During the 2015 election, the Liberal Party promised to listen to Canadians in an unprecedented way, and as we get closer to marking the first year of their government, signs have been good that they're trying to follow through. So much so that when it comes to climate change, it can feel like the government is trying to consult us to death. When it comes to climate consultation, the federal government is great at asking questions, but are they actually listening to the answers? The truth is, I don't know. The government of Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister of Natural Resources Jim Carr in particular, have made no secret that they want to approve a pipeline.
Last week, Justice Catherine Bruce, a judge from British Columbia, made history in Canada and in North America in general. She ruled that John Nutall and Amanda Korody, two Canadian convicted on terrorism charges, were instead entrapped by the RCMP. The unusual factor here isn't that entrapment was used, but the decision of the judge to accept it as one.
Under the leadership of the Liberals, our federal government is investing in digital staff and infrastructure (Conservatives have done so as well, but not to this scale and depth). We are catching up to corporations in how they listen to and engage customers to manage issues, drive innovation and build loyalty.
On October 19th, 2015, Canadians voted to change their government. Prime Minister Trudeau has been in office now for about eight months. The first sitting of Parliament has wrapped up. As MPs head back to their ridings for the summer, this is a good time to assess how real change has been taking shape.
As the House of Commons finished its spring sitting last week, the Government of Canada introduced new legislation to make progress, as promised, on critical national security priorities. Publishing the details now will give ample time for these three measures to be studied before they come up for debate and votes in the fall.
Bill C-14 reflects a reasonable, balanced approach to the criminal law dimensions of medical assistance in dying, where Parliament's jurisdiction primarily lies. Medical assistance in dying is different from all other forms of medical care in that, in the absence of an exemption, it is otherwise criminal conduct of the most serious nature. Bill C-14 also includes a critical set of safeguards that are designed to give Canadians confidence that life will only be ended where that is the genuine and firm wish of the person.
These next few days are like festival season for political people: in Winnipeg the Liberal Party is gathering for the 2016 Biennial Convention while over in Vancouver, the Conservative Party are also in the midst of their national convention. Gender equity and increasing the number of female candidates will be a hot topic for both. PM Trudeau and his core team have this made this a clear priority for this Liberal Party and for the Conservatives, a more gender inclusive party has to be an essential part of their renewal efforts.
Few realize that the position of prime minister in Canada has more power than the President in the United States or, for that matter, any government leader in the G7. The current government already has the majority of seats and therefore control of the legislative agenda. It can use its majority to limit debate on any given bill and it also has control over the committees studying these bills.
Don't forget, way back in January 2014 Trudeau said about Kinder Morgan, "I certainly hope that we're going to be able to get that pipeline approved." Unless we make things uncomfortable for him politically, the prime minister will force this pipeline through our communities against our will -- the public's will.
One-off symbolic gestures such as appointing gender-balanced cabinets are not enough. Like the dozens of other countries ahead of us on the international gender equality league tables have discovered, the only way to move toward gender parity in parliament is to enact laws to prompt parties into action.
Justin Trudeau, in a stunning piece of political theatre, recently stood up in the House of Commons and categorically refused to implement decriminalization, a refusal that will result in a continuation of unnecessary criminal records for a crime that won't even be a crime in a couple years. Given his history on the topic, it's a truly mind-boggling stance for him to take.