The first of the witnesses with the prostitution bill appeared before the Commons justice committee in its special summer session yesterday, starting with Peter MacKay, who admitted that they got no outside legal advice as to the bill’s constitutionality, and everything has a chance of being sent before the Supreme Court, so he’s just shrugging it all off. Um, okay. Way to go doing the responsible thing in crafting sound laws that will pass constitutional muster, and all of that, guys. Well done. As for MacKay’s assertion that yes, the intent is to criminalize prostitution, the bill pretty much goes about doing that in the most backward and arbitrary way possible rather than just outright criminalizing it, thus setting it up for yet another defeat by the Supreme Court. Oh, but don’t forget – we’re on a deadline of mid-December, so MPs need to hurry it up. And amidst all of the other testimony around the bill, both for and against, Robert Goguen, the parliamentary secretary, decided to be clever at one point and ask one of the government-friendly witnesses, who had been trafficked into prostitution from Hungary, whether the police bursting in while she was being gang-raped would violate her freedom of expression, since someone said that the bill contravenes that Charter right. And then the nation’s collective heads exploded. Apparently Goguen confuses prostitution with rape (it’s not), trafficking with prostitution (they are not the same and trafficking remains illegal), and because sections around communication and advertising have anything to do with the illegality of rape? It’s so stunningly brain dead that it defies logic how he possibly thought he could have been scoring any points with it. Manitoba’s Attorney General thinks that the Nordic Model is great, but the current bill has problems and he doesn’t want to see any sex workers criminalised, not that criminalising their clients actually makes them any safer since it drives them underground regardless.
Author Archives: Dale
Roundup: Stampede speeches
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.
Roundup: Cruel and unusual cuts
The Federal Court has ruled against the government’s healthcare cuts for refugees, and given them four months to make changes before they are struck down on the basis of being cruel and unusual, and the fact that the government hasn’t offered a good Section 1 defence (reasonable limits within a free and democratic society) for their cuts. The “cruel and unusual” is a fairly novel reading of the Charter, but there does seem to be some possible basis for it. Of course, it will all come out in the appeals, since the government announced immediately that it would be appealing, before trotting out the usual canards that refugee claimants were somehow getting better healthcare coverage than average Canadians (something the judgement itself noted was a falsehood). The judgement also noted that there was no proof that the changes saved taxpayers any money, since these claimants with health conditions would generally wind up in a hospital when their problems became acute, which costs the system even more. Kate Heartfield notes that legal or not, those refugee health changes are still bad policy. And in case you need a refresher, here are some of the other losses the government has had at the courts lately, which will all be the subjects of fundraising pleas. Activist courts! OH NOES!
Roundup: Four new workers!
It’s a special kind of desperation for a good news story when the government holds a press conference to announce four new jobs being filled. Specifically, four jobs on the Irving shipyard refurbishment in Halifax, which will be filled by Aboriginals. I’m still not sure the point of the announcement other than Peter MacKay saying “Look, we’re being diverse!” only they’re not even government positions (though they are getting a lot of government money). Sure, it’s nice that Irving has an Aboriginal employment strategy as part of its contracting procedures, but this was worthy of a government press conference? Sorry, but the news cycle isn’t that slow.
Roundup: About those single-engine fighters…
US and UK officials are preparing a joint order to inspect all of the engines on the current F-35 fleet after one of them caught fire in Florida earlier this week, which prompted the fleet to be grounded. Why is this significant – other than the constant assurances that this is the most technologically advanced fighter but it can’t seem to get anything right? Well, it’s only got one engine. And when asked why this would be suitable for Canada, with its vast Arctic and coastal patrol ranges, where having a second engine is a pretty useful thing in case one fails, Peter MacKay bluntly said that the F-35 engine wouldn’t fail, and left it at that. Well, now it looks like they indeed have failed. Oops. Perhaps cabinet should take this fact into consider as they weigh the options analysis.
Roundup: Momentum or not after the by-elections
I hope that everyone has enjoyed their Dominion Day celebrations. The Liberals and Conservatives certainly have, after their by-election wins, the Liberals not only holding Scarborough–Agincourt and winning Trinity–Spadina, but they made impressive gains in Fort McMurray–Athabasca. Their voter share went up in pretty much every one of the ridings, which probably says something. In fact, the Conservatives took less than 50 percent of the vote in Fort McMurray, which is actually a fairly significant thing, and perhaps not all that surprising given how upset they are with the changes made to the Temporary Foreign Workers Programme, which has a significant impact on their local economies, not to mention the myriad of ways in which the Harper government has ballsed up the Keystone XL file, and made it harder for the Americans to come to an agreement on it. As well, the Green Party scored more votes in Macleod than the NDP, which must also give them some pause as they keep insisting that they are making headway into Alberta. Kady O’Malley notes the increase in Liberal voter share, and the stumbling NDP momentum leading into 2015. Aaron Wherry muses about the meaning of the victories for Trudeau, and whether it really is disaster for Mulcair and that it probably wasn’t the NDP’s Outremont, as many Liberals were trying to suggest. Of course, with the really low voter turnouts (getting the turnout nerd crowd to declare that we need mandatory voting now), Pundit’s Guide looks at that factor, and how these contests may play out in 2015 after redistribution, which could be important once Fort McMurray–Athabasca gets broken up.
Roundup: Four by-elections today
It’s by-election day in four ridings across the country – two in Alberta and two in Toronto. Despite the usual lazy story ledes about how this is somehow yet another “test” for Trudeau, it would seem to me that this is more of a test for Mulcair with the two Toronto ridings, as to whether or not he can hold the one seat he had there or make gains with the other, while in Alberta, it’ll be a test as to how much Harper can retain his own base – something he has had trouble with in the past few by-elections, whether in Calgary Centre or Brandon–Souris, where significant leads were lost and their wins were narrow and marginal compared to resurgent Liberals who had not had traction in those regions in decades. And Fort McMurray will be a very interesting race to watch, not only because of the amount of attention that Trudeau in particular paid to the region, but because of the deep unhappiness with the industry there to the changes to the Temporary Foreign Workers programme, which they rely on heavily because of an overheated market with no labour available. That may be the biggest upset if they decide to punish Harper at the ballot box. All of which is a far more interesting lede than whether the Liberals are being “tested” once more.
Roundup: Taking apart MacKay’s assertions
The chair of the women’s forum at the Canadian Bar Association calls Peter MacKay out for the real consequences for women in the profession as they are being overlooked for judicial appointments, and that there is a need for more data on appointments, while Thomas Muclair thinks that this is more proof to demand MacKay’s resignation. Former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler, however, does the due diligence and systematically dismantles MacKay’s assertions, from his statements that law schools aren’t playing their role, to the claim that women aren’t applying, and most especially the notion that there apparently aren’t enough women who can be appointed on the basis of merit. Cotler takes MacKay to school over the issue, and it’s great to see a fact-based takedown and not more of this open letter nonsense and weird blaming that has thus far taken place.
Roundup: Clarity for First Nations titles
The Supreme Court has given a unanimous ruling granting a title claim to the Tsilhqot’in First Nation in BC, over a large area of land in the south central part of the province, ending a 25-year court battle over forestry claims and a 150-year dispute between that First Nation and the Crown. Because most of BC’s First Nations don’t have treaties yet with the government, this ruling impacts them in particular, and will make sure that the government has a greater role to play in fulfilling its consultative duties to First Nations as more resource and pipeline projects come up. The ruling also declares that provincial governments have regulatory authority over land obtained by First Nations people through court cases or land claim negotiations. While the ruling has been said to give clarity to negotiations, it also raises the possibility that some First Nations will abandon their negotiations with the government in favour of turning to the courts to establish title or land claims, which should be a red flag seeing as treaty negotiation is a Crown prerogative, and we should be careful about delegating it to the courts. Terry Glavin gives the backstory to the whole dispute dating back to 1864 here.
Roundup: A doomed and dangerous challenge
Toronto lawyer Rocco Galati, of the Nadon case fame, is going ahead with his challenge of the government’s citizenship bill, but it’s a nightmare of a challenge because it’s based on a completely wrong-headed understanding of the way our system of responsible government works. Galati names the Governor General in the suit, saying that signing the bill into law went beyond his constitutional mandate. The problem is, of course, is that ours is not a system where the GG can refuse royal assent unless it’s a measure that is so egregious that he or she is willing to risk a constitutional crisis. Responsible Government is all about the Crown acting on the advice of government, and by granting royal assent, it does several things: it grants authority to the new law in the name of the Sovereign; it represents the people agreeing to live under the rule of law; and the Queen as the embodiment of the state, emphasises that we all live equally under the law. Galati argues that provisions of the bill are unconstitutional, but remember that it is still within the authority of the courts to strike down a law – that come under the powers of the Crown as the font of justice, whereas royal assent is a function of the Crown-in-Parliament. Galati seems eager to mix the two and would have the GG get legal opinions before any bill is signed into law – a complete distortion of our system of government and the separation of powers that exists between the Courts and Parliament. That Galati had tried to get the courts to block royal assent before it even happened is a further sign that he not only doesn’t understand the system, but is wilfully trying to undermine it regardless of the dangers or consequences of such moves. Only madness lies down the path Galati is trying to tread, but because he has no legal merit for the ruling, it won’t get very far, fortunately.