Justin Trudeau and the Liberals need to buy a dictionary

The Liberal government have stated they intend to study the idea of creating exceptions to the Conservative parties controversial mandatory minimum sentences.

For those unfamiliar with the issue the former Conservative government passed a series of laws mandating jail time for offenders of certain crimes, such as:

selling a large volume of contraband tobacco, six months for distributing child pornography and five years for trafficking someone under age 18.

Although this sounds nice, much like the Liberal’s other nonsense consultations sounded nice (see my write ups on the Marijuana task force, and the Defence consultation review)the idea of studying “exceptions to mandatory minimum sentences”  is a completely contrary move. 

Without being pedantic, the legal definition of mandatory (as shown at the top of this article) does not permit an option to be disregarded or modified. So from a purely semantical point of view, to add a standardized set of exceptions to a mandatory law is ludicrous. The original law is no longer mandatory if it has exceptions, making a mockery of the entire definition.

There’s more problems with this plan aside from the semantics however. The first is the lack of study on the repercussions of the original Mandatory Minimum Sentences. The original intent of Mandatory Minimums was to take a “tough on crime” approach to reduce crime levels. Critics of the “tough on crime” approach state that it doesn’t work. However, without comprehensive study on the repercussions of enacting the Mandatory Minimums specifically in Canada there’s no objective way to determine whether being tough on crime reduces the rates. Not only does shifting the law make it impossible to study repercussions, it allows critics to subjectively say that the approach doesn't work. 

This relegates the debate over approaches to crime to purely subjective opinions. At best critics will form objective opinions using evidence from other countries, making their conclusions pretty inconclusive. At worst critics of tough on crime will baselessly critique the narrative reducing the overall debate on the issue to mud slinging.

The other major problem is how redundant this move is. The supreme court has already set precedent for exceptions to mandatory minimums. They have done it on two occasions. Without getting into the specifics of cases, the judges that overturned the rulings have created a situation where “ thousands of people each year will serve less time in jail”. 

The reason the Trudeau government is eyeing changes to Mandatory Minimums has a lot to do with PR. Justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has said:

“The government supports the use of mandatory minimum penalties for the most serious crimes, and crucially, only where they are consistent with the Charter.”

even though the Liberals support mandatory minimums, they don’t want to be put in a position where they have to defend a previous government's law. This is simply because there’s no benefit for them politically. 

If they successfully defend mandatory minimums they will appear like they support Conservative rhetoric on crime, blurring the crucial distinction between the parties that won the Liberals the election.

 If they unsuccessfully defend Mandatory Minimums the Supreme Court could force a review of the legislation creating a PR headache for a government who now has to craft legislation against something they support, while having lost a legal battle that would likely be in the publics eye. 

Unless the Liberals can present evidence regarding Mandatory Minimums one way or another, they are in for a lose lose situation of subjective politicking and lawmaking.

If The Liberals don’t release a White Paper on defence...

We’re in for a lot more of the same 

For those who don’t know, a White paper is is a repot issued by the government of a state that delivers a highly complex government policy in regards to a specific issue. It  spells out in immense authority: the government’s philosophy and it’s respective polices on the issue, a strategy for procuring or developing the necessary resources and infrastructure associated with the governments purported solution for the issue, and the necessary industry requirements and benefits that support the previous item. It seeks to do this in a way that helps the reader understand the issue, understand the solution, and hopefully agree with the later. 

When a new federal government takes office in Canada there is not a mandate to release such a paper, but often governments seeking to distinguish themselves from their predecessors choose to do so, usually with a paper written about the area in which they wish to make their differences apparent. When speaking of defence policy, according to the governments website, Canada has officially released six white papers on defence. The use of papers was started in Canada in 1964. The most recent paper put out in 2008 I discount for reasons I will defend shortly, but six papers in 52 years mean there is a paper released once every eight and a half years. If we count the 2008 paper, we are right up against that eight year window, and the time could not have come soon enough. 

If you don’t pay attention to defence issues, or Canadian politics (how are you here?) then I have some news for you, the Liberals have been making announcement after announcement regarding defence. Many of these announcements are extensions of campaign promises, such as reopening the bid for Canada’s new multi-role fighter (putting Canada’s role in the F-35 program in jeopardy for dubious reasons, even though it’s arguably the best aircraft available) and some of them are not even really announcements. Rather, they are small pieces of information, like the fact that Canada’s new Single Surface Combatant Vessel will de based on “off the shelf plans”. Most of these announcements are the finishing touch on many plans from the aforementioned 2008 white paper, named: The Canada First Defence Strategy. This policy by the Conservatives, was not in my opinion not a full white paper as it left out some crucial elements. It do not include for instance, any policy regarding industry requirements, or the benefits directly, it also left a few blanks over design specifics. What it did spell out in some depth with the Conservative policy and philosophy on recruitment, mission requirements, arctic sovereignty, funding, among a few other boilerplate defence issues such as global terrorism response. 

While the Canada First Defence Strategy did give specifics on the subjects I mentioned, its scope and authority was lacking as it did not set down industry requirements, nor did it fully spell out procurement in an authoritative way. This is why I defend it is not a true white paper, but I digress.

Despite its shortcomings, the paper followed through on most of its policy and philosophy statements. As well, Harper and the Conservatives completed several of their stated procurement items such as the C-17 Globemaster, C-130J Hercules, CH-47F Chinook helicopters, and Canada’s new Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessel (although the Liberals seem to be taking the credit even though steel had started cutting before Harper left office). It also spelt out funding for new Destroyers and Frigates, funding to update search and rescue aircraft, funding for land combat vehicles, and of course controversial funding for 65 new “next generation” fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18 by 2019. What was left with some ambiguity was the specifics as to what destroyers, frigates, and aircraft would be chosen to replace Canada’s current assets. 

My problem with the Liberals announcements to date, is so far as I can tell, they’ve been shooting from the hip. They have continued their election strategy of separating themselves ideologically from the conservatives, in the F-35 issue for instance they have said much about re-opening the bid, however when you consider the procurement of the F-35 is some eight years in the making, that the planes are both budgeted and scheduled to be complete in three years, slowing down the process by cancelling the contract now is some serious hip fire nonsense. Its not like previous Liberal governments did the same and left us flying 50 year old helicopters that are literately museum pieces to our American neighbours, causing severe monetary strain and seven Canadian military deaths in the process…

(A Seaking Helicopter that looks in better condition than Canada's -
on display at the USS Midway floating museum in San Diego CA.)

The politicizing procurement that has occurred is in my opinion, some serious hip fire bullshit for this new batch of Liberals. After Judy Foote’s missing announcement the other day, and various Harjit Sajjan releases, some about …drones? You can see how this apparently impulsive stagey begins to spread. 

If the Trudeau Liberals want to separate themselves ideologically, change Canada's procurement priorities, and overhaul our Country's military philosophy, a White Paper is the way to do it. 

(The pained  expression of Harjit Sajjan
as he conducts  public consultations
 on Defence Policy)

Shooting from the hip and politicizing procurement (an issue I will write about in greater depth in the coming weeks) is a bad decision, and can have dire consequences for our state. 

Lets hope the defence review that is ongoing, is a precursor to a new Liberal white paper, a decade without a real one is to long, and shooting from the hip, often has a way of hitting yourself in the foot. Its time Justin, its 2016 after all.

It’s easy to appear progressive when you’re competing with the contents of your own ass

Rona Ambrose: and the “new” face of the conservative party 

The 2016 conservative party convention is currently going on in Vancouver, and from the half assed monikers being coined (call Kevin O’leary “Canada’s Donald trump” again I dare you) to Rona Ambrose making one of the more unintelligible insults i’ve ever heard - all in all it has been a doozy. Ms. Ambrose Implying, in a rant that single handedly set her gender back a couple years, made some comments about the current PM, and prior conservatives PMs. She said that Justin Trudeau was who Canadian’s thought of as the first female PM, pointing out this was ironic as the conservatives were the real feminists. Well lets see what her evidence is.

Rona bragged about the Conservative party fielding the first female interim PM, and the first female Acting PM... in 1958.

Wait a second, first interim PM... 1958?

We’ll get to that, but first, I must point out how ridiculous it is to brag about the first acting PM who most will know was Progressive Conservative Kim Campbell.

(How could you loose with political cartoons like this)

Most know the name, and anyone familiar to Canadian politics  knows the tragedy Kim Campbell. A promising rising star in the party, a conservative from the west coast, a true blue feminist and activist - these were all the qualities of someone with a long tenure in Federal politics. Except, in the stunning defeat of Brian Mulroney following a disastrous campaign, the sitting PM lost his own seat. Thrown for a loop, the PCs elected Kim Campbell their party leader and therefore PM of Canada as they still held government (although not a majority). Now while seemingly progressive, this was one of the most lame duck attempts at perseveration through the tokenization of Ms. Campbell’s role as a female. The progressive conservatives (who by the way are not the same as the current conservative party, but more on that shortly) hung Ms. Campbell out to dry - its no secret. To brag about electing Kim Campbell is just plain stupid, it shows the conservatives have no idea how the tale of Ms. Campbell plays in the media. Well i’ll give you a hint, the PCs electing a token female leader, knowing a losing vote of non confidence is imminent, then bragging about it plays pretty poorly. Good thing there isn’t a stone pyramid on hill or else it would have been an even messier ordeal, either way though, Kim Campbell was a sacrifice to the gods of politics and there’s not really much debate over that.

Now, during Rona’s set (i’m using stand up terminology as her speech was laughable) she also riffed about the conservatives having the first female acting Prime Minister of Canada. Huh? Didn’t they already mention Kim ?

(Ms. Fairclough being shown a table by PM Diefenbaker)

Enter Ellen Fairclough. Now the only news article one can find referring to Ms. Fairclough as PM was one that came out after Ms. Ambrose gave her speech. However, Ellen Fairclough was the first female MP, a very accomplished  parliamentarian and she is well deserving of respect. Why then did Ms. Ambrose laude arguably her least shining contribution, after all Ellen Faircloguh was PM for a grand total of 24 hours. Not only that but if you look at how her own government treated her, it wasn’t stellar. For instance, lauded as a cabinet minster, Ms. Fairclough was the Canadian Secretary of State- a position that prior to the repatriation of the Canadian constitution was the office that controlled communication between the Government and the British crown. Now although we still technically needed royal ascent directly from the queen at this time, by no means was this office a particularly important one. Precedent had been long set that it would be highly unorthodox for the UK to oppose a Canadian law, and after the statue of westminster in 1931 this became entirely non salient. The office also acted as a dumping ground for portfolio’s that didn’t have a ministership. Pretty prestigious eh? This did not deter the tenacious Fairclough as she continued to fight in the commons for equal pay for women in the workforce. Wanting, to make it clear the conservatives at the time supported women, this is when they allowed Ms.Faircloguh to sit as PM… for 24 hours… probably on a slow Tuesday when nothing was going on (I made that last bit up). Knowing her skills as an accountant (her pre-political profession) and with her “tenure” as leader behind her, the conservatives gave her the ministership of Citizenship and Immigration for one term, followed by appointing her Postmaster General till the culmination of her political career. To say that the PCs at the time treated our first female MP unfairly is a bit of an understatement. Much like Ms. Campbell 20 years later, although she was a talented accountant, a tenacious politician and a pioneering feminist, she did not have her party to thank

(Former Canadian Alliance leader - and fan of showing up
to press conferences on jet skis - Stockwell Day)

As we’ve entered the subject of party, this brings me to one of my other points of contention. The MP’s Ms. Ambrose referred to were not members of the Conservative party of Canada. They were Progressive Conservatives. While many in the modern Canadian Conservative party would like you to think this, it is not the case. While many of the roots of Canadian conservatism come from original Conservative party of Canada, this is not where the modern party stems from. First the conservatives had to go through their progressive period. Admittedly the name change came in 1942, but this was more cosmetic than anything else. As the PCs developed and began to elect governments started with John Diefenbaker. Difenbaker held on till 1963 giving the new PCs a serious branding. When pushed by domestic and international new neoliberal sentiments the party began to move right. Joe Clark followed by Brian Mulroney are the successive examples of this move right. New neoliberal tenants like economic liberalization, free trade, and privatization became the rhetoric de jour. After the defeat of the last PC government with the fall of Kim Campbell as mentioned above, the PC party was in a interesting spot. A new party had formed on the right, the Canadian Alliance, and as opposed to being interested in the neoliberal policies of free market and economic liberalization, they were more focused on hardline conservative views such a marriage equality, drug prohibition  and the likes. Faced with increasingly poorer election results by splitting the conservative base, the parties needed a new plan. What they decided to do was merge and amalgamate the conservative support in Canada. What happened when the Conservative party of Canada formed in 2003? Well they had already shifted right on economic policy with the neoliberal rhetoric, and now the merger with the neoconservative Canadian Alliance they had to shift right on social policy as well. All one has to do is look back upon the policy (and embarrassing gaffs) of Stockwell day, former Canadian Alliance leader to get an idea of where the conservatives were planning to go. Day a proponent of “traditional” marriage, young earth creationism, and direct democracy for almost every political decision, brought with him this level of hardline social conservatism.

So why is this all relevant to Ms. Ambrose speech ? Well She seems to think that Kim Campbell and Ellen Fairclough were members of her party. As I've outlined the shifts in social policy from when Ms. Campbell was the PC PM, and the even more extreme shifts from the ideology of Ellen Fairclough’s conservatives, it seems obvious that neither of these politicians take their social policy cues from neoconservative sources.  This is why its odd to take credit for them as conservatives Ms. Ambrose. They never joined your party, and frankly once the party that was created showed it was willing to incorporate neoconservative Canaidan Alliance policy (e.g their stalwart opposition to same sex marriage until last week) its a bit presumptuous to assume. If we ignore this however and pretend that todays Conservative party is the same as all the conservative parties before it, the parties themselves didn’t really treat either politician very well. Both were only given the highest office when it was certain they would not hold it, among the other reasons i already detailed.

I will (but likely not) write another article going in to greater depth of what I think the problems were with this convention, but for now, Ms. Ambrose, stop trying to be the new progressive voice of your party if your only going to pick examples that contradict your statements. Oh and if you are going to act like a feminist don’t insult a man by saying he is really a woman. By using being a woman as an insult you imply that you think men are better. As I said in the title, its easy to look progressive when your comparing yourself to the contents of your own ass, Ms. Ambrose, pull your head out of there, before you suffocate.