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.

Continue reading

QP: The Commissioner’s conflicts

Things got off to an unusual start, as the Commons immediately descended into Committee of the Whole, and Olympic and Paralympic athletes were invited into the Chamber for the MPs to congratulate them on their performances at Sochi. It was too bad that this couldn’t have taken place while the Prime Minister was here. And there were so many selfies taken by MPs. When QP did begin, Thomas Mulcair asked about the recommendations put forward by the veterans affairs committee about changing the system for the better. Peter MacKay thanked the committee for the report, and pledged the government’s continued support for veterans. Mulcair wondered what he meant by “deal with the recommendations,” to which MacKay snapped back that “It means we act on them.” Mulcair brought up that veteran’s wife who has been asking for support and training for spouses, to which MacKay thanked her and her spouse, and noted the improved benefits for veterans in eight budgets that the NDP voted against. Mulcair changed topics, and noted the places where the nominee for privacy commissioner would need to recuse himself for a conflict. Tony Clement noted Therrien’s thirty years of service, and noted that the commissioner has an office that can act in his stead. Mulcair pointed out that the Official Opposition didn’t agree to the nomination, and that the conflicts pointed out why Therrien couldn’t become the commissioner. Clement said that Mulcair’s attempts to drag Therrien’s name in the mud were shameful. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals — two days in a row this week! — and asked about the process for the next Supreme Court vacancy. Peter MacKay said that they intend to consult widely, but were concerned about the leaks in the previous process and that they would proceed with caution. Trudeau moved on, and pointed out that next year, there would be more temporary foreign workers accepted than permanent residents. Chris Alexander insisted that they got rid of backlogs and had increased the number of immigrants. Trudeau shot back that as a percentage of the population, the number of immigrants was down, but Chris Alexander tried to correct Trudeau and took several swipes at their record.

Continue reading

Roundup: Filling the empty seat on the bench

The Prime Minister has finally announced his choice for the new Supreme Court Justice to fill the seat left by Justice Fish nearly a year ago. And yes, this one is qualified, as he currently sits on the Quebec Court of Appeal, where there isn’t a whole lot known or said about him. It has been noted that this is another male appointment – six out of seven for Harper, including Nadon, which keeps the gender imbalance on the bench. This appointment won’t face a “vetting” by a Commons committee, but considering how much of a face that process proved to be, I’m not sure that it’s any great loss.

Continue reading

Roundup: Sona, Coal, and the new Privacy Commissioner

Day one of the Sona trial, and we find that he discussed American-style voter suppression at some point during the campaign. Not that he had any intention of acting upon it, or that he had the means to do so, or that he said he had engaged in it – just that he discussed it. Sona’s lawyer also got some of the witnesses to admit that they got promotions and hefty raises after they talked to Elections Canada about Sona – which is all very curious, but no doubt a big part of Sona’s strategy of undermining the credibility of his accusers.

Continue reading

Roundup: I dream of Turks & Caicos

Visions of Turks & Caicos were abounding on the Hill yesterday, as premier Rufus Ewing visited to talk trade, and while no doors were closed on the subject of annexation (except, more or less, by John Baird), everyone had their fun. Even Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall decided to get in on it, offering to make the islands part of Saskatchewan so as not to need to open up the constitution to add an eleventh province, and PEI Premier Robert Ghiz playfully suggested that his island province would be a better fit. Err, except that Nova Scotia beat them to it by a decade, when their assembly passed a unanimous motion back in 2004 to have Turks & Caicos join them. Oops. Regardless, trade and security would be beneficial, where it could be a Canadian trade port to the Caribbean, and possibly even a supply base for our DART teams. It wasn’t all without hiccups either, as a Caribbean news site listed some complaints that the islands have of Canadians, and that they have no idea where Conservative MP Peter Goldring came up with the notion that 100 percent of the islands support a merger with Canada.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

Roundup: Accusations of intimidation

As you may have noticed during QP, the narrative around Harper’s spat with the Chief Justice is now being characterised by the NDP as an attempt to intimidate her and the courts, which is kind of unsettling. Mind you, Thomas Mulcair isn’t exactly pure when it comes to attacks on the Supreme Court based on conspiracy theories, as recent history shows. Aaron Wherry rounds up more reaction to the dispute here. Brent Rathgeber blasts the PMOs use of selective and disingenuous facts to try to smear the Chief Justice for the sake of fundraising dollars. Irwin Cotler took questions about the situation over the Twitter Machine. Andrew Coyne wonders when Conservatives of good faith will start to challenge the party’s leadership over the damage they are doing to our institutions.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

Roundup: Skills shortages versus wages

After Jason Kenney suspended the temporary foreign workers programme for restaurants, Alberta restaurants are warning that they are going to have to start closing due to labour shortages, given that they already have a hard enough time retaining staff when the oil and gas sector snaps up relatively unskilled labour in short order. Kenny has said that more employers should try to hire Canadians, but that will likely mean raising wage rates. But will people accept the increase in how much it’ll cost them to eat out? We have become a culture that worships on the altar of cheap, after all.

Continue reading

Roundup: Buh-bye, Pauline Marois

It was akin to a massacre. The results are in, and it’s certainly a majority and almost a landslide for the Quebec Liberals considering the predictions going in, while Pauline Marois lost her own seat, and the Charter of Quebec Values is being consigned to the dustbin of history. And yes, Marois is stepping down as leader, while Pierre Karl Péladeau all-but declared his leadership intentions. Mark Kennedy looks at what Couillard’s win means for federalist forces in the country, which might mean an effort to rebuild some bridges, and remember that Couillard has even mused about getting Quebec’s signature on the constitution at long last. Andrew Coyne says that after this many elections were a referendum has been resoundingly rejected that in essence, Quebeckers have not only accepted the constitutional status quo but have pretty much signed the constitution. Paul Wells writes that the PQ is stuck between an electorate that won’t buy their policies, a party base that won’t retreat, and the looming threat that they will become the Tea Party of Quebec. Here’s the At Issue panel’s reading of the election results.

Continue reading