Given that Bill C-440, which would have given safe haven for war resisters in Canada, failed Second Reading last night by a mere seven votes, one could imagine that the bill's sponsor, Liberal Gerard Kennedy, would be pretty upset. A couple of us spoke to Kennedy after Question Period today, and this is what he told us:

"I’m looking for other ways to protect the war resisters. Unfortunately we had a wave of people concerned about some of the specific things that a bill would have done, that it would have been perceived as undermining military discipline, those kinds of things. I think that still there is – and if you look at it from one angle, it’s the wrong way to look at this challenge to Canadians. It’s about citizenship, it’s a little bit to do with military, but it’s really about our ability to define who gets to join our country. The case, all told, for war resisters is one that Canadians are very sympathetic to, and it was hard to find the language in a bill that would find its way through, but that does not mean that they should feel there is a lack of welcome here altogether. So my commitment to them is to try and work to find ways and I’m hoping that is the attitude that they will take on. Parliament is a little bit imperfect that way. Private Members’ Bills don’t allow us to elaborate that much, to engage as many people, and it shouldn’t be that the kind of happenstance, that the last-minute concern on the part of people that was hard to meet, would stand in the way of the overall thrust.

"People may recall, when we allowed the people from Vietnam [War] here, Mr. Trudeau simply told the immigration minister at the time, Mr. MacEachen, not to ask the question. All across the border, in immigration offices, there were people not asking the question ‘do you have an obligation to military service of another country,’ and that’s how we dealt with it. That may be an inelegant answer here, and obviously the onus really should be – and where Canadians hear this and wonder what happened in Parliament, what they should be thinking of is that the minister should be exercising his discretion. What we were forced to do is step into the shoes of the Minister of Immigration, and that’s an awkward thing to do, because for one group of people, we’re changing the law, and that caused some people to back away. But there is a Minister of Immigration, and despite the façade that the government puts up, they are not either immune to public input or able to ignore it ad infinitum. People I hope will understand is that’s what we should be asking for – the Minister to deal with these people on compassionate grounds. They’ve been here five and six years, they’re working, they’re people who deserve to be in Canadian society, and that power doesn’t need a bill. It just needs enough pressure to make the Minister understand that a broad sweep of Canadians wants to see it happen. Some version of that is where I’ll be applying myself, and I would certainly encourage people out there to not see this as any kind of judgement on the overall bona fides, just the fact that changing a very specific law caused some people to have cold feet."

The Liberal tactic of the day was to use Members’ Statements to list off the groups opposed to the government’s elimination of the long-form census. With a vote on their opposition day motion just hours away, it was their attempt at trying to force the government. Not that it helped. When Michael Ignatieff got up to hector the prime minister about the 350 groups opposed to its elimination, Harper just repeated the same old tired talking points about how threatening Canadians was bad, and how he was going to treat Canadians like adults over the issue. Um, okay. When do we get to start having adult conversations about public policy in this country as opposed to heated rhetoric designed to elicit emotional reactions? Because that would be a good start.

Dominic LeBlanc got up to ask about those other countries concerned about the escalating costs of the F-35 fighter jets, Gilles Duceppe and Michel Guimond asked about those looming stimulus deadlines (Harper: “You voted against the Economic Action Plan.” Um, adult conversations, anyone?), and Jack Layton brought up the plight of seniors and the unemployed in the face of massive G20 overspending (Harper: “We’re proud of lowering taxes!”)

Siobhan Coady and Dan McTeague talked G20 numbers with Vic Toews, who refuted everything they threw at him, Robert Bouchard asked about the census, while Yves Lessard and Josée Beaudin asked after EI programs coming to an end (and apparently the government is willing to show some flexibility in the forthcoming rate hike). Then came the Liberal rapid-fire spending priority questions – seniors, caregivers, post-secondary education and childcare, all contrasted against G20 overspending.

The first government suck-up question of the day was a plant for Rob Nicholson to announce that they would be appealing the Ontario Superior Court decision on prostitution. Peter Stoffer asked about the privacy nightmare in the Veterans' Affairs department and was nearly shouted down by the Conservatives. QP then ended off with several questions on the transport of nuclear materials down the St Lawrence Seaway, the rail monopoly, dredging Sydney Harbour, the imprisoned Iranian blogger and that new immigration policy group spreading fear.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Kirsty Duncan for her cool lace-like black jacket, to Ruby Dhalla for her tailored black-and-white dress, as well as to Mario Silva for his indigo-hued plaid shirt with a superbly tailored grey suit and purple tie. Half-points go to Cathy McLeod, who had a great jacket but a black top of a poor cut for her body type. Style citations go out to Martha Hall Findlay’s distressing floral jacket. The Megan Leslie outfit watch reports a loose cream top with a pleated grey skirt and fairly cool knee-high greyish boots.

The votes took place later in the evening, and small surprise, the opposition passed its census motion – not that it’s going to matter, as the government will ignore the results. And Canada’s Most Intellectually Bankrupt MP, Shelly Glover, was as classy as ever in waving her passport around when she stood up to vote – a reference to Gilles Duceppe’s musing that instead of jailing people who didn’t fill out their census forms, the government could refuse them services, such as passports – which the government spin-machine then turned into threats to take away passports. Other MPs insisted she be thrown out for using props in the House. At the end of the votes last night, the House passed a unanimous motion to condemn Maclean’s magazine for its “Canada’s most corrupt province” cover about Quebec – only it took them two tries, because on the first try, Quebec independent MP André Arthur shouted no, but as soon as he left, they tried again. Classy, guys. Classy.

In response to my article on Friday about Conservative MP Joy Smith’s recommendation that Canada adopt the “Swedish model” of prostitution laws, human trafficking groups are coming to her defence.

And Her Excellency gave her military farewell as Canada’s Commander-in-Chief yesterday. She also bid the country thanks on her official blog as her time as Governor General draws to a close. Also revealed – that Harper was willing to go to the Queen if Jean denied him his prorogation in 2008 – not that Her Majesty would be particularly predisposed to overriding Her Excellency.

Of the four national parties, only the Greens have so far come out in support of the Ontario court ruling which strikes down the laws around prostitution. The release is as follows:

OTTAWA -- The Green Party of Canada is welcoming Superior Court Judge Susan Himel’s ruling to strike down three Criminal Code provisions surrounding prostitution.

“We welcome the Judge's ruling because it makes clear that we need to undertake legal reform in Canada with a focus on harm reduction, given the mortal danger to sex trade workers,” said Adriane Carr, Green Party of Canada Deputy Leader.  “We can learn a lot, both positive and negative, from countries who have decriminalized prostitution so that the safety of sex trade workers is improved, such as New Zealand, Australia and Germany.”

The Green Party of Canada has advocated for a comprehensive Criminal Code reform that removes criminal sanctions and develops regulations for legal prostitution between consenting adults.  These reforms would be paired with enhanced counseling and educational services to assist people trapped in the sex trade through poverty or addiction, and financial assistance for sex trade workers who want to leave the life of prostitution.

“Judge Himel’s ruling allows us to proceed but we should do so carefully.  A Royal Commission would be a sensible method to develop new laws around prostitution that get it right,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May.  “What is obvious is that the laws we have now are not stopping the violence.  Reforming the law will allow this important conversation to proceed so that we can address any positive and negative consequences of legalization.”

By now you’ve heard that an Ontario Superior Court has struck down the laws surrounding prostitution, at least as far as enforcing them in that province. (My story on the federal reaction is here.) Expect this to turn up during Question Period later today.

It was debate on the Liberal’s opposition day motion on the census yesterday, and we saw the return of all kinds of fictional census questions (Breakfast cereals? Books you read? Bathrooms in your house?), red herrings about jail time and other straw men from the Conservatives, along with once again the spectre of a coalition. Really, guys? This is what you call debate these days?

Question Period began with an anecdote from Michael Ignatieff about a question he heard from a woman during his “Open Mike Tour” stop the day previous, which had to do with government spending priorities – fighter jets instead of housing. (I suspect this may soon become Ignatieff’s schtick, relaying questions from Canadians from his tour.) Harper responded with the usual platitudes about the F-35, and saying that Ignatieff’s policy made no sense.

From there it was Mark Holland asking about G20 spending (Vic Toews: We’re transparent - really!), Gilles Duceppe and Marc Lemay asking about the census, and Jack Layton about the tar sands (Harper: We’re the government that’s legislated eliminating oil subsidies – really!) Marlene Jennings and Carolyn Bennett returned to the census question, and four Bloc MPs on the stimulus deadlines. Then came four Liberal MPs asking rapid-fire questions on spending priorities – “Economic Action Plan” signs instead of $10 million to help look into missing and murdered aboriginal women, corporate tax cuts instead of post-secondary education, G20 overspending instead of cultural funding, super-prisons instead of more efficient border crossings. I wonder if this, too, isn’t a future tactic we’ll see more of.

From there the topics went to the proposed mine at Fish Lake, the US government reviewing the F-35 contracts, more about stimulus deadlines, Health Canada abandoning plans for bigger tobacco warning labels in favour of cracking down on contraband cigarettes, EI pilot projects coming to an end, the proposed national securities regulator and continued inaction on decades-old Status of Women recommendations.

Sartorially speaking, there really wasn’t anything worthy of snaps, but there were a couple of missteps. Mark Warawa’s pumpkin-and-teal shirt with a bright teal tie? Wrong. Stockwell Day’s ugly tan shirt with the white collar? Wrong. Judy Foote’s yellow zebra-print jacket? Bad cut. But hey, the Megan Leslie outfit watch reports a nice grey suit and fuchsia top with really cute white heels with floral patterns on them.

Speaking of the “Open Mike Tour,” at his first stop in Montreal, Michael Ignatieff ripped into the separatists for the “tyranny” they impose on the people of the province for forcing a choice upon them that they don’t really want to make. Also, Jack Layton is a poor leader (in a shot aimed at retaking Outremont from Thomas Mulcair).

Statistics Canada’s Victimization Survey – the one that tracks “unreported crime” – was released and found that the levels remained unchanged in general, and that violent crime has continued to decline. Imagine that! Not that it’ll stop the truthiness of Conservative talking points about the need to crack down on crime.

It should be little surprise that the Privacy Commissioner is going to be looking into those breaches that have occurred in Veterans Affairs.

Surprising pretty much no one, the government said it would take the Senate’s unanimous report on eliminating poverty “under advisement,” while they file it on the shelf with all of the other reports collecting dust.

And finally, Her Excellency gave her farewell address to Parliament yesterday, with a few moving speeches. The only party leader I saw in attendance was Michael Ignatieff, who hung at the back, while the Speakers of the Commons and the Senate made their speeches before hers. (Video here). As well, Her Excellency has finally broken her silence on her fateful prorogation decision in 2008. While she still won’t discuss the specifics of her advice, part of why she took so long to make the decision was to help provoke debate among the public about why such a deliberation could take that long, and what her decision would mean for Canadian political institutions, and about the roles of prime minister and Governor General, which most people don’t understand.

Up today – votes on the Liberals’ (non-binding) opposition day motion on the long-form census, and Gerard Kennedy’s Bill C-440 on war resisters.