The West Block — Episode 35, Season 12

THE WEST BLOCK

Episode 35, Season 12

Sunday, Could 21, 2023

Host: Mercedes Stephenson

Visitors:

David Lametti, Justice Minister

 

Journalist Panel:

Stephanie Levitz, Toronto Star

Robert Fife, The Globe and Mail

 

Danielle Smith, UCP Chief

Rachel Notley, NDP Chief

 

Location:

Ottawa, ON

 

 

Mercedes Stephenson: What’s the answer to creating folks really feel protected of their communities once more?

 

After coming below political strain, the Liberals are toughening Canada’s bail legal guidelines. However 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 maintaining 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 current rise in violent crime. Ten law enforcement officials in Canada have been killed since September, a stark enhance from the historic common of roughly three law enforcement officials being killed every year.

 

Officers 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 for the reason that pandemic, in line with police, leaving many Canadians involved concerning the security of their communities.

 

Conservative Chief Pierre Poilievre says the Liberals have been tender on crime at the price of Canadian security.

 

Pierre Poilievre, Conservative Social gathering Chief: “Justin Trudeau’s catch-and-release bail system that he handed in Invoice C-75 with the assistance of the NDP, has unleashed a wave of violent crime throughout the nation.”

 

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.

 

Becoming a member of me now to speak about that is Justice Minister David Lametti. Minister Lametti, good to see you.

 

David Lametti, Justice Minister: Happy to right here. Thanks.

 

Mercedes Stephenson: Minister, you see the opposition blaming your authorities for the rise in violent crime and it’s factually correct. There was a big rise in violent crime for the reason that Liberal authorities got here into energy. Do you consider that a few of the insurance policies you’ve launched bear some duty and that you simply as a authorities bear some duty for that rise in violent crime?

 

David Lametti, Justice Minister: No, in no way. I imply, crime coverage, legal 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 folks to consider.

 

Initially, the statistics will not be as clear as he claims they’re. There was a common lower during the last 20 years in crime. There was a spate of killing of law enforcement officials just lately, as you identified in your introduction and that’s true. My sympathies exit to the households of law enforcement officials, but additionally to legislation enforcement officers usually. We all know they’ve a tricky job and in order that’s what we’re attempting to do at present is assault the issue of repeat violent offenders. However this can be a advanced 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’ve got made have, we predict, improved the legal justice system, permitting us to pay attention, fairly frankly, on extra critical crimes versus losing time and assets 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 folks 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: Properly if what you’re saying is that C-75, the primary invoice made it simpler to get bail, that’s simply not true. We truly made it more durable 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 basic rules of Canadian bail legislation that had been introduced—articulated by the Supreme Courtroom of Canada however have lengthy been part of our bail system. The folks in Invoice C-75, the elements that Invoice 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 type of factor so it’s a very inaccurate characterization from the Conservative Social gathering, specifically, to say that C-75 made it simpler to get bail in Canada. That’s merely not true.

 

Mercedes Stephenson: But it surely’s not simply the Conservatives who characterised it that approach. It was the provinces and police forces as nicely. Are they fallacious?

 

David Lametti, Justice Minister: Once more, I dispute that characterization. That being mentioned, I’ve labored very fastidiously with provinces and police associations during the last 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 yr, working with the provinces when the NDP authorities in British Columbia raised it at a federal-provincial territorial justice ministers assembly. Clearly, that course of accelerated, to some extent, after the tragic killing of Constable Pierzchala in Southwestern Ontario, and we’ve got labored diligently at a political stage and at a technical stage to convey forth these modifications listening to police associations in a really focused approach—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 Invoice C-75, although. Nothing there modifications.

 

Mercedes Stephenson: Why is it that while you selected the way to characterize violent offenders you restricted it to violent offenders who had been utilizing weapons and never simply violent with their palms, with one thing else?

 

David Lametti, Justice Minister: Properly there’s a common provision on violence we’ve got 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 under 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 nicely in order that we all know that at the least they’ve thought-about 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 was 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: Numerous legal 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? Underneath our constitution, you have got a proper to have bail when you find yourself 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 be capable 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 won’t be discovered to be unconstitutional?

 

David Lametti, Justice Minister: I’m very assured. Clearly, the constitution is entrance of thoughts for me. No one will accuse—nicely no person will confuse me with Pierre Poilievre in the case of respecting the constitution. So we labored inside that tight area that—of constitution passability or muster, if you’ll, has to cross muster below the constitution. We predict we’ve performed that. We predict we’ve performed that by concentrating on very particular circumstances the place we’ll reverse the onus. So it’s completely proper for legal defence legal professionals, and I agree with them to say that you’ve 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. Right here, the simply trigger might 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. To not deny bail, however to place the burden on the individual to indicate that they won’t be given these previous offence—previous accusations. They won’t be somebody who undermines public security had been we to place them out on bail. So there may be nonetheless a chance of bail and we really feel that on this very slim band of individuals—bear in mind, this isn’t many individuals—we’ve been instructed time and again 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 concentrating on and so as a result of it’s slim, we really feel we handed muster below the constitution.

 

Mercedes Stephenson: The opposite query that some legal 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 legal justice system. I’m presently 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. Once more, the reply is similar because it was below the constitutional query, which is by maintaining this slim, by maintaining 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 impression that this might need on overrepresentation or on simply discrimination usually towards weak teams.

 

Mercedes Stephenson: Minister Lametti, thanks for becoming a member of us at present.

 

David Lametti, Justice Minister: It’s been a pleasure. Thanks.

 

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 fret about right here, he’s sunk.”

 

[Break]

 

Mercedes Stephenson: On Tuesday, all eyes might 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. Final 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 persistently suggested that daylight and transparency is a software Canada can use to fight overseas interference risk actions in order that the main points of those risk actions are made public. That approach, MPs, residents, events, and candidates, could make knowledgeable choices about what’s going on.”

 

Mercedes Stephenson: Chong says it’s time for Canada to meet up with international locations just like the UK and america, and he known as for a nationwide safety evaluate.

 

Becoming a member of 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. Nice to see each of you, thanks for coming in.

 

Robert Fife, The Globe and Mail: Thanks for having us.

 

Stephanie Levitz, The Toronto Star: Hello.

 

Mercedes Stephenson: So Tuesday is the massive day. Bob, do you see any situation aside from David Johnston calling for a public inquiry?

 

Robert Fife, The Globe and Mail: Properly, 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 individual 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 isn’t a full scale public inquiry however some type of very restricted inquiry that won’t final very lengthy and that can get the Liberal authorities off the hook. As a result of all people remembers what occurs with the Gomery Inquiry. It sunk the Liberal Social gathering, 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 inserting safety phrases? Is it saying that pay attention, CSIS, the opposite nationwide safety businesses have now gone so far as they’ll publicly go. They received’t go any farther. That 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. Ought to David Johnston say no, what did they do with that and specifically, what do the New Democrats do with that? As a result of they maintain saying they’ve made, you understand, this public inquiry essential to them. Additionally they had the availability and coffins take care of the Liberals. We maintain searching for the set off, the strain level, the factor the place the New Democrats are going to say I’m strolling away. Is that this a kind of strain factors? Conversely, if he says sure, there’s going to be a public inquiry. Properly 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 ought to be set along side the commissioner. It shouldn’t be as much as the federal government to determine 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, nicely 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’ve got 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 must 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, certain. It undoubtedly might be as a result of this has consumed the federal government since—principally since January, a bit earlier in November as nicely, 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 language 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’t get away with simply passing this off. It is a critical problem. Individuals need it handled and so they haven’t proven any willingness to take this significantly. They’ve all used every kind of excuses. This isn’t essential. When you elevate this, you’re a racist. All kinds—they’ve used Commons committees the place they’ve delayed having folks testify. They’ve gone out of their technique to attempt to not let the general public know what was going—what has been happening right here and it’s not going to cross the scent take a look at. And it’s a very critical 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 seems like yeah, the Liberals knew about lots of these items however they turned a blind eye as a result of they’re those who’re benefitting from it.

 

Mercedes Stephenson: However—and also you had a narrative late final week speaking about what Invoice Blair, who then was the general public security minister, knew when it comes to surveillance on a significant Liberal goal. Are you able to 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’s a Liberal kingpin within the nice Toronto space within the Chinese language-Canadian neighborhood. And also you solely have to go surfing to see all the photographs with him with Liberal MPs and Conservatives by the best way. So he’s a giant 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 implies that they may bug every little thing—his home, his automotive, 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 Invoice 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 instructed—for about 4 months. The minister’s workplace says, nicely, I imply, you understand, he’s not a rubber stamp. He has to ensure that is correctly vetted and there was a case in 2021 the place the federal courtroom was not pleased with the best way CSIS had gone about warrants. In order that’s their argument and the opposition events are all the time saying look, this doesn’t cross the scent take a look at. This was an important Liberal Social gathering kingpin, participant, energy dealer, and also you had been delaying for 4 months. In order that’s one other indication that this authorities has not taken Chinese language interference in Canadian politics very significantly.

 

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 maintain popping out, that every little thing 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 little bit of all of these issues, Mercedes. I imply, you understand, 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. However the Liberals usually consider that they’re morally proper, that their perspective is the best perspective and when you disagree with them—and so they don’t like being instructed they’re fallacious—the don’t like being instructed they’ve screwed up and so they retreat. They freeze, versus the transparency. And we witnessed it once we had the story that Bob wrote about Michael Chong. It took the three days to get to telling folks what they knew. It might have been solved instantly by saying the reality. And so they reflexively suppose the reality isn’t ok, for some motive and that’s a extremely unlucky attribute of our democracy at current. It doesn’t belong solely to them, it belongs at each stage of presidency, each political social gathering the place one way or the other the reality is now not thought-about to be ok 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 perhaps the reality might have saved us all lots 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. , 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 all the obfuscation that you simply talked about and never Pierre Poilievre who simply can’t assist himself however must 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 Home of Commons that you simply noticed all people unite collectively and the federal government was truly disgrace confronted into having to expel this Chinese language diplomat, which they might not have performed if it, say, had been a extremely partisan member of Parliament. However no person, as you understand, everyone knows Michael. He’s a person of nice integrity and that compelled the federal government to expel him, however I additionally suppose it could have modified the general public dialog as nicely for lots of Canadians as a result of—like that is actually critical once they’re going Chinese language diplomats suppose they’ll go after members of Parliament as a result of they don’t like what they’ve been saying about their critical abuses of human rights.

 

Mercedes Stephenson: Steph and Bob, thanks each for becoming a member of us. I’m certain 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: Thanks.

 

Mercedes Stephenson: Recognize your time.

 

Up subsequent, Alberta’s election marketing campaign hits the house stretch. What I’m expecting within the last days of this very tight race.

 

[Break]

 

Mercedes Stephenson: And now for one last item…

 

We’re headed into the ultimate week of the Alberta election marketing campaign, and the race between NDP Chief Rachel Notley and UCP Chief Danielle Smith remains to be extremely tight. The 2 leaders duked it out final week at a debate.

 

Rachel Notley, NDP Chief: Do you actually wish to…

 

Danielle Smith, UCP Chief: That in an…

 

Rachel Notley, NDP Chief: Discuss our candidates and our MLAs?

 

Danielle Smith, UCP Chief: Properly I can let you know…

 

Rachel Notley, NDP Chief: Like significantly, I don’t suppose you’re going win that one.

 

Danielle Smith, UCP Chief: I can let you know…

 

Mercedes Stephenson: There was a couple of fiery exchanges over which chief had the worst observe file as premier.

 

Danielle Smith, NCP Chief: The explanation she does that’s she doesn’t wish to run on her file. And the rationale she doesn’t wish to run on her file is it was an absolute catastrophe.

 

Rachel Notley, NDP Chief: I’ve been in workplace since 2008.  I’ve by no means truly breached the battle of curiosity laws. Ms. Smith can’t say the identical.

 

Mercedes Stephenson: However finally there was no clear winner. At this level, it’s nonetheless very a lot anybody’s sport. And politicos say the subsequent premier will possible be determined by voters in Calgary, a few of whom are tender UCP helps however might be satisfied to swing orange.

 

I’ll be again residence subsequent week in Calgary, protecting the ultimate days of the marketing campaign. Till then, that’s our present for this week. Thanks for hanging out with us and we’ll see you subsequent Sunday from Alberta.