Wednesday June 16, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday June 16, 2021

Ford government pushes through controversial election spending bill with notwithstanding clause

The government of Premier Doug Ford has pushed a controversial bill through the Ontario legislature limiting third-party election advertising by employing a rarely used legislative power.

June 11, 2021

Bill 307, which used the notwithstanding clause to reintroduce parts of a law struck down by a judge last week, passed Monday by a margin of 63 votes to 47.

The clause allows legislatures to override portions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a five-year term.

A judge found it was unconstitutional for the government to double the restricted pre-election spending period for third-party advertisements to 12 months before an election call.

The Progressive Conservative government argued the extended restriction was necessary to protect elections from outside influence.

The bill passed Monday afternoon after a marathon weekend debate in which opposition politicians argued the government was trying to silence criticism ahead of next June’s provincial election.

“It’s obviously a move from a man who’s desperate to cling to power,” said NDP Leader Andrea Horwath.

December 9, 2010

The New Democrats spent the day trying to drag out the process by introducing a variety of motions on pandemic-related issues they argued should be the focus of the sitting. Ford said earlier on Monday that he wouldn’t be swayed.

“We’re fighting for democracy,” Ford said at Queen’s Park. “I’ll work all day, all night to protect the people.”

Last week, Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Morgan found it was unconstitutional for the Progressive Conservative government to double the restricted pre-election spending period for third-party advertisements to 12 months before an election call.

A bill that took effect this spring had stretched the restricted spending period from six months to one year before an election is called, but kept the spending limit of $600,000 the same.

Morgan found that the government didn’t provide an explanation for doubling the limit, and his decision meant sections of the law involved in the court challenge were no longer in effect.  (CBC) 

 

Tuesday June 15, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday June 15, 2021

The Wreckage Donald Trump Left Behind

January 16, 2020

Somewhere in China, a company recently received an order for boxes and boxes of reusable face masks with g7 uk 2021 embroidered on them. Over the weekend in Cornwall, in southwest England, these little bits of protective cloth were handed to journalists covering the 2021 summit of some of the world’s most powerful industrial economies—so they could write in safety about these leaders’ efforts to contain China.

August 24, 2019

The irony of the situation neatly summed up the trouble with this year’s G7 summit. The gathering was supposed to mark a turning point, a physical meeting symbolizing not only the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic but also a return to something approaching normalcy after the years of Donald Trump and Brexit. And in certain senses it was. With Joe Biden—the walking embodiment of the traditional American paterfamilias that Trump was not—no one feared a sudden explosion or American walkout as before. Biden is not the sort of person to hurl Starbursts at another leader in a fit of pique. And yet, the reality was that the leaders in attendance were playing their diplomatic games within tram lines graffitied on the floor largely by the former U.S. president, not the incumbent one.

January 12, 2021

Emerging from a weekend of summitry last night, it was hard to avoid the reality that the great questions hanging over the gathering were ones shaped either by Trump or by the years of Trump: Europe’s frustration with American vaccine protectionism (which began under Trump but has been maintained by Biden), ongoing disputes over Brexit, the future of NATO, worries over Russian interference, and, ultimately, China, the great other at this event. As German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in her closing remarks: “Look, the election of Joe Biden as U.S. president doesn’t mean that the world no longer has problems.”

June 9, 2018

Everywhere you looked—whether in the communiqué itself, or the press conferences and summaries of leaders’ meetings—you could see the unresolved questions of the past few years, as presidents and prime ministers reacted to the problems thrown up, exacerbated, or actively caused by Trump. All agreed that they wanted to move on from the instability of his tenure, but they seemed divided and unclear about how, never mind what the new era should look like. With Biden’s congressional majority in doubt and Trump’s future intentions uncertain, Europe retains a latent fear that the U.S. is merely between eruptions, not recovering from one.

May 24, 2017

The leaders seemed to embody this sense of time being paused. Merkel has been chancellor so long, she attended her first G7 summit with George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Italy’s Mario Draghi might be a new prime minister, but he is no stranger to the world’s global establishment—a representative of the old order if ever there was one. Even Biden himself, hailed as a “breath of fresh air” by the summit’s host, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, is hardly a new face on the world stage.

Ultimately, this G7 summit seemed to be stuck somewhere between the past and the future—between the era of Trump and the world some of these politicians hope to create. (The Atlantic) 

Saturday June 12, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday June 12, 2021

Ontario enters Step 1 of COVID-19 reopening

Ontario is entering Step 1 of its reopening plan three days ahead of schedule—a move that will allow residents to enjoy the summer weather with a variety of outdoor activities now permitted.

February 25, 2021

The province was supposed to begin reopening on June 14, but Premier Doug Ford’s office said that the situation in Ontario is “exceeding the best-case scenario.”

But what does moving into Step 1 mean? 

Ontario entered Step 1 of the reopening plan at 12:01 a.m. on Friday, June 11. The government has said it will wait at least 21 days between each step. This means Ontario will likely move into Step 2 on July 2.

The Ontario government has moved the entire province into Step 1, however local public health units do have the power to hold their region back. Porcupine Health Unit is the only PHU extending the current pandemic lockdown until June 24.

February 23, 2021

Outdoor gatherings and public events are now permitted with a maximum of 10 people. Indoor gatherings with people outside of your household are still not allowed.

Patios are permitted to reopen in Step 1, with a maximum of four people at a table, unless they live in the same household. There is no cap on the number of tables on a patio, but officials have said that there must be two-metres between each table or group of people.

Restaurants with patios can return to their normal hours of liquor service, Monday to Sunday 9 a.m. to 2 a.m.

Indoor dining is still prohibited. (CTV) 

 

Friday June 11, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday June 11, 2021

The Canadian Charter’s notwithstanding clause is increasingly indefensible

It isn’t happening in Quebec, but in Ontario, so there will be more of a fuss than would otherwise be the case.

September 14, 2018

But there will be less of a fuss than the last time the Doug Ford government threatened to use the notwithstanding clause to override constitutionally guaranteed rights. The next time it happens, there will be less still. And there will be a next time, and a next time after that, and another, and another – precisely because the political costs of doing so diminish with each use.

This is how the clause is being normalized. This is how, in consequence, the Charter of Rights is being eviscerated. It is already more or less a dead letter in Quebec, where the override has been invoked over the years by governments of every party. Once upon a time it might have caused something of a stir, at least outside the province, as when Robert Bourassa used it to uphold the ban on English-language signs in 1988.

September 21, 2019

But having paid no discernible price for invoking the clause to protect Bill 21, legislation that effectively bars the hiring of religious minorities across much of the public service, Quebec’s CAQ government was quick to do the same with regard to Bill 96, its new and harsher language law. A rights “guarantee” that cannot protect minorities from overt harassment and discrimination – a guarantee that applies only as when the government of the day decides it should – is not much of a guarantee at all.

July 28, 2018

And now it is happening elsewhere. Mr. Ford’s first attempt to use the clause, over a 2018 bill that would have cut the size of Toronto city council in half – in the middle of a municipal election – may have collapsed in confusion, but now the Premier is back for another try. This time the casus belli is Bill 254, legislation passed earlier this year that would, among other things, double the length of time before an election campaign during which third-party advocacy groups would be subject to spending limits.

As before, the Premier has supposedly been provoked to action by a judge’s ruling, overturning the legislation on Charter grounds. But as before this is not really the issue. The government could have appealed either ruling to a higher court, and even had it lost there, it could have rewritten either bill in ways that addressed its purported intent, without unduly limiting Charter rights. (Globe & Mail) 

 

Thursday June 10, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday June 10, 2021

What happened in London should be a pivot point for Canada — and its politicians

In a speech in 2015, while reflecting on Canada’s treatment of minorities, Justin Trudeau said that the inclusive idea of liberty that typifies the best of Canada “requires Canadian political leadership to be sustained.”

Six years later, the killing of four members of a Muslim family in London, Ontario is a moment of reckoning for Canadians — but also for this country’s political leaders.

If it’s necessary for Canadians to reflect on themselves and their country, it’s equally necessary for politicians to consider what they could have done better in the past and what more they could do in the future.

In 2017, there was Motion 103. Tabled by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, it asked the House of Commons to condemn Islamophobia and endorse a study of how the federal government could better combat racism and discrimination. It did not pass quietly or easily. Eighty-six Conservative MPs — including current party leader Erin O’Toole — voted against it.

August 25, 2020

O’Toole’s first response to the attack in London this week described it as an “Islamophobic act of terror.” He used the word “Islamophobia” in his remarks to the House of Commons the next day.

Maybe that counts as some small measure of progress, too. But even if O’Toole appeared to turn a page this week, should politicians ever be allowed to move on so quietly?

Does he regret his vote on M-103? How does he feel now about what the previous Conservative government — which he served as a cabinet minister — said and did in regards to the niqab? What about that same government’s talk of “barbaric cultural practices?”

February 16, 2017

In the 2015 election — during which Stephen Harper suggested he would consider extending a ban on the niqab to the public service — was hardly the last word on anti-Muslim prejudice in Canada.

Trudeau put himself ahead of other leaders on the issue of the niqab when he delivered that speech in 2015. Unfortunately, it was possible then to think he had taken a political risk in so loudly criticizing the Harper government’s ban. New Democrats ended up blaming their losses in that year’s election in part on the fact that Tom Mulcair eventually was compelled to condemn the policy.

October 3, 2019

If Trudeau is ahead of his federal counterparts now on the matter of Quebec’s Bill 21, which would ban public servants in the province from wearing religious headwear or symbols, he’s not ahead by much.

O’Toole deferred to Quebec when he was asked about the so-called “secularism” law last September — another thing he might be asked about now. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has criticized the bill but has stopped short of saying an government led by him would intervene.

Trudeau has criticized the bill but is still alone among federal leaders in saying that the federal government might someday need to participate in a legal challenge against it.

That wasn’t much — but then Trudeau seemed to move backwards this week. Asked by a reporter whether he thought Bill 21 “fosters hatred and … discrimination,” the prime minister responded, “No.” (Continued: CTV)