In regards to the hysteria around Chuck Strahl consulting on behalf of Enbridge in BC, it seems that Enbridge has been a client of his since 2011 – at least, with regards to any activities on the provincial level. He’s also registered in Alberta to lobby for a First Nations energy that is drilling for oil on its territory with a Chinese-financed company. Can’t you just see all of the conspiracy theories churning? But as Kady O’Malley points out, because the chairmanship of SIRC is considered a part-time gig (as they meet less than a dozen times per year), he’s exempt from many of the restrictions in the Conflict of Interest Act, and Strahl also has stated that he’s not hearing any CSIS cases that involve Enbridge or any of his other clients, there’s no real conflict there.
Tag Archives: Prostitution
Roundup: Shelly Glover and Joy Smith, concern trolls
Shelly Glover, police officer “on leave and planning to return to it once she’s out of politics,” is currently peddling in hysterics and trading upon her time as a police officer that worked undercover on the prostitution beat. Glover says that the laws that were struck down will make it more difficult for police to help exploited women and children – err, except that the laws against human trafficking and child exploitation remain in effect. The laws that were struck down were the ones that made women in those situations be afraid to go to the police for fear of self-incrimination, which seems like a bigger deal than police using those laws to arrest those same women, criminalise them, and hope that it might instead put them in touch with social services agencies while they were locked up. And then there’s her caucus colleague, Joy Smith, who a) doesn’t actually read the literature on the Nordic Model of prostitution laws except for the ones that are devoid of fact and tell her what she wants to hear, and b) conflates all sex work with human trafficking, and all human trafficking with sexual exploitation, which anyone with an inkling of how things work can tell you is a gross overreach. I’m glad that Smith thinks that it’s easy enough to criminalise the buyers of sex to curb demand – because that totally worked with things like alcohol during the prohibition era or illicit drugs today, right, and criminalising those very same drug users is totally saving lives in places like Vancouver’s Lower East Side, right? Oh, wait… Terri Jean Bedford, one of the plaintiffs in the case, says that any new laws need to take consenting adults into account, which may be difficult when faced with an ideology that the exchange of sex for money is inherently bad (while ignoring the other transactions for sex that occur as part of everyday dating and marriage). CBC looks at five questions arising from the Supreme Court decision.
Roundup: In the wake of the Bedford decision
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has struck down the laws around prostitution that related to keeping a bawdy house, living off the avails, and communication for the purposes of prostitution (ruling here). They have given Parliament a year to come up with a new legislative regime before the laws are struck down entirely. Justice Minister Peter MacKay said that he’s disappointed by the finding that the existing laws were unconstitutional, while other Conservatives like Shelly Glover continue to say that these women are now without the “protection” that those laws offered – though the whole point of the ruling was that the laws were not protecting them, but were rather putting them in harm’s way. Part of the debate now moves to the question of how this will affect First Nations women in the sex trade in particular, but it would seem that harm reduction is a good step, particularly if the criminalization made them afraid to go to the police. Emmett Macfarlane writes about the significance of the finding and the way in which the Justices framed their concerns. David Akin looks at how the ruling will affect the various factions of the Conservative base, though it is likely to be more wailing and gnashing of teeth around supposed “judicial activism.” Brenda Cossman worries that the discussion will move toward how to criminalise prostitution rather than how to best regulate a decriminalised environment. Carissima Mathen points out that this court decision is in part because Parliament was negligent over the past three decades when they left these laws in place when they knew that a more comprehensive framework was needed. Andrew Coyne writes about just how very reasonable the decisions is, and how regulation and licensing may be the best choice going forward.
Roundup: Takeovers and security threats
CSIS is sounding the alarm to business leaders around Chinese hackers and cyber-spies as the Nexen takeover bid continues to dominate the headlines. A former assistant director of CSIS says that we need to be aware that espionage these days is more about corporate interests and economic advantage – skewing the level playing field – than it is about government secrets, as it was during the Cold War.
Documents show that the government did study the possibility of private prisons, though Vic Toews has said that he’s dismissed the idea.
The second and final hour of debate on the private members’ motion to create a committee to study the legal definition of “human being” (aka the backdoor abortion debate) took place in the Commons and goes to a vote on Wednesday. And just a reminder that no, this is not an outright attempt to re-criminalise abortions, it’s a non-binding vote about creating a committee to come up with a non-binding report that can then get stuck on a shelf to collect dust because Stephen Harper does not want this issue to be resurrected, and he’s doing everything in his powers to kill it with fire. And for everyone who resumes to think that he should have disallowed the debate in the first place, well, the whole point of private members’ business is that it’s outside of the control of the party leader, the House leader, or the party whip, and any MPs who want the leaders to interfere *cough*Niki Ashton*cough* should really think about what it is they’re asking for, since it would mean curtailing what precious few freedoms backbenchers still possess.
Roundup: Taking another crack at the numbers
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been asked to update his cost estimates of the F-35s, and he’s once again asking DND for information, like they wouldn’t give him last time. Meanwhile, here’s a look at what it costs the defence industry in Canada every time a DND procurement goes off the rails. (Hint: They’re not rolling in profit the same way American firms are).
Incidentally, the PBO’s latest report indicates that the government will likely balance the books by 2015-16, but all of their austerity is likely going to lead to slower economic growth. Imagine that. Also, that Parliament needs to do a better job of reporting the financial numbers so that MPs can scrutinise it – you know, like their primary job is supposed to be. But we’ll see if they actually have the will to do it, when they have people like Kevin Page to crunch the numbers for them.
The retired air force fleet manager who was formerly in charge of the CF-18s has come out to say that the F-35s won’t meet our operational needs, and their price tag is likely to keep climbing. So it’s a clean sweep then. And given his credentials, I’m wondering how long it will take the government to ask why he hates our men and women in uniform.
The government has reduced the amount of time that the public can give input into the process for redrawing the electoral boundaries. Because what is public input in the face of speedy timelines?
Elections Canada is now digging into phone records to try and get more information about misleading live phone calls directing people to the wrong polling stations in ridings other than Guelph.
The government’s new $8 million witch-hunt of charities that engage in political activities will really only be looking at less than one percent of all charities out there. That said, if they’re looking into charities engaging in political activities, perhaps they should broaden the scope to include churches, who also get tax breaks? Just saying…
Under the guise of deterring abuse by “bogus” claimants, the government is scaling back health benefits given to refugee claimants – you know, people who had to leave everything they had in order to flee for their lives. Just more rhetoric about how “generous” our refugee system is.
Small surprise, but the government announced yesterday that it would be appealing the Bedford decision on brothels to the Supreme Court.
And here’s a video of Liberal MP Scott Brison’s speech yesterday on his Private Member’s Motion about getting the Commons finance committee to study income inequality in Canada, and says that it’s a discussion that needs more than just reductionism and accusations of “class warfare.”