[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

F) That's an issue that will never die.  When you come down to it the "damaged relationship with native communities" all revolve around native leadership demands for more federal dollars.  Unless Trudeau opens his the money floodgates, nothing will change here.

I think we've seen fundamental changes in the relationship with native communities here in BC these last few decades, and that has not primarily been about showering money on native leadership as I understand it.

An inquiry into the missing native women and some policing and policy changes to lower the death toll would not, for example, be primarily about showering money on native leadership I don't expect.

This whole "inquiry" issue.  Is there any real mystery to investigate here?  Native women are getting involved in high risk lifestyles that lead to them being brutally taken advantage of, and too often being murdered.  There - I just saved the government anywhere from $15-$100 million dollars.

[Barrister]

A) There devil is in the details on legalizing marijuana.  How is production to be monitored or regulated?  What steps are taken to prevent children from getting it?  What steps will be taken to prevent people from toking and driving?  Hopefully they'll come up with something careful and considered, but I'm also a bit worried they just delete Schedule VII from the CDSA and call it a day.

For the record I'm not really in favour of this....but re: the details you ask for,  they're already in the law when it comes to liquor, don't see why this would be different.

But they aren't.

We have a very complex set of provisions dealing with your legal blood alcohol limit (80), how you can compel a driver to provide a sample, various legal provisions dealing with what use you can use those results for.

None of that exists for marijuana / THC.  We just have a generic law that says "don't drink while impaired by a drug", but with no easy way to prove it.  As a result there are vanishingly few convictions for impaired driving by marijuana.  Not because it isn't already happening, but because we can't prove it.

[Malthus]

I think you have a point economically.  I also agree that there will be an important shift of tone.  But I think there will also be some important changes that go beyond mere symbolism.  There will also be some dramatic changes.  If the Liberals live up to their promises:

a) pot will be legalized, regulated and taxed.  I know you mentioned this but I don't think you gave enough credit to what a substantial change this is.  Instead of a government intent on imposing more tough on crime bills we have a government that will actually reduce crime at its source.

b) The Federal government will now partner with the provinces who wish to treat drug addiction as a medical issue instead of a criminal issue.  Again you mentioned this but the change will be dramatic judging by the entirely salutary effects the injection clinic has had on the downtown east side of Vancouver.  And again this is a significant shift from seeing drugs as a criminal issue to seeing them primarily as a health issue.

c) trying to find a solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Don't yet know what they are going to propose but the fact they are actually going to think about it, fund research and cooperate with the provinces is a huge step forward.

d) Connected with c) is the significant change to how science will once again be done in this country.  Science departments at universities across the country must have been popping the champagne corks last night as the funding model will likely be returned to a model where primary research is once again valued and funding will not just be restricted to market ready applications. Also, we will once again be able to hear directly from government scientists without them first having their statements vetted by the PMO.

e) the government is no longer going to be fighting lengthy and expensive legal battles over what all legal observers agree have no shot at passing Charter scrutiny.  As one immediate example, the appeal to the SCC on the swearing in ceremony will likely be dropped as soon as the government is sworn in.

f) last, but certainly not least, there will be an attempt to repair a much damaged relationship with the aboriginal community. That will have significant results in terms of providing greater certainty for everyone as to how resources and other business opportunities can be developed.

I am sure there is more but those are the significant changes I can think of atm.

I would point out that pretty well none of those changes are exactly radical surgery to the body politic.  Much is simply about changes in details, or changes of a retatively minor nature, or changes in "tone".

Take for example pot - I totally agree that open legalization would be for the better (indeed anything to get away from the damaging prohibition era would be for the better). However, that change has been in the air for years - starting with "medical marijuana", which remains a pretty transparent cat's-paw for legalization. The Cons hated it, but like with other social changes they hated, they did not stop it.

Injection sites - again, the Cons hated them, and tried to close Insite, but notably failed. Their record is 0/2 in actually stopping these programs.

Reducing greehouse gasses - we shall see. I have no doubt the Libs will talk about doing so. Whether they will go beyond talking to doing is an open question.

Science funding: there is a siginifant area for Lib improvement. But "increasing funding for basic research", while an unmitigated improvement, isn't really a fundamental change in governance.

As for the government engaging in hopeless Charter battles - again, we shall see. Part of that was the Con strategy of appearing to commit to Con social changes (while actually doing nothing much).

Improving relations with Native Canadians - that would be good, but I don't expect much in the way of radical changes there. The problems between Canada as a government and Native Canadians are deep-seated and structural, and seemingly intractible by any government - Lib or Con.

[Josephus]

Fair enough Beeb, I just mean, we have a law in place to prevent selling alcohol to minors and to prevent drunk driving...why can't they do that for marijuana. I accept your expertise in this manner, but surely an on the scene blood test or something can cover it? Otherwise I agree with you on this (and as stated before I'm not really in favour of legalizing mary jane, believe it or not).

[Malthus]

A) There devil is in the details on legalizing marijuana.  How is production to be monitored or regulated?  What steps are taken to prevent children from getting it?  What steps will be taken to prevent people from toking and driving?  Hopefully they'll come up with something careful and considered, but I'm also a bit worried they just delete Schedule VII from the CDSA and call it a day.

For the record I'm not really in favour of this....but re: the details you ask for,  they're already in the law when it comes to liquor, don't see why this would be different.

But they aren't.

We have a very complex set of provisions dealing with your legal blood alcohol limit (80), how you can compel a driver to provide a sample, various legal provisions dealing with what use you can use those results for.

None of that exists for marijuana / THC.  We just have a generic law that says "don't drink while impaired by a drug", but with no easy way to prove it.  As a result there are vanishingly few convictions for impaired driving by marijuana.  Not because it isn't already happening, but because we can't prove it.

This doesn't bug me much. There is no way to "prove" people aren't impared by totally legal medications, either, or a host of other dangerous conditions (like being too tired to drive).

Fact is that, for whatever reason, drinking and driving is a particularly bad combo. 

[Barrister]

Fair enough Beeb, I just mean, we have a law in place to prevent selling alcohol to minors and to prevent drunk driving...why can't they do that for marijuana. I accept your expertise in this manner, but surely an on the scene blood test or something can cover it? Otherwise I agree with you on this (and as stated before I'm not really in favour of legalizing mary jane, believe it or not).

The science is just tougher.  THC will not appear in a breath sample.  You can use a urine test, but it actually only detects the non-active metabolites of THC, and those can be found for days after you've smoked (and well after any impairment has passed).

You can use a blood test, but the courts have been very hesitant to allow police to demand blood samples.  It's one thing to blow into a tube, but if police start whipping out needles?

So... perhaps you can design a system which allows for blood demands.  Or maybe you're okay with making it illegal to drive with THC metabolites in your system (even if you aren't actively impaired at the moment).  Or maybe something else.

[Barrister]

This doesn't bug me much. There is no way to "prove" people aren't impared by totally legal medications, either, or a host of other dangerous conditions (like being too tired to drive).

Fact is that, for whatever reason, drinking and driving is a particularly bad combo.

Well it should bug you.  The reason drinking and driving is a particular problem is because alcohol is a legal, widely available drug with little social stigma behind its use.

Once marijuana is legallized, it will be in the same position as alcohol.

[Jacob]

This whole "inquiry" issue.  Is there any real mystery to investigate here?  Native women are getting involved in high risk lifestyles that lead to them being brutally taken advantage of, and too often being murdered.  There - I just saved the government anywhere from $15-$100 million dollars.

Yeah, that's the Conservative viewpoint alright - "it's their own fault they weren't more careful. Who cares."

I guess the thing is, for whatever reason, some of us do care. Perhaps things can be done to decrease the odds of "Native women getting involved in high risk lifestyles". Perhaps things can be done to help them escape those "high risk lifestyles" if they are currently in them. Perhaps there are other things in play that leave Native women more likely to being taken advantage of and murdered compared to other people in otherwise similar situations.

Who knows?

We might know if we put some effort into finding out, and we might begin addressing some of the underlying issues once we have a better idea of what's going on. Or we could, you know, not do anything about it and generally not care. That was the policy of the previous government. Canada has just elected a government that has pledged to put some resources into investigating and potentially addressing them.

There's a pattern of fact that has left 1200 Native women dead or disappeared in the last 30 years. Perhaps we can do better than saying "they were involved in high risk lifestyles" and shrug and move on.

[Barrister]

Oh shoot - Melissa didn't win in the end in Yukon.  The first few results showed her winning, but in the end the Liberals won quite handily.

[Malthus]

This doesn't bug me much. There is no way to "prove" people aren't impared by totally legal medications, either, or a host of other dangerous conditions (like being too tired to drive).

Fact is that, for whatever reason, drinking and driving is a particularly bad combo.

Well it should bug you.  The reason drinking and driving is a particular problem is because alcohol is a legal, widely available drug with little social stigma behind its use.

Once marijuana is legallized, it will be in the same position as alcohol.

I don't agree. The reason it is a problem is a physical effect of intoxication by alcohol, which renders that particular drug far more dangerous for driving than pot is.

Pot use is widespread despite its illegal status, and that hasn't lead to a terrible rash of pot-related auto accidents. There is no evidence that legalizing pot will have any such effect.

Drugs are not interchangeable, each has different effects. I'm not of the opinion that pot is 'harmless', but its harms are simply different from those of alcohol. It is less likely, for example, to make its users dangerously violent ... and it is less likely to lead to car accidents. Not that impared driving (pot or otherwise) is wise - but pot is simply a lesser concern in this particular respect.

[Jacob]

This doesn't bug me much. There is no way to "prove" people aren't impared by totally legal medications, either, or a host of other dangerous conditions (like being too tired to drive).

Fact is that, for whatever reason, drinking and driving is a particularly bad combo.

Well it should bug you.  The reason drinking and driving is a particular problem is because alcohol is a legal, widely available drug with little social stigma behind its use.

Once marijuana is legallized, it will be in the same position as alcohol.

I don't care about pot legalization, but I don't think kids smoking it is particularly a big deal as a result of legalization.

[Barrister]

This whole "inquiry" issue.  Is there any real mystery to investigate here?  Native women are getting involved in high risk lifestyles that lead to them being brutally taken advantage of, and too often being murdered.  There - I just saved the government anywhere from $15-$100 million dollars.

Yeah, that's the Conservative viewpoint alright - "it's their own fault they weren't more careful. Who cares."

I guess the thing is, for whatever reason, some of us do care. Perhaps things can be done to decrease the odds of "Native women getting involved in high risk lifestyles". Perhaps things can be done to help them escape those "high risk lifestyles" if they are currently in them. Perhaps there are other things in play that leave Native women more likely to being taken advantage of and murdered compared to other people in otherwise similar situations.

Who knows?

We might know if we put some effort into finding out, and we might begin addressing some of the underlying issues once we have a better idea of what's going on. Or we could, you know, not do anything about it and generally not care. That was the policy of the previous government. Canada has just elected a government that has pledged to put some resources into investigating and potentially addressing them.

There's a pattern of fact that has left 1200 Native women dead or disappeared in the last 30 years. Perhaps we can do better than saying "they were involved in high risk lifestyles" and shrug and move on.

I never said "who cares".  In fact, given the ridiculous number of people I've prosecuted for injuring or harming native women I dare say I care quite a bit.

So, as you say, it's not really about the missing women.  It's about the "underlying issues".  Well guess what - we already had an inquiry on that.  The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People.  The results of which are still available online.  And it cost $60 million dollars.

Being opposed to commissions is not the same as "not caring".  My position is that inquiries and commissions are wonderful for the legal profession - lots of people get to bill the government up the wazoo for a few years.  But they have a terrible track record for actually leading to results.

[Malthus]

This whole "inquiry" issue.  Is there any real mystery to investigate here?  Native women are getting involved in high risk lifestyles that lead to them being brutally taken advantage of, and too often being murdered.  There - I just saved the government anywhere from $15-$100 million dollars.

Yeah, that's the Conservative viewpoint alright - "it's their own fault they weren't more careful. Who cares."

I guess the thing is, for whatever reason, some of us do care. Perhaps things can be done to decrease the odds of "Native women getting involved in high risk lifestyles". Perhaps things can be done to help them escape those "high risk lifestyles" if they are currently in them. Perhaps there are other things in play that leave Native women more likely to being taken advantage of and murdered compared to other people in otherwise similar situations.

Who knows?

We might know if we put some effort into finding out, and we might begin addressing some of the underlying issues once we have a better idea of what's going on. Or we could, you know, not do anything about it and generally not care. That was the policy of the previous government. Canada has just elected a government that has pledged to put some resources into investigating and potentially addressing them.

There's a pattern of fact that has left 1200 Native women dead or disappeared in the last 30 years. Perhaps we can do better than saying "they were involved in high risk lifestyles" and shrug and move on.

I can see where BB is comming from. It isn't that "nobody cares". It is more like "people already know" what the cause is - namely, a combination of poverty and the isolation of native communities, that gives rise to a host of ills (including violence towards women, whether in the community itself, travelling the highways to or from those communities, or attempting to escape poverty and isolation by taking what few ways out exist). The "cause" isn't the problem - the "cure" is the problem - namely, ending poverty and isolation would require fundamental structural changes to Canada's policies regarding native Canadians, changes which no-one - including the natives political authorities themselves - have much of an appetite to make.

[Jacob]

I never said "who cares".  In fact, given the ridiculous number of people I've prosecuted for injuring or harming native women I dare say I care quite a bit.

So, as you say, it's not really about the missing women.  It's about the "underlying issues".  Well guess what - we already had an inquiry on that.  The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People.  The results of which are still available online.  And it cost $60 million dollars.

Being opposed to commissions is not the same as "not caring".  My position is that inquiries and commissions are wonderful for the legal profession - lots of people get to bill the government up the wazoo for a few years.  But they have a terrible track record for actually leading to results.

Fair enough.

So, given that you have a pretty good idea about the underlying issues and the problem is a lack of political will, what's the best course forward on this do you think?

[Barrister]

I never said "who cares".  In fact, given the ridiculous number of people I've prosecuted for injuring or harming native women I dare say I care quite a bit.

So, as you say, it's not really about the missing women.  It's about the "underlying issues".  Well guess what - we already had an inquiry on that.  The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People.  The results of which are still available online.  And it cost $60 million dollars.

Being opposed to commissions is not the same as "not caring".  My position is that inquiries and commissions are wonderful for the legal profession - lots of people get to bill the government up the wazoo for a few years.  But they have a terrible track record for actually leading to results.

Fair enough.

So, given that you have a pretty good idea about the underlying issues and the problem is a lack of political will, what's the best course forward on this do you think?

Well I know what I think.

The problem is that the solutions I would prescribe (attempt to promote private industry on reserves, including private ownership of land and housing) would be resisted by the native leadership.  And according to native leadership, the problem is one of the federal government not giving them enough money.

This is the very short version - I could go on for pages but need to get some more work done.