Tag Archives: Abortion

Roundup: Harder tries to play hero again

Posted on by

After hosting most of the Alberta senators to a lunch in Edmonton, Alberta premier Jason Kenney has written a letter to Senator Peter Harder, Leader of the Government in the Senate – err, “government representative,” to say that he and the leaders of the other two main parties in Alberta are willing to accept Bill C-69 if they keep it as amended by the committee. Those amendments, mind you, were largely all written by industry lobbyists, and gut much of what the bill was trying to accomplish, which was an overhaul of the environmental assessment process, because what’s on the books now (which is the process that Harper gutted in 2012) isn’t working and is only resulting in court challenges.

And Harder? Well, after his whip – err, “government liaison,” Senator Grant Mitchell, has been pushing for the bills to pass largely unamended, Harder says that he now wants to send this bill as amended back to the Commons, as well as the recommendation that Bill C-48 (the tanker ban) – though I’m not sure how that would happen given the de facto committee recommendation is that it not proceed – and let them decide whether or not to keep the amendments. Let the government deal with it – or rather, wear the decision for not accepting the amendments so that Kenney will turn his ire to Trudeau, and not the Senate. Because Harder is such a hero like that (while making up parts of his job description that don’t actually exist).

Meanwhile, former Senator Hugh Segal is taking to the pages of the Globe and Mail to warn the Senate against defeating C-48 because he says it would contradict the Salisbury Convention. *sigh* No. The Salisbury Convention doesn’t exist in Canada, no matter how many times Harder of luminaries like Segal bring it up. It’s contrary to the Constitution, we don’t have the same historical reasons for why Salisbury was adopted in the House of Lords, and it also goes against the whole notion of a more “independent” Senate. Nor is C-48 an election promise so far as anyone can gather, which is a trigger for Salisbury – if it existed (which it doesn’t in Canada). There are plenty of reasons why the Senate shouldn’t defeat C-48, but making up that it’s contrary to Salisbury isn’t one of them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A weekend of Norman

Posted on by

Over the course of the long weekend, there was another push about the Vice Admiral Mark Norman story, but there were some problems in how this has all been unfolding. The National Post had a longread that was the first to interview Norman and his family about the ordeal, but in the process, in focusing on making Norman a martyr to his cause, I’m not sure that they did him any favours because it did seem to make it look like he did what he was accused of doing – this, while everyone kept tweeting about how enraging this story was on Norman’s behalf.

There were other threads – General Jonathan Vance, the Chief of Defence Staff, gave a somewhat exasperated sounding interview to state that the decision to suspend Norman was his and his alone, while the Globe and Mail reported that it was the former National Security advisor to the prime minister and the former Clerk of the Privy Council – both Harper appointees, it should be noted – that called in the RCMP to investigate the leak after their own internal investigation was inclusive. This blows up the narrative of the Conservatives that it was somehow a personal vendetta to destroy Norman’s career, or that the prime minister was personally directing this – though that narrative is also about trying to match up Trudeau’s stupid misspeaking about the Norman case likely winding up in court before charges were even laid that had them trying to spin a narrative about interference. (The Conservatives, meanwhile, keep hoping that there will be more embarrassing revelations, but they don’t seem to be coming). Likewise, the attempts to insist that the government was orchestrating the withholding of documents hasn’t actually matched up with the realities of the processes involved.

But while the Post story was curious enough, I found this analysis piece by the CBC’s Murray Brewster to have its share of framing problems, in saying that the allocation of responsibility was throwing people under the bus – like Vance (never mind that he admitted it was his decision). Brewster also seems to confuse the arguments that Crown prosecutors were making with those of “senior government officials” framing the prosecution, because I have never read anything about senior officials framing the prosecution – nor have I read anything coming from government or officials framing the allegations against Norman as an issue of civilian control, which is why I always found it odd because that’s at the heart of what was being alleged. Beyond that, Brewster wonders why the Liberals aren’t asking questions of the Conservatives about how they rewrote the rules on that procurement in the first place, or why the former Conservative ministers didn’t speak to the RMCP after the charges were laid, or why Norman would stake his career on this procurement – all questions that I don’t know why the Liberals would ask. They’re a little past holding the Conservatives to account because the Conservatives aren’t in power any longer, and it would seem to me that it would be more the role of journalists asking these kinds of questions of the Conservatives, as opposed to the government – perhaps more than trying to curry sympathy for Norman.

https://twitter.com/btaplatt/status/1128335527785193472

Continue reading →

Roundup: An economic vision without an economic case

Posted on by

Andrew Scheer gave the second of his policy keynote speeches yesterday, this one on his economic vision, and as could be expected, it was full of hyperbolic declarations about the size of the deficit (it’s tiny in comparison to our GDP), and the state of Canadian household finances (which have been growing). He promised that any new spending programmes would have to be paid for out of government “savings,” and in his pledge to balance the budget in two years, that would mean cuts. Of course, Conservative mouthpieces say this is easily enough achieved because they did it before (forgetting of course that the previous government had a habit of booking savings that were never going to be achieved for the sake of getting to a paper balance, like Shared Services Canada, or the Phoenix Pay System). The Liberals, incidentally, were quick to put out Bill Morneau to put a price tag on those cuts and warn that they would come out of families, and with the spectre of seeing what Doug Ford is doing to those families in Ontario, well, it’ll make things harder for Scheer.

The part that everyone talked about, however, was his grand vision of an “energy corridor” across the country where pipeline projects would magically cross the country with buy-in from Indigenous communities and everyone would be happy and prosperous, and we would have energy security and would never had to import oil from Saudi Arabia ever again. The problem with this fantasy picture, however, is largely economics. Even if Energy East were to get built, by some miracle, it would not have an economic case given that it wouldn’t be used for domestic oil in the eastern provinces as it would be far more expensive than the oil they’re importing. In fact, Energy East did not make it off the drawing board because there was no economic case – it wasn’t because there was opposition in Quebec (which has already achieved some kind of mythical status), but because there was no economic rationale for the company given that Keystone XL was back on the table. Scheer’s promise (other than the fantasy of it even happening) is that Alberta will either have to take a huge discount per barrel of oil, or oil prices in the eastern provinces start taking a major jump because they’re paying a lot more for it, and upgrade it from heavy petroleum and refine it (in refineries that would have to have been refitted, likely with yet more taxpayer subsidies). But since when should logic or basic economics be part of an “economic vision”? That would be silly.

Chris Selley offers a critique of Scheer’s rhetoric, but finds it more astonishing that it’s the Liberals’ own self-inflicted damage that is putting Scheer in a position where he has a reasonable shot of winning.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Offering justifications for the indefensible

Posted on by

The attempts by conservatives, both provincial and federal, to justify the use of the Notwithstanding Clause is in full swing, and it’s a bit fascinating to watch the intellectual contortions that they will go through in order to justify a) the abuse of process for Bill 5 in the first place, b) the need to ram it through during the middle of the election itself in order to interfere, and c) why they need to go to the mat and use the nuclear option in order to help Ford enact petty revenge. One of Ford’s MPPs wrote up her legal analysis, which is more than Ford or his attorney general have bothered to do, but it still didn’t explain the need for haste when an appeal of the lower court decision would have been the proper way to go about disputing its reasoning. Ford’s MPPs would go on TV and throw around the word “elites” as though that justifies the nuclear option, which, again, doesn’t actually constitute a proper reason for employing said nuclear option. Andrew Scheer, meanwhile, is falling back on the technicality that Ford’s using the Clause is “within the law” because municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction, which is beside the point – the point being that Ford is violating the norms of our democratic system for his own personal ends, and not calling out that violation of norms is troubling.

Even more troubling was that during yesterday’s raucous Question Period in Queen’s Park, Ford stated that we don’t need the Charter because people elected him – all of which just continues his particular inability to discern between popular rule and democracy. Popular rule is justifying breaking rules and norms because you got elected – democracy is those rules and norms that keeps power in check. That he can’t grasp the difference should be alarming.

The LeBlanc Report

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner issued his report yesterday on whether Dominic LeBlanc violated ethics rules regarding the awarding of the Arctic surf clam fishery to a company that was headed (on an interim basis) by his wife’s cousin – the context is that he’s one of sixty first cousins, and his relationship with LeBlanc is at best described as an acquaintance. Reading through the report, it hinges upon the Commissioner reading the definition of family much more expansively than it is interpreted elsewhere in the very same regime, which is how LeBlanc interpreted it. LeBlanc took responsibility, vowed to do better in the future, but that hasn’t stopped the opposition from taking the usual route of wailing and gnashing of teeth to decry just how unethical this government is.

In the demonstrable instances, however, the ethics violations have been pretty small ball (i.e. Bill Morneau not properly reporting the ownership structure of the French villa he disclosed), or legitimate differences of opinion on relationships (whether the Aga Khan was a family friend in Trudeau’s case, or the closeness of the relationship between LeBlanc and his wife’s cousin in this case). These are not instances of influence being peddled, people being unjustly enriched (and I know people will quibble about the Bell Island vacation, but the Aga Khan is not some tycoon looking to increase his corporate holdings by way of government connections), so perhaps a bit of perspective is warranted. Should Trudeau and LeBlanc have cleared things with the Commissioner beforehand? Absolutely. But this performative outrage we’re seeing will only get you so far, and railing that there have been no consequences beyond naming-and-shaming means little considering that it was the Conservatives and NDP who designed this ethics regime back in 2006, and they could have designed a more robust system them – or at any point that it’s come up for statutory review – and they haven’t.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A sudden focus on birth tourism

Posted on by

So that was the Conservative policy convention. There wasn’t a lot of drama, post-Bernier, and most of the reactionary and social conservative policy resolutions got voted down in the end, including those related to abortion. What did wind up being contentious was a resolution around stopping automatic birth citizenship, which was supposedly aimed at stopping “birth tourism” but would have the alternate effect of creating stateless individuals, which is contrary to international law. Mind you, the Liberals didn’t help any when they started talking about how this meant revoking existing citizenships (which it wasn’t), and then certain Conservative partisans started complaining that this was being unfairly cast as xenophobic (I’m not sure that’s really an unfair assessment), but there you have it. Incidentally, MP Deepak Obhrai came out against this. There was a bit of other drama when opponents of supply management stole the briefing binder for dairy lobbyists and found proof therein that regardless of what was decided, Scheer would use his prerogative as leader to ensure the policy was untouched. When this hit social media, his people insisted that no, that’s erroneous information, they had it wrong, but remember that leaders’ prerogative is pretty much how every party operates since we’ve started privileging leadership over the grassroots, but people seem to keep forgetting that.

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/1033749144689684480

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/1033750378221920264

https://twitter.com/cforcese/status/1033757371338772480

Here’s a sit-down interview with Scheer to get his thoughts on policy positions that the convention was debating over the weekend, and another where he refuses to say if the Bernier split worries him. Scheer does complain that it’s hard for ordinary people to learn his name because he’s not suave and photogenic like Trudeau (never mind that a lot of what people in other countries remark about Trudeau is regarding his stances and policies, not just his looks). That said, it’s his party now, and it remains to be seen what his mark will inevitably be on it.

Meanwhile, the first poll about how people would vote with a theoretical Bernier-led party in the mix is out, and it would take enough votes away from the Conservatives and NDP to give the Liberals a bigger margin of victory. But remember, it’s early days and it’s pretty much the equivalent of putting “a pony” as the choice in the polls and people will immediately respond to it based on what they’re projecting rather than the reality, but that’s not unexpected.

Good reads:

  • Trilateral NAFTA might resume this week, but without Chrystia Freeland as she is on a diplomatic tour in Europe until Friday.
  • There are concerns that Shared Service Canada is gearing its procurements to favour multi-nationals over home-grown companies for contracts.
  • Families of fallen soldiers want public access to the rebuilt Afghanistan war cenotaph.
  • CRA’s tax evasion tip line netted some 32,000 leads last year.
  • Kevin Carmichael doesn’t think that there will be another interest rate hike in September.
  • Susan Delacourt sees problems with the conservative coalition that Andrew Scheer should be cementing at this point in his leadership.

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.

Roundup: A dearth of innovative policy ideas

Posted on by

While Maxime Bernier’s social media committee continues to demand attention (yesterday’s missive was to declare “political correctness” dead in Canada – in both official languages), all eyes will turn to Andrew Scheer as the party’s policy convention gets underway this week in Halifax. There is all kinds of talk that they’ll come away from this more united than ever – one of those kinds of meaningless phrases that parties seem to trot out whenever they face the slightest bit of internal criticism or difficulty, and usually before and after there’s some kind of rift or someone gets tossed. But depending on what Bernier tries to do with his acolytes at the convention, we’ll see if his tone or messaging changes after the convention is over, or if this becomes some new problem for Scheer to contend with – eventually.

As for the policy resolutions, most of the ones we’re seeing discussed are…not very innovative. In fact, most of them seem to be either the usual pushing back against restrictions on their well-worn bugaboos and hobbyhorses (looking to make anti-abortion policies more accepted in the party officially, for example), but so few of them seem to be actually coming from a free market conservative point of view. In fact, a lot of what’s on the list is pretty reactionary, and definitely signals a shift from a party that used to be all about the rule of law, and now seems to think they’re above it (witness resolutions against any payments or court settlements with convicted terrorists – a dig at Omar Khadr).

One could go on – a policy about building Energy East, despite the fact that there is no economic case to do so. Repealing gender identity legislation because they are under the illusion that it compels people to use unconventional pronouns (because apparently the Jordan Peterson crowd is well represented here), Andrew Scheer’s problematic policy of withholding funds to universities who don’t defend speech (but no context there, because you know they’ll rail about Israel Apartheid Week), closing the “loopholes” in the Safe Third Country agreement (no mention of how exactly, or the unintended consequences of doing so), maybe developing a climate policy that won’t involve a carbon tax or cap-and-trade (so you’re in favour of heavy-handed and expensive regulation? Really?), prioritizing CANZUK trade agreements (a rose-coloured view of our colonial past that didn’t really exist economically), treating pornography like a public health issue (Seriously, guys – didn’t you embarrass yourselves with this already at the Commons health committee when you couldn’t articulate a policy out of this fraud) – nothing innovating in here in the slightest. So one has to wonder just what vision there is within the party if this is the best that they can come up with for policy resolutions.

Continue reading →

QP: Performative abortion politics

Posted on by

The Commons was on Wednesday hours to give Conservatives the ability to go to the funeral for Gord Brown earlier in the day. Justin Trudeau was off to Saguenay, Scheer still at the funeral, and even Guy Caron, who is always present Monday to Thursday, was absent. Alain Rayes led off, and demanded that the government hold off on legalising marijuana until all police forces in Canada were equipped and trained to deal with drug-impaired driving. Catherine McKenna got up to reply, and instead brought up Ted Falk’s outburst yesterday about women not having the right to choose, and invited the opposition to recant that position and affirm a woman’s right to choose. Rayes claimed that the words weren’t spoken in the House — not true — and he repeated his question. McKenna repeated her own admonition, and Rayes tried a third time, and this time Ginette Petitpas Taylor responded that they were working with partners to ensure a responsible transition. Diane Finley repeated the question in English, and this time Ralph Goodale got up to remind her that drug-impaired driving is already an issue, not a future one, and that he’s glad they now support Bill C-46 and should encourage the Senate to pass it. Finley tried again, and Goodale elaborated that it’s already in the Criminal Code. Ruth Ellen Brosseau led for the NDP, accusing Kinder Morgan of having privileged access to the government. McKenna retreated to her usual platitudes about the environment and the economy going together, and when Brosseau tried a second time, Marc Garneau assured her that the Trans Mountain pipeline was in the national interest. Nathan Cullen got up to accuse Kinder Morgan lobbyists of attending Liberal fundraisers, to which McKenna reiterated her previous platitudes. When Cullen laid on further sanctimony, McKenna noted that it went through a full review, and it would go ahead.

Continue reading →

QP: Accusations of rigged rules

Posted on by

For caucus day, all leaders were present (for a change), and when Andrew Scheer led off, he read some scripted concerns about carbon taxes raising the price of everything, and demanded to know how much it would cost families. Trudeau got up to respond that the Conservatives tried doing nothing and were trying to justify it now. Scheer switched to English and said that the PM was gleeful there were high gas prices in BC and accused him of not caring because he’s a millionaire. Trudeau said that it wasn’t what he said, and that this was just an attempt to create fear and division from a party that doesn’t have a plan. Scheer switched back to French to accuse the government of trying to game the electoral system for their own benefit, and Trudeau noted that this was about taking the influence of money out of politics. Scheer accused Trudeau of rigging the system to punish those who disagree with him, listing a number of conflated incidents that were “proof” of such behaviour. Trudeau responded that Conservatives tried to make it harder to vote while his party was trying to make it easier. Scheer accused the government of imposing fundraising restrictions because the Liberals can’t raise as much money as they can, and then demanded that ministerial travel be restricted in the pre-writ period, to which Trudeau said that the record number of voters in the last election was not because of the Conservative changes, but rather, it was about getting Stephen Harper out of office. Guy Caron was up next for the NDP, complaining that they didn’t have enough time to evaluate the candidate for Chief Electoral Officer. In response, Trudeau took up a script to read some praise for the candidate, and then Nathan Cullen asked the same in English, but with a truckload of added sanctimony. Trudeau read the English version of his same script. Cullen then accused the government of rigging the Trans Mountain approval process, to which Trudeau assured him that they enhanced the assessment process. Caron took over to ask the same again in French, saying that putting a financial stake in Kinder Morgan was the kind of subsidy that the government promised to end, but Trudeau repeated his response, insisting that any stake was about the project being in the national interest.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Bad takes versus obstinacy

Posted on by

The bad takes continue to roll in on the Canada Summer Jobs brouhaha – so many bad takes – all of them written by straight white men who can’t fathom that these “sincerely held” religious beliefs that women and LGBT people shouldn’t be allowed to have equal rights, are in fact actual points of contention rather than some kind of Liberal Party demand for ideological orthodoxy. There seems to be not a clue that the governing party’s values are such that they have the gall to suggest that if you believe that women or LGBT people don’t deserve equal rights and you actively campaign against those rights, then maybe you don’t need taxpayer funds.

This isn’t to say that the government has done a stellar job of communicating this effectively, nor have they done a great job in drafting the wording of this attestation they want groups to sign. That’s fair criticism, and even pro-choice groups are saying hey, maybe you should clarify that language a bit so that you’re not freaking out the religious groups, and of course, the minister is obstinately saying no, I’m good with the wording as it stands – and I’m sure that they’ll be true to form and back down and agree to amend the wording after they get in another two or three weeks of self-inflicted damage, particularly after a week or two of mind-numbingly repetitive questions in QP about how this is all about feeding Christians to the lions, or some such bullshit – but we’ll hear all about it, and the Liberals will let this self-inflicted damage carry on until then.

This having been said, I’m at the absolute limit of my patience over the assertion of the pundit class that “if it had come from Conservatives but in reverse, there would be an uproar across the land.” That’s a quote from Chantal Hébert on The National on Thursday night.

There was uproar when the Conservative defunded anything to do with abortion internationally, and if you remember then-Senator Nancy Ruth’s blunt advice to women’s groups to “shut the fuck up about abortion,” it was well-meaning advice to stop poking the bear (for which she was unfairly castigated and her words being taken entirely out of context). Let’s not pretend that outrage didn’t happen then. Meanwhile, there was a hell of a lot less outrage when the Conservative defunded any LGBT festival or group that used to be funded, and the one time that they did give tourism funds to Toronto Pride, they got so petty about damage control that they literally trotted out Brad Trost to ritually humiliate the Minister of State, Diane Ablonczy, in order to placate their social conservative base.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right!” was the common Twitter response to this, and no, they don’t. My point, however, is that every single government engages in this kind of thing based on their values, and we can’t pretend that they don’t, or that this isn’t unique to the Liberals, nor can we pretend that the Liberals are getting an easier ride than the Conservatives did, because there wasn’t that outrage across the land when LGBT groups lost funding, or when HIV/AIDS service organizations lost funding, or when the Harper government pissed away millions in funds from the Gates Foundation in HIV prevention because they engaged in petty bullshit around local politics over facilities. Some of us covered those fights, and they didn’t get weeks of coverage or a plethora of terrible hot takes in national newspapers because that government was petty and ideological as opposed to inept about their communications strategy like the current one is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Muddled takes on Charter rights

Posted on by

The bad takes on the government’s decision to stop giving summer job grants to groups that actively oppose abortions keep rolling in, with yesterday’s winner being one particularly mystifying piece that equates this to Christians being persecuted in ancient Rome. No, seriously. But probably the most overwrought objections are those which keep insisting that “there’s no Charter right to an abortion!” Err, no, there’s not. But when you try to take away that right, you trigger other Charter rights, most notably a woman’s right to life, liberty, and security of person, or the fact that discriminating against her ability to get a medical procedure does breach her Charter rights. University of Ottawa law professor Carissima Mathen walks us through some of those considerations here:

Emmett Macfarlane also took to Twitter to try to clarify some of the arguments in this particular case.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/954045320224178176

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/954046117188177920

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/954048017727926272

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/954067759494778881

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/954141345152724992

This having been said, it should be reiterated that yet again, this government has not done a particularly stellar job in communicating this particular policy decision, especially in how they are fuzzily defining what is a “core mandate” that would disqualify them. It shouldn’t be difficult – is this an organization that is devoted to picketing abortion clinics, or counselling women against abortions under the guise of being a support service? No? Then you can get your funding. I also think that some religious groups are being a bit hyperbolic in their concerns, egged on by the likes of Andrew Scheer, who has been torqueing this issue (as he is wont to do with any issue) so that what’s actually at stake bears no relation to what it’s being characterized as. But that’s politics, apparently.

Continue reading →