Under the Dome

with Larry Kusch and Bruce Owen

Subscribe to this blog’s RSS feed

• Closure and Bill 20 — who’ll blink first?

  05/9/2013 1:43 AM

  

  One of the more clever moves Opposition Progressive Conservative Leader Brian Pallister has made is making Steinbach Tory MLA Kevin Goertzen his party’s house leader.

  Goertzen, a lawyer by trade, has proved extremely adept at using procedural rules to gum things up for the ruling NDP.

  Pallister’s Tories, under Goertzen’s hand, have now threatened to extend the current sitting beyond June 13 and into the summer. They say they'd do that to stymie Premier Greg Selinger’s New Democrats and their plan to pass Bill 20 in time to hike the provincial sales tax to eight per cent by July 1.

  That delay, if it happens, raises the question of whether the NDP would invoke closure. Such a move would cut off debate and put Bill 20 to an immediate vote in the house. The NDP, with its sizeable majority of 37 seats out of 57, would pass Bill 20 handily and we'd all head to the beach.

  But would they?

  Closure is used rarely in Manitoba.

  The last time was in January 1984 when the NDP under then- Premier Howard Pawley used it to end debate on Bill 115 to extend French language services.

  You have to go back to February 1929 when then-Premier John Bracken invoked closure to bring about a vote in his government’s throne speech. One problem for the opposition at that time was Bracken’s plans to start construction of the first stage of the Seven Sisters hydro generating station on the Winnipeg River.

  Given that history of the use of closure in Manitoba, giving Francophones the same language services as those who spoke English and bringing hydro-electric power to Winnipeg, how likely is it the NDP will invoke closure to raise taxes? And without a referendum?

  The NDP have already bungled their selling job of the need for the tax hike—show me the bridge or sewer falling apart or the dike you plan to build with the extra money; don’t re-announce something you promised in the 2011 election campaign or throne speech.

  So the idea of invoking closure to put a cork in Goerzten won’t sit well and only give their critics more ammunition.

  Even though the next election is about three years away, the NDP need to convince us they have the stamina to keep driving the bus.

  To limit debate would make it look like they’re driving the hearse.

  0 Comments

• Handcuffs and tax hikes

  04/25/2013 3:35 AM

  
  Quiz time.
   
  When did Progressive Conservative Leader Brian Pallister say this?
   
  "The reason for that is that there is a significant accumulated debt which will be handed to younger people to repay. Younger people, unfortunately, will be saddled with that burden if things do not change in this country, and they must change because those younger people are my daughter and the sons and daughters and grandchildren of the members of this House and of all Manitobans. We have to bear responsibility for those people as much as for the people of today."
   
  a) April 16, 2013 Budget Day, when the NDP said it’s hiking the sales tax to eight per cent
   
  b) April 23, 2013  Pallister’s press conference on the need for a referendum for the tax increase
   
  c) Oct. 16, 1996, during debate on Bill 2, otherwise known as at the time as The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act
   
  If you picked ‘C’ you’re correctomundo.
   
  To be honest, I did not find this on my own. One of the NDP’s "192 communicators" helped me.
   
  Here’s what else Pallister, then Government Services minister, said back then about Bill 2:
   
  "There has been a lot of research done, and the fact is that the balanced budget laws, tax and expenditure legislation are not perfect. They are not perfect. They do not work perfectly, and neither do most things, but they do work. Some work better than others. . .
   
  ". . .In that respect, this legislation does deal on the spending side very heavily. Granted, there are restrictions in this legislation that (NDP) members have talked about, that they suggest are unreasonable or that would handcuff future legislators. I do not believe that that is true. I believe the legislation can be, by any subsequent Legislature, withdrawn or repealed. So I do not believe that the hands-being-tied argument is one that has any validity at all. . .
   
  "I would say, above all else, this is very moral, very spiritual legislation. It makes great sense but reflects an understanding of the need and knowing the essential fact that we must govern as if we were to be here on a long-term basis, perhaps forever."
   
  Now, what the one of the 192 NDP communicators wanted me and you to know, is this: That in 1995, Pallister apparently saw no issue with a future government withdrawing or repealing the legislation, legislation that was inspired by him two years earlier through a private member’s resolution.
   
  What the one of the 192 wanted out there is that Pallister, even before it became law, believed The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act was not quite written in stone.
   
  The one of 192 also wanted it known is that it was not actually zapped by God into a tablet, but inspired by mere mortals going into an election campaign.
   
  That like any law, it could be amended or killed by a future government.
   
  Governments, even Conservative governments, do this from time to time. Like the federal long-gun registry.
   
  Now, fast forward to what’s happening in the Manitoba legislature today.
   
  Pallister and his Tories, and the Canadian Taxpayer Federation, now condemn the Selinger New Democrats for introducing Bill 20, the 11-page bill that would increase the provincial sales tax from seven per cent to eight per cent July 1 and exempt the government from the referendum requirement under what’s now called The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act.
   
  The Tories say the money-hungry, tax-loving, spend-happy NDP are breaking the law.
   
  The NDP, through one of its 192 communicators, say whoa, hold on, not so fast.
   
  The NDP say they are merely doing what Pallister suggested could be done Oct. 16, 1995.
   
  You can read all of what Pallister said in Hansard.
   
  Pallister now says that during the 1999 election campaign, the year the NDP booted the Progressive Conservatives out of office, the New Democrats campaigned on a promise not to gut the The Balanced Budget, Fiscal Management and Taxpayer Accountability Act.
   
  Instead, Pallister says the NDP instead have sliced and diced and hacked and slashed their way through it to suit their own needs, their last act being the chopping off of the referendum head.
   
  "With the absence of the Taxpayer Protection Act what will happen is that government’s hands will be untied and governments will be able to raise taxes as they wish," Pallister said during his April 23 news conference.
   
  Premier Greg Selinger, the boss of the one of 192, summed up the situation this way in a conversation last week.
   
  "You do have to actually make decisions once and a while," he said. "It can’t just be laying people off and cuts."
   
  bruce.owen@freepress.mb.ca

  0 Comments

• A worse situation

  04/9/2013 11:44 AM

  

  These words caught my attention in the recently released Manitoba 2011 Flood Review Task Force Report.

  The section had to do with the media’s reporting of that spring flood and the task force’s recommendation that during a major flood, the province set up a dedicated 24-hour TV channel, and perhaps even a radio service, to provide up-to-date information on flood conditions, outlooks, what roads are closed and emergency contact information.

  A similar TV broadcast was used during the 1997 flood in the Red River Valley.

  Related Items

  1. Articles

     • Flood infrastructure projects could cost $1 billion: province

  Here’s what the task force says:

  "Although the media interacted extensively with both the province and municipal officials, television and radio coverage was not necessarily focused on providing local residents with the critical information they needed. There is a big difference between a sensational media story that may make the national news and the communication of vital information to residents, such as details regarding road closures. There is a need for a one source/one story communication tool focused on the information needs of flood-affected resident."

  Far be it for me to put words into someone else’s mouth, but it seems to me the task force is saying that media in general did a lousy job of covering the 2011 flood and that Manitobans, especially those in harm’s way, deserved something better.

  Then there’s this:

  "The communications challenges faced by the province during the flood were exacerbated at times by members of the media who undertook to sensationalize the situation, resulting in coverage focusing on psychological hardships and emotional reactions," the task force said on page 138 of its report.

  "Such coverage often emphasized negative images and difficult experiences. Unfortunately, in many instances, some media had their own agenda during the event of the 2011 flood. The climate leading up to a provincial election gave them an interesting platform to spur antagonistic views that in many instances made the situation worse."

  The task force offers no specific examples of this, or what type of media (TV, newspaper, radio, web) were guilty of making "the situation worse."

  In one breath, the task force appears to be saying that reporters focused too heavily on the "pyschological hardships and emotional reactions" of flood victims, the people who lost their homes, cottages and farms.

  In the next breath, it suggests reporters were also lapdogs to opposition politicians and other critics of the NDP.

  Off-hand I can only think of what happened on Lake Manitoba at Delta and Twin Lakes Beach as something the Progressive Conservative Opposition seized on to criticize the government for its handling of the flood. There was also the deliberate breach of the Assiniboine River at the Hoop and Holler Bend and criticism from the Tories on the operation of the Shellmouth Reservoir.

  In my mind the Tories and anyone else had the right to criticize government for its handling of the flood. In fact, I know the Tories intentionally held off criticizing the government in question period because they did not want to be seen to be capitalizing on the flood. That all changed when Lake Manitoba blew up.

  Anyway, if the Tories and other critics of the NDP thought such criticism could boost their chances in the Oct.4, 2011 provincial election, all the more power to them.

  For the task force to suggest otherwise is absurd.

  I hope I’m not making a the situation worse by saying this.

  bruce.owen@freepress.mb.ca

   

   

  0 Comments

• Police complaints up from 2010: LERA

  03/22/2013 11:10 AM

  

  The province's Law Enforcement Review Agency recently released its 2011 annual report.

  In that year it handled 169 formal citizen complaints against police, up from 140 in 2010.

  LERA says the most common complaint is the use of unnecessary or excessive force, although despite the rise in complaints in 2011, there continues to be a significant drop in these kinds of complaints over the past few years.

  Here are some of the stats from the report: (The full report is here.)

  LERA's jurisdiction extends to 12 Manitoba police services with 1,618 police officers. Total population served is 767,653.

  • Winnipeg Police Service accounts for 88 per cent of complaints made to LERA. Brandon Police Service accounts for seven per cent and other services account for the remainder.
  • There were 260 files opened in 2011, down by six complaints in 2010. The five-year average is 277 new files per year.
  • The number of formal complaints filed (169) is up from 140 formal complaints in 2010.
  • Ninety-one complaints were resolved at intake or after preliminary enquiries compared to 126 in 2010.
  • In 2010, there were 274 total investigations. There were also 274 investigations in 2011.
  • There was a decrease in the number of investigations completed in 2011, down by five files, to 166 investigations completed in 2011.
  • There has been an increase in the number of allegations of disciplinary defaults in three of the main categories: abuse of authority; using oppressive or abusive conduct or language; using unnecessary violence or excessive force.
  • There were no complaints alleging the misuse of pepper spray in 2011.
  • There were three complaints of misuse of the Taser.
  • There were 12 incidents alleging misuse of handcuffs in 2011, down one from 2010.
  • Incidents alleging injuries from the use of force increased to 70 from 66 in 2010. Allegations of injuries were made in 41 per cent of complaints investigated.

  The annual report also includes a snapshot of some complaints made against police. Here are a few:

   

  • A man was upstairs at a friend's place when officers came to the door. When the door was opened upstairs, the police officers heard a person say they could not come in without a warrant. Eventually, the partner of the person who owned the house let the police in. The police searched and at first could not find the complainant but then brought a dog in to find him. The dog pulled the complainant out from hiding and the complainant said the dog bit him. The complainant said the officers then began kicking him, causing injuries.

  After an investigation the commissioner determined that there was not sufficient evidence substantiating the complainant's allegations to warrant a hearing and declined to take further action on the file.

   

  • The police raided a man's house looking for drugs. The raid was a result of pictures on Facebook of the complainant's older son with a shotgun and a huge pile of cash. The complainant's son does not live with him. The man said the police dragged him outside by the hair and that he was only wearing underwear. He also said the police needlessly damaged his garage to get inside, after he had told them he had a key for it. He said they also searched his truck without a proper warrant. No drugs were found and no charges were laid. The man said he was treated in this manner because the police thought he was Aboriginal.

  After an investigation the commissioner determined that there was not sufficient evidence substantiating the complainant's allegations to warrant a hearing and declined to take further action on the file.

   

  • A man was standing at a convenience store waiting for a cab to take him home when two police cars came into the parking lot. The police arrested him for being drunk in a public place. The man was searched and handcuffed. He said he was arrested without reasonable grounds.

  The commissioner declined to take further action because there was insufficient evidence to justify a public hearing. The man asked to have a provincial judge review the commissioner's decision.
  DECISION: The judge held that the commissioner had not made an error by not taking further action on this complaint.

   

  • A woman was allegedly caught shoplifting at a grocery store. The police were called and they arrested her. She stumbled several times when the police were taking her to the police car. She said the police officers would not slow down so she could walk and she struggled with them to keep from being dragged. She said the handcuffs were put on too tight; that the police officer made comments about her past history with the law; called her a "criminal;" and was verbally abusive.

  The commissioner declined to take further action because there was insufficient evidence to justify a public hearing. The woman asked to have a provincial judge review the commissioner's decision.
  DECISION: The provincial judge ordered that the complaint be returned to LERA for further investigation.
  The investigation was re-opened as directed by the provincial judge which resulted in no new evidence supporting the complaint. The matter was closed.

   

  • Police officers went to a residence with a warrant for a man's arrest. The man saw the police coming and hid in the attic of the house. The police found the man, handcuffed and arrested him. The man said the police repeatedly slapped, kicked and punched him before they took him to the police station. At the station, the man was put in an interview room. He said the officers used threats to make him give a written statement and made him sign it. He said they told him he did not need to call a lawyer. The man said the officers were rude and used excessive force in trying to get him to provide the statement.

  The commissioner declined to take further action because there was insufficient evidence to justify a public hearing. The man asked to have a provincial judge review the commissioner's decision.
  DECISION: The complainant's lawyer appeared before the judge advising his client wished to withdraw the complaint.

   

  • A man was detained for approximately 2 hours and 20 minutes under The Intoxicated Persons Detention Act. The man said that he was kidnapped by police, unreasonably searched, arbitrarily detained and denied his right to counsel. The man was also concerned that there would be a record of his arrest and he wanted any such record destroyed. The officers said that they were responding to a complaint of a disturbance. They said that the man was detained while fleeing the scene of a disturbance. The officers said that the man appeared to be intoxicated by alcohol and was not properly clothed for the very cold weather. The officers said that they detained the man for his own safety and read him his Charter rights, but the man declined his right to contact a lawyer.

  The commissioner declined to take further action because there was insufficient evidence to justify a public hearing. The man asked to have a provincial judge review the commissioner's decision.
  DECISION: The provincial judge held that the commissioner had not made an error by not taking further action on this complaint.

   

  • The police went to a residence looking for a man who had two outstanding arrest warrants. The man was alleged to have left threatening messages on his ex-girlfriends voice mail. The man had a history of violent offences with weapons, including firearms. The police found him at the residence and arrested him. While the police were taking the man to the police car, there was a physical confrontation and the complainant said the officers verbally berated him while driving to the police station. He said the abuse continued at the police station; that the police used unnecessary violence; and that he had suffered minor injuries.

  The commissioner referred this complaint to a hearing and the judge referred the matter back to LERA for an informal resolution.
  The complaint was resolved informally between the officers and the complainant.

   

  • Two men were going home after work in the early morning. The driver stopped to let his friend out of the car when they heard a siren. They said they were surrounded by police vehicles, officers with guns drawn and police dogs. They said the police were yelling orders at them and using bad language. When the two men got out of their car, they said the police told them to lie on the ground. When they lay down on the ground, one of the men said he was hit on the head. Both men made complaints to LERA.

  LERA found that the officers had been investigating a complaint of armed robbery in the area. The suspects and the vehicle they were looking for closely matched the two complainants and their car. The officers said that once they realized the men were not involved in the robbery, they released them.
  The complaint was resolved informally between the officers and the two men.

   

  • A man was riding in a friend's car when the vehicle was pulled over by the police. The man tried to place a small amount of drugs between the seats when the police officers drew their guns and said to put his hands up. He said the police pulled him out of the car and started kicking and punching him, causing several injuries. He also said an officer used a taser on his lower back. The police then called an ambulance for the complainant. The man admitted being on methamphetamines at the time of the incident. He was arrested and charged with various trafficking offences.

  Officer Misconduct: three police officers
  Allegations: abuse of authority by using unnecessary violence or excessive force
  Disposition: The complainant withdrew his complaint before the hearing.

   

  • A couple was having a housewarming party in the backyard. The police went in response to a complaint about noise. The officers asked the husband for identification and requested he turn the music down. The husband did not provide ID when asked and said that since it was still early in the evening, they did not have to be quiet. The officer arrested the man for breach of the peace because he refused to comply with the police request. The couple said one of the officers threatened them with a Taser while they were wet. They also complained that the officers threatened them in front of their guests. The officers said they felt threatened by the complainants and called for police backup to help them shut down the party.

  Officer Misconduct: one police officer
  Allegations: abuse of authority by making an arrest without reasonable or probable grounds
  Officer Misconduct: three police officers
  Allegations: abuse of authority by using oppressive or abusive conduct or language; and abuse of authority by being discourteous or uncivil
  Disposition: The judge, while attempting to set a hearing date, received no response from the complainant, so the matter was closed as abandoned.

   

  • A man was driving his vehicle when another vehicle pulled up beside him on the roadway. The man alleged that the driver of the other vehicle flashed a badge of some sort, yelled at the man, used intemperate language, and then sped away. The driver of the other vehicle was an off-duty police officer.

  Officer Misconduct: one police officer
  Allegations: abuse of authority, by using oppressive or abusive conduct or language; and abuse of authority by being discourteous or uncivil
  Disposition: The allegations were dismissed by the Judge, finding in favour of the officer who had made a motion for dismissal based on his assertion that he was off duty at the time. As a result, the Commissioner, under The Law Enforcement Review Act didn't have the jurisdiction to refer the matter to a public hearing.

  • A man took part in a special event that involved a bicycle ride with a police escort. After the ride, the man and other participants were arrested and then released. A few days later, the complainant contacted police to discuss some property he said was missing after the arrest. He posted information about the incident on his blog. Several days later, police contacted the man's boss and released details of the arrest and their concerns that the man had breached the employer's code of conduct.

  The commissioner was concerned that the information was improperly disclosed to the employer. He wrote to the chief of the police agency requesting that all members of the police service be reminded of their obligation to only disclose information received in their capacity as police officers when required for police purposes.
  The police agency responded, saying that the information had been forwarded to the training unit to ensure that new recruits and current members are aware of their responsibilities.

  bruce.owen@freepress.mb.ca

  0 Comments

>>Older Posts