The West Block — Episode 35, Season 12 – National | 24CA News
THE WEST BLOCK
Episode 35, Season 12
Sunday, May 21, 2023
Host: Mercedes Stephenson
Guests:
David Lametti, Justice Minister
Journalist Panel:
Stephanie Levitz, Toronto Star
Robert Fife, The Globe and Mail
Danielle Smith, UCP Leader
Rachel Notley, NDP Leader
Location:
Ottawa, ON
Mercedes Stephenson: What’s the answer to creating individuals really feel protected of their communities once more?
After coming underneath political strain, the Liberals are toughening Canada’s bail legal guidelines. But will or not it’s sufficient to curb violent crime?
I’m Mercedes Stephenson. Welcome to The West Block.
The federal justice minister introduces long-awaited modifications to bail into protecting violent repeat offenders off the streets. What’s behind the federal government’s choice?
And, the opposition has been pushing for a public inquiry into overseas interference for months now. This week, we’ll discover out if that’s going to occur.
Police chiefs throughout the nation have been sounding the alarm over a latest rise in violent crime. Ten cops in Canada have been killed since September, a stark improve from the historic common of roughly three cops being killed every year.
Officials gathered in Ottawa final week to pay their respects to the latest officer killed within the line of obligation, OPP Sgt. Eric Mueller.
Violent assaults on public transit have additionally elevated because the pandemic, in line with police, leaving many Canadians involved concerning the security of their communities.
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says the Liberals have been mushy on crime at the price of Canadian security.
Pierre Poilievre, Conservative Party Leader: “Justin Trudeau’s catch-and-release bail system that he passed in Bill C-75 with the help of the NDP, has unleashed a wave of violent crime across the country.”
After strain from the provinces and the police, the federal authorities has launched new bail reform modifications aimed toward cracking down on repeat violent offenders.
Joining me now to speak about that is Justice Minister David Lametti. Minister Lametti, good to see you.
David Lametti, Justice Minister: Pleased to right here. Thank you.
Mercedes Stephenson: Minister, you see the opposition blaming your authorities for the rise in violent crime and it’s factually correct. There has been a big rise in violent crime because the Liberal authorities got here into energy. Do you consider that a number of the insurance policies you’ve launched bear some accountability and that you simply as a authorities bear some accountability for that rise in violent crime?
David Lametti, Justice Minister: No, in no way. I imply, crime coverage, prison justice coverage doesn’t revolve all the way down to a—doesn’t evolve all the way down to a easy, foolish slogan, as Mr. Poilievre appears to wish to lead individuals to consider.
First of all, the statistics usually are not as clear as he claims they’re. There has been a common lower over the past 20 years in crime. There has been a spate of killing of cops just lately, as you identified in your introduction and that’s true. My sympathies exit to the households of cops, but additionally to legislation enforcement officers usually. We know they’ve a troublesome job and in order that’s what we’re making an attempt to do in the present day is assault the issue of repeat violent offenders. But this can be a complicated drawback. It goes to a variety of various factors in society popping out a really unprecedented pandemic, which introduced fault traces of psychological well being and different challenges to the fore, and so we’re coping with all of that. The modifications that we have now made have, we predict, improved the prison justice system, permitting us to pay attention, fairly frankly, on extra severe crimes versus losing time and sources on individuals who shouldn’t be incarcerated.
Mercedes Stephenson: I imply, statistically, there was a rise in violent crime since your authorities got here into energy and I hear you on there being a number of elements that feed into why violent crime rises, however you initially had launched laws that made it simpler for individuals to get bail. Now you might be introducing laws that makes it more durable to get bail. Is it honest to say that you simply’ve had a change of coronary heart on the difficulty of bail and that’s why you’re now reversing a few of what you beforehand introduced in?
David Lametti, Justice Minister: Well if what you’re saying is that C-75, the primary invoice made it simpler to get bail, that’s simply not true. We really made it tougher to get bail for intimate associate violence. We reversed the onus partially in these sorts of offences. We’ve expanded on that on this invoice. And C-75 integrated a variety of elementary ideas of Canadian bail legislation that had been introduced—articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada however have lengthy been part of our bail system. The individuals in Bill C-75, the elements that Bill C-75 made it simpler to get bail weren’t for violent offences. They had been for administration of justice offences, like lacking a bail listening to and that form of factor so it’s a very inaccurate characterization from the Conservative Party, particularly, to say that C-75 made it simpler to get bail in Canada. That’s merely not true.
Mercedes Stephenson: But it’s not simply the Conservatives who characterised it that means. It was the provinces and police forces as properly. Are they unsuitable?
David Lametti, Justice Minister: Again, I dispute that characterization. That being mentioned, I’ve labored very fastidiously with provinces and police associations over the past variety of months, to focus on one thing that they did really feel hadn’t been addressed in Canadian bail legislation, which was the problem of repeat violent offenders. We’ve performed simply that, working with the provinces. We began again in October of final 12 months, working with the provinces when the NDP authorities in British Columbia raised it at a federal-provincial territorial justice ministers assembly. Obviously, that course of accelerated, to some extent, after the tragic killing of Constable Pierzchala in Southwestern Ontario, and we have now labored diligently at a political degree and at a technical degree to convey forth these modifications listening to police associations in a really focused means—very focused drawback—repeat offenders with weapons and that’s exactly what we’ve performed right here.
Mercedes Stephenson: Why is it that it’s…?
David Lametti, Justice Minister: It doesn’t change Bill C-75, although. Nothing there modifications.
Mercedes Stephenson: Why is it that once you selected how one can characterize violent offenders you restricted it to violent offenders who had been utilizing weapons and never simply violent with their arms, with one thing else?
David Lametti, Justice Minister: Well there’s a common provision on violence we have now added to this invoice, which says that the choose or the justice of the peace who determines bail has to take a historical past of violence into consideration as a common matter in addition to the sentiments of communities. So we’ve requested judges and justices of the peace to show their minds to that, as a common and that’s on this piece of laws as properly in order that we all know that at the least they’ve thought of that of their causes for choice. What we’ve added are reverse onuses on particular—on one thing particularly focused by provinces and territories, by justice ministers and by the police as being problematic. There has been a notion or a spade of violence with weapons, knives, for instance, out West, bear spray, but additionally simply repeat offenders with weapons, usually and we’ve focused each of these issues on this set of reforms.
Mercedes Stephenson: Various prison defence attorneys have questioned whether or not they suppose that this invoice you’ve launched will stand as much as a problem, to the scrutiny? Under our constitution, you’ve got a proper to have bail when you’re charged since you’re not convicted. You’ve nonetheless been cost and that you simply can’t be held with out simply trigger. They’re saying that you could be not have the ability to meet the simply trigger standards, that you’re nonetheless presumed to be harmless till you’re confirmed responsible on the level of a cost. Are you assured that this could stand as much as a problem that this is not going to be discovered to be unconstitutional?
David Lametti, Justice Minister: I’m very assured. Obviously, the constitution is entrance of thoughts for me. Nobody will accuse—properly no one will confuse me with Pierre Poilievre in terms of respecting the constitution. So we labored inside that tight house that—of constitution passability or muster, if you’ll, has to move muster underneath the constitution. We suppose we’ve performed that. We suppose we’ve performed that by focusing on very particular circumstances the place we’ll reverse the onus. So it’s completely proper for prison defence attorneys, and I agree with them to say that you’ve got a proper to bail, presumptive proper to bail. It’s a constitution proper. It’s a longstanding proper since you are harmless till confirmed responsible. Here, the simply trigger will likely be linked to the very particular problem, which is repeat violent offenders with weapons or offences with weap—with firearms, each of which we really feel meet the usual of simply trigger. Not to disclaim bail, however to place the burden on the individual to indicate that they won’t be given these previous offence—previous accusations. They is not going to be somebody who undermines public security had been we to place them out on bail. So there’s nonetheless a risk of bail and we really feel that on this very slim band of individuals—keep in mind, this isn’t many individuals—we’ve been informed many times and once more by provinces and police forces that it’s a small group of people who find themselves repeatedly offending in a violent method. That’s what we’re focusing on and so as a result of it’s slim, we really feel we handed muster underneath the constitution.
Mercedes Stephenson: The different query that some prison defence attorneys have raised, and a few activists, is that they’re involved this might goal people who find themselves already marginalized within the justice system, like Indigenous offenders disproportionately. Do you share that concern?
David Lametti, Justice Minister: I undoubtedly share that concern. That’s actually considered one of my overarching priorities as justice minister, and I’ve introduced ahead laws to assault the overrepresentation of Indigenous, black and different racialized peoples within the prison justice system. I’m at present engaged on Indigenous management, with the black management throughout Canada, each an Indigenous justice technique and a black justice technique to assault systemic discrimination in our system. Again, the reply is identical because it was underneath the constitutional query, which is by protecting this slim, by protecting this to a really small variety of offenders who as soon as once more, are accused or of repeat violent offences with weapons that we reduce the potential influence that this may need on overrepresentation or on simply discrimination usually towards weak teams.
Mercedes Stephenson: Minister Lametti, thanks for becoming a member of us in the present day.
David Lametti, Justice Minister: It’s been a pleasure. Thank you.
Mercedes Stephenson: Up subsequent, will he or received’t he name for a public inquiry into overseas interference? We’ll discover out on Tuesday what David Johnston recommends.
Robert Fife, The Globe and Mail: “If he says nothing to worry about here, he’s sunk.”
[Break]
Mercedes Stephenson: On Tuesday, all eyes will likely be on former governor common David Johnston. That’s when he’ll announce whether or not or not he’ll suggest a public inquiry into overseas interference.
The problem has dominated Ottawa for months now. Last week, Conservative MP Michael Chong, who was a goal of intimidation by Beijing, appeared by a Commons committee, urging the federal government to be extra clear with Parliament and the general public.
Michael Chong, Conservative MP: “CSIS has consistently advised that sunlight and transparency is a tool Canada can use to combat foreign interference threat activities so that the details of these threat activities are made public. That way, MPs, citizens, parties, and candidates, can make informed decisions about what is going on.”
Mercedes Stephenson: Chong says it’s time for Canada to meet up with international locations just like the UK and the United States, and he referred to as for a nationwide safety overview.
Joining me now to speak extra about that is our inside politics panel: Stephanie Levitz with The Toronto Star and Bob Fife, the Ottawa bureau chief for The Globe and Mail. Great to see each of you, thanks for coming in.
Robert Fife, The Globe and Mail: Thanks for having us.
Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star: Hi.
Mercedes Stephenson: So Tuesday is the large day. Bob, do you see any situation apart from David Johnston calling for a public inquiry?
Robert Fife, The Globe and Mail: Well, look, I imply the opposition events are united in saying that there have to be a public inquiry. Former nationwide safety advisors, former CSIS directives are all saying we have to have a public inquiry, however I spoke to any person who had a dialogue with the previous governor common a pair weeks in the past and he obtained the impression that David Johnston wasn’t utterly satisfied {that a} public inquiry is important. So it makes me hesitant on this sense, does he suggest one thing however shouldn’t be a full scale public inquiry however some form of very restricted inquiry that won’t final very lengthy and that can get the Liberal authorities off the hook. Because everyone remembers what occurs with the Gomery Inquiry. It sunk the Liberal Party, a public inquiry into the sponsorship scandal. And there could also be concern right here that if there’s a public inquiry, what does it reveal about what the Liberals knew about it. So I’m not saying that Johnston’s within the tank with the Liberals in any respect. I’m simply saying that this individual had left the assembly feeling that he wasn’t satisfied {that a} public inquiry is important. If he doesn’t really feel a public inquiry is important then what would he suggest? If he says nothing to fret about right here, he’s sunk.
Mercedes Stephenson: Yeah. Steph, what are you anticipating on Tuesday?
Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star: I’m anticipating the parsing of all of this to only be performed to the nth diploma, to Bob’s level, in a world the place he doesn’t name a public inquiry and what’s the justification for not doing so? Is it putting safety phrases? Is it saying that hear, CSIS, the opposite nationwide safety businesses have now gone so far as they will publicly go. They received’t go any farther. This is simply going to be a political train. What’s the nuance he places round it? There’s additionally, ought to he say no, the political fallout from it and the way the federal government stick handles that as a result of as Bob identified, all of the opposition events are very, very united of their calls for for a public inquiry. Should David Johnston say no, what did they do with that and particularly, what do the New Democrats do with that? Because they preserve saying they’ve made, you already know, this public inquiry essential to them. They additionally had the availability and coffins cope with the Liberals. We preserve in search of the set off, the strain level, the factor the place the New Democrats are going to say I’m strolling away. Is this a type of strain factors? Conversely, if he says sure, there’s going to be a public inquiry. Well when? How lengthy will it final? Who defines the scope of that? Rouleau, when he did the Emergencies Act public inquiry, one of many issues he talked about was how that mandate must be set along side the commissioner. It shouldn’t be as much as the federal government to resolve how the federal government investigates itself. And in order that’s an attention-grabbing level. If Johnston punts the phrases of the inquiry again to the Liberals, properly then the Liberals can simply do no matter’s going to cowl their butts, if they need. And does that get us any farther forward into the purpose of all of this, which is ensuring that we have now belief in our establishments and that’s the basic factor right here. Not the politics of it. Not the who knew what, when. Can we belief in our establishments and what do Canadians have to have that belief?
Mercedes Stephenson: Bob, do you see a situation the place this turns into a possible election set off?
Robert Fife, The Globe and Mail: Oh, positive. It undoubtedly could possibly be as a result of this has consumed the federal government since—principally since January, a bit earlier in November as properly, however now it’s—like that is the difficulty that has the federal government on the ropes. And Canadians are very, very involved that our democracy has been interfered by Chinese diplomats. Not simply our democracy, we’ve seen it in our universities. We’ve seen it in virtually all segments of society. And the Liberals can not get away with simply passing this off. This is a severe problem. People need it handled and so they haven’t proven any willingness to take this critically. They’ve all used every kind of excuses. This shouldn’t be essential. If you increase this, you’re a racist. Every type—they’ve used Commons committees the place they’ve delayed having individuals testify. They’ve gone out of their option to attempt to not let the general public know what was going—what has been happening right here and it’s not going to move the scent take a look at. And it’s a very severe problem for the Liberals as a result of it might actually have an effect on the election marketing campaign for them if—significantly in the event that they don’t have a public inquiry, or if they’ve a restricted public inquiry, or even when there’s a public inquiry and it appears to be like like yeah, the Liberals knew about quite a lot of these items however they turned a blind eye as a result of they’re those who’re benefitting from it.
Mercedes Stephenson: But—and also you had a narrative late final week speaking about what Bill Blair, who then was the general public security minister, knew when it comes to surveillance on a serious Liberal goal. Can you inform us a bit about that?
Robert Fife, The Globe and Mail: Yeah. So Michael Chan is a former Ontario Liberal cupboard minister, he’s now the deputy mayor of Markham. He is a Liberal kingpin within the nice Toronto space within the Chinese-Canadian neighborhood. And you solely have to go surfing to see all the photographs with him with Liberal MPs and Conservatives by the way in which. So he’s an enormous participant. He’s been on CSIS radar for fairly a very long time, and so they needed to get, which may be very uncommon, an digital and entry warrant, which signifies that they may bug all the pieces—his home, his automobile, his telephones, his computer systems, his workplace—and CSIS needed to do that earlier than the election in line with a nationwide safety supply and Bill Blair delayed this approval earlier than it went to a choose. He’s the ultimate individual with sign-off earlier than it goes to a choose for approval, for—I’m informed—for about 4 months. The minister’s workplace says, properly, I imply, you already know, he’s not a rubber stamp. He has to verify that is correctly vetted and there was a case in 2021 the place the federal courtroom was not proud of the way in which CSIS had gone about warrants. So that’s their argument and the opposition events are all the time saying look, this doesn’t move the scent take a look at. This was an important Liberal Party kingpin, participant, energy dealer, and also you had been delaying for 4 months. So that’s one other indication that this authorities has not taken Chinese interference in Canadian politics very critically.
Mercedes Stephenson: Steph, why do you suppose they’re nonetheless going with the technique they’ve, which is the—it’s the drip, drip, drip, issues preserve popping out, that all the pieces is reflexive. It’s knee-jerk. It’s responsive. They’re not getting forward of something. They’re not being clear. Do you suppose the calculus is on that that they suppose there’s extra to lose, maybe a part of that transparency? They suppose this problem’s going to go away? It’s been happening for months now and it’s not getting any lesser.
Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star: It’s most likely a bit of all of these issues, Mercedes. I imply, you already know, I’m not sitting across the cupboard desk, or the PMO desk or any of these tables, however the Liberals have a reflex that they’re all the time proper. And I suppose many individuals in energy consider that they’re all the time proper. But the Liberals typically consider that they’re morally proper, that their perspective is the fitting perspective and when you disagree with them—and so they don’t like being informed they’re unsuitable—the don’t like being informed they’ve screwed up and so they retreat. They freeze, versus the transparency. And we witnessed it after we had the story that Bob wrote about Michael Chong. It took the three days to get to telling individuals what they knew. It might have been solved straight away by saying the reality. And they reflexively suppose the reality isn’t adequate, for some purpose and that’s a extremely unlucky attribute of our democracy at current. It doesn’t belong solely to them, it belongs at each degree of presidency, each political occasion the place by some means the reality is now not thought of to be adequate and so they wait and try to discover methods to spin, therapeutic massage, permit for the reality after which we find yourself the place we at the moment are, when possibly the reality might have saved us all quite a lot of headache.
Mercedes Stephenson: Bob, do you suppose that Pierre Poilievre has been efficient in all this?
Robert Fife, The Globe and Mail: No, as a result of he’s so partisan, like he wouldn’t even meet with David Johnston, for instance, which I feel was—I feel that was beneath him. You know, if the particular rapporteur needs to satisfy with the Opposition chief, I feel he had an obligation to take action. The one who has been prime ministerial all through this entire factor has been Michael Chong. Not the prime minister who has performed the entire obfuscation that you simply talked about and never Pierre Poilievre who simply can’t assist himself however needs to be bitterly partisan about virtually each problem. Michael Chong rose to the event. This was a risk to Parliament, to the rights of members of Parliament, to our democracy and it was due to his stature within the House of Commons that you simply noticed everyone unite collectively and the federal government was really disgrace confronted into having to expel this Chinese diplomat, which they might not have performed if it, say, had been a extremely partisan member of Parliament. But no one, as you already know, everyone knows Michael. He’s a person of nice integrity and that compelled the federal government to expel him, however I additionally suppose it might have modified the general public dialog as properly for lots of Canadians as a result of—like that is actually severe after they’re going Chinese diplomats suppose they will go after members of Parliament as a result of they don’t like what they’ve been saying about their severe abuses of human rights.
Mercedes Stephenson: Steph and Bob, thanks each for becoming a member of us. I’m positive we’ll be again speaking about this as soon as we discover out what David Johnston’s going to suggest and what the federal government does with all this.
Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star: Thanks, Mercedes.
Robert Fife, The Globe and Mail: Thank you.
Mercedes Stephenson: Appreciate your time.
Up subsequent, Alberta’s election marketing campaign hits the house stretch. What I’m looking ahead to within the last days of this very tight race.
[Break]
Mercedes Stephenson: And now for one very last thing…
We’re headed into the ultimate week of the Alberta election marketing campaign, and the race between NDP Leader Rachel Notley and UCP Leader Danielle Smith continues to be extremely tight. The two leaders duked it out final week at a debate.
Rachel Notley, NDP Leader: Do you actually wish to…
Danielle Smith, UCP Leader: That in an…
Rachel Notley, NDP Leader: Talk about our candidates and our MLAs?
Danielle Smith, UCP Leader: Well I can let you know…
Rachel Notley, NDP Leader: Like critically, I don’t suppose you’re going win that one.
Danielle Smith, UCP Leader: I can let you know…
Mercedes Stephenson: There was just a few fiery exchanges over which chief had the worst observe report as premier.
Danielle Smith, NCP Leader: The purpose she does that’s she doesn’t wish to run on her report. And the explanation she doesn’t wish to run on her report is it was an absolute catastrophe.
Rachel Notley, NDP Leader: I’ve been in workplace since 2008. I’ve by no means really breached the battle of curiosity laws. Ms. Smith can not say the identical.
Mercedes Stephenson: But in the end there was no clear winner. At this level, it’s nonetheless very a lot anybody’s recreation. And politicos say the subsequent premier will doubtless be determined by voters in Calgary, a few of whom are mushy UCP helps however could possibly be satisfied to swing orange.
I’ll be again dwelling subsequent week in Calgary, masking the ultimate days of the marketing campaign. Until then, that’s our present for this week. Thanks for hanging out with us and we’ll see you subsequent Sunday from Alberta.
