Remember those anti-pot ads that the government plans to run, which totally aren’t partisan and totally not about Justin Trudeau? Well, as it happens, they don’t show up in planning documents, and there’s no budget for new television advertising, especially for ones geared toward marijuana specifically. But remember – it’s totally not partisan. Really! And it looks like those doctors’ groups are starting to reconsider their participation, because they can see what’s going on.
Tag Archives: Robocon
Roundup: A guilty verdict for Sona
The verdict is in, and former Conservative staffer Michael Sona has been found guilty of aiding and abetting the fraudulent robocall scheme in Guelph in the last election – though the judge made it clear that Sona was not the only one involved, and cast a lot of doubt on the testimony of Andrew Prescott, who was given immunity in exchange for said testimony. All throughout the process, Sona had tweeted about the poor quality of the Elections Canada investigation, and the judge seemed to echo some of those sentiments, but nevertheless found Sona to bear some culpability. The Conservatives, meanwhile, insist that they ran a clean and ethical campaign, and that this is just a couple of bad apples – but as Michael Den Tandt notes, the number of bad apples are piling up on the watch of this prime minister, and that question of judgement which Harper claims to be an issue when it comes to Justin Trudeau can be laid as much at his feet as well. Sona won’t be sentenced until mid-October, and he sounds like he’s preparing for the worst – prison time. There remains the possibility for him to appeal, but the grounds for appeal are fairly narrow and they would have to prove that the judge erred, and they couldn’t introduce new evidence in the case, such as having Sona testify in his own defence, which he didn’t during the trial.
Roundup: Referring the file to Elections Canada
It probably wasn’t unexpected, but the Board of Internal Economy has ruled that the NDP has broken the rules with their “satellite offices,” and wants Commons administration to figure out how much they need to repay for those staffers, most of whom are either working from home or out of Thomas Mulcair’s constituency office. Not only that, but the Board has also mentioned turning over the file to Elections Canada, because of concerns that those staff were not on “leave of absence” when it came to the by-election in Bourassa, where they already spent right up to the limit and this could put them over it. The excuse was that they were using banked overtime and whatnot, but again the rules around in-kind donations would also be triggered here. The NDP, predictably, tried to douse distraction sauce all over it by shouting “kangaroo court!” over and over, and demanding that the Auditor General be brought in to look at everyone’s expenses (um, he’s not your babysitter, guys), so that they can try to spread blame all around. They also kept insisting that the salaries were approved by Commons administration, though the Speaker’s office disputes this with the timeline they published (and it’s fascinating reading). We’ll see if they try to contest this in court as well, but it’s not looking good for them at this point.
Roundup: A very big repayment demanded
The Commons Board of Internal Economy has ruled, and the NDP have been determined to owe some $1.17 million for those improper mailings, $36,000 of which is owed to the House of Commons, the rest they need to work out with Canada Post for the abuse of their Franking privileges. The NDP, of course, are spitting mad, calling it the work of a hyper-partisan kangaroo court, and declaring that they will seek judicial review of this decision in the Federal Court. This is also before there is any decision made about their “satellite offices,” which could mean that they will wind up owing even more money, and I’m sure there will be even more threats of lawsuits and judicial review, none of which serves anyone’s purposes, though the NDP’s status as paragons of virtue is certainly being tainted by all of this. If nothing else, they are now sounding very much like another party that got in trouble for being cute with the rules – unless you have forgotten about the whole “In & Out” affair.
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: 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.
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.
Roundup: The Sona trial commences
Michael Sona’s trial in the case of the misleading robocalls gets underway in Guelph, Ontario, today, Sona has long maintained that there is no real evidence against him other than some questionable testimony that would have occurred at a time when he was out of the country. That said, it is hoped that with other players on the stand that this trial may be the only hope for getting the real story of what happened in Guelph out there. Sona could face five years in jail and a fine of up to $5000 if found guilty.
Roundup: A new $3.5 billion commitment
The government has pledged another $3.5 billion over five years for its Maternal and Child Health initiative, in the hopes of achieving the Millennium Development Goal of 75 percent reduction in maternal mortality by 2020. CBC’s Hannah Thibedeau got a rare interview with the PM along with Melinda Gates, where Harper said that abortion is “too divisive,” which is why they weren’t funding them in developing countries, but the logic there is skewed – should they also not defend gay rights because that’s also divisive and it’s illegal in some countries? Harper also spoke about the settled science around vaccinations – and yet his government is giving tax breaks to naturopaths, which isn’t exactly science. (Also, settled science around climate change, but who’s counting?) Kate Lunau speaks about the need for better statistics including birth certificates in developing countries. Paul Wells savages the PMO’s media control at the summit, and their decision to kick journalists out of the event while trying to make those objections sound like self-obsession.
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.