Mike Duffy says that he looks forward to his day in court, and wants it sooner rather than later. Considering that the court system is a little jammed, that may not happen sooner. In the aftermath of the charges, Kady O’Malley delves further into the reasons why Nigel Wright wasn’t charged with bribery even if Duffy was charged for accepting said bribe (hint: proving the intention of “corruptly” makes it a high bar for prosecutors), as well as the rules around sitting parliamentarians testifying before the courts. Stephen Maher looks at those charges relating to what Duffy was charging the Senate for partisan activity and wonders what the party knew about those expenses.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: 31 charges
Boom goes the ClusterDuff yet again, as the RCMP laid 31 charges against Mike Duffy, relating to fraud, breach of trust, and bribery. (RCMP statement here). These charges relate to his housing expenses, his travel claims, the consulting contracts to the tune of $200,000, and the $90,000 cheque from Nigel Wright. Duffy will be in court on September 16th – the day after the House comes back. Duffy’s lawyer says that he’s content, which means that months of innuendo are over and it moves to a fair trial. The opposition reminds us that this is about Harper’s poor judgement. Kate Heartfield gives some questions that voters should be asking in the wake of this including who else benefitted from those payments, but absent from the list is the reminder that under the tenets of Responsible Government, Harper is the one who is accountable for appointing Duffy to the Senator. Don Martin writes about the political fallout of the charges today. Andrew Coyne wonders about Nigel Wright’s motives, and how it is that he wasn’t charged for giving the bribe (which leads one to believe that perhaps it was not so much his idea). Jonathan Gatehouse explores that issue a little more, and notes that Wright didn’t exactly benefit from the cheque, which may shield him from “corruptly” giving the cheque.
Roundup: Hostile witnesses
Kady O’Malley looks at how sex workers were treated as hostile witnesses at the Justice Committee, in particular by Conservative MP Stella Ambler – who, it should be noted, isn’t even a regular member of that committee. Any of their experiences in which they stated that they weren’t victims were often dismissed or challenged as being somehow untrue, which is unfortunate but not surprising given that the government has a narrative around this bill that they intend to push.
Roundup: Minimal amendments
The Commons justice committee did their clause-by-clause review of the prostitution bill, and they agreed to two minor amendments – one that narrowed the reach of the communication provision from anywhere that children could be present, to simply being next to schools, playgrounds of daycares; the other being that they agreed to put in a provision to review the bill in five years, though the NDP tried to get that down to two. The Liberals didn’t put forward any amendments since they voted against the bill in principle at second reading, feeling it is unconstitutional and unsalvageable. The Greens largely feel the same way. Interestingly, Independent MP Maria Mourani doesn’t feel it goes far enough, and wants prostitution outlawed writ large. Here’s a look at some of the criminalization of both the sex workers as well as pimps and johns in Canada, and apparently we have fairly low rates of going after those who abuse sex workers – but one wonders if that also has to do with the fact that the women who were abused or assaulted didn’t feel safe reporting it because they feared being further criminalised.
Roundup: Information sharing concerns
The Commissioner for the Communications Security Establishment has concerns that the information we share with our allies may be used improperly, and that they may not be properly protecting information about Canadians. Not coincidentally, there are serious concerns (paywall) that the American government won’t protect information on tax filings with those they deem “American persons” to comply with FATCA also aren’t going to be properly protected, and their Congress is already tabling laws that would ensure that said tax information on ostensible Canadians isn’t protected either. It underscores the dangers and uncertainties with information sharing – particularly when the Americans seem to feel that the rules that others abide by don’t apply to them.
Roundup: Mulcair’s high hopes for Alberta
Despite having already lost their star candidate for the riding, Thomas Mulcair remains confident that the NDP can still win Edmonton Centre in the next general election – never mind that the confluence of factors that favoured Linda Duncan aren’t really present in that particular riding. Mulcair then headed to Calgary, where he scoffed at the notion of Harper as national unifier, and pointed to the current voluntary national securities regulator project as an example of sowing divisions with provinces like Alberta, who don’t want to sign on. Erm, not sure how it’s relevant, or why the Supreme Court would shut down a voluntary scheme, but whatever.
Roundup: Missing the point about parties
In a piece that bothers me immensely, Susan Delacourt puts forward the notion of abolishing political parties, and then applies a bunch of marginal reasons like branding and narrowing voter pools. The problem is that she ignored the whole point of political parties under Responsible Government – to have a group that can maintain the confidence of the Chamber in the formation of government. Which is actually a pretty big deal and why coalition governments don’t really work as well in our system as they might in others. “Oh, but Nunavut doesn’t have parties” or “most municipalities don’t have parties” people – including Delacourt – will cry, but it’s a nonsense argument because they have a small handful of members, and it doesn’t scale up to 308 MPs on any practical basis. You could not adequately run a government or maintain confidence with 308 “loose fish.” Also, the notion that brokerage is “antiquated” is false – otherwise we’d see all kinds of “bridges to nowhere” riders in government bills to get MPs onside to win support – again something that would be endemic with trying to get the support of a chamber of independents. That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with parties right now, because there are, but the solution is to have more people engaging with them so that the power doesn’t remain concentrated – not to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, but Delacourt’s argument has no merit.
Roundup: Conflating sex work with trafficking
The hearings into the prostitution bill wrapped up yesterday, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, along with amendments, will take place on Tuesday. Yesterday’s testimony included warnings not to confuse prostitution with human trafficking, which are different and human trafficking already has laws in place to combat it (though there have not yet been many charges). Of course, Conservative MP and booster of the bill, Joy Smith, says that the two are “symbiotically linked,” but again, separate regimes – just like talking about child sexual exploitation has nothing to do with adult sex work, and is a separate provision in the Criminal Code. Amongst the other nonsense that Smith went on Power & Politics to talk about included her assertion that maybe there are “one or two or three” sex workers who do it willingly, despite that being in complete contravention to testimony heard. It just didn’t fit with her established narrative, and as she often does, she rejects it outright. Surprisingly, a group of Anglican clergy have come out against the bill because of the effect it will have on those sex workers when it forces the trade further underground. And then, once the hearings wrapped, Conservative MP Stella Ambler sent out this gem, which pretty much shows you her belief that there is apparently only one side to this whole debate:
Apparently Stella Ambler thinks there's only one side to the debate on #C36. Cripes. pic.twitter.com/pkhcSJGt6m
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 10, 2014
Roundup: Defending Goguen, unbelievably
The former trafficked prostitute that Robert Goguen asked that braindead question to the other day at committee was out defending him and his awful, aren’t-I-clever straw man of a question to the press, saying that she refused to let him apologise, and accused the media of basically inventing a controversy. It’s utterly unbelievable. Meanwhile, one of the architects of the Sweden’s “Nordic model” has said that the proposed Canadian law won’t stand up to the Charter, in particular because of the portions that still criminalise the sex workers, such as if they are working at a place where children could be present. (And on a side note, there are no credible studies that show there to be a real decline in prostitution in Sweden, as the figures that show a decline are mostly police stats, which don’t capture how it’s been pushed further underground). Here’s a look at seven of the voices we’ve heard so far in the prostitution bill hearings at the Commons justice committee, from all ends of the spectrum. Of course, there has been plenty of testimony from women who have been victimized terribly, but little of it seems relevant to the bill because what they suffered is already illegal and not actually the scope of what the bill is supposed to be achieving, thus further muddying the waters.
Roundup: Conservative senators see looming crisis
Wouldn’t you know it, but Conservative senators are pressuring Stephen Harper to start making some new Senate appointments as the current number of vacancies is at eleven, and will be at 17 by the end of the year – almost a fifth of the Chamber. The lack of membership means committees are starting to be affected, and provinces are losing a good portion of their representation, which is a problem. And despite what Hugh Segal says, the Prime Minister actually does have a constitutional obligation to make appointments, and if he doesn’t, he risks triggering a constitutional crisis because he would be in breach of his duties. He certainly has options when it comes to how he makes appointments, especially because of the cloud he’s put himself under by making irresponsible choices in the past (because he was petulant and refused to make appointments until his hand was forced, it should be said), but they need to be made, sooner than later. I did hear from some sources that with the Supreme Court appointment issue out of the way, he could spend the summer making Senate appointments, but I guess we’ll see if that bears fruit. I recently wrote about this very looming crisis here.