Tag Archives: Abortion

Roundup: Another unhappy premier

Posted on by

He still won’t meet with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, dropping by Toronto for a meeting with new mayor John Tory on Thursday instead, and yesterday, Stephen Harper met with Paul Davis, the new premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. That meeting, however, did not go happily as the premier is accusing the PM of changing the rules unilaterally regarding their agreed-upon compensation for fish processing losses under the EU trade agreement in such a way that the province will never see those funds. So, still trying to win the province over, I see. Meanwhile, PostMedia imagines how the conversation between Harper and Wynne will go when it eventually does happen, and Paul Wells has some thoughts on the affair as well:

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543599417958629376

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543599850051620864

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543600261449936896

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/543600752879763456

Continue reading →

Roundup: Protection through body cams

Posted on by

One of those bizarre incidents that happens from time to time overtook the conversation last night as Conservative MP Peter Goldring put out a statement at the end of the day declaring that he wears a body-mounted camera to protect himself from people who would otherwise abuse their authority or hide behind a cloak of anonymity – making clear connections to the current harassment allegations on the Hill – and suggests that others do so. A few hours later, the PMO sent out a statement claiming that Goldring was having trouble sending a statement of his own, but that he retracted it because it was ill-thought, and that was that. While people have been poking fun at Goldring all night – and equally being horrified that he would basically accuse the complainants of making up the allegations in order to trap the accused MPs, apparently – much of Goldring’s obsession with body-mounted cameras has gone ignored. I interviewed Goldring a couple of months ago (paywalled) after he put out a different release calling for the RCMP to all be issued body-mounted cameras, talking about all of the cost savings in court time that would be a result because there was a visual record and not just a notebook written in pencil that police officers could change at will. Most of this stems from this 2011 arrest for failing to provide a breath sample, for which he was cleared in 2013, but Goldring is now promulgating a notion that police routinely lie, and that video evidence is the answer to everything. These harassment allegations against those two suspended MPs seem to have pushed Golding over the edge, it would seem. Goldring, incidentally, is not running in the next election.

https://twitter.com/laura_payton/status/537807683743940608

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/537825035529244672

Continue reading →

Roundup: Voices from the past

Posted on by

A number of has-been pro-life (and homophobic) former Liberal MPs sent out an open letter to Justin Trudeau decrying his decree that a woman’s right to choose is a Charter issue and not a matter of conscience. They decried it as “anti-democratic,” never mind the fact that this was the policy voted on by the party’s membership during the policy convention before Trudeau won the leadership. Oops. The pedigree of these former MPs is also worth mentioning, as several of them quit the party to join the Reform Party, while others left over the same-sex marriage issue. Not surprising, most Liberals simply shrugged off the whole thing, while Trudeau tweeted out a fairly decent comeback.

Continue reading →

Roundup: An apology owed

Posted on by

The International Commission of Jurists has looked over the dispute between Stephen Harper and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin around accusations that she was “lobbying” against the appointment of Justice Nadon. The ICJ declared that McLachlin did nothing wrong – and that Harper owes her an apology. In response, the PMO responded that they saw the response and “noted it.” At least it wasn’t yet another angry denunciation of “activist” judges protecting their own, or some other nonsense. Meanwhile, the Canadian Bar Association has responded to all of those Conservative MPs whinging that the courts are doing an “end run around democracy” by reminding them that the courts are an essential part of our democratic system, ensuring that rights are respected and that laws are applied properly. Not that it will soothe the sting being felt by sore losers, which is really what those complaints are all about.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A very big repayment demanded

Posted on by

The Commons Board of Internal Economy has ruled, and the NDP have been determined to owe some $1.17 million for those improper mailings, $36,000 of which is owed to the House of Commons, the rest they need to work out with Canada Post for the abuse of their Franking privileges. The NDP, of course, are spitting mad, calling it the work of a hyper-partisan kangaroo court, and declaring that they will seek judicial review of this decision in the Federal Court. This is also before there is any decision made about their “satellite offices,” which could mean that they will wind up owing even more money, and I’m sure there will be even more threats of lawsuits and judicial review, none of which serves anyone’s purposes, though the NDP’s status as paragons of virtue is certainly being tainted by all of this. If nothing else, they are now sounding very much like another party that got in trouble for being cute with the rules – unless you have forgotten about the whole “In & Out” affair.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Let’s ignore the Bedford decision!

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

QP: Fears of anti-choice lobbyists

Posted on by

Despite it being a Wednesday and caucus day, only Thomas Mulcair anchored the chamber. Harper was off in Toronto to host his summit on Maternal and Child Health, and Justin Trudeau off in Quebec City to meet the new premier. Mulcair began by asking about the refusal to fund safe abortions as part of the Maternal and Child Health initiative. John Baird responded that they have done a lot of work on maternal and child health, and got a number of other countries on board. Mulcair noted that they refused to fund the UN Population Fund as part of the initiative because of pressure from anti-choice lobbyists. Deepak Obhrai touted the 1.3 million children’s lives saved by their Initiative. Mulcair changed topics and asked about the Temporary Foreign Workers programme not helping unemployed Canadians. Jason Kenney insisted that they employers had an obligation to seek Canadian employees first. Mulcair insisted that posting jobs for TFWs at minimum wage distorted the free market, eliciting roars from the Conservative benches. Kenney noted that those minimum wage rates were largely in the seasonal agricultural sector and that the prevailing median wage was posted for other jobs. Mulcair again changed topics, and noted the objections of Ontario’s Privacy Commissioner to the lawful access provisions of the cyberbullying bill. Peter MacKay insisted that the bill would protect children and the parents of victims of cyberbullying insisted that they pass the bill — not actually true. John McCallum led off for the Liberals asking about the TFW blacklist, to which Kenney insisted that those employers were no longer eligible to get new workers, and Chris Alexander followed up by claiming they were “cleaning up the Liberal mess.” McCallum found that hilarious and an evasion of responsibility, but Alexander insisted that they were indifferent to abuse and that they brought over exotic dancers “by the hundreds and thousands” with no corner for their welfare.

Continue reading →

Roundup: I dream of Turks & Caicos

Posted on by

Visions of Turks & Caicos were abounding on the Hill yesterday, as premier Rufus Ewing visited to talk trade, and while no doors were closed on the subject of annexation (except, more or less, by John Baird), everyone had their fun. Even Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall decided to get in on it, offering to make the islands part of Saskatchewan so as not to need to open up the constitution to add an eleventh province, and PEI Premier Robert Ghiz playfully suggested that his island province would be a better fit. Err, except that Nova Scotia beat them to it by a decade, when their assembly passed a unanimous motion back in 2004 to have Turks & Caicos join them. Oops. Regardless, trade and security would be beneficial, where it could be a Canadian trade port to the Caribbean, and possibly even a supply base for our DART teams. It wasn’t all without hiccups either, as a Caribbean news site listed some complaints that the islands have of Canadians, and that they have no idea where Conservative MP Peter Goldring came up with the notion that 100 percent of the islands support a merger with Canada.

Continue reading →

QP: Asking about the SCC appointment process

Posted on by

It was a rare Monday appearance in QP for the prime minister, given that there is a Maternal, Newborn & Child Health summit in Toronto later in the week that he’s hosting, not to mention that the premier of Turks & Caicos was also in attendance in the Speaker’s gallery. Thomas Mulcair kicked things off by asking why the PM changed his version of events around the call with the Chief Justice. Harper, sounding a bit hoarse, insisted that he had no idea what Mulcair was speaking about, but he knew that there was a potential issue that could go before the courts, so her consulted with independent legal experts. Mulcair tried again, and got the same response. Mulcair asked again, this time in French, and Harper reiterated that they always thought Federal Court judges would be eligible. Mulcair brought up the list of six judges published in the Globe and Mail, but Harper reiterated that they were under the impression that those judges were eligible, and with the Supreme Court having decided otherwise, they would respect that decision. Mulcair then demanded that Harper promise that he would not try to appoint a Federal Court judge for a Quebec seat, and Harper repeated that he wouldn’t. John McCallum led off for the Liberals, and brought up abuses to the Temporary Foreign Worker programme, but Harper insisted that he couldn’t decipher just what the Liberal position was on the issue. McCallum cranked up his rhetorical fire for an English supplemental, demanding that the government adopt his party’s five-point plan. Harper repeated that he couldn’t tell what the Liberal position was, but real job shortages should create an upward pressure on wages which is good for all Canadians. Scott Brison was up for the final question of the round, asking about the numbers of Canadians who have given up trying to even find work, but Harper said that Liberal plans would raise taxes and lose more jobs.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A looming second empty Quebec seat

Posted on by

The Chief Justice has written to the Prime Minister to remind him that Justice LeBel will retire on November 30th, which would mean a second Quebec seat vacant on the bench. It’s notable because often a soon-to-retire Justice would retire before the next session began, and just finish off any decisions still in the works on their way out. Instead, Justice LeBel is staying on to the bitter end, likely because the Court is not confident that the PM will have a suitable replacement in time, given the way that they handled the vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Fish. Peter MacKay has promised that they’ll have a name for the currently vacant seat (that Justice Nadon was retroactively never appointed to) “soon,” but it’s also a reminder that they’d better get the process started for the next appointment as well. It’s also leading to more calls that the process as it stands needs to be reformed so as to be more transparent, so this might be the impetus to make those changes.

Continue reading →