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.
Author Archives: Dale
QP: Wondering about fighter jet reports
With the Prime Minister of Australia visiting, Stephen Harper was busy elsewhere and not in the House. Likewise, Thomas Mulcair was off in Alberta, campaigning for the coming by-elections, while Justin Trudeau was, well, we’re not sure. Megan Leslie led off for the NDP, decrying the fighter jet procurement process and demanding that the report be tabled before the House rises. Diane Finley responded that no decision had been made, but that they were studying the report. Leslie moved onto the prostitution bill, to which Bob Dechert insisted that it was all about protecting women, children and the vulnerable. Françoise Boivin carried on about the bill and it’s dubious constitutionality, but Dechert had his talking points memorized. Boivin wanted to know about the legal opinions regarding its constitutionality, to which Dechert insisted that it was, and that he looked forward to the debate. Ralph Goodale led off for the Liberals, demanding a growth agenda and that higher EI premiums be rolled back. Joe Oliver insisted that the government was on track to achieve surplus and that they would responsibly advocate for tax cuts — not that it really answered the question. Goodale noted that the Building Canada Fund was not being made available in the current year, but Denis Lebel responded by praising all of the infrastructure investments that his government had made. Stéphane Dion picked up the topic in French, and harangued Lebel for the lack of signed agreements from the Fund, but Lebel was not swayed from his effusive praise.
Roundup: A blistering report
Word has it that House of Commons Administration has an independent report prepared on the NDP’s “satellite offices” that will be presented to the Board of Internal Economy, and that it’s going to be blistering. And because this is coming from Commons Administration and not any of the parties or committees, it’s going to be difficult for the NDP to blame this on partisanship or that they’re being ganged up on, which are their usual defences. Unless of course they’re going to claim that the Commons Administration is also out to get them…
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.
Roundup: Not another reference question
More reaction to the new prostitution bill has been rolling in, and it should be little surprise that Canadian sex workers are calling for a model like New Zealand’s of legalisation and the sex trade operating under health and safety laws – obviously something that this government seems unwilling to even consider. When asked in QP about referring the bill directly to the Supreme Court, MacKay insisted that they were doing everything they could to help victims (despite all evidence to the contrary, or the fact that portraying sex workers as victims denies them agency). In other words, it sounds like a no.
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.
QP: The Commissioner’s conflicts
Things got off to an unusual start, as the Commons immediately descended into Committee of the Whole, and Olympic and Paralympic athletes were invited into the Chamber for the MPs to congratulate them on their performances at Sochi. It was too bad that this couldn’t have taken place while the Prime Minister was here. And there were so many selfies taken by MPs. When QP did begin, Thomas Mulcair asked about the recommendations put forward by the veterans affairs committee about changing the system for the better. Peter MacKay thanked the committee for the report, and pledged the government’s continued support for veterans. Mulcair wondered what he meant by “deal with the recommendations,” to which MacKay snapped back that “It means we act on them.” Mulcair brought up that veteran’s wife who has been asking for support and training for spouses, to which MacKay thanked her and her spouse, and noted the improved benefits for veterans in eight budgets that the NDP voted against. Mulcair changed topics, and noted the places where the nominee for privacy commissioner would need to recuse himself for a conflict. Tony Clement noted Therrien’s thirty years of service, and noted that the commissioner has an office that can act in his stead. Mulcair pointed out that the Official Opposition didn’t agree to the nomination, and that the conflicts pointed out why Therrien couldn’t become the commissioner. Clement said that Mulcair’s attempts to drag Therrien’s name in the mud were shameful. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals — two days in a row this week! — and asked about the process for the next Supreme Court vacancy. Peter MacKay said that they intend to consult widely, but were concerned about the leaks in the previous process and that they would proceed with caution. Trudeau moved on, and pointed out that next year, there would be more temporary foreign workers accepted than permanent residents. Chris Alexander insisted that they got rid of backlogs and had increased the number of immigrants. Trudeau shot back that as a percentage of the population, the number of immigrants was down, but Chris Alexander tried to correct Trudeau and took several swipes at their record.
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.
QP: The most qualified candidate
It was a rainy day in the Commons, and one already subject to procedural shenanigans as the NDP had already tried to adjourn the day’s activities in order to avoid the investigation happening in the Procedure and House Affairs committee around their expenses. Stephen Harper was also on his way to Europe for the remainder of the week, so yesterday was all we were going to see of him. Thomas Mulcair began by asking about the fact that the new privacy commissioner nominee gave legal advice to national security agencies — ignoring that he told the committee that he disagreed with the government positions. Tony Clement responded that the candidate had thirty years of experience, and was chosen after a rigorous process. Mulcair asked how many programmes he gave advice on and now many he approved — something that would never be answered given solicitor-client privilege. Clement repeated that he was the most qualified candidate. Mulcair insisted that the nominee wouldn’t be able to see the legislation objectively, to which Clement made a crack about Mulcair’s position going in a mail out. Mulcair changed topics, and asked about regulations on GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector, but Leona Aglukkaq responded that they took action two years ago — except those were on coal, not oil and gas. When Mulcair pressed, Aglukkaq insisted that Canada represents less than two percent of global emissions. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and reiterated the question, pointing out that our oil and gas sector is our largest source of emissions, as coal is the Americans’ largest sector. Aglukkaq simply repeated her answers, trying to imply that Trudeau did nothing about it. Trudeau asked again more pointedly, to which Aglukkaq reminded him that Michael Ignatieff said that “we didn’t get it done.”