Thread by @RomboughSunni

Today I had a discussion with an NDP supporter who refuses to support LPC & Trudeau in the next election. Citing broken promises and lack of progress on progressive issues, he feels betrayed. I’ve attached his main complaints. And he lists examples, as I requested.

Here’s the list for easier reference:
1 Delay ER. PR not adopted
2 Cruel limits to MAD
3 Indigenous women’s rights unresolved
4 Ability for charities to speak politically
5 Onerous Cannabis regulations
6 Rights loss in law enforcement searches

Reviewing the list, it’s immediately apparent that many progressives (AKA NDP & Greens who voted Liberal) are feeling betrayed, overlooked & resentful. Every issue on the list is a human right denied.

My first observation, EVERY issue is a legal issue, requiring legislation.

It’s obvious that the limitations of new legislation and progress in codifying human rights has not met progressive’s expectations since the LPC was elected. The question is why?

Trudeau, as party leader, is ultimately responsible. But who’s responsible for legislation?

I want to point out the Minister of Justice/Attorney General is a KEY position within government.

Democratic Governments don’t rule, they direct policy through legislation. Policy promises made during election campaigns are all connected to effective legislation.

You can write all the policy papers you want, but unless a Bill is passed, it’s not policy.

So who was Minister of Justice for every issue some progressives are feeling betrayed, ignored and resentful over?

Jody Wilson-Raybould. The former MOJ/AG.

Every right listed as deficiently addressed was under her guidance and direction as MOJ.

It would be irresponsible to lump all the blame on one person. The government is made up of 338 MP’s. We wouldn’t elect so many if govt hinged on 1

In our system of government, we elect MP’s to represent 1 riding, not the whole of Canada. Unless an MP is appointed to a cabinet position, only then does the Minister represent all Canadians, but only in that limited scope.

But that doesn’t mean the Minister & only the Minister makes decisions in the Ministerial position. Cabinet & Caucus exist to discuss relevant factors that MUST be considered. Even Opposition MP’s can discuss & influence Ministerial considerations & decisions. That’s democracy.

During last week’s testimony, the former MOJ defended her right to be the final authority on the SNC-LAVALIN issue as Attorney General.

When shuffled, she defended her personal MOJ accomplishments in legislative achievements.
jwilson-raybould.liberal.ca/news-nouvelles…

JWR wrote the impassioned letter thanking the Justice Ministry & Party for the work that had been achieved. She makes note of the dual role of MOJAG.

Notable though, she only lists “legal advisor to Cabinet” as the role of Minister of Justice.

Responsibity for developing & tabling legislation is not defined in her letter.

Considering the number of issues progressives have with legislative success in codifying rights, is there some confusion by the former MOJ/AG in the separation of the two roles?

Was JWR under the impression that the Attorney General role is responsible for development & tabling of legislation vs it being a Ministerial function?

This may be the crux of this scandal.

If JWR was under the impression that the AG creates legislation, or has a role in development, this may resolve the SNC-LAVALIN scandal.

The Attorney General is responsible for the just application of codified law. It is the only Cabinet post with Bureaucratic limitations.

Bureaucrats don’t develop policy, they implement it. Thousands of bureaucratically generated policy papers & opinions may make it confusing, but the bureaucrat is limited to providing information for consideration, based on their expertise. They have no role in developing policy.

That includes the Attorney General.

Only the Minister of Justice, in collaboration with Cabinet, their Caucus, and opposition input is responsible for the development of Bills to be considered. This is strictly a political role. It’s division of power that ensures democracy.

The Minister is in charge of coordination and for keeping track of relevant issues & concerns, but the majority governing Caucus has much input into the final draft of any legislation. Otherwise we’d only elect Ministers, not MP’s. The PM is the final authority, not the Minister.

The majority governing party makes the decision regarding policy, not an independent minister. The PM works to build consensus, but may never achieve 100% support from Caucus members. When this becomes problematic is when the Minister of Justice & PM don’t agree.

Considering the progressive voters criticisms of JWR sponsored legislation, it’s very possible this is the problem.

An MOJ opposed to the policy would have a difficult time adequately reflecting party policy if they are opposed to its intent or the impact it will make.

So back to the list of complaints.

1 Delay Electoral Reform.

JWR makes note of the global assault on democracy in her Jan 14, 2019 letter. Now is not the time to change systems. PR is a new concept to most Canadians & when democracy is at stake, change is too dangerous. Later

2 Cruel Limits to Medically Assisted in Death.

JWR legislation provided exclusive rights for faith based medical care to participate in MAD over patient rights. This restricts availability & sets up court challenges, willingly taken up by John Carpay & JCCF.

4 (3 at end) Ability for Charities to Speak Politically

In an about face, restrictions on political activities for charities were given free rein in Senate adjustments & Bill was given Royal ascent in Dec 2018. Problematic since this means Pro-Life/Anti-Choice is now unfettered.

5 Onerous Cannabis Regulations

Restrictions on Advertising Cannabis seem bound for Supreme Court with precedent set by Tobacco advertising. A clumsy attempt to protect children is a restriction on freedom of speech, bound to be challenged in the Supreme Court & reversed.

6 Rights Loss in Law Enforcement Searches

Amendments to Bill C-30 removed the 2 most egregious elements from the Act, but continue to allow Government of Canada to infringe on privacy rights. Privacy advocates recommend urgent action. Government has not addressed this.

3 Indigenous Women’s Rights Unresolved

I left this issue until last because it’s much more complicated than most people realize. As a feminist and Métis woman, I am not surprised in the least that this issue remains unresolved.

I need to give historical context.

Indigenous denotes all Aboriginal women: Inuit, FN, Métis & Non-status.

Resolving equal rights for all 4 versions of Indigenous women isn’t easy & will require FN compromise (yet unachieved), additional funding in perpetuity, & clear determination on what is Aboriginal identity

This isn’t as simple as it seems and is a political nuclear bomb that most Canadians don’t understand.

Indian Act identified women as second class citizens on the 19th century when it was enacted. Not unexpected due to contemporary beliefs.

It means male FN can pass on their status no matter who they marry, but female FN are restricted to 2 generations if they marry outside of FN status.

So govt has been an intimate observer in FN women’s bedrooms & choice of partner since the start.

Bear a child with anyone other than FN man, and in 2 generations, your descendants lose their status. FN women lose their rights to reserve resources if they marry outside of the reserve. It’s a discriminatory policy, meant to discourage leaving the reserve.

It’s also a way to eliminate status and Treaty obligations of government. Seems easy to just change the act. But the implications are enormous.

What happens to ALL the descendants of FN women who lost status? And their descendants? They are a large portion of Indigenous people.

What about newly recognized Métis of both sexes who’ve never had status in the past. The only place in Canada that recognizes a small number of Métis is Alberta. Métis Colonies are recognized provincially, but if you reside elsewhere, you have no status.

Budget implications are overwhelming to say the least.

Add in that about 90% of federal indigenous funding goes to FN only, and protecting the funds becomes political motivation for restricting Indigenous women’s rights by FN chiefs. Sharing limited resources isn’t welcomed.

So criticism regarding acting upon Indigenous women’s rights is unwarranted. The issue is complicated and all implications need further examination and discussion. Treaty obligations include funding, so it may take time to determine a solution. That’s reconciliation when done.

But as to the other issues. They are valid concerns. Election promises have been disappointingly addressed.

Whether that’s inexperience or a rogue Minister making decisions independent of Caucus is yet undetermined.

Shuffling JWR out of Justice portfolio was PM’s only option to allow JWR to save face. Significant costs to amend faulty legislation are required. Supreme Court challenges aren’t cheap, neither is making amendments to existing legislation. They involve people, time & $ resources.

I’m looking forward to Butts testimony tomorrow. It’s going to provide some context. Sorely lacking from MSM smear campaign and click bait articles. And grossly distorted by CPC, Greens &NDP rhetoric for political gain as well.