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:

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

Roundup: Harper’s silence on Fahmy

There were reverberations around the world as an Egyptian court sentenced three journalists to lengthy prison sentences, including Canadian Mohamed Fahmy for his work with Al Jazeera. While other world governments had their leaders or foreign ministers express condemnations or set up calls to the new Egyptian president, Canada’s response was kind of tepid, with Minster of State for consular affairs, Lynne Yelich, putting out a press release to express “disappointment.” Apparently we didn’t want to be too harsh so as to offend them. Fahmy’s brother tweeted out that he holds the government responsible for his brother rotting in jail because Harper couldn’t be bothered to make a public statement. It does make one wonder about why Harper couldn’t be bothered, considering the number of condemnation press releases that we already get in our inboxes. Is it because Harper has his own difficult relationship with the media? Who can say?

Continue reading

Roundup: Sweeping, questionable changes

The House and Senate have both risen for the summer, but as they did, Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander unveiled their massive overhaul of the Temporary Foreign Workers Programme. It proposes to try and make the programme harder to use, with ever-diminishing caps on the number of workers (who were a fraction of one percent of the total workforce in the country, incidentally) with the aim of getting more unemployed Canadians, as well as Aboriginals, new immigrants and people with disabilities into these low-wage jobs. But Kenney seemed tone deaf to some of the massive labour challenges in Alberta, to demographic issues, to incentivising labour mobility, to the problems of aging populations in rural regions that are depopulating, but most especially to the attitude change that needs to happen if they think that university graduates will think that low-wage jobs in the food service industry or even higher-wage jobs in processing jobs like meat packing are going to be the answer to their labour shortages. The NDP condemned the changes without actually reading them, and all of their objections were addressed, not that it mattered. The Liberals made some pretty salient comments about the implausible changes to inspections and the giant loophole going unaddressed through the youth labour exchange programme. The restaurant and small business associations are really unhappy with the changes, which hamstring their ability to find workers in tough markets. John Geddes starts picking out the flaws in Kenney’s case, including demographics and the notion that it’s likely that non-Canadians made for cheaper and more reliable hires. Andrew Coyne says that the changes are simply bad policy, which punishes the service sector where a government goes out of its way to prevent a manufacturing job from offshoring. Coyne notes that if Canadians don’t want to take these jobs, then they shouldn’t be artificially shoehorned into them, but rather to spend their efforts creating value elsewhere in the economy while those who do want those jobs should be made to be Canadians by using the TFW programme as a pathway to citizenship.

Continue reading

Roundup: Peter MacKay’s “special bonds”

Peter MacKay ignited yet another firestorm by making comments to the Ontario Bar Association that there isn’t enough diversity in federal and federally-appointed courts because not enough women are applying since they have a special bond with children. No, seriously. And when called out on it, MacKay insisted that his comments were “misconstrued,” and then went on say law schools need to do better – never mind that female enrolment is already outpacing males. And no, there was nothing in his explanation about visible minorities, just women. Naturally, this turned into a parade of accusations about the regressive social attitudes during Question Period, laced with all of aggravating qualifications from all sides, MacKay included, about being parents. MacKay also gave a litany of appointment figures, all of them out of context, like how there was only one woman out of the thirteen appointments made last week. There was some great fact-checking over Twitter which pointed out just how ridiculous or outright wrong MacKay’s justifications are.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/479732973470638080

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/479739582615785472

Continue reading

QP: Bluster versus script cards

Possibly the last QP of the year — one can hope — and tempers continued to fray throughout the Precinct. None of the main leaders were present, which wasn’t going to improve the mood either. Peter Julian led things off, where he blustered about Northern Gateway decision, and Kelly Block was the sacrificial lamb sent up to read her talking points about how projects only move forward if they are proven to be safe after a rigorous, scientific review process, and that the proponent has more work to do. When Julian noted that consulting with First Nations was the government’s job, Block read that the government was working with First Nations. Nathan Cullen followed on to carry on the sanctimonious bluster, and Block read yet more of the same talking points. Chrystia Freeland led off for the Liberals, denouncing the justice minister’s sexist comments about female judges, to which Peter MacKay accused her of mischaracterizing his comments and that they only made judicial appointments made on merit. Carolyn Bennett and Scott Brison followed along, Brison characterising it as the Conservatives’ war on modernity, and after MacKay gave another embarrassing qualification, Leitch answered Brison by claiming that the number of female Governor-in-Council appointments is on the rise.

Continue reading

QP: To appoint or not to appoint to the Supreme Court

The last Monday of the spring sitting of the Chamber, and Thomas Mulcair and Elizabeth May were the only leaders in the Commons. Justin Trudeau was in Toronto to help campaign for the forthcoming by-elections, while Harper was, well, elsewhere. Mulcair started things off by asking about the government ignoring the advice on reforming suicide investigations in the military, to which Rob Nicholson insisted that he asked the military to account for the decision and to clear up the backlog, of which only ten cases out of 54 remained. Mulcair pressed in French, and Nicholson repeated his response. Mulcair brought up the Prime Minister’s appointment of a Federal Court judge to the Quebec Court of Appeal, and how this was being challenged by the same lawyer who challenged the Nadon appointment. Peter MacKay insisted that they made appointments based on merit, and listed off the accomplishments of that judge. Mulcair insisted that the government was meddling in Quebec’s courts, not that MacKay’s answer changed. Geoff Regan led off for the Liberals, asking about the decision on the Northern Gateway pipeline, imploring that it be denied. Greg Rickford gave his usual talking points that they were carefully reading a report and the decision would be made soon. Joyce Murray brought up the Request For Proposal that would come out for the fighter jet replacements between 2017 and 2019, and would this mean that an open competition would go ahead. Diane Finley insisted that no decisions had been made, and that they went through an independent process.

Continue reading

QP: Hudak math and Kijiji data

For the first time of the week, all three leaders were in the Chamber, possibly for one of the last times before the Commons rises. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking about cuts to job market research, wondering how it could be justified. Stephen Harper responded by insisted that it wasn’t correct and more resources had been diverted into the area, and by the way, we created one million net new jobs. Mulcair retorted with a crack about Hudak math, and looking for information on Kijiji, to which Harper noted that the information came from Statistics Canada. When Mulcair demanded that the hiring tax credit for small businesses be extended, Harper reminded them that they voted against that time-limited measure in the first place. Mulcair changed topics and moved to the fighter jet procurement, and if other companies could put in bids. Harper assured him that the report had not yet been considered by cabinet, but they would soon. Justin Trudeau was up for the Liberals, and noted that the previous chief of defence staff noted that the F-35 was not the only suitable plane for Canada, and whether the process was going to be open and transparent. Harper repeated that cabinet had not yet considered the report. Trudeau moved onto the Northern Gateway Pipeline and the widespread opposition to it. Harper responded that the government was in the process of reviewing the report of the National Energy Board, and they would be coming to a decision soon.

Continue reading