Parliament in Review: December 1, 2011

In the midst of a week of acrimonious debate over both the substance of the Cons' dumb-on-crime legislation and the government's procedural maneuvers to prevent even improvements which it recognized as necessary, December 1 served as a comparative beacon of cooperation (as noted specifically by Don Davies).

The Big Issue

That's because the government bill under discussion was C-26 on self-defence - which largely paralleled Olivia Chow's private member's bill from the previous Parliament by allowing for citizen's arrests in circumstances other than the moment when a crime was being committed.

Which isn't to say there weren't some noteworthy points of concern and clarification. Jack Harris wondered why the new provision would allow for a proportionality element only in defence of people rather than property - a question which was finally answered by Kerry-Lynne Findlay in a rare moment of Con recognition as to which ought to be treated as a more important priority:

In the case of self-defence or defence of another, these defences allow for the use of intentional deadly force, depending on the circumstances. This is because it is a life that is being threatened. It is only reasonable for individuals who face a serious threat from another person to protect themselves. If the nature of the threat is such that it is reasonable to counter that threat with deadly force, that may be acceptable, depending on the circumstances.

Threats to property are not the same. Human life always outweighs our interest in property. So when the situation is one where damage or destruction of property must be balanced against the determination of human life, the property interest must give way to the greater interest in human life.

Libby Davies expressed concern that the citizen's arrest power would be disproportionately applied to rid stores of targeted individuals. Helene Leblanc noted that in the Lucky Moose case cited as the impetus for the legislation, it was a reasonable judicial decision that resulted in a fair outcome - signalling the need to respect the judiciary rather than box it in as the Cons have so often done with mandatory minimum sentences in particular. Malcolm Allen discussed the importance of community policing generally. Tyrone Benskin worried that the bill might encourage vigilantism. And Sean Casey questioned the Cons' obsession with crime even while signalling his general support for the bill.

Unfortunately, the Cons did manage to fit in one example of jaw-dropping callousness. In raising a question after Irwin Cotler's speech, Blaine Calkins had the gall to joke about Cotler's impending retirement - turning his own party's unconscionable false robocalls into Cotler's riding into a matter of personal amusement.

Name That Party

An MP offered a member's statement about environmental concerns surrounding a project in his riding. Guess who had this to say about the need for a serious environmental review:

Mr. Speaker, the Highland Companies group, backed by a Boston-based hedge fund, proposes to dig a 2,300-acre limestone quarry on prime farmland in Melancthon Township in my riding....

The company wants to dig down 200 feet, well below the water table. The end result is that 600 million litres of water per day, enough for over one million (people), would have to be pumped out, treated, stored and injected back into the local aquifers. The project proponents say this procedure would pose no risk to the local environment.

(The area) is home to the headwaters of four major river systems flowing in all directions. To claim that there would be no effect on the headwaters and beyond stretches the realm of possibility.

I call upon the Minister of the Environment to order that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency conduct a full environmental assessment. The residents of my riding and of Canada deserve no less.

Naturally, the MP expressing that entirely valid concern was...Con David Tilson. And it'll be well worth watching whether he has any interest in similar concerns nationally as his government seeks to short-circuit environmental review processes for oil pipelines which could have far more severe consequences than a single local quarry.

In Brief

Marie-Claude Morin highlighted the gap in life expectancy based on income as an example of inequality which demands action. Guy Caron expanded on the list of Con-connected appointees to the Immigration and Refugee Board, while Don Davies noted that even the screening committee was worryingly Con-heavy. Nycole Turmel slammed the Cons for sending auditors to Attawapiskat instead of actual help, then pointed out that a 50% gap in social program funding ($9,000 per person on the reserve compared to $18,000 nationally) figures to be one of the main explanations for the community's difficulties. Peter Julian criticized the Cons' lack of cooperation with B.C. in developing a process to remove the HST after citizens voted it down. Mark Eyking and Anne Minh-Thu Quach wondered when the Cons' promises on AIDS funding would result in their actually sending a dime. John McCallum pointedly questioned why the Cons had shifted money out of green infrastructure funding to other departments without authorization, only to be told by Denis Lebel that Industry Canada's 2011-12 Report on Plans and Priorities was authority enough. Irene Mathyssen noted that hundreds of thousands of seniors aren't receiving benefits to which they're entitled. Roxanne James spoke to her private member's bill to limit complaints by prisoners - only to be told by Candice Hoeppner on behalf of her own party that it didn't go far enough in silencing anybody who raised concerns about prison conditions, even as Sylvain Chicoine pointed out that there's a good reason why a large number of complaints might originate with a few relatively well-educated inmates. And finally, Glenn Thibeault wondered why the Cons' promises to create a real code of conduct for credit cart providers had come to nothing.