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.
Tag Archives: CRA
Roundup: CRA takes exception
Things with the CRA seem to be taking a turn for the bizarre as they are getting into a fight with well-known charity Oxfam over the charity’s stated goal of trying to prevent poverty around the world. According to the CRA, that’s not an acceptable goal – they should only try to alleviate poverty, as preventing it might benefit people who are not already poor. Yeah, I’m still trying to figure that one out too. According to CRA, the courts haven’t found that that the risk of poverty is the same as actually being in need, so this splitting of hairs means that they can’t put “prevention” in their purpose statement. And it’s not like this is part of the supposed “crackdown” on charities either – this had to do with a regular process of renewing Oxfam’s non-profit status, but it has been noted that Jason Kenney singled them out earlier in the year over their opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Why the CRA would play petty politics for any minister – especially one that they don’t report to – sounds a little too odd, but this whole situation is just so strange that it will invite conspiracy theory.
Roundup: Right vs privilege confusion
The government announced its intention to introduce new gun control legislation in the fall that will be “common sense,” designed to reduce red tape, but would include some new measures like mandatory safety courses and bans on firearms restrictions on those who have been convicted of domestic abuse. In particular, the government was motivated to ensure that those Swiss assault rifles are no longer prohibited, concocting a rather fanciful notion that owners of those weapons – which were reclassified as restricted – would somehow wind up in jail, though that has never happened with a gun reclassification before. Still, it was enough to rile up their gun enthusiast base. More troubling, however, was the fact that the minister referred to gun ownership as a “right,” which it most certainly is not in Canada. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that gun ownership in Canada is a privilege and not a right. When asked about this contradiction, the minister stated that “it’s a right that has responsibilities, it’s a privilege.” Which of course makes absolutely no sense at all because it’s one or the other, and the Supreme Court has already ruled.
Roundup: Funerals and personal trainers
Mike Duffy’s charge sheet has been released, which gives us a few more details about the 31 charges he is now facing. Some of those include the contract he gave to a friend for little or no work, of which some of those funds were funnelled elsewhere – including to a make-up artist and personal trainer – and that some of the claimed expenses were to attend funerals or other such ceremonies. Duffy of course denies any wrongdoing. Here is an updated timeline of the whole expenses scandal in the Senate.
Roundup: Parsing the bribery charge
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.
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: 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: 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: 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.