The chair of the women’s forum at the Canadian Bar Association calls Peter MacKay out for the real consequences for women in the profession as they are being overlooked for judicial appointments, and that there is a need for more data on appointments, while Thomas Muclair thinks that this is more proof to demand MacKay’s resignation. Former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler, however, does the due diligence and systematically dismantles MacKay’s assertions, from his statements that law schools aren’t playing their role, to the claim that women aren’t applying, and most especially the notion that there apparently aren’t enough women who can be appointed on the basis of merit. Cotler takes MacKay to school over the issue, and it’s great to see a fact-based takedown and not more of this open letter nonsense and weird blaming that has thus far taken place.
Tag Archives: Dean Del Mastro
Roundup: Clarity for First Nations titles
The Supreme Court has given a unanimous ruling granting a title claim to the Tsilhqot’in First Nation in BC, over a large area of land in the south central part of the province, ending a 25-year court battle over forestry claims and a 150-year dispute between that First Nation and the Crown. Because most of BC’s First Nations don’t have treaties yet with the government, this ruling impacts them in particular, and will make sure that the government has a greater role to play in fulfilling its consultative duties to First Nations as more resource and pipeline projects come up. The ruling also declares that provincial governments have regulatory authority over land obtained by First Nations people through court cases or land claim negotiations. While the ruling has been said to give clarity to negotiations, it also raises the possibility that some First Nations will abandon their negotiations with the government in favour of turning to the courts to establish title or land claims, which should be a red flag seeing as treaty negotiation is a Crown prerogative, and we should be careful about delegating it to the courts. Terry Glavin gives the backstory to the whole dispute dating back to 1864 here.
Roundup: A doomed and dangerous challenge
Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati, of the Nadon case fame, is going ahead with his challenge of the government’s citizenship bill, but it’s a nightmare of a challenge because it’s based on a completely wrong-headed understanding of the way our system of responsible government works. Galati names the Governor General in the suit, saying that signing the bill into law went beyond his constitutional mandate. The problem is, of course, is that ours is not a system where the GG can refuse royal assent unless it’s a measure that is so egregious that he or she is willing to risk a constitutional crisis. Responsible Government is all about the Crown acting on the advice of government, and by granting royal assent, it does several things: it grants authority to the new law in the name of the Sovereign; it represents the people agreeing to live under the rule of law; and the Queen as the embodiment of the state, emphasises that we all live equally under the law. Galati argues that provisions of the bill are unconstitutional, but remember that it is still within the authority of the courts to strike down a law – that come under the powers of the Crown as the font of justice, whereas royal assent is a function of the Crown-in-Parliament. Galati seems eager to mix the two and would have the GG get legal opinions before any bill is signed into law – a complete distortion of our system of government and the separation of powers that exists between the Courts and Parliament. That Galati had tried to get the courts to block royal assent before it even happened is a further sign that he not only doesn’t understand the system, but is wilfully trying to undermine it regardless of the dangers or consequences of such moves. Only madness lies down the path Galati is trying to tread, but because he has no legal merit for the ruling, it won’t get very far, fortunately.
Roundup: Leave it to Peter
Oh Peter MacKay. You never fail to disappoint any longer, do you? In amidst the storm over the lack of diverse judicial appointments, MacKay’s tone deaf explanation (and then whinging post on Facebook), we find out that he sent out memos to his department on Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, each with very different message. The Mother’s Day message was about making meals and changing diapers, while the Father’s Day message was about shaping the minds of future leaders. So yeah – very separate roles and fairly outmoded notions about gender-specified parental behaviours. MacKay really has been the gift that keeps on giving lately.
Roundup: Harper’s silence on Fahmy
There were reverberations around the world as an Egyptian court sentenced three journalists to lengthy prison sentences, including Canadian Mohamed Fahmy for his work with Al Jazeera. While other world governments had their leaders or foreign ministers express condemnations or set up calls to the new Egyptian president, Canada’s response was kind of tepid, with Minster of State for consular affairs, Lynne Yelich, putting out a press release to express “disappointment.” Apparently we didn’t want to be too harsh so as to offend them. Fahmy’s brother tweeted out that he holds the government responsible for his brother rotting in jail because Harper couldn’t be bothered to make a public statement. It does make one wonder about why Harper couldn’t be bothered, considering the number of condemnation press releases that we already get in our inboxes. Is it because Harper has his own difficult relationship with the media? Who can say?
Roundup: Different lessons before the by-election
Not that Parliament has risen for the summer, the leaders can begin their summer tours in earnest, without having to take those inconvenient breaks to show up for the odd Question Period or a vote here or there. Because you know, they’re meeting with “real Canadians” as opposed to doing their actual jobs. And with by-elections happening a week away, both Trudeau and Mulcair are in Toronto today to campaign there, both of them drawing different lessons from the Ontario election, while the people who study these sorts of things aren’t necessarily sure that voters are committed to the same parties provincially and federally, and that they may be making a different calculation electorally.
Roundup: Internal pushback on prostitution bill
One of the key Conservative voices on abolishing prostitution, Joy Smith, says that there are things she wants to see fixed in the government’s new bill, which are about the areas where sex workers themselves could still be charged, especially with the provisions around things like being near schools, given that there have never been cases that she’s aware of where sex workers have been trying to sell sex in front of schools in daylight hours. That said, she still wants the Nordic Model to go ahead, and produces conflated arguments around child prostitution, human trafficking, and the bizarre future dystopia where a woman can’t get EI unless she’s applied for work at a brothel, to back up her claims. Meanwhile, the Liberals have formally declared that they will oppose the bill, and listed their reasons why. Brent Rathgeber is also not a fan, seeing this as a cynical ploy to move the base against the courts, while only lawyers and social workers will come out ahead and sex workers won’t get any harm reduction. Even parts of the Conservative base aren’t that keen over the bill. Over in Maclean’s, Colby Cosh writes about where social conservatism and second wave feminism overlap on this issue of sex work, which is all about seeing women sex workers as all victims.
Roundup: Planning for a quick confirmation
The nominee for Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, will appear before the Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee, as well as the Senate in Committee of the Whole, on Tuesday, in the hopes that they will confirm him shortly thereafter. Why this matters is because the “cyberbullying” bill is under consideration and the privacy commissioner needs to weigh in on it as testimony. The outgoing interim commissioner, Chantal Bernier, had opted for a June 5th appearance as opposed to May 29th in order to have more time to prepare, and to see if a new nominee would be named by then or if her term would be extended. This means that she won’t appear to testify on that bill, though it also remains to be seen if Therrien would appear, days into the position and not fully briefed, or if another official from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner will testify instead. Nevertheless, it does raise problems, and is a reminder to the government why they shouldn’t back-load everything to the last couple of weeks before summer, because these kinds of pile-ups happen frequently and it just becomes a huge mess for everyone.
Roundup: Being cute before committee
And that was Mulcair’s appearance at committee – chippy, evasive, too-cute-by-half, and when he did answer a question, he did it in a sarcastic and fulsome manner (in the actual sense of the word) so as to run out the clock. The answers were full of selective facts and half-truths, raised incorrect facts about Conservatives supposedly co-locating constituency and party offices (in point of fact they were merely in the same strip mall, even though NDP staffers tweeted out photos taken from an angle so that the party sign was in the same shot as the constituency office sign, and thus constructing a wholly disingenuous image). When the NDP members of the committee weren’t busying themselves trying to run out the clock with frivolous points of order, they and Mulcair gave obsequious paeans to how wonderfully the NDP were doing as the official opposition and how the other parties were trying to punish them for it. And when it was all over, their MPs and staffers pronounced both in the House and over social media that they demonstrated “real accountability” and showed how to answer questions. In other words, they behaved as appallingly as the Conservatives do in their evasions and talking points, and patted themselves on the back for it. Well done, everyone! You’ve done parliamentary democracy proud. The committee, afterward, ordered an investigation into who has been leaking information from this whole saga to the media. Meanwhile, CTV has learned that some of those “parliamentary” staff were working in the Bourassa by-election, which may have been run out of that Montreal office. Oh, but they were “on leave,” so it doesn’t count, which makes the insistence that there are strict lines between party and “parliamentary” staff because they have separate unions all the more dubious (as a tweet from this one Liberal partisan demonstrates). At the same time, an investigation by House of Commons administration has advised the Board of Internal Economy that NDP MP Guy Caron broke the rules by sending partisan mailers into Bourassa around the time of the by-election using House resources. Oh, but they always follow the rules, remember? Here is the At Issue panel taking on the day’s events.
Roundup: New allegations around satellite offices
Documents suggest that the NDP may have mislead the House of Commons administration with respect to their “satellite offices,” saying that those staffers would be working in Ottawa when they weren’t. This will make for a lot more awkward and/or acrimonious questions when Thomas Mulcair appears before committee to answer questions about this particular setup.