C-36 today

Jean Ketterling @JeanKetterling · 1m
@AfterBedford The CPC has SO much invested in reinforcing police authority and propping up the prison industrial complex.
 
Thank you Helene LeBlanc for separating the issues of trafficking vs. prostitute safety. Someone else who gets it.

'conservatives held a bogus consultation; repeating the same tragic cases over & over that are protected by the CC.'

Randall Garrison now also doing a great job. Actually, best speech I've heard so far.
 
the NDP and LIB MPs actually talk to SPs and meet with them unlike Feminazi Joy Smith and company on the other side of the house
 
It hasn't been confirmed yet, but there's talk that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will examine the Bill, once the Session stops on June 20th for the Summer.

If this doesn't happen then the Committee will have to review the Bill once the Session resumes in the Fall, and who knows then when the Bill would come back to the House for the Third Reading. That's why the Tories want the Committee to sit this Summer, as this would reduce the potential for the Bill not becoming a law in time for the December set by SCC.

The December deadline isn't set in concrete. There can be extensions put in place. The conservative want it off the headline before the elections.
 
The December deadline is just the time when the old laws will no longer be in force. If the new laws don't pass until January or February, there might be a month or two where prostitution is completely decriminalized. But it won't last long.

There's no way this won't pass by the time an election is called.
 
The only way the bill won't pass is some extreme natural disaster, terrorist attack, epidemic, or war that would take precedence over this ridiculous bill...
 
The December deadline isn't set in concrete. There can be extensions put in place. The conservative want it off the headline before the elections.

What extensions? Once the stay on the SCC decision expires, the current laws are toast. Mind you, they've been practically unenforced in most parts of the country since last December.

It's not technically passed second reading yet. Voting for second reading to take place on Monday.

Anyone want to take bets on it being defeated on Monday?
 
This is just too funny:
Peter MacKay Central Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for her commentary. I do not agree with it. I do not believe that there is any way a democratic deficit in bringing legislation before the House to be debated.

One of the principles of democracy, and I think my friend would agree, is that democracy requires people to show up. That seems to have been a problem in some cases, where legislation was brought forward and there were not enough members here to discuss it.

It is a bit of sucking and blowing to say that they want more debate but they do not have enough members here to actually take part in that debate. That is one end of the extreme.

The other is we have seen the use of debate to delay legislation. I know when I was minister of defence we had a very simple, straightforward bill, and the NDP debated it around the clock through three Parliaments. It finally passed the House, to the great benefit of the members of the Armed Forces.

My suggestion to the member is there is necessity and urgency that this bill proceed and that it get to committee. There will be five hours of debate here, as the member knows. Once it is in the committee stage, there will be more opportunities for all members of Parliament from all sides of the House to give direct input while hearing from various witnesses with expertise in the area.

Then the bill comes back again. The bill will come back before the House again. There is an opportunity at that time to voice views.

Rather than complain about the process, what I think would be helpful for Canadians would be for the NDP and the Liberals to actually take a position, to actually state, emphatically, how they feel about this legislation, what they would do to improve it, and how they might do things differently.

That would be a useful participatory process, rather than just chirping from the cheap seats about sending it to the Supreme Court for another reference or trying to divide bills. Let us talk about what their actual substantive, constructive criticisms and participation in the debate might actually be.
 
Why would anyone here want to bet against it?

There seem to be a few around these parts who think that the bill has no chance of passing. If it was truly that poorly conceived, they must expect it to fail on principle in second reading.

"Chirping from the cheap seats...." I think we could use that line here to stimulate some action!
 
Even those who support the "Nordic" Model shouldn't support this bill because with the exception of a few narrow circumstances, the bill for the most part criminalizes women to. It's not the Nordic Model, It's the "Pickton" model because that is apparently who they consulted when drafting it.
 
Even those who support the "Nordic" Model shouldn't support this bill because with the exception of a few narrow circumstances, the bill for the most part criminalizes women to. It's not the Nordic Model, It's the "Pickton" model because that is apparently who they consulted when drafting it.

the Nordic supporters are speaking out against this bill
 
240545_10150199618307805_572712804_7612173_4954859_o.jpg
 
The only way the bill won't pass is some extreme natural disaster, terrorist attack, epidemic, or war that would take precedence over this ridiculous bill...

Someone blow up the CN tower on Sept 11??? Better yet someone assassinate Peter MacKay. I know shame on me. :frown:
 
Come to think about it. They are allowed to sell sex (LE/police sting using BP ads) but it it is illegal for you to buy sex (so you can get caught and arrested). The law is entrapment. Is it not? Is this not unconstitutional?