The final caucus day of the sitting, and Rib Fest taking place a block away, MPs were itching to head back to their ridings. All of the major leaders were in the Chamber today for a second day in a row (amazing!) while Elizabeth May was absent for a change, off campaigning in Toronto for the forthcoming by-elections. Thomas Mulcair led off, wondering where all those Conservatives were to tout the Northern Gateway after three years of doing so previously. Stephen Harper said that the NDP were opposed to all resource development, considered it a “disease,” and it was up to Enbridge to fulfil the 209 conditions imposed by the NEB. Mulcair said that BC Conservative MPs were “in the witness programme” about the pipeline, while Harper shot back that Mulcair himself was in the programme when it came to answering for their improper mailings and satellite offices. Mulcair insisted that with the removal of Navigable Waters Act protections, the deck was stacked in favour of the pipeline, to which Harper reminded him of the 180 days of hearing and thousands of pages of evidence, and that there were 209 conditions. Mulcair brought up Enbridge’s record in the US, Harper returning to the scientific panel, and when Mulcair declared that Harper could not “subcontract the Honour of the Crown” to Enbridge with consulting First Nations, Harper listed the number of hearings they held with First Nations groups as part of the regulatory process. Justin Trudeau brought up that the BC government still opposes the pipeline, and wondered why the Prime Minister still said yes. Harper repeated that it was up to the proponent to meet their conditions. Trudeau brought up the government’s previous statements about the importance of the integrity of the Great Bear rainforest, but Harper reiterated about the scientific process of the regulator. Trudeau asked one last time to reverse the approval, but Harper kept repeating about the 209 conditions, and concluded that the Liberals don’t practice evidence-based decision making.
Tag Archives: Supreme Court
QP: No current vacancy
The days on the calendar running down, but crankiness among members ramping up, all of the leaders were present in the Commons, which was a little unexpected. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about Quebec Supreme Court justice appointments and the possible attempt to use a backdoor to put Justice Mainville on the bench. Stephen Harper insisted that this was nothing to do with the Supreme Court, but about putting a good judge on the “supreme court” of Quebec. Mulcair pressed about whether the intent was to elevate Justice Mainville to the SCC, to which Harper reminded him that there was no current vacancy, nor a process to select a new one once a vacancy does become available. Mulcair then accused Harper of starting a war with the Supreme Court, but Harper mocked him for trying to launch into another conspiracy theory. Mulcair moved topics, and demanded that the Northern Gateway pipeline be turned town, to which Harper said that the NDP were against all resource development while they underwent environmental assessments and went through a rigorous assessment process. Mulcair listed the opposition to the pipeline, but Harper dismissed their opposition as ideological. Justin Trudeau carried on that line of questioning and pointed out the impacts a spill would have on that coastline, to which Harper accused the Liberals of holding a “deep hostility” toward the energy sector (really? Given their it boosterism for Keystone XL?) and insisted that they had a rigorous process.
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.
QP: To appoint or not to appoint to the Supreme Court
The last Monday of the spring sitting of the Chamber, and Thomas Mulcair and Elizabeth May were the only leaders in the Commons. Justin Trudeau was in Toronto to help campaign for the forthcoming by-elections, while Harper was, well, elsewhere. Mulcair started things off by asking about the government ignoring the advice on reforming suicide investigations in the military, to which Rob Nicholson insisted that he asked the military to account for the decision and to clear up the backlog, of which only ten cases out of 54 remained. Mulcair pressed in French, and Nicholson repeated his response. Mulcair brought up the Prime Minister’s appointment of a Federal Court judge to the Quebec Court of Appeal, and how this was being challenged by the same lawyer who challenged the Nadon appointment. Peter MacKay insisted that they made appointments based on merit, and listed off the accomplishments of that judge. Mulcair insisted that the government was meddling in Quebec’s courts, not that MacKay’s answer changed. Geoff Regan led off for the Liberals, asking about the decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline, imploring that it be denied. Greg Rickford gave his usual talking points that they were carefully reading a report and the decision would be made soon. Joyce Murray brought up the Request For Proposal that would come out for the fighter jet replacements between 2017 and 2019, and would this mean that an open competition would go ahead. Diane Finley insisted that no decisions had been made, and that they went through an independent process.
Roundup: New Bloc leader, almost the same as the old leader
The Bloc Québécois have chosen a new leader, Mario Beaulieu, who like their last leader, is not in caucus. And his rival, André Bellavance, who is a sitting MP, had the support of their three other MPs as well. No word if Beaulieu will try to get a seat before the next election in one way or another, or where he plans to run in the next election, which is kind of an important consideration. Beaulieu also wants to press hard on separatism, because sovereignty unites sovereigntists after all. Never mind that the loss of appetite for the topic helped to sink the PQ in the last federal election, he wants to press ahead with it. Already, Gilles Duceppe is mighty upset with Beaulieu’s comments about past leaders, and some high profile members, including some riding presidents, are already talking about tearing up their membership cards over Beaulieu’s comments and positions on certain issues. And we wonder why this constant idea of choosing leaders from outside of the caucus is of particular concern, and remains a bigger problem within parties than the narrative that these kinds of leaders bring in “new ideas.”
Roundup: A blow to cyber-surveillance
As what happens from time to time, the Supreme Court of Canada hands down a ruling and all of the government’s plans get messed up. Granted, that seems to be happening a lot more frequently these days, given that this government has a penchant for pushing the rules as far as they can and not listening to the legal advice they’re given. It happened again yesterday, with a unanimous ruling on a child pornography case that clarified the rules around warrantless access for online data – particularly metadata and ISPs. The Court has judged that these kinds do indeed constitute searches under the law, and that police need warrants (barring exigent circumstances, of course). This puts a huge hole in two government bills, C-13 and S-4, the “cyberbullying” bill and the digital privacy bill respectively, as both deal with data sharing including lawful access provisions. With the Court now having come down against lawful access – a decision being cheered by the new federal privacy commissioner as well as his Ontario counterpart – it’s likely to force the government to put the bills on hold (and indeed, they delayed further debate on S-4 in the Senate to consider the Supreme Court judgement). And hey, this might even mean that they’ll split the actual cyberbullying portions out of C-13 in order to “further consider” the next steps on the rest of the lawful access provisions that they were trying to get in under the rubric of “protecting children.” Then again, they could just as easily forge ahead and force yet another confrontation with the Supreme Court, as they seem intent on doing with everything else, in order to keep playing the victim card and fundraising off of it.
Roundup: Tony Abbott’s man-crush
Tony Abbott had his meetings with Stephen Harper and the Governor General yesterday, but it was really clear that his man-crush was on Harper. Or “Stephen,” as he kept calling him, with effusive and somewhat obsequious praise for his being a “beacon” for centre-right parties around the world. (This after Abbott inadvertently referred to the country as “Canadia” upon his arrival Sunday). Both took hard lines against carbon taxes, as Abbott is in the process of trying to repeal the one in his country (where the Australian Senate is holding it up and may continue to until the next Senate election in two years), while Harper literally finger-wagged about how at least he was honest about not wanting to kill the country’s economy. Harper also answered a question about the prostitution bill during the press conference, and gave the same line he used regarding Insite and the harm reduction measures there – that prostitution wasn’t harmful because it’s illegal, but it’s illegal because it’s harmful, and woe to all the harm it does. Err, except that the Supreme Court ruled that the illegalities that surrounded it made it so harmful that it killed the sex workers involved. We’ll see if Harper’s reason flies with the Supreme Court when it winds its way back there. Abbott also stood by the Five Eyes intelligence partnership, and said that countries should never apologies for doing what was necessary to protect themselves. Okay then.
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.
QP: Acting on “extensive consultation”
The shootings in Moncton hung over the mood in the Chamber, and a minute of silence for the three dead RCMP officers was held before QP got underway. When things did get underway, Megan led off for the NDP, as Thomas Mulcair was off campaigning in Trinity—Spadina. Leslie asked about supports for veterans, to which Peter MacKay pointed to the unanimous report of the veterans committee and that they take it seriously. Leslie pointed to the closure of those offices, but MacKay protested, saying that they expanded services to veterans. Leslie then turned to the new prostitution bill and demanded that it be referred to the Supreme Court immediately. MacKay insisted that it was about protecting vulnerable women and to give police new tools. Françoise Boivin picked up the torch, and listed the flaws in the bill, to which MacKay praised their “extensive consultation” and how they acted in response to those consultations, and most outrageously claimed that it respected the Bedford ruling. As Justin Trudeau was in Regina, Scott Brison led off for the Liberals, noting that it was summer job season and that the the government cut the Canada Summer Jobs programme, making it harder for students and their parents stuck paying the bills. Jason Kenney praised that Canada has one of the lowest rates of youth unemployment in the developed world, and their support for internships in the last budget. Brison asked the government to crack down on illegal unpaid internships in federally regulated industries, to which Kenney deflected and decried tax increases and reckless spending. Stéphane Dion closed the round, asking if MacKay was looking in the mirror when he alleged leaks in the Supreme Court selection process. MacKay decried his innocence and took the opportunity to congratulate incoming Justice Gascon.
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.