Mike Duffy says that he looks forward to his day in court, and wants it sooner rather than later. Considering that the court system is a little jammed, that may not happen sooner. In the aftermath of the charges, Kady O’Malley delves further into the reasons why Nigel Wright wasn’t charged with bribery even if Duffy was charged for accepting said bribe (hint: proving the intention of “corruptly” makes it a high bar for prosecutors), as well as the rules around sitting parliamentarians testifying before the courts. Stephen Maher looks at those charges relating to what Duffy was charging the Senate for partisan activity and wonders what the party knew about those expenses.
Tag Archives: Nigel Wright
Roundup: 31 charges
Boom goes the ClusterDuff yet again, as the RCMP laid 31 charges against Mike Duffy, relating to fraud, breach of trust, and bribery. (RCMP statement here). These charges relate to his housing expenses, his travel claims, the consulting contracts to the tune of $200,000, and the $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright. Duffy will be in court on September 16th – the day after the House comes back. Duffy’s lawyer says that he’s content, which means that months of innuendo are over and it moves to a fair trial. The opposition reminds us that this is about Harper’s poor judgement. Kate Heartfield gives some questions that voters should be asking in the wake of this including who else benefitted from those payments, but absent from the list is the reminder that under the tenets of Responsible Government, Harper is the one who is accountable for appointing Duffy to the Senator. Don Martin writes about the political fallout of the charges today. Andrew Coyne wonders about Nigel Wright’s motives, and how it is that he wasn’t charged for giving the bribe (which leads one to believe that perhaps it was not so much his idea). Jonathan Gatehouse explores that issue a little more, and notes that Wright didn’t exactly benefit from the cheque, which may shield him from “corruptly” giving the cheque.
Roundup: Peter MacKay’s “special bonds”
Peter MacKay ignited yet another firestorm by making comments to the Ontario Bar Association that there isn’t enough diversity in federal and federally-appointed courts because not enough women are applying since they have a special bond with children. No, seriously. And when called out on it, MacKay insisted that his comments were “misconstrued,” and then went on say law schools need to do better – never mind that female enrolment is already outpacing males. And no, there was nothing in his explanation about visible minorities, just women. Naturally, this turned into a parade of accusations about the regressive social attitudes during Question Period, laced with all of aggravating qualifications from all sides, MacKay included, about being parents. MacKay also gave a litany of appointment figures, all of them out of context, like how there was only one woman out of the thirteen appointments made last week. There was some great fact-checking over Twitter which pointed out just how ridiculous or outright wrong MacKay’s justifications are.
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/479732973470638080
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/479739582615785472
Stats on women applicants to Ontario Court of Justice available since 1989. There is no shortage of women applicants. pic.twitter.com/yvI26uUzwX
— Erin Crandall (@ErinLCrandall) June 19, 2014
How many women appointed to section 96 courts? Fluctuates by year. Numbers not rising with Harper government. pic.twitter.com/dxNZJhwRQM
— Erin Crandall (@ErinLCrandall) June 19, 2014
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: Let’s ignore the Bedford decision!
Well, it’s official – the government is not only going to emulate a version of the “Nordic model” around prostitution laws, but they’re explicitly going against some of the portions of the Supreme Court ruling in the Bedford case, such as communication. The new bill makes advertising illegal, and increases penalties if there is any reasonable assumption that young people will be in the area where prostitutes are soliciting. In other words, by pushing out of the public eye, they drive it further underground where sex workers are isolated and vulnerable to predators, and if they can’t advertise, then what good is it that they are now allowed to hire receptionists or bodyguards that would allow them to practice their trade off the streets? As for talk that police will be given discretion when it comes to the definition of “reasonable expectation” – such as near a school at 3 am – that should also raise red flags because it keeps that power to charge the sex workers themselves. Peter MacKay went so far as to talk about johns as “perverts” and sex workers as “victims” – thus denying them any agency – and the token $20 million being offered to help them exit the trade doesn’t actually address any of the fundamental problems for women who are in the trade for survival, or help those who are in it voluntarily in order to make them safer. As more than one person noted, it’s like they didn’t even bother reading the Bedford decision. Here is one analysis of the bill that pretty much shoots holes through its constitutionality entirely. Another analysis says that MacKay has reframed the terms of debate legislatively from controlling a nuisance to trying to eliminate the practice, which makes the legal challenge more difficult. Emmett Macfarlane notes the arbitrary provisions in the bill like the inclusion of “religious institutions” as a prohibited area – something that is likely to pique the Court – and that it demonstrates that the government is dealing with Charter rights behind the cover of an online poll.
Not surprisingly, the government rejected a BC study that said that the Nordic model does more harm to sex workers rather than protecting them. Their justification? That online self-selected survey they conducted that showed the Nordic model of criminalizing buyers was one the public preferred. Justin Trudeau is calling on those consultations to be made public. We’ll see if either of the opposition parties has the stomach to actually oppose the bill (though the fact that the government went against the Bedford decision may help), but this is going to be a ridiculous fight – especially when my own background sources have said that the government knew they were once again flouting the constitution. It looks like this is just going to wind up back before the Supreme Court under the very same grounds that the laws do more to harm sex workers, and the government can once again say that the Courts are being mean to them.
Roundup: The Chief Justice hits back
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada responded to the government’s media releases and included a timeline of events to show that there was no undue influence in the Nadon appointment. One could question if it was appropriate to flag the issue on July 31, but it certainly doesn’t appear to have unfolded the way that the PMO has insinuated. Harper and company continued to make some baffling assertions, like Harper saying that he discounted any advice about potential problems with nominating a Federal Court judge in Quebec because coming from McLachlin, it would have been improper – it simply makes no sense. So is insinuating that McLachlin should have known that the case would come before her, since she’s not clairvoyant and wouldn’t know that Harper would appoint a judge in such a manner, or that a legal challenge would come. Former Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, who appointed two Supreme Court justices under his watch, confirms that the Chief Justice would have been one of the people consulted in the process because she knows what kinds of expertise the Court needs at the time. Aaron Wherry rounds up more reaction to the dispute here.
Roundup: Amendments during the meltdown
While the Rob Ford story goes into total meltdown in Toronto, the amendment process for the Fair Elections Act hit close to the halfway mark last night, with just one day left before the clock runs out – and it might go a bit faster if parties didn’t file nonsense amendments (postal codes on ballots? Veiled voting? Letting all candidates be photographed casting ballots instead of just leaders? Seriously?) or go on lengthy tirades about things. But hey, what do I know? Meanwhile, Conservative MPs have been talking to The Canadian Press about the fact that the caucus has had a great deal of input into the changes being proposed to the bill after they too were unsatisfied with the original form.
Roundup: A looming deadline
The clock is ticking, and there are some 300 amendments to go through in committee for the elections bill before Friday – which the NDP thinks is ridiculous. Err, except they agreed to the timeline, and they filibustered for days and used up said clock. Actions have consequences, and yes, it’s an important bill that is under discussion, so they had best get to work rather than complaining about it. The Director of Public Prosecutions did appear at committee and said that the biggest concern he has is of perception of independence rather than the independence in fact. Meanwhile, Michael Sona – the only person thus far charged with the Guelph robocalls though he protests his innocence – wonders that if criminals don’t register guns, why would people who make misleading robocalls register them? It’s kind of a good point, and points to yet another flaw in the bill.
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.