Liberal leader Justin Trudeau led his party on Monday after voters answered his snap election call with another minority mandate in the House of Commons.
But now that the party’s promises to the Canadian people have paved the way for it to form a government once again, it’s time for the Liberals to really try to keep them.
Granthshala News took a look at his platform and identified which pledges would be most difficult for Trudeau’s government to fulfill.
The Liberals have promised to fully implement the Jordanian Doctrine – a rule that pledges to provide First Nation children with the services they need, rather than having to decide first what level of The government is responsible for the cost.
Although the implementation of Jordan’s doctrine has been a thorny issue in recent years, both the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the First Nations Child and Family Care Society (Caring Society) are taking the government to court over what they it is said. Failure to apply the principle.
According to Cindy Blackstock, who runs the Caring Society, this ongoing litigation erodes trust between Indigenous people and the government—an organization that have to make sure First Nations children and their families have “a culturally based and equal opportunity to grow safely at home, to be healthy, to receive a good education, and to be proud of who they are.”
“The prime minister got up in the House of Commons and said he was not prosecuting indigenous children. A week later we were in federal court and they were suing Indigenous children,” Blackstock said in a previous interview with Granthshala News.
“When the government says, ‘Okay, you need to trust us, the indigenous people don’t trust us.’ Well, that’s why.”
When it comes to Liberal promises to fully implement Jordan’s doctrine and his platform’s pledge to “continue to improve child and family services in Indigenous communities,” Blackstock said he is concerned about that. Whether the action matches the words.
But because the prime minister has previously said that the government is already fully implementing the Jordanian doctrine, Blackstock is concerned that the government and advocacy groups have different definitions of what constitutes a full implementation – and that this is a real change. There may be an obstacle.
“It feels good — if they do that,” Blackstock said. “And it’s always been ‘if they do it’ where there have been serious problems.”
The Liberals have promised that within their first 100 days of being re-elected, they will introduce legislation “to combat serious forms of harmful online content.”
This includes “hate speech, terrorist material, material inciting violence, child sexual abuse material and non-consensual distribution of intimate images”, the party’s platform said. It will hold social media platforms and online services accountable for the content they host – all while recognizing the “importance of freedom of expression for all Canadians”.
Because this law brushes up against a charter-affirming right, liberals may find themselves in a sticky situation as they attempt to actually enforce the law—at least if previous legislation is any indication.
The Liberals gave Canadians a glimpse behind the scenes of what this law might look like in July, when they presented their proposal for a new Digital Security Commission.
The proposal specifically targeted major platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Pornhub under a new legal category that considers them “online communications service providers” and under the authority of a new Digital Security Commission.
The Liberals said they would place a new obligation on those providers to remove five categories of hateful content and to review complaints within 24 hours. The new regulator will also get the final power to apply for court orders, allowing telcos to block access to platforms that consistently deny removal of child sexual abuse or terrorist content.
The five categories of harmful material covered under the proposed new powers will be based on offenses already defined under the Criminal Code: hate speech, child sexual abuse material, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, incitement to violence and terroristic material.
Definition of “hate” They will use specifically extroverted material that “defames, humiliates, hurts or offends.”
Still, the bill raised some red flags for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA).
“The hate speech bill that was introduced and died before the federal election call raises the same concerns that often come with this type of legislation: how do we clearly define what amounts to hate speech? in so that it is not too subjective to provide a consistent legal standard?” Kara Faith Zwiebel, director of the Fundamental Freedoms Program with CCLA, wrote in an emailed statement.
“If a new government wants to address the problem of hate, it must figure out how to do so without unreasonably limiting freedom of expression.”
The Canadian Constitution Foundation, a nonprofit that protects the constitutional rights and freedoms of Canadians, spoke out against the liberals’ proposed law in July. He added that the law “will affect the ability of Canadians to engage in debates on volatile topics.”
“This government, and in particular the heritage minister, has repeatedly proved that they are anti-freedom of expression and anti-technology,” the statement said.
“Giving even more control over Canadian expression to the government and non-elected tribunal bureaucrats would violate our fundamental rights.”
This means that his bid to enforce this law could give the Liberals a ticket to a charter challenge – creating a hindrance…