proroguing Parliament and other stalling tactics, than Liberal senators have ever done.”
Your Government introduced 19 justice-related bills in the House of Commons. Of these, 14 were still in the House of Commons at prorogation. Of the five justice bills that passed the House of Commons and came to the Senate:
two passed the Senate without amendment;
one (the so-called Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime bill) was tabled by your Government in November in the Senate but not brought forward for further action after that;
one was passed with four amendments and returned to the House of Commons which did not deal with it before Parliament was prorogued; and
one was being studied in committee when Parliament was prorogued and all committee work shut down.
There were a further two justice bills that your Government chose to initiate in the Senate. One was passed by the Senate after 14 days, sent to the House of Commons, passed and given Royal Assent. The other was tabled in the Senate on April 1, but has not been brought forward by your Government for any further action since then.
In terms of the status of the 14 law-and-order bills in the House of Commons, that had not yet reached the Senate when Parliament was prorogued:
Four of these bills have been sitting in the House of Commons at first reading, three in that state since October, and one since November – your Government chose not to bring any of these bills forward for second reading debate.
Another bill, Bill C-19, was tabled in the House of Commons by your Government in March, 2009, brought forward for two days of second reading debate in June, and not brought forward for any further action since then.
Similarly, Bill C-35 was tabled in June, brought forward for one day of second reading debate in October, and no further action taken since then.
Seven justice-related bills were being studied in Committee in the House of Commons as of prorogation. That work, of course, was required to stop immediately upon prorogation.
One bill – Bill C-34, the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders bill – got as far as to be reported back from the House of Commons Committee on December 7, before dying on the Order Paper with the Government’s prorogation of Parliament.
I fail to understand how this factual record could lead you to say, as you did in your press conference that, “the record also shows that the Liberals are soft on crime” or that the Liberals in the Senate “obstructed” law and order bills. In fact, as I am sure you will now recognize, it is your Government that has failed to move forward a number of your own anti-crime bills. And, of course, by choosing to prorogue Parliament, Prime Minister Harper chose to let 18 of his Government’s 21 “tough-on-crime” bills die on the Order Paper. Comparing the numbers, Canadians would have to conclude that it is the Harper Conservatives who have chosen to obstruct law and order bills – while shamelessly trying to smear the Liberals and the Senate with the blame.
It is difficult to take a law-and-order agenda seriously when it is argued with so little respect for facts. Justice above all depends upon truth. As our country’s Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, your first allegiance must always be to the truth, far beyond any political or partisan gamesmanship. Our system of justice depends upon it. How can Canadians have any confidence in their justice system, if the person responsible for that system – the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada – is prepared to play fast and loose with the truth?
In your press conference, you pointed to three bills as evidence of Liberal Senators’ supposed “obstruction” of your Government’s agenda: Bills C-15, C-25 and C-26.
Bill C-15 was passed by the Senate with four amendments. These amendments represented our advice to the House of Commons, reflecting what we heard and concluded after listening to testimony from Canadians about the bill. That is our job as members of the second legislative House of Canada’s Parliament. We fully expected to hear back from the House of Commons with that House’s considered response to our advice. Unfortunately, that was not to be: instead, Prime Minister Harper chose to prorogue Parliament. The Senate’s work – done in the best tradition of Canadian parliamentary democracy – was lost.
While we may disagree as to whether the Senate’s amendments improved the bill (as I would say) or weakened it (as you would say) what cannot be truthfully said is that the Senate either delayed or obstructed the passage of the bill.
What “killed” the bill in the end, was not the Senate but the Prime Minister in shutting down Parliament before the House of Commons had a chance to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate.
I was particularly surprised that you referred to Bill C-25 during your press conference. That bill, which dealt with limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody, passed the Senate without any amendments on October 21, 2009, yet as of this writing, according to the Library of Parliament and the Privy Council Office, the bill has still not been brought into force by your Government – more than three months later. One is left to wonder whether you simply forgot to bring it into force? Or was the bill more about the appearance of being “tough on crime” than actually taking action? Certainly we now know that bill was not as urgent a priority for the Harper Government as was initially represented.
Finally, Bill C-26 was being studied by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee when Parliament prorogued. As of prorogation, that bill had been in the Senate for 38 days. By comparison, the bill spent 42 days in the House of Commons. Committee study of proposed legislation is what many observers say is among the best work of the Senate. I am sure you want Canada’s criminal legislation to be the best and most effective it can be, and would agree that the proposed changes to the Criminal Code regarding auto theft require careful study consistent with our parliamentary system. Unfortunately, that work had to cease because of prorogation.
As Minister of Justice, and as a personal proponent of a strong law-and-order agenda, you have a duty, which I am sure you recognize, to uphold the truth and not mislead Canadians. Accordingly, I am confident that you will wish to quickly correct the record, and agree that the Liberal opposition in the Senate has not in fact “obstructed” your Government’s anti-crime agenda. To the contrary, the greatest delays to the implementation of your agenda have been due to your own Government’s actions in failing to bring bills forward for debate, dragging your feet in bringing legislation into force, and most significantly, proroguing Parliament.
I look forward to your clarification of these issues for Canadians.
Yours very truly,
James S. Cowan
Cc: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Cc: The Honourable Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate
We await Minister Nicholson's response.
Apparently Nicholson, indeed Harper et al, have merely a passing acquaintance with the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
What is he again? Oh yeah. He's the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. Who would expect him to respect facts and the truth?
Great post, thanks for reporting on it.
I'm actually surprised that the Senate passed Bill C-15 at all – considering the Conservatives provided no evidence to support the bill every time they were asked to provide it.
Calling the Tories Out on Bill C-15 – “The Politics of Fear” – http://maryjanecannabian.blogspot.com/2009/11/calling-tories-out-on-bill-c-15.html
Thank you for posting this!
This is the sort of information Canadians need to hear to balance out the larger Senate debate.
Rather creepy isn't it? A “Justice” Minister who can't tell the truth.
He should be “fired” NOW
Couldn't be bothered to wait for a response or prehaps report anything that offers both sides of this “story” could you.
Why is it that reporting is now seen as a black word. I remember, not long ago, when I read news articles that presented both sides of a story.
Shame on you and your continued one sided reporting.
It seems the reporting on the liberal senator's jab at the Tories tough on crime position has ruffled a few feathers….then again one can't be too surprised at the knee-jerk reaction to something that is laid out in plain sight.
Anonymous: would you care to explain what the opposite side of this post would entail? A conservative response perhaps? Oh but those are typically of the “no comment” variety, aren't they? If there actually is a response to this letter (I'd like to see it), then it'll likely employ rhetoric rather than any semblance of cogent thought.
One side of the story is Nicholson's public comments and Harper's appointments to the Senate.
The other side of the story is Cowan's rebuttal.
Not to mention Mr. Akin's last line, “We await Minister Nicholson's response.”
Which side of the story has Mr. Akin missed here?
[John Stuart Mill, right again. Not all conservatives are stupid but all stupid people are conservative.]
To 'Anonymous'… It is apparent to my eye as a member of the general public, that Minister Nicholson has a fascination with “The Truth” – He is determined, just as are most members of PM Harper's cabinet, that “The Truth” should be hunted down, locked up tightly and never allowed to see the light of day!
If this were not the case, surely we would have heard SOME response from the minister by now? Even the scheduling of a press conference or announcement of an upcoming Propaganda (sorry, Press) Release would be something…
Instead, it seems that you would rather the media NOT report anything but what is officially sanctioned by the PMO. That WOULD allow you more time to peruse American Idol or Dancing With the Stars, wouldn't it?
Ha Ha Ha Ha HA!
It's hard to read through to the end, which is why the truth takes a back seat to bald assertions, and outright, but catchy lies. (Sorry, I'm supposed to sanitise it and call a boldfaced lie 'Spin' when it's done by a professional Hack, or Politician).
This has the ring of truth, and although I don't understand all the minutae of how a bill progresses, and who pulls what trigger at what point, I think this letter has explained it admirably.
I have several points I’d like to make, so my comment is a four-parter.
I’ll leave Minister Nicholson and his department to confirm or rebut the accuracy of the status of bills mentioned by Sen. Cowan. However, I would like to point out a few things.
From Senator Cowan’s letter (dated Feb 4, 2010):
“That action alone [prorogation] caused some 18 of your justice-related bills to die on the Order Paper.”
An inaccuracy. I hate to bring this up again … I did so here a while back, and I repeated it over at the Delacourt blog, as well as at other blogs. It is inaccurate to say all bills necessarily die because of prorogation.
Bills can be revived if the House agrees to it, and I assume their status in the Senate can be revived as well.
As stated here http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_parliamentarycycle-e.htm#3 under the Detailed Article
“The principal effect of ending a session by prorogation is to end business. All government bills that have not received Royal Assent prior to prorogation cease to exist; committee activity also ceases. Thus, no committee can sit after a prorogation.
In order for government bills to be proceeded with in a new session, they must be reintroduced as new bills or they may be reinstated, if the House agrees to this.
The Standing Orders provide for the automatic reinstatement of all items of Private Members' Business in a new session. Committee work may also be revived either by motion in the House, or in committee, depending upon the nature of the study.
Prorogation does not affect Orders or Addresses of the House for the tabling government reports required to be tabled by statute. Requests for responses to committee reports or petitions are still valid following a prorogation . These continue in force from one session to another, but are ended by dissolution.”
So, it is inaccurate for Senator Cowan and Mr. Ignatieff to say “That action alone [prorogation] caused some 18 of your justice-related bills to die on the Order Paper.”
Since the good Senator and his fellow Liberals, as well as many in the media, are stuck on prorogation as seemingly one of the greatest evils visited upon Canada in recent history, I wonder why there is no similar outrage now that Premier McGuinty has decided to prorogue the Ontario Legislature.
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100209/ont_mcguinty_100209/20100209/?hub=TorontoNewHome
“McGuinty to briefly prorogue Ontario legislature
Updated: Tue Feb. 09 2010 5:55:48 PM
The Canadian Press
BROCKVILLE, Ont. — The Ontario legislature will prorogue for a “limited break” before starting a new session with a speech from the throne after the Vancouver Olympics, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday.
He wouldn't say when he plans to pull the plug, but confirmed that elected politicians will have to head back to work next Tuesday [Feb. 16] as scheduled.”
Unless I’m mistaken, the Legislature rose on Dec. 10, 2009 and is scheduled to resume sitting on Feb. 16, according to the CTV article cited above.
That means the Legislature had a 45-work-day Christmas recess, compared to Parliament’s 30-work-day Christmas recess (Dec. 10 to Jan 25).
Premier McGuinty’s announcement that he’s proroguing for a short time only, with a Throne Speech to come on March 4, means that both Parliament and the Ontario Legislature will have been prorogued for about the same number of work days: Parliament 17 work days (excluding Olympic days) and Ontario, to be determined.
So … where’s the media outrage? Where’s the FB “grassroots” movement?
More repetition on my part.
Prior to the first batch of Senate appointments announced in Dec. 2008, I pointed out here in the thread “Triple-E bows to reality” that the Liberals were demanding Senate vacancies be filled:
The Hill Times, May 12th, 2008 (full article now limited to subscribers)
“Senator urges Prime Minister Harper to fill increasing Senate vacancies …
… [Lib.] Sen. Moore pointed to his home province of Nova Scotia, where there are currently three vacancies.
“We are entitled to those vacancies being filled,” he said. “You can appoint Progressive Conservatives, Conservatives, Reformers, or whomever you like. … “
After that request for filling Senate vacancies, there came a bill introduced in the Senate, Bill S-224 [First Reading, February 5, 2009].
Perhaps Senator Cowan is unaware of Liberal Senator Wilfred P. Moore's Bill S-224 — Parliamentary vacancies — which would compel the PM to fill Senate seats “within 180 days after a vacancy happens in the Senate.” Sen. Moore argued the number of vacancies made it difficult for the Senate to function properly.
Since no names of elected Senate candidates were put forward by the provinces, PM Harper drew up his own list, filling all those vacancies.
Therefore, now insisting that the PM has somehow broken some record for filling so many vacancies in a relatively short time is more than disingenuous.
Again, from Senator Cowan’s letter (dated Feb 4, 2010):
“In the past 12 months, Prime Minister Harper has made an unprecedented 32 appointments to the Senate – the most Senate appointments made by any Canadian Prime Minister in a 12-month period since Confederation.”
However,
•18 senators appointed on Dec 22, 2008
• 9 senators appointed on Aug. 27, 2009
• 5 senators appointed on January 29, 2010
Thus, the period from Dec 22, 2008 to Jan. 29, 2010 is actually 13 months and 12 days, not a 12-month period, as stated by Senator Cowan. Since Senator Cowan insists on pointing to a 12-month period by stating it twice, I have to point out that he is technically wrong, or misstating facts.
OK, I'm a nitpicker, but then the Senator, whose sober second thought Canadians rely on, should strive to be more precise.
And finally … (readers may now heave a sigh of relief)
“We await Minister Nicholson's response.”
To whom does the royal “we” being used here refer?
*** There are many more conservative claims about bill C-15 waiting to be debunked. Don't stop at the “Liberal Senator obstructing crime bill” myth. Look at the bill itself! ***
Mandatory minimum sentences have already been tried in the U.S. to disastrous outcomes. Harper wants to take Canada down that same road to certain and expensive failure, even though…
A) Justice Minister Rob Nicholson used to be critical of the use of mandatory minimum sentences (MMS) using the same reasoning as those who are now opposing their introduction in Bill C-15!
B) the Justice Department already did a study of mandatory sentencing (2002?) and concluded that MMS do NOT deter crime or increase public safety — which is what this bill is claimed to address. The reality is that MMS could possibly make those things worse.
C) despite numerous requests during committees Rob Nicholson was unable to provide even a single study to support the effectiveness of MMS. (There is no lack of studies condemning the use of MMS, especially for drug crimes.)
Don't be confused by the Conservative spin!
The only ones who will benefit from the passing of Bill C-15 are police, organized criminals and politicians who willing to fear-monger and use “tough on crime” rhetoric to appeal to people's emotions rather than their intellect.
This is a clear example of a lust for power trumping the safety of Canadians!
Watch videos of expert testimony at the Senate Committee studying Bill C-15 and then JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES…
*** http://www.youtube.com/user/CannabisFactsForCdns ***
Recommended witness testimony:
1) David Bratzer – an active duty police officer in Victoria, BC, and a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. http://LEAP.cc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173LZbyWCOU
—
2) Eugene Oscapella – Ottawa lawyer and founder of Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, http://CFDP.ca
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnKccUTyE_M
—
3) Craig Jones – Exec Dir., John Howard Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0mQ8m-0Xqg
—
4) Kirk Tousaw – Lawyer and Executive Director of the Beyond Prohibition Foundation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1269_doTXQk
—
-FrankD
http://www.cannabisfacts.ca/mandatoryminimums.html