Parliament in Review: November 17, 2011

Thursday, November 17 saw a Liberal opposition day turned into a discussion about the sad state of water supplies to Canada's First Nations. But while all parties were able to support the motion, there was plenty of room for contrast as to who was most interested in dealing with the desperate need for improvement.

The Big Issue

Bob Rae's motion ended up being debated and agreed to in the following form (following an amendment to substitute "forthwith" for the oddly-delayed "no later than spring 2012":

That the House call on the Government of Canada to address on an urgent basis the needs of those First Nations communities whose members have no access to clean, running water in their homes; that action to address this disparity begin forthwith; and that the House further recognize that the absence of this basic requirement represents a continuing affront to our sense of justice and fairness as Canadians.

Charlie Angus noted the gap between stringent water standards off reserve and nonexistent ones for First Nations, and lamented the apparent view of some that First Nations citizens could be treated as non-entities. Kevin Lamoureux expanded on the latter point by noting the need to set expectations for standards of living that should be available to all citizens, while Jinny Sims more concisely questioned Greg Rickford about the need to recognize and act on a right to water and Elizabeth May decried third-world conditions in Canada. John Duncan responded to repeated musings about the need for federal cooperation with the Manitoba NDP government's desire for a cooperative program by saying he'd be more than willing to participate in one, and acknowledged the reasonableness of Angus' request to ensure that a single fire didn't leave 90 of Attawapiskat's residents (currently sharing a trailer) literally out in the cold. But Jonathan Tremblay rightly noted that anything to end the hardships facing First Nations looks to be at the bottom of the Cons' list of priorities.

Meanwhile, having introduced a motion and made an initial speech which in no way mentioned First Nations self-governance, Rae questioned the lack of discussion of that side of the issue; presumably he was then relieved by Linda Duncan's thorough review of the point. Similarly, Jonathan Genest-Jourdain presented a strong analysis of the disconnect between the community values of First Nations and Canada's interest-based political system. Duncan noted that the Cons had (however reluctantly) committed to end all forms of discrimination against aboriginal Canadians through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. And Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe's question about how matters had gotten worse in the last five years was met with a disturbing response from David Wilks that the Cons plan to continue down their current road.

Unmasked

Meanwhile, the one piece of legislation debated on the day was Blake Richards' bill to create a separate offence for wearing a mask or disguise while participating in a riot or illegal assembly. Richards made clear that his purpose was to force people participating in any mass events to make their identities known:

What if there were a measure designed to strip away anonymity from criminals during such disturbances? What if the very act of wearing a disguise in a riot became in and of itself an offence? What if police had the means to order those who were concealing their identities in a riot to remove their disguises or risk detainment or arrest? That would change the stakes dramatically.

People would then have a very clear choice in front of them. They could choose to remove their disguise, show their face and be identified and held accountable for their criminal actions, or they could choose not to and risk arrest for the offence of wearing a mask in a riot.

Charmaine Bord replied by pointing out that the bill is redundant when it comes to anybody who actually commits a crime (such that the offence applies only to spectators or others merely at the scene of an assembly), and that any legislator interested in civil liberties should be concerned about imposing additional obligations that don't serve a useful purpose. Sean Casey spoke more generally about the Cons' obsession with stoking public fear. And Jack Harris suggested that the Cons actually get acquainted with the Criminal Code before weighing it down with more useless amendments - though Randy Hoback's heckle made it clear that at least some Cons won't be reading anything other than their talking points anytime soon.

In Brief

Nycole Turmel and Wayne Marston called on the Cons to stop insisting that Canadians play retirement roulette with private retirement funds. Jamie Nicholls took a look back at one of his predecessors as MP for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Louis-René Beaudoin - whose political career ended over a single instance of the type of stifled debate that's become commonplace under the Harper Cons. Duncan called for additional parental leave for parents of premature infants. Eve Peclet listed a few of the Con cabinet ministers still sitting on money wrongly paid to them as a result of Conadscam. Wayne Easter and Malcolm Allen both criticized the Cons' move to take hundreds of millions of dollars out of the hands of farmers to support their new, undemocratic, non-single-desk Wheat Board. Angus again tested whether the Cons are capable of shame when it comes to Dean Del Mastro's attacks on judicial independence, and again James Moore confirmed otherwise. Linda Duncan asked whether the privacy rights of an advocate for aboriginal children had been violated repeatedly by federal officials. Andrew Scheer ruled on a point of order related to the Cons' proud invocation of an individual's donations to the Liberals as disqualifying any criticism of the government, concluding with this reminder:

It is these wise cautionary remarks that have prompted me to use this occasion to remind all hon. members to use great care when referring to or singling out an individual who does not have a voice here in this House and to avoid circumstances when, by such reference, an individual could have his or her reputation damaged without having the opportunity to respond.

And finally, Tarek Brahmi questioned the Cons about consumer debt, only to be told by Shelly Glover that free money for people with $10,000 per year to sock away should be plenty of comfort for Canadians drowning in debt.