justice

Thursday August 12, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday August 12, 2021

Canada Considers Countering Winter Games and Hostage Diplomacy

Canada is being urged by legal and international experts to apply diplomatic pressure on both China and the United States to secure the release of Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, following Spavor’s 11-year prison sentence by a Chinese court.

December 8, 2020

Spavor, an entrepreneur, was detained in China in December 2018 along with Kovrig on allegations of state spying, charges widely seen as retaliation for the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver in connection with a U.S. extradition request. Meng’s formal extradition hearing began on Wednesday in British Columbia.

Since their arrest, Canada has been pushing for the release of Spavor and Kovrig. Both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau condemned Spavor’s sentence on Wednesday.

“This decision was made after a process that lack both fairness and transparency including a trial that did not satisfy the minimum standards required by international law,” Garneau said at a press conference, adding Canada was is ‘intense’ discussions with both Chinese and U.S. officials to free both Spavor and Kovrig, who is still awaiting trial in China.

February 12, 2021

Trudeau, in a statement, called the sentence unacceptable and unjust.

“For Mr. Spavor, as well as for Michael Kovrig who has also been arbitrarily detained, our top priority remains securing their immediate release. We will continue working around the clock to bring them home as soon as possible,” he said.

Since the arrests in 2018, Canada has decried what it calls “hostage diplomacy” and in February launched the ‘Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations,’ which has now been endorsed by 66 countries.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Party leader has warned that it may soon be too dangerous for Canadians to travel to China for the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing. (CTV) 

December 12, 2018

Speaking at a news conference on Ontario on Tuesday, leader Erin O’Toole said: “We are approaching a point where it won’t be safe for Canadians, including Olympic athletes, to travel to China.”

Diplomats from dozens of countries gathered at Canada’s embassy in Beijing on Wednesday to hear the Spavor verdict. The fate of a fellow Canadian, former diplomat Michael Kovrig, remains unclear.

O’Toole was speaking after a court rejected the appeal of a third Canadian, Robert Schellenberg, whose prison term in a drug case was abruptly increased to death following Meng’s arrest.

March 24, 2008

Asked about the winter Games, O’Toole said: “Yes Canada should be considering a boycott.

“And I’ve said we’re going to be watching the decision very closely. Beijing has to know that the world is watching the genocide taking place against the Uyghurs. They’ve watched what’s been happening in Hong Kong and the situation with Mr Schellenberg, Mr Spavor and Mr Kovrig.”

He said Canada would have to think “long and hard on whether we reward a country like that with the Games”. (The Guardian) 

 

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) 

 

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 February 13, 2020

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday February 13, 2020

Rule of law must prevail in gas pipeline dispute

A common misconception about the blockades and protests disrupting business and travel across Canada this week is that they are taking place with the support of the majority of Indigenous people. Obviously, some people — Indigenous and non-Indigenous — support Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs in their efforts to stop the construction of the Coastal GasLink natural gas pipeline.

February 6, 2020

But to suggest that the chiefs, or their supporters across the country, speak on behalf of Indigenous people in general is misguided.

Consider the situation among members of the Witset First Nation in the area of the pipeline.

All 20 elected band councils along the pipeline route have signed benefit agreements with Coastal GasLink and support the pipeline. Some of the communities held referendums that showed majority support. But, the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs who oppose the pipeline say those councils were established by the Indian Act and only have authority over reserve lands.

CBC’s “As It Happens” interviewed Wet’suwet’en resident Bonnie George who said, in part: “There’s quite a bit of support for this project. But people are afraid to speak up because, in the past few years, people that (have) spoken up were either ostracized … ridiculed, bullied, harassed, threatened, and being called a traitor — a sellout … People are afraid to speak up.”

April 23, 2006

Another resident, Philip Tait, told Global News: “Right now, this is probably got to be one of the biggest job creations in the province here, and we want to be part of it,” he said. “The hereditary chiefs’ office, they don’t speak for the whole clan.”

And yet, here we are. The chiefs’ protest has become a cause celebre across the country, with supporters blockading roads and railways, disrupting service. Some of the consequences are merely inconveniences, but others have serious economic impact. The lack of propane delivery, for example, threatens agricultural businesses that rely on it to heat barns during winter.

The pipeline project has met all environmental requirements. It has all the requisite approvals. It has the official support of Indigenous communities along the route.

And it has the potential to serve an important purpose, aside from the obvious one that it moves liquid natural gas from point A (Dawson Creek) to Point B (Kitimat).

Pipeline cartoons

The natural gas moved through the pipeline will end up at a huge complex in Kitimat. From there, LNG will be moved by ship to markets around the world. Some of those markets will include large nations like China and India that still produce a great deal of their needed energy by burning coal. LNG, while not perfect, is much less harmful to the environment as coal energy. So the LNG that comes from the $6-billion, 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline has the potential to make a significant impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries.

But for that to work, the gas has to get from its source to market. And the best, safest, way to do that is by pipeline.

Given that construction has all official approvals to proceed, governments were left with little choice but to issue injunctions demanding protesters leave the area. When they refused, RCMP removed and arrested some. RCMP were operating under the rule of law, just as police in other jurisdictions, including Ontario, are doing by following legal direction to remove blockades on rail lines, ports and roadways.

Negotiations with the chiefs are continuing, as they should. But the rule of law must be observed, across Canada. That’s of paramount national importance. (Hamilton Spectator Editorial) 

 

Tuesday April 9, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday April 9, 2019

Trudeau threatens Scheer with lawsuit over SNC-Lavalin comments

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer has received a lawsuit threat from the prime minister regarding comments he made about the SNC-Lavalin affair.

October 16, 2015

Scheer says he received a letter from Justin Trudeau’s lawyer on March 31.

The letter from Trudeau’s lawyer Julian Porter took issue with what they term inappropriate comments in a statement made by Scheer on March 29 in response to new documents tabled in the justice committee from former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould.

“The statement contained highly defamatory comments about Prime Minister Trudeau,” it reads.

Trudeau has been under fire for the last two months over allegations that there was pressure on Wilson-Raybould to interfere in criminal proceedings against Quebec construction giant SNC-Lavalin. In an appearance before the House justice committee, she said top government officials asked her to help ensure a special legal deal was extended to the company.

She later provided emails, a written statement and a taped recording to the committee.

Scheer’s March 29 statement, in part, accused the prime minister of political interference, of lying to Canadians and of corrupt conduct.

Trudeau’s lawyer alleges Scheer made false statements, and refers to the Libel and Slander Act of Ontario, which deals with any publicly published material or comments that defame or disparage an individual or their profession.

February 28, 2019

“The prime minister supports wide-ranging and vigorous political debate on matters of public policy. However, your statement, in its entirety, is beyond the pale of fair debate and is libellous of my client personally and in the way of his occupation as prime minister,” Porter writes. 

Scheer has retained legal counsel as well.

His lawyer Peter Downard responded to the letter on Sunday, calling the complaint “entirely without merit.”

“It is profoundly disappointing that the prime minister is seeking to silence debate on matters of such great public importance. Mr. Scheer will not be intimidated,” he wrote.

The rebuttal also dares the prime minister to proceed with the lawsuit — which Scheer reiterated in his Sunday afternoon news conference — saying the defence will call for evidence, for Trudeau to testify under oath and for members of his government also to testify.

“I will defend myself vigorously on this,” Scheer said. (Source: CBC News)