As part of his visit to Calgary, Justin Trudeau spoke about getting his candidates nominated by the fall, so that they have a full year to start taking on the Conservatives as part of a team effort – something else he says that he wants to emphasise, rather than the Conservatives being all about the Prime Minister. That Trudeau has been making so much effort in Alberta is a contrast to Liberal leaders past, where Alberta has tended to be a flyover province rather than one where they would do much engagement under the advice that there was no way that they could win seats there anyway.
Tag Archives: The Queen
Roundup: Leave it to Peter
Oh Peter MacKay. You never fail to disappoint any longer, do you? In amidst the storm over the lack of diverse judicial appointments, MacKay’s tone deaf explanation (and then whinging post on Facebook), we find out that he sent out memos to his department on Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, each with very different message. The Mother’s Day message was about making meals and changing diapers, while the Father’s Day message was about shaping the minds of future leaders. So yeah – very separate roles and fairly outmoded notions about gender-specified parental behaviours. MacKay really has been the gift that keeps on giving lately.
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: Tutting and moralizing over the Senate
The National Post has an in-depth look at the issue of senators sitting on corporate boards, and it’s an interesting conversation but I’m not sure the tone of moralising really helps things. I think it needs to be more clearly acknowledged that until recently, most of these were “trophy appointments” on boards to give them prestige, and there was little real work involved. With recent changes in corporate governance, there is more of a due diligence model that is evolving with is becoming more onerous for senators to be involved with. And also with all due respect to Senator Hugh Segal, the work of the Senate is more than 80 or 90 days per year, given that most senators have a lot of committee work that extends beyond the sitting days of the chamber itself, as well as work on other projects that they are championing. I’m not sure that it’s as scandalous that the Senate rules are evolving to reflect these new realities, but we also need to be aware that in relative terms, most Senators don’t make a lot of money from being a Senator. It’s far less than an MP earns, and as has been stated many a time, most Senators take a pay cut upon appointment after an established career. I’m not sure that insisting they live lives of high-minded privation helps anyone. There were also arguments to be had that these kinds of directorships and activities were way by which Senators could still keep their feet in the “real world,” rather than to cloister themselves in the ivory tower that is the Red Chamber. As well, comparisons to the American Senate are not really applicable given the enormous differences between the two institutions, but they’re both called Senates, so it’s easy and lazy to try and cross-compare. So like I said – good conversation to have, but there are far more factors and context at play that should be recognized beyond the scope of this article.
Roundup: Commence the convention
The Liberals’ policy convention is now underway in Montreal, and while things started off with a bit of an oops – the feed from the main stage was live to the reporters’ room while Trudeau was practicing his speech, giving it away before he could make it, and it included his camera directions. He delivered his rah-rah partisan speech to kick things off, which included a couple of digs at Pauline Marois, and to Harper and Mulcair in which he said he wasn’t going to play their game of trying to make Canadians angry, and ended it with a Skype call to his family (as they stayed in Ottawa, his wife due to give birth any day now). A few Senate Liberals, but not many, are in attendance, for which the NDP are trying to get a social media shaming going. Mike Moffatt offers three questions for the Liberals to look at as they try to formulate economic policy during this weekend’s convention. Kate Heartfield notes the implicit populist tones in Trudeau’s economics video, and how it still creates an Us and Them in order to play that populist card, while still trying to look like he’s above tribalism. Michael Den Tandt writes that the broad strokes economic policy will be looking at ways to bring the Red Tories and Blue Liberals back into the fold and away from the Conservative coalition. Paul Wells writes about the Conservatives hoping that the convention will prove to be a gaffe-fest for Trudeau (and along the way, coins the best descriptor for the Fair Elections Act as being “Conservative-fair”).
Roundup: Reverberations from the Senate bombshell
So, that whole Justin Trudeau expelling senators from caucus thing. It was a very interesting day to say the least. Trudeau’s speech, with all of its populist bilge about the Senate being “broken” can be found here. Senate Liberal leader (as he is now styled) James Cowan posted some thoughts on what the change means and how it’s more about solving the problem of the perception that Trudeau was issuing orders to his senate caucus when he really wasn’t, and you can see him discuss this on Power & Politics here. And yes, there seems to be some differing ideas on what “independent” means – who would have thought? My own column about the move looks at why it’s a problem with respect to responsible government and the loss of experience in caucus. Emmett Macfarlane, whom the Liberals consulted on the move, writes that there is nothing fundamentally unworkable about a “non-partisan” Senate, and that Trudeau’s move is an attempt at a culture change in the Chamber. Here’s more reaction from Paul Wells, John Geddes, and Michael Den Tandt. Senator Joyal is torn about the move and worries about the loss of collegiality, which is a very good point – it’s easier to use the Senate as a punching bag if you don’t have to see senators at caucus meetings. The NDP are making noise that Trudeau opposed their opposition day motion “on the very same thing” back in the fall, but as you can see, it’s not the same thing, especially as the House can’t legislate the Senate’s activities.
Roundup: Exit Chuck Strahl
Late Friday afternoon, Chuck Strahl resigned as Chair of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, not because he’d done anything wrong in his part-time lobbying for Enbridge to the provincial government, but because he didn’t want his activities to be a distraction for the government, which is fair.
Roundup: Preston Manning’s misdirected concerns
In a frankly bizarre op-ed, Preston Manning tries to accuse the Press Gallery for lacking proper ethics because the Parliamentary Press Gallery guidelines don’t have a section on ethical guidelines in their handbook – err, except that each member is subject to their own employer’s code of ethics. Also, the Press Gallery is not a monolith, but simply a means of organising ourselves in order to have proper access to do our jobs on the Hill. That Manning tries to somehow equate this to the Senate scandals and Mike Duffy’s role therein lacks any cohesive logic and makes one wonder how this passed the comment editor’s gaze at the Globe and Mail. Does he think that the Gallery could have somehow stopped him before he was appointed? That his constant lobbying for a Senate seat should have been dealt with – as though anyone took it seriously and not as a kind of sad and frankly pathetic long-running joke? Susan Delacourt gives Manning a respectful reply and cautions him that what he’s demanding of the media will mean more access by the government – something the current government is not a big fan of.
Roundup: Unimpressed with transformation plans
Kevin Page is none too pleased with what he hears about the “Blueprint 2020” plan to reform the public service, saying it’s a lot of nothing, and that change needs to come from the bottom up rather than being imposed top-down. He’s also critical of the public service for remaining silent in the face of these changes being imposed on them, and that their expert financial and policy advice will suffer as a result.
When she was Minsiter of Public Works, Rona Ambrose approved a list of 29 historical Canadian women to be used when naming future federal buildings. Of course that list has been redacted, so we don’t know exactly which names have been approved.
Roundup: The moral panic of campaigning Senators
The Toronto Star has a look at Senators who were reimbursed by various campaigns for work they did during the last election, which seems a bit curious because it’s not unusual that Senators campaign – they just can’t bill the Senate for those expenses, as Mike Duffy did. Not that it’s stopped the NDP from making a giant fuss about it, as though it’s a bad thing that party members help out in a campaign. “Oh, but they shouldn’t campaign at all!” they cry. “They’re on the taxpayer’s payroll!” Um, so are MPs, who also fundraise and do campaign activities outside of writ periods of all sorts. And some of them go to fundraisers while they should be in Ottawa as the House is sitting. And leaders? Well, they’re the worst when it comes to missing House duty for fundraisers and campaigning. They’re also on the public dime. It’s a kind of hypocritical and nonsensical argument that seems to ignore the fact that *gasp!* senators are also party members and partisans! You know, the way our system of government works, where you have governing and opposition parties in both chambers! In other words, the NDP is trying to create a moral panic, which should be paid little heed unless it can be proved that any of the Senators who campaigned billed the Senate for their expenses. And I have little doubt that none of them other than Duffy – and possibly Pamela Wallin – did.