The Commons justice committee did their clause-by-clause review of the prostitution bill, and they agreed to two minor amendments – one that narrowed the reach of the communication provision from anywhere that children could be present, to simply being next to schools, playgrounds of daycares; the other being that they agreed to put in a provision to review the bill in five years, though the NDP tried to get that down to two. The Liberals didn’t put forward any amendments since they voted against the bill in principle at second reading, feeling it is unconstitutional and unsalvageable. The Greens largely feel the same way. Interestingly, Independent MP Maria Mourani doesn’t feel it goes far enough, and wants prostitution outlawed writ large. Here’s a look at some of the criminalization of both the sex workers as well as pimps and johns in Canada, and apparently we have fairly low rates of going after those who abuse sex workers – but one wonders if that also has to do with the fact that the women who were abused or assaulted didn’t feel safe reporting it because they feared being further criminalised.
Tag Archives: MIke Duffy
Roundup: A Freudian slip by MacKay?
Peter MacKay apparently misspoke during Question Period yesterday. Whether it was a Freudian slip, or an inability to read the script he’d been provided, it certainly raised eyebrows as he stated that Justice Robert Mainville would be a great pick for the Supreme Court, when Mainville was being moved from the Federal Court of Appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal. The move had given rise to speculation that it was an attempt to put him in place to move to the Supreme Court when Justice LeBel retires in November, and MacKay all-but confirmed that was the intention, before he back-pedalled and said that he was simply referring to the fact that the Quebec Court of Appeal is the province’s supreme court – a fairly lame back track, and fodder for the court challenge being launched by the same Toronto lawyer that successfully challenged the Nadon appointment.
Roundup: Pushing back out of the gate
The new privacy commissioner, Daniel Therrien, went before the Commons justice committee yesterday to talk about the “cyberbullying” bill, and the moment that Therrien did his job and pushed back against the bill – pointing out the overreach into lawful access provisions, the lowered test for getting warrants, the lack of oversight mechanisms, and that the bill should be split so that the more technical aspects of those lawful access provisions could get more detailed study, the government lashed back, turning against him immediately with the bizarre accusation that he hasn’t been a police officer. Apparently because police demand more powers, the government feels that they need to fall all over themselves to provide them, no questions asked – despite the fact that we have a history of showing that when authorities are given new powers without adequate oversight that they tend to be abused (for entirely well-meaning reasons, no doubt). Also of concern is that information could be requested not only by peace officers, but also by “public officers,” which includes elected officials, certain airline pilots and fisheries officers. No, seriously. Peter MacKay, meanwhile, brings up the child porn defence for these new measures, despite the fact that he hasn’t provided an excuse for why they wouldn’t need a warrant to get this kind of information. As well, NDP MP Randall Garrison tried to put in an amendment to the bill to see that transgendered people are protected from hate – you know, like cyberbullying – and the government shot it down for no real logical reason. Well done, everyone.
Roundup: Quebec’s “death with dignity” complications
It’s not really a surprise that the federal government is saying that Quebec’s “death with dignity” law is a violation of the Criminal Code, and will likely be challenged in court. That was kind of the point of the way the Quebec law was structured, however – to fit under the rubric of the provincial responsibility of healthcare so as to not trigger the Criminal Code, but it will likely take the Supreme Court to determine if they can justifiably do so. The Supreme Court is already set to hear a case regarding overturning the ban on physician-assisted suicide, so by the time the Quebec law hits the courts, there may already be new jurisprudence that will help to change the calculus around it. And yes, all parties are divided on the issue. Predictably, opponents of the law insist that euthanasia cannot be medical care, and want more palliative care instead. Administrative law professor Paul Daly puts this new law in the context of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on a case involving judicial discretion, and how prosecutorial may wind up filling the gap between the Quebec law and any decision to charge anyone who makes use of it.
Roundup: A not unexpected delay
Surprising pretty much nobody, President Barack Obama has delayed the Keystone XL decision until after the November midterm elections. Cue the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the PMO and in the premiers’ offices in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Roundup: Flaherty funeral draws out Harper’s human side
Jim Flaherty’s state funeral yesterday attracted some of the biggest names in politics, current and former leaders on both sides of the aisles both provincially and federally (video here). Everyone wore something green, be it a tie or a scarf, to give a nod to Flaherty’s particular sartorial trademark. Harper’s eulogy was largely lauded, especially for the humour he showed that almost never appears in his public persona here in Ottawa, which is really too bad. There are stories about his self-depricating jokes at Press Gallery Dinners past, before he became Prime Minister and made it a personal policy to not only not attend, but also remove any trace of humanity from any speech he gives. That certain other party leaders plan to use their knack for human engagement as a wedge against Harper makes one wonder about its use as a strategic decision all along.
Roundup: No charges for Wright
News from the ClusterDuff file last night as the RCMP announced that they won’t be seeking criminal charges against Nigel Wright – not that it doesn’t mean that he didn’t do anything wrong. It just means that they didn’t have enough evidence to that they felt that they could secure a conviction, which is a long way off from exoneration. The end of the RCMP investigation means that Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson’s investigation into the activities can now restart, which doesn’t mean that Wright is free and clear (not that those sanctions will be too severe – a slap on the wrist and/or being named and shamed tends to be the extent of it). It also means that he is now free to be a witness in any other ongoing investigations, such as the one into Mike Duffy himself. Wright did put out a brief statement by way of his lawyer that said that he always knew his actions were lawful – but it’s still a stretch based on this turn of events to make that kind of a declaration. It also means that Harper can’t hide behind the excuse of an RCMP investigation when asked questions in the House – unless he tries to use the investigation into Duffy as the smokescreen, which I wouldn’t put past him. CBC put together a special At Issue panel to discuss this turn of events.
Roundup: Another judicial rebuke
Another day, another unanimous judgement from the Supreme Court of Canada against the government and one of their “tough on crime bills.” This time, it was the Truth in Sentencing Act, which limits the credit for time served in pre-trial custody – time which is normally given credit for because it is seen as “harder” than in federal or provincial jails, as it is generally more cramped, has poorer conditions, and offers no programming or rehabilitation. Of the seven justices that rendered the decision, five were Harper appointees, so it’s not like he can even claim that these are Liberal activist judges out to get him – only that the government likes to push the limits of the constitutionality of their bills as far as they can. The ruling didn’t strike down the law, but sets a precedent that restores some judicial discretion to the credit for time served to 1.5-to-one as the Act allows.
Roundup: “Captain Canada” remaining neutral
An election has been called in Quebec, but in Ottawa, Thomas Mulcair has declared that as there is no provincial NDP, he will remain “neutral.” And yes, he did just last weekend insist that he was going to be “Captain Canada” and fight for national unity. To that end, he says that he’ll support the federalist side (recall that he was once a provincial Liberal), but he doesn’t want people to vote only on that issue, especially because there are some Quebec Liberals who are in favour of private healthcare and so on. But wait – he also said that Marois would try to force a referendum if she wins a majority. So, he doesn’t want federalism to be the only factor, but it’s a major factor because she’ll launch a referendum that nobody wants. No doubt this has nothing to do with keeping the soft nationalists in the party fold. The Liberals, meanwhile, are on the attack saying that Mulcair can’t be neutral while the issue of separatism is on the table, while the Conservatives (who aren’t a big presence in the province) are holding back but saying that they would prefer Quebeckers choose the federalist option. Aren’t Quebec politics fun?
QP: In the shadow of a Quebec election call
With the election called in Quebec, which will no doubt consume the news cycle for the next six weeks, things carried on here in the Nation’s Capital unabated, despite the added media attention to Quebec MPs and any role that they’ll play. When QP got underway, Thomas Mulcair led off by asking whether Canada would be sending observers to Ukraine along with the Americans and others, to which Harper said that we were, as well as freezing some Russian assets and suspending more bilateral operations. Mulcair asked if Harper had reached out to the IMF, to which Harper said that they had. Mulcair changed topics, and asked about the consultations on the elections bill. Harper expressed his disappointment in the NDP’s opposition to the bill (err, kind of their job, you know). Mulcair said that the partisan tactics around the bill were unprecedented (um, not sure about that), to which Harper reminded him that they opposed the bill without reading it. For his last question, Mulcair asked about the lack of sanctions against Brad Butt for his “mis-speaking,” but Harper shrugged it off, saying that Butt had apologised of his own volition. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, and asked if elections observers would, be sent to Ukraine, and Baird indicated that we would be. LeBlanc turned to the decrease in funding from the Building Canada Fund, to which Denis Lebel insisted that the fund was $70 billion over ten years.