rabble blogs are the personal pages of some of Canada's most insightful progressive activists and commentators. All opinions belong to the writer; however, writers are expected to adhere to our guidelines. We welcome new bloggers -- contact us for details.

Hill Dispatches: It's omnibus bill time (again) -- where's the evidence? Plus, C-4 debate gets personal

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

In March of 1982, the Progressive Conservative Opposition of the day forced the complete stoppage of Parliament for 15 days as a protest against a Liberal government omnibus energy bill. The Opposition did this by not answering the call of the bells announcing a vote on the bill -- which meant there was no quorum, and the bells rang constantly for more than two weeks, while the House sat vacant. The stalemate ended when the Trudeau government agreed to break up its bill and allow separate votes on each of its numerous provisions.

Joe Clark's Conservatives believed they had won a significant victory and that no future government would dare commit such a flagrant offence to democracy. They argued that members of Parliament should have the right to consider distinct legislative initiatives separately and support or oppose them on their merits. Bundling together a basketful of vaguely related new laws did not cut it, they said, and they forced the government of the day to back down.

The Harper Conservative government likes to claim a direct lineage to Canadian Conservative governments and Oppositions of the past. It just named a building in Ottawa after John Diefenbaker (Progressive Conservative Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963), as part of an effort to identify with the party's long history. But on Tuesday, that same Harper government introduced exactly the type of omnibus legislation that gave Joe Clark's Conservatives conniptions.

Tuesday's bill, the "Safer Streets and Communities Act," bundles together nine previously separate and distinct pieces of proposed legislation. The individual initiatives range from:

- Mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking and production (including, it seems, growing marijuana), to...

- Encouraging more adult sentences for youth offenders to...

- Eliminating courts' ability to impose "house arrest" in a wide variety of cases, to...

- Allowing victims of terrorism to sue foreign organizations and governments in Canadian courts.

Whew! And that's just a small part of it.

Parliament is supposed to consider all of these provisions, and a whole lot more, in a single, massive piece of legislation. Law enforcement and the judicial system, primarily within the provincial jurisdiction, will then have to pick up the pieces, deal with it all -- and pay for it, too.

There is not a word about social conditions, mental health, addiction or restorative justice in all of these many pages of new proposed laws. There is no mention of the impact on Aboriginal Canadians, already vastly over-represented in Canada's prisons; nor any recognition of the economic and social factors that contribute to crime. And, of course, there is no evidence, whatsoever, offered to support the need for this legislation. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's only allusion to facts, at the press conference in Brampton to announce the new omnibus bill, was to admit that crime rates had, indeed, gone down. He asserted, nonetheless, that the government would like those rates to be even lower. He did not even make a token effort to demonstrate how any of the many provisions in this new bill would have any impact on crime rates.

Each new day of this Conservative majority affirms a rueful, and very private, observation one senior public servant made many months ago: "This government has no interest in evidence-based policy-making." The point of it all is ideological positioning, not effective policy. It is an exercise in political theatre, right down to a 905-district backdrop (why show respect for Parliament by announcing legislation there?) complete with dutifully assembled, uniformed police officers.

This omnibus bill will certainly be the subject of very vigorous debate in the House, although the rules have been changed so that the bell-ringing strategy the 1982 Progressive Conservatives used is no longer possible.

In the meantime, today, the House continued to debate the proposed "human smuggling" law, Bill C-4.

There was a touching moment when newly elected NDP member Anne Minh-Thu Quach stood to speak. Ms. Quach is the child of boat people, and knows something about what it feels like to be a refugee. In her speech, she made the point that locking up people for one year, who have fled violence and persecution, is hardly a way of showing a warm welcome to refugees!

During yesterday's debate on C-4, the NDP's Don Davies made a similar point when he brought up the 1939 case of the SS St. Louis. That ship was carrying Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Cuba, the United States and Canada all turned it away, and it had to go back to Europe. Many of its passengers perished in the Holocaust. Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth's response was to forcefully state that this government would never send any ships full of refugees back where they came from! He did not add that, according to the provisions of Bill C-4, while the government might not send the would-be refugees back, it would jail them for a year, deny them access to due process, and prevent them from reunifying with their families for at least five years!

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.

rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.

Comments

We welcome your comments! rabble.ca embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on rabble.ca and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:

Do

  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.

Don't

  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.