Hey! Look how much we care about drunk driving!!

In what I’m sure is completely coincidental timing, coming as it does as Canadians express their outrage over former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer (loving husband to boot-throwing, PEI hating, airport security staff berating Conservative minister Helena Guergis) walking into a courtroom facing charges of driving under the influence and possession of cocaine, and walking out with a $500 fine for careless driving, comes this bit of justice-related diversion from Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson:

The Harper government appears ready to move ahead on imposing random roadside breath testing, which a new federal discussion paper says has produced "remarkable results" in catching more drunk drivers in other countries.

The Justice Department is inviting public input on the idea of random sobriety tests and federal officials plan to meet this month and next with provincial ministers and other experts to measure support.

In a rare move, the federal government has posted on its website a discussion paper, weighing the benefits of random testing, seeking feedback by the end of April.

Empowering police to conduct random breath tests would replace Canada's 40-year-old legislation on impaired driving, which dictates that breathalyzer tests can only be administered when there is reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.

You know, my first thought was that this was an attempt to distract from the latest drama of everyone’s favourite Conservative power couple, but on second thought, if it is, it’s a pretty poor one. After all, it only serves to draw attention back to the Jaffer case.

Would this proposed change -- which as I’ve written before is a really bad idea, a completely draconian invasion of privacy, unlikely to do much to prevent drunk driving, and could quite possibly be unconstitutional – have made any difference in the Jaffer case? Not with the facts as they’re known at the moment. (We could use more facts, though.) The police apparently did perform a breathalyzer in this case, which Jaffer is alleged to have failed. If there was a problem with the admissibility of that search, that may have led to the plea bargain, we don’t know right now.

The whole point of this proposal though would be to subject many more people to random searches to see if they happen to be drinking and driving – and maybe have a look around their car for other fun stuff at the same time. If the Jaffer case shows anything though it’s not that the problem is getting them pulled over, it’s what happens after that, and as the case is turned over to the justice system.

Everything in law-making is a balancing act, security vs. personal liberty. And if you’re asking me to sacrifice a great deal of my personal liberty for a marginally greater likelihood of seeing people given meaningless $500 fines, then I’d say no, and try coming up with a plan that isn’t completely stupid, please.

Personally, I think the problem isn't the laws. It's a lack of resources to enforce them. Invest in police, and invest in a justice system so they have the resources to actually try cases. Too often, prosecutors feel pushed into plea bargains to keep their clearance rates up, because they don't have the time to deal with the backlog of cases. There's also the fact prosecutors are judged on their win/loss records, leaving them leery of pursuing borderline cases.

If you really want to get tough on crime, let's start there.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why are we so dammed afraid to get smart on crime?

As a Liberal who would describe himself as socially moderate and fiscally conservative, I'm increasingly angry and frustrated with the inability and unwillingness of the centre/left to get smart on crime policy. Increasingly, we’re letting the conservatives define the terms of the debate as we cower in the corner frightened and whimpering, afraid of being tarred with that label of political death: soft on crime.

I remember being dumbfounded during the 2005/06 election campaign, when the Paul Martin Liberals included support for mandatory minimum sentences for some (gun-related) crimes in the election platform, a move to echo ineffective Conservative policy proposals that was also adapted by the NDP.

Mandatory minimums don’t work, the evidence on that point from the U.S. is pretty overwhelming. Criminals know what they’re doing is wrong and they know there are consequences, mandatory minimums aren’t a deterrent. They do nothing to prevent crime, they only increase prison populations. They're about appearing tough on crime without doing the heavy-lifting to actually prevent crime.

Yet mandatory minimums were back this spring, with the Conservatives proposing them for a range of drug-related crimes including, in some cases, simple possession. And while the NDP stayed offside this time (they were voting against everything at that point) the Liberals, rather than having the courage to call bullshit, rather than having the willingness and the gumption to argue (with the facts on our side, by the way) that this is an expensive and ineffective excuse for crime fighting legislation that will do nothing to address crime, instead took one look at the polls and the election possibility and, afraid of the “soft on crime” canard, supported the legislation.

And now, as I wrote yesterday, we see a trial balloon from Conservative justice minister Rob Nicholson about making a mockery of civil rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to “randomly” force people to submit to breathalyzer testing.

I was astounded, and I wasn’t, to see NDP leader Jack Layton immediately jump on board with this big-brotherish Conservative proposal, in a seeming abandonment of the core principles I’d have ascribed to the NDP:

The New Democrats would support efforts to craft a new law to curb impaired driving by giving police the power to conduct random breathalyzer tests, says Jack Layton.

"It’s the kind of thing that could save some lives," the NDP leader said Monday outside the House of Commons.

I guess civil liberties don’t mean much to Layton when it comes to appearing to be tough on crime to troll for votes. Sadly, my Liberals may be following down that same road. Don Martin, in a column where he argues in support of this thing, indicates the Liberals are supportive of the proposal although he doesn’t quote sources.

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh is quoted by the CBC as raising many of the same concerns I raised yesterday but, to my dismay, he doesn’t dismiss the proposal outright:

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, the former attorney general of British Columbia and a member of the House justice committee, said the question of whether any legislation would be allowable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would come down to implementation.

"It remains to be seen what the actual legislation is when the minister brings it forward because we want to make sure that it's appropriately constrained and it's not too much of an infringement on civil liberties," Dosanjh told CBC News.

Dosanjh said the charter does allow for constraints on rights when they are deemed reasonable, but said he would need to see how those constraints are implemented before judging any future legislation.

"For instance... I wouldn’t want the east side of Vancouver monitored more than the west side of Vancouver because there is a clear economic division in the city," he said.

"We want to make sure that areas are not unnecessarily excessively focused on and that's why I think that we need to make sure that the legislation is properly drafted with appropriate constraints and guidelines for the police," he said.

I can’t believe my party is even considering this legislation which, to me, is diametrically opposed to what the Liberal Party of Canada, the party of the charter, has always stood for. And I’m surprised that I’m finding more alliance with conservatives, particularly I’m guessing libertarian Conservatives, in my opposition to this thing. Even the National Post’s editorial board thinks this is a bad idea. And while they occasionally publish my musings on the Web, the Post’s editors and I rarely, if ever, agree on policy.

So I ask again, why are we so dammed afraid of the crime issue? Why do we let the Conservatives falsely define the terms of debate?

We have the facts on our side, but we’re unwilling to even make the argument. Why aren’t we saying the Conservatives are soft on crime? Why aren’t we saying their crime policy is nothing but politically-motivated posturing designed to stoke public fears to win votes but that will do absolutely nothing to prevent crime?

Why aren't we pointing-out that, under the previous Liberal governments, most crime rates actually declined steadily, proof that the approach of balancing enforcement and detention with prevention and addressing root causes, being smart on crime, actually works?

Why aren’t we saying the Conservative crime-policy is half-assed? Why aren’t we saying that by ignoring crime prevention, by strangling crime reduction measures that are proven to work such as Insite, by doing nothing to address poverty and root causes, by focusing on detention and sentencing to the exclusion of all other areas of criminal justice, the Conservative crime policy is fatally flawed? That the Conservatives are ignoring measures that could actually reduce crime?

No, we’re not doing that. We’re too afraid we’ll lose and be labeled soft on crime. It’s pathetic.

I will grant that it would be a tough debate to win. It’s far easier to appeal to people’s demons than their better angels, its easier to stoke their fears than encourage their compassion, to sink to the lowest common denominator rather than raise the debate.

It would be difficult to do, but it would be the right thing to do. We have the facts on our side, we have truth on our side.

We might well lose the debate. But it’s not the debates that we lose that bother me. It's the debates we can’t be bothered to suit up for.

If we’re going to fall, we should fall standing-up for something.

Right now, we’re falling standing for nothing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Random breath tests: A frightening trial-baloon from Rob Nicholson

I'm loathe to fall into tired rhetoric and hyperbole by throwing around terms like police state and big brother run amok, but this trial balloon from Conservative justice minister Rob Nicholson is frightening, with a myriad of troubling consequences:

The federal Justice Department is considering a new law to randomly force drivers to take roadside breath tests, regardless of whether police suspect they have been drinking, Canwest News Service has learned.

Random breath testing, if adopted, would replace Canada's 40-year-old legislation on impaired driving, which dictates that police can only administer breathalyzer tests if they have a reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson publicly raised the prospect of random testing recently at the annual gathering of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

"He has his Justice officials putting together the legal parameters," said MADD chief executive officer Andrew Murie.

Nicholson, when asked whether he is considering a new law on random testing, said: "We are looking at all options in that regard."

This is a bad idea on almost uncountable levels.

Firstly, I'm curious to see how they'd get around charter provisions against unreasonable search and seizure. The police can't just stop you and compel you to submit to search. They need to have reasonable grounds for suspicion, they need probable cause. That's a fundamental tenet of a free society, and is a key part of personal liberty. It's what separates us from police states.

Secondly, is it really going to be "random" searches? I don't buy that one for a second. I'd bet good money that certain demographics would get "randomly" pulled over for testing a lot more than other demographics. And it probably wouldn't be the same demographic responsible for the bulk of drunk driving offenses.

Thirdly, I'm a decided legal layman, but this would seem to open up a huge can of legal worms. You randomly pull someone over for a random breathalyzer test, someone that under normal circumstances you have no legal probable cause for doing so. And in that process, while they blow clean you discover they have committed another offense: let's say, the possession of a small amount of marijuana.

Normally, that would be inadmissible because you had no probable cause for the search. But does the "random breathalyzer" law get your foot in the door and make an otherwise inadmissible search become admissible? Would the breathalyzer law be used as an end-run around the wider search laws to widen police powers in ways not intended by the law, and that are contrary to the charter?

For many reasons, I think this is a horrible idea. Look, I support strong sentances for drunk drivers. And if the government has sensible ideas, if they have effective proposals for police tools that will actually work, I'm willing to listen. But a shredding of the charter of rights and a curtailing of civil liberties that would have repercussions far beyond those intended is not the answer here.

Of course, such legislation would never pass without a Conservative majority. Which makes this just yet another example of the Harper Conservatives substituting politicking and appealing to fear for actual effective anti-crime legislation.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(Video) Two exiled Canadians, two different answers

Fascinating series of questions in yesterday's question period between Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, a Conservative parliamentary secretary and a Conservative minister. Two questions on two different Canadian citizens abandoned by their country overseas, and two very different answers.



Usually I would give the Conservatives some credit for finally doing the right thing on Abousfian Abdelrazik, and I do, but to have to have done it under the hammer of a court order is beyond pathetic. And the fact they waited until the very last moment, preventing him from using the airline ticket purchased for him by concerned Canadians, is ridiculous. And, frankly, with the way they've dicked Abdelrazik around in the past, I won't believe it until we see him actually on Canadian soil.

I've lost track now of how many times the courts have had to tell the Harper Reformatories that they have a duty to stand-up for all Canadians, including those they don't like or that don't fit their defintion of "real Canadians."

But as long as the Conservatives are deciding to grudingly obey some court orders, how about this one guys?

A Federal Court has ordered Stephen Harper to seek the immediate return of Omar Khadr from the cells of Guantanamo, but the Prime Minister has refused to comply.

Federal Court Justice James O'Reilly ruled today that Canada had denied the Toronto-born captive his constitutional right to a fair trial and violated international law protecting children captured in armed conflict.

"Canada had a duty to protect Mr. Khadr from being subjected to any torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, from being unlawfully detained, and from being locked up for a duration exceeding the shortest appropriate period of time," he wrote.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

All's not well in Conservativeland

For a guy that's such a leader, Stephen Harper seems to be having a good deal of trouble keeping his fellow Conservatives on message and on the team. And the campaign hasn't even started yet.

You'll recall that last week, an election looming, Harper's justice minister Rob Nicholson hastily convened a last-minute press conference to announce, minus any actual legislation, research or supporting materials, that he was killing Conservative backbencher Ken Epp's Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act and replacing it with his own legislation.

"We've heard the criticism from across the country, including representatives from the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill could be interpreted as instilling fetal right," Nicholson said.

He said the new bill was specifically worded to avoid that interpretation.

"This bill will be very clear and straightforward, and the bill will not be misinterpreted," he said, noting that Epp had not yet been informed that another bill was being introduced to replace his.

This hasty decision coming after many, many months of Harper and this very Conservative government insisting that they had no problem with Epp's bill, nothing to do with abortion, we'll have a free-vote, nothing to see here.

Of course, we'll never see Nicholson's bill. And Epp's bill will die on the order paper along with this parliament. The press conference was just a PR exercise to make the Harper gang seem more palatable to mainstream Canada going into an election.

Unfortunately for Harper, Epp refused to go quietly into that sweet goodnight:

Epp, an Edmonton Tory, said he was given no warning of the pending government legislation.

"I definitely will not be withdrawing my bill," Epp told Sun Media. "They're quite different. I don't intend to let up."

Epp's retiring, so there's little Harper can do to him. But he's not the only one raging against the phony dying of the socially-conservative light:

The list of MPs who have pledged their continued support for C-484 are:

David Anderson, MP, Cypress Hills-Grasslands
Rod Bruinooge, MP, Winnipeg South
Royal Galipeau, MP, Ottawa-Orléans
Colin Mayes, MP, Okanagan-Shuswap
Myron Thompson, MP, Wild Rose
Brad Trost, MP, Saskatoon-Humboldt
Maurice Vellacott, MP, Saskatoon-Wanuskewin
Chris Warkentin, MP, Peace River

That's eight members of the Conservative caucus defying the will of the PMO and continuing to loudly and publicly support a bill Harper wants to kill. And their defiance is all the more interesting, given that the election will kill the bill anyway. So they don't really have to speak-up, except to preserve their so-con creds. One wonders though how The Dear Leader feels about eight of his MPs telling him to stick it?

Maybe not so bad, if Nicholson's press conference was just for show and Harper really doesn't want to kill Epp's bill after all (h/t BCL):

I called my MP's office (Dean Allison) for clarification regarding the apparent Conservative abandonment of Bill C-484...The Conservatives are not abandoning or distancing themselves from Bill C-484 or abortion. In fact, it is a mistake to view Nicholson's recently proposed alternative as such.

Or in other words, don't pay attention to a word Nicholson said, that was just meant for the ears of mushy centrist voters, we're still totally cool. Either Harper's justice minister is full of hot air, or he has eight MPs giving him the finger. Which is it Steve?

Meanwhile, out in Newfoundland, the province's Conservative premier is gearing-up to go to war with Stephen Harper's very Conservative government, and will even be making a cameo appearance in Ontario:

Premier Danny Williams is poised to take his campaign against Stephen Harper on to the national stage when a federal election is called, pushing his argument that the Prime Minister betrayed Newfoundland and Labrador.

He'll be taking it to them back in Newfoundland too, and has already been engaged in a nasty war of words with his federal cousins. It seems Harper's culture cuts aren't playing too well in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Williams government plans to make-up the cuts to its artists from provincial funds.

You'd think that the Harper Conservatives wouldn't care how a province spends money in its own domain, after all, I hear the Cons are big on provincial rights and separation of powers. Not when it embarrasses them though:

Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, the federal minister responsible for the province, accused Mr. Williams on Friday of trying to score political points that are not supported by the facts.

Really? Has Loyola visited his party's Web site lately? But I digress.

In his statement, Mr. Hearn took a swipe at the government led by Mr. Williams on a number of issues, including the quality of drinking water in the province after a series of boil water advisories were issued.

It also appeared to dismiss Mr. Williams as a threat to the federal Tories.

“Voters will make up their own minds as to how they will vote in the upcoming federal election, whenever it will be, based on what's best for their families, their communities and their wallets,” Mr. Hearn said.

Boil water advisories, Loyola. Do you really want to go there?

I don't think Danny's campaign will have much impact in Ontario, but if I were a Conservative MP in Newfoundland and Labrador I'd be updating my resume. I think Hearn's fright is showing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Epp tells Nicholson, Harper to suck a lemon

In a post yesterday evening on the Harper government’s pre-election move to scuttle Ken Epp’s Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, I noted that justice minister Rob Nicholson indicated they hadn’t bothered to talk to Epp yet, that neither had any members of the media, and that Epp had already dismissed all of the objections raised by Nicholson when they were made by others previously. What, I wondered, would Epp’s reaction be?

Well, now we know. He says hells no, my bill won’t go (h/t):

Epp, an Edmonton Tory, said he was given no warning of the pending government legislation.

"I definitely will not be withdrawing my bill," Epp told Sun Media. "They're quite different. I don't intend to let up."

So, as promised, I hereby award a gold star to Christina Spencer of Sun Media. Bravo.

Now, one wonders, what is next?

The house coming back is looking unlikely, but if it does it seems Epps’ bill will continue through the legislative process. Should it come to a vote it would be very interesting to see how it shakes out. It would be defeated, although I’m sure some of the so-con idiots in the Liberal caucus will vote yey.

What of the Conservatives, though? I’m sure they’d still publicly call it a free-vote, but will the so-cons of the Conservative caucus risk the wrath of Stephen Harper, defy the wishes of the PMO, and vote their ideological conscience? It would be interesting to see, but I suspect we’ll never get the chance.

More likely, Epp’s bill will die with the dissolution of parliament. Which Nicholson knew, making his show of distancing the government from Epp’s bill clearly a pre-election PR exercise to excise a so-con skeleton from the Conservative closet.

What, though, of Epp? He has already announced his retirement, perhaps why he shows no fear of the PMO death star. Will he symbolically leave caucus? Will Harper symbolically kick him out? Neither, I suspect. We’ve probably heard the last of Ken Epp. And his ideological brethren on his caucus, liking their jobs and not wanting Doug Finley to pull their nominations, will likely bite their tongues.

The questions I asked in my previous post though about how the socially conservative wing of the CPC will react still stand though. Time will tell.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tories abort Ken Epp's bill, but where's Epp?

As a number of other folks have already mentioned, the Conservative government announced its intention today to scuttle Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, a bill that many fear could lead towards the erosion of womens' reproductive rights:

The Harper government cut loose a contentious private member's bill that would have made it a crime to take the life of a fetus just as election speculation hits fever pitch.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced Monday that the government will draft a new bill to replace Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, so that it closes the debate about fetal rights and focuses instead on penalizing criminals who harm pregnant women.

The act, which was introduced last year by Tory MP Ken Epp of Edmonton and passed second reading in the spring, would make it a separate offence for killing an unborn child when a pregnant woman is slain.

Pro-abortion advocates have denounced it for giving the fetus some human rights. Last week, the Canadian Medical Association voted to oppose the bill, and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion spoke out against it, challenging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to clarify his own views on abortion.

I'll hold my thoughts on the Conservatives' true plans on the issue until when (or if) we see actual legislation. I question their ability to come up with something that will be acceptable. But clearly, they're trying to clear the decks for the looming election campaign and Stephane Dion's comments on the topic in Oakville last week (and the reaction they garnered) had an impact.

One thing confuses me though. Reading the Web story at the Globe site, they quote just Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. Looking elsewhere, Reuters also has the PMO's Kory Teneycke. Bloomberg just has Nicholson. Ditto CP and Canwest.

The CBC adds some insight on Epp' status, although without Epp himself commenting:

"We've heard the criticism from across the country, including representatives from the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill could be interpreted as instilling fetal right," Nicholson said.

He said the new bill was specifically worded to avoid that interpretation.

"This bill will be very clear and straightforward, and the bill will not be misinterpreted," he said, noting that Epp had not yet been informed that another bill was being introduced to replace his.

Nicholson would not give exact details about how the two bills are different.

Interesting. First reporter to chase down Ken Epp and ask him how he feels about the death of his deeply-felt legislation wins a gold star. Possible questions: did you get a phone call from the government before they announced they were killing your bill? Will you and your socially conservative brethren support a watered-down version?

And for you parliamentary procedure wonks out there, can the government simply decide to kill private member's legislation, which according to the wire coverage seems to be what they're doing? Note, they say Epp hasn't even been informed.

Now, if there's an election the bill dies, of course (and the Cons wouldn't have a chance to introduce their bill, making this all a pre-election PR exercise). However, lets say the HoC returns for a fall session, and carries on to the fixed election date. Now, of course the Cons can ask Epp to withdraw his bill, and if he didn't agree he'd be Garth Turnerized might quick. But suppose he said no. Would his bill remain on the order paper and continue through the legislative process?

A look at Ken Epp's Web site shows he's still full-steam ahead with his bill:

Surely bad planning by the PMO not to have white-washed his Web site yet.

But back to questions for Epp, given that in a number of lengthy statements posted on your Web site you reject and dismisses the concerns of legal and medical professionals, do you also reject and dismiss Nicholson's objections? If not, why not?

You says your bill has nothing to do with abortion or fetal rights, and that such concerns are off base:

And yet your justice minister says that, not only are the concerns of your opponents justified, he's drafting a new bill to address those concerns:

"We've heard criticism from across the country, including representatives of the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill as presently drafted could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights. Let me be clear. Our government will not reopen the debate on abortion," Mr. Nicholson said. "

For this reason ... I'm announcing that the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights."

And in May, when Liberal MP Brent St. Denis introduced private member's bill C-543, which aimed to address the issue of violence against pregnant women without jeopardizing a women's right to choose, you were opposed:


How is what Nicholson is proposing now any different than the St. Denis approach that you have already rejected?

Anyway, also interesting will be the reaction of the social conservative wing of the Conservative Party. Of course, the ones in caucus will shut-up in fear of the Dear Leader. How about the rank and file though, the activists, the fundraisers? Will they hold their nose and still vote Conservative? Will they sit on their hands and stay home? Or will they rise up in anger and demand action? Will they take their votes to the Christian Heritage Party (join here disgruntled so-Cons!), or one of the other right-wing fringe parties?

After all, Stevie has burned them before. How long will he be able to keep them in the fold while kicking them in the nads? Time will tell, I suppose. You want to talk about hidden agendas come majority? No one is praying harder that Harper actually has one than the socially conservative wing of the Conservative Party.

UPDATE: Epp lives, and so does his bill.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers