Canada General Discussion: Trudeau II

[136or142]

Re: abortion: This is just the Liberals dog whistling to their base. Social issues are the great divider, after all. If they can make the debate about social issues, they can deflect from their shortcomings like on electoral reform.

Re: Catherine McKenna being a possible rising star.   🤢🤢🤢 ok, well I'm still mad at her beating Paul Dewar and her being a strong MP/cabinet minister will cement Ottawa Centre into a safe Liberal seat like it is provincially.

Yes, I think this is more about the Liberals under Justin Trudeau and their repeated use of symbolic acts than about anything of real substance.  Not that this isn't important for a fair number of people.

[136or142]

Re: abortion: This is just the Liberals dog whistling to their base. Social issues are the great divider, after all. If they can make the debate about social issues, they can deflect from their shortcomings like on electoral reform.

Re: Catherine McKenna being a possible rising star.   🤢🤢🤢 ok, well I'm still mad at her beating Paul Dewar and her being a strong MP/cabinet minister will cement Ottawa Centre into a safe Liberal seat like it is provincially.

She is quite polarizing.  Progressives like her, but amongst conservatives she is probably the most hated cabinet minister.  Actually as silly as it sounds the NDP's best chance in Ottawa Centre might be to convince Conservatives (who have zero chance at winning there) to strategically vote NDP as most Conservatives despise Catherine McKenna and would love to defeat her.  I also think being called Climate Barbie and being hated by the Rebel media is probably a plus for her as most Canadians find the Rebel media quite extreme, while some might have some sympathy for her being called Climate Barbie especially amongst women who see this as just another example of misogyny.

I don't think she's all that polarizing for most Canadians.  Just for the remaining dimwitted climate change/global warming deniers.  I.E idiots like Gerry Ritz.

[mileslunn]

Re: abortion: This is just the Liberals dog whistling to their base. Social issues are the great divider, after all. If they can make the debate about social issues, they can deflect from their shortcomings like on electoral reform.

Re: Catherine McKenna being a possible rising star.   🤢🤢🤢 ok, well I'm still mad at her beating Paul Dewar and her being a strong MP/cabinet minister will cement Ottawa Centre into a safe Liberal seat like it is provincially.

I am a moderate conservative and I don't particularly like her, find her quite arrogant and condescending.  Chrystia Freeland, Ralph Goodale, and Marc Garneau would be me top choices but I think you have some other potential ones too.  Jane Phipott is one I am interestingly watching as she has a very difficult portfolio and if she can succeed where others haven't I will give her all credit, but its a portfolio that is tough to get any major results in short timeframe.
She is quite polarizing.  Progressives like her, but amongst conservatives she is probably the most hated cabinet minister.  Actually as silly as it sounds the NDP's best chance in Ottawa Centre might be to convince Conservatives (who have zero chance at winning there) to strategically vote NDP as most Conservatives despise Catherine McKenna and would love to defeat her.  I also think being called Climate Barbie and being hated by the Rebel media is probably a plus for her as most Canadians find the Rebel media quite extreme, while some might have some sympathy for her being called Climate Barbie especially amongst women who see this as just another example of misogyny.

I don't think she's all that polarizing for most Canadians.  Just for the remaining dimwitted climate change/global warming deniers.  I.E idiots like Gerry Ritz.

[DC Al Fine]

Trudeau has slipped into illiberal liberalism by requiring that Canada Summer Jobs grant applicants tick a box attesting to their mandate not interfering with Charter rights, including "the right to access safe and legal abortions"

Of course there is no right to abortion in the Charter, but that does not deter our PM from discriminating against other Charter rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.

To top it off, Labour Minister Patty Hajdu has insisted that the application does not discriminate against churches, despite its shoddy wording and has suggested that churches violate their consciences and sign it anyway. What a farce.

I agree what the Liberals are doing is heavy handed, but, of course, there is a right to abortion in the Charter.  That was why the Supreme Court struck down the law against abortion in 1987.  The Supreme Court did not say that the government of Canada could not pass any law that would have regulated abortion, but it did declare a basic right to abortion.  To state anything else is completely dishonest.

There was a letter to the editor in the Vancouver Sun today stating the same falsehood.  This seems to be the talking point for social conservative groups.  I think they have a strong argument in terms of whatever the Canadian equivalent of 'due process and equal protection' is, so it's a shame they're trying to use a dishonest argument.

From wiki: The majority of the Court held that "the structure of the system regulating access to therapeutic abortions is manifestly unfair. It contains so many potential barriers to its own operation that the [exception] it creates will in many circumstances be practically unavailable to women who would prima facie qualify." Noted barriers included all-male TACs, doctors who did not wish to refer matters to TACs, and geographical and financial differentials in treatment. As such, the provision was held to violate the principles of fundamental justice and was struck down, leaving Canada with a legislative vacuum to this day.

For someone who loves to throw out the words "falsehood" and "dishonest", you have quite the habit of declaring there to be no nuance on an issue when there clearly is.

Even a quick skim of wiki and your own post finds that

a) The decision was made on procedural grounds
b) R v. Mortgentaler precedent isn't even binding
c) Only Justice Wilson found there to be a substantive right to an abortion under section 7 of the Charter

The majority of the court in Morgentaler did not find that there was a substantive right to abortion under Section 7, as this was only explicitly argued by Wilson. The court found it unnecessary to consider whether the substance of section 7 implies a right to abortion, but instead made its decision on procedural grounds.

So, the court definitely ruled that there is a basic right to abortion in Canada, but it 'found it unnecessary' to state whether the Charter implied a fundamental right.

The second paragraph doesn't follow from the first one at all.

Good, mainly because I don't think "Canada Summer Jobs" money should not go to churches.

My understanding is it is not just churches affected but every employer has to more or less sign off saying they support the right to abortion.  Otherwise any employer in any position who opposes abortion personally even if completely unrelated to the job could have it cut off.  I think groups that have opposing abortion as their main mission absolutely should have summer grant jobs cut off, but I don't think you have to ask each employer what they personally think, that is going a bit overboard.

Why though? If other political advocacy groups can get  them, why not pro-life ones?

That is simply not true, the procedural reasoning to strike down the law on abortion was informed by Section 7. 

In the 1980s, Morgentaler was prosecuted again for providing abortions. In 1988, his case R. v Morgentaler went to the Supreme Court, which evaluated his actions this time in relation to the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court found that the Criminal Code provision on abortion violated a woman's right to "life, liberty and security of the person" guaranteed under Section 7 of the Charter.

Wrote Chief Justice Brian Dickson: "Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/abortion/

Since then, there have also been court rulings striking down provincial rules against private abortion clinics.

So, it's bullsh**t to say there is no basic right to an abortion in Canada.

Again such strong words from someone who pays so little attention to nuance.

As I noted above, the wiki article for R v Mortgentaler notes that the decision was not binding precedent. Furthermore even the Canadian Encyclopedia article you cited notes there is no inherent right to an abortion.

I'm less familiar with ether provincial cases. Could you point me to their reasoning and where they imply there is a right to an abortion?

[DC Al Fine]

Jamie Baillie has resigned due to sexual harassment allegations

Baillie is the luckiest politician in quite sometime because on the same day...

Patrick Brown has resigned due to even worse sexual misconduct allegations.

Also, I would like to point out that I called Brown's scandal months ago. I will now accept my accolades.

[DC Al Fine]

Re: abortion: This is just the Liberals dog whistling to their base. Social issues are the great divider, after all. If they can make the debate about social issues, they can deflect from their shortcomings like on electoral reform.

I agree. However, the story seems to be generating far more negative  attention than positive. Even the Toronto Star criticised the attestation.

It seems to have backfired and become a (minor) losing issue for them. Or is that just wishful thinking on my part?

[RogueBeaver]

Kent Hehr has been accused on Twitter of creeping female staffers in elevators while an MLA.

[Hatman 🍁]

Mainstreet has been releasing a bunch of provincial polls. The most surprising is PEI:

Greens: 36
PC: 30
Liberals: 29
NDP: 5

First time ever the Greens have led in a province wide poll before

[Hatman 🍁]

Here are some more numbers:

BC
NDP: 39
Liberals: 34
Greens: 28 (another big number for the Greens)

With PR coming it, it's a shame they didn't ask about the Conservatives...

Manitoba
PC: 40
NDP: 37(fairly good result at this stage!)
Liberals: 13
Greens: 10

Saskatchewan
Sask Party: 51
NDP: 34
Liberals: 9
Greens: 6

Not such good numbers there

Alberta
UCP: 56
NDP: 27
Alta Party: 7
Liberals: 7
Greens: 3

Newfoundland
Liberals: 44
PCs: 41
NDP: 15

Quebec
CAQ: 32
PLQ: 31
PQ: 18
QS: 15

[DC Al Fine]

Holy crap PEI!!!

What happened to the NDP in Saskatchewan? I thought they were neck and neck with SP.

[mileslunn]

Holy crap PEI!!!

What happened to the NDP in Saskatchewan? I thought they were neck and neck with SP.

Brad Wall is resigning so like many outgoing leaders their numbers tend to shoot up.  Obama's approval rating shot up by almost 10% in the final year for the same reason.

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-25/ontario-opposition-leader-quits-over-sexual-misconduct-claims

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, assuming a leadership convention is held, who becomes the new leader? Also, how does this impact the Progressive Conservative party's chances in the June elections?

[mileslunn]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-25/ontario-opposition-leader-quits-over-sexual-misconduct-claims

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, assuming a leadership convention is held, who becomes the new leader? Also, how does this impact the Progressive Conservative party's chances in the June elections?

It hurts their chances, but a lot will depend on what happens in the coming weeks and whom is the next leader.  In a few weeks we will have a better idea of how severe the damage is.

[136or142]

Trudeau has slipped into illiberal liberalism by requiring that Canada Summer Jobs grant applicants tick a box attesting to their mandate not interfering with Charter rights, including "the right to access safe and legal abortions"

Of course there is no right to abortion in the Charter, but that does not deter our PM from discriminating against other Charter rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.

To top it off, Labour Minister Patty Hajdu has insisted that the application does not discriminate against churches, despite its shoddy wording and has suggested that churches violate their consciences and sign it anyway. What a farce.

I agree what the Liberals are doing is heavy handed, but, of course, there is a right to abortion in the Charter.  That was why the Supreme Court struck down the law against abortion in 1987.  The Supreme Court did not say that the government of Canada could not pass any law that would have regulated abortion, but it did declare a basic right to abortion.  To state anything else is completely dishonest.

There was a letter to the editor in the Vancouver Sun today stating the same falsehood.  This seems to be the talking point for social conservative groups.  I think they have a strong argument in terms of whatever the Canadian equivalent of 'due process and equal protection' is, so it's a shame they're trying to use a dishonest argument.

From wiki: The majority of the Court held that "the structure of the system regulating access to therapeutic abortions is manifestly unfair. It contains so many potential barriers to its own operation that the [exception] it creates will in many circumstances be practically unavailable to women who would prima facie qualify." Noted barriers included all-male TACs, doctors who did not wish to refer matters to TACs, and geographical and financial differentials in treatment. As such, the provision was held to violate the principles of fundamental justice and was struck down, leaving Canada with a legislative vacuum to this day.

For someone who loves to throw out the words "falsehood" and "dishonest", you have quite the habit of declaring there to be no nuance on an issue when there clearly is.

Even a quick skim of wiki and your own post finds that

a) The decision was made on procedural grounds
b) R v. Mortgentaler precedent isn't even binding
c) Only Justice Wilson found there to be a substantive right to an abortion under section 7 of the Charter

The majority of the court in Morgentaler did not find that there was a substantive right to abortion under Section 7, as this was only explicitly argued by Wilson. The court found it unnecessary to consider whether the substance of section 7 implies a right to abortion, but instead made its decision on procedural grounds.

So, the court definitely ruled that there is a basic right to abortion in Canada, but it 'found it unnecessary' to state whether the Charter implied a fundamental right.

The second paragraph doesn't follow from the first one at all.

Good, mainly because I don't think "Canada Summer Jobs" money should not go to churches.

My understanding is it is not just churches affected but every employer has to more or less sign off saying they support the right to abortion.  Otherwise any employer in any position who opposes abortion personally even if completely unrelated to the job could have it cut off.  I think groups that have opposing abortion as their main mission absolutely should have summer grant jobs cut off, but I don't think you have to ask each employer what they personally think, that is going a bit overboard.

Why though? If other political advocacy groups can get  them, why not pro-life ones?

That is simply not true, the procedural reasoning to strike down the law on abortion was informed by Section 7.  

In the 1980s, Morgentaler was prosecuted again for providing abortions. In 1988, his case R. v Morgentaler went to the Supreme Court, which evaluated his actions this time in relation to the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court found that the Criminal Code provision on abortion violated a woman's right to "life, liberty and security of the person" guaranteed under Section 7 of the Charter.

Wrote Chief Justice Brian Dickson: "Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/abortion/

Since then, there have also been court rulings striking down provincial rules against private abortion clinics.

So, it's bullsh**t to say there is no basic right to an abortion in Canada.

Again such strong words from someone who pays so little attention to nuance.

As I noted above, the wiki article for R v Mortgentaler notes that the decision was not binding precedent. Furthermore even the Canadian Encyclopedia article you cited notes there is no inherent right to an abortion.

I'm less familiar with ether provincial cases. Could you point me to their reasoning and where they imply there is a right to an abortion?

Nope, you are wrong.  

From the wiki article it states 'there is no binding precedent' because the reasons for the majority opinions differed with 3 different opinions being written.  So, essentially, the lack of binding precedent says nothing about whether there is a basic right to an abortion and is a meaningless point.

In regards to the opinions, Dickson joined by Lamar's opinion was informed by Section 7 even if he did not base his ruling on section 7.  That is, that if Dickson had felt that the only problem with the abortion law was procedural, he could have struck down only those administrative sections, instead he struck down the entire law.  It is clear that the reason for that is that he and Lamar felt that a basic right to an abortion does exist (I write 'basic' in this case, because the courts would likely uphold any law that placed greater restrictions on abortion the later into the pregnancy, which is essentially the ruling of Roe V. Wade.)

Wilson based her rulings on Section 251, 7 and 2.


Of course, that likely means that since that 4 of the justices (2 justices did not take part in the hearing) ruled on narrower grounds, that, at that time, there was no 'inherent' right to an abortion.


However, since then there have been several additional rulings that have touched on abortion rights, and all of them have been in favor:

1.1991: The Supreme Court rules in the Sullivan/Lemay case that two midwives were not negligent in the death of a fetus, because it is not a person with legal rights until born alive.

2.1999: The Supreme Court rules in Dobson v. Dobson that children cannot sue their mother for injuries suffered in the womb while pregnant.

3.The two rulings in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that struck down laws against abortion clinics in those provinces.  I actually can't find any information on those rulings at this time, however:

Prince Edward Island expects to be providing abortions by the end of the year, as the country's last holdout gave up its opposition in the face of a legal challenge from a women's advocacy group. The last elective abortion on the island was in 1982.

Liberal Premier Wade MacLauchlan, who also serves as Justice Minister, said the government is announcing its historic about-face on abortion now because a 90-day period to respond to a notice of a legal challenge ends Monday.

"I think the character of all places changes and evolves," he told The Globe and Mail on Thursday. "It's one of those things that comes at its time."

Mr. MacLauchlan, a former law dean at the University of New Brunswick who grew up in PEI, cited women's right to equality in health care as a key reason for the change – accepting that the challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, begun in January by Abortion Access Now PEI Inc., was correct in law.

"I believe it's true that government has the right to decide what health-care services are available under the Canada Health Act. That wasn't the basis on which we formed the view that a change was in order. Rather, it was that we are currently funding the service in Moncton and Halifax. The question becomes whether on equality grounds, it could be justified not to provide the service in the province."
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/pei-to-allow-abortions/article29474278/

Also, what has been written by some in the National Post, and I believe by you, that only rights explicitly stated in the charter exist, was also shot down by the R v Morgentaler:

"A dissent was written by McIntyre J, with La Forest J concurring. McIntyre found that there was no right to an abortion under section 7 nor under other laws. His argument was based on the role of judicial review and how the courts must not go about creating rights not explicitly found in the Charter nor interpret Charter rights to protect interests that the rights were not initially intending to protect. He said that nowhere in any constitutional texts, history or philosophies is there support for any such rights. Furthermore, there is no societal consensus that these interests should be protected either."

Only 2 of the 7 judges agreed with that.

[136or142]

And again, while I believe it's more than clear that there is a right to an abortion in Canada, even if it's not 'inherently' an absolute right, I oppose this heavy handed regulation.

Even on first blush, NDP M.P Nathan Cullen opposed it:

OTTAWA — New Democrat MP Nathan Cullen has apologized for criticizing the Trudeau government's decision to force groups applying for summer-job grants to affirm their respect for a woman's right to have an abortion.

The apology came hours after Cullen criticized the way the Liberals added the new requirement to the Canada Summer Jobs program, which helps employers subsidize the cost of hiring students for summer work.

The requirement stipulates that an applicant must affirm that both the job description and the group's core mandate respect human rights, including reproductive rights.

Cullen initially called the new requirement "offensive" during a news conference on Wednesday, and compared it to the Harper government's decision to cut funding for foreign aid groups that supported abortion.

But he took to Twitter a few hours later to say he was sorry "for the harm from my comments," and asserted that he and the federal NDP are "fiercely pro-choice."

"I reacted to concerns raised by groups in my riding on the government's first statement on the policy," Cullen wrote.

A subsequent clarification earlier this week from the department responsible for the program "put those fears to rest," he added.

Since the clarification changed nothing, obviously Cullen was just looking for a way to get back onside. 

[136or142]

Kent Hehr has been accused on Twitter of creeping female staffers in elevators while an MLA.

Kent Hehr is finally out of cabinet.  I've thought there was something off about that guy for about a year now.

I think the three most obvious to replace him in cabinet are:
1.Randy Boissonnault, the other Liberal M.P from Alberta (but from Edmonton.) Boissonnault is presently the Parliamentary Secretary (or something like that) to the Prime Minister with responsibilities for LBGTQ issues. So, he is sort of already a junior minister.

2.Dan Vandal as Manitoba has been down a representative in Cabinet since Mary Ann Mihychuk was dropped.  Dan Vandal is also a former professional boxer who has a degree in social work.

3.Stephen Fuhr, the Liberal M.P from Kelowna.  Kelowna is probably geographically closest to Calgary of all non cabinet ministers (except for Boissonnault.)  Fuhr is presently the Chair of the Defense Committee.  

However I don't know that I see much of a fit for Fuhr to become Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities. As I've written before, I'd like to see a wider shuffle with Finance Minister Morneau also dropped (hopefully after the next budget) and Vandal, Fuhr and Celina Caesar Chavennes or Kim Rudd all added in.

[136or142]

Here are some more numbers:

BC
NDP: 39
Liberals: 34
Greens: 28 (another big number for the Greens)

With PR coming it, it's a shame they didn't ask about the Conservatives...

Manitoba
PC: 40
NDP: 37(fairly good result at this stage!)
Liberals: 13
Greens: 10

Saskatchewan
Sask Party: 51
NDP: 34
Liberals: 9
Greens: 6

Not such good numbers there

Alberta
UCP: 56
NDP: 27
Alta Party: 7
Liberals: 7
Greens: 3

Newfoundland
Liberals: 44
PCs: 41
NDP: 15

Quebec
CAQ: 32
PLQ: 31
PQ: 18
QS: 15

Did the Green Party pay for most of these polls?

[Hatman 🍁]

Well, the Greens do tend to over-poll with IVR

[mileslunn]

Well, the Greens do tend to over-poll with IVR

I've found they tend to overpoll whenever prompted and only when unprompted do they go down.  Also they tend to poll higher in between elections than what they get on election day suggesting many who don't like any of the options park their vote there, but when it comes time to vote they swing behind one of the main parties.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

Jamie Baillie has resigned due to sexual harassment allegations

Baillie is the luckiest politician in quite sometime because on the same day...

Patrick Brown has resigned due to even worse sexual misconduct allegations.

Also, I would like to point out that I called Brown's scandal months ago. I will now accept my accolades.

Whoa, that is some stunning accusations against Patrick Brown, he was my local MP for 10+ years and having a home town boy in Queens Park would have been sort of cool, despite him being Conservative. He certainly smashed the Conservative stereotype of grumpy old men running the party. I added him on Facebook as well like 10 years ago, and there was lots of pictures of him at local bars, I was wondering WTF was he doing at all those bars if he did not drink. Maybe he went so he could creep on young drunk women?

[mileslunn]

I've heard rumours there is a much bigger explosive sex scandal lurking that will hit someone a lot higher up and bigger than Patrick Brown.  Not sure if there is any truth in these rumours, but it would not surprise me if by year's end someone even higher up the food chain gets taken down.

[RogueBeaver]

Kinsella all but named the man. In her latest, Hebert says there's a lot more #MeToo inbound for all 3 parties.

[mileslunn]

Kinsella all but named the man. In her latest, Hebert says there's a lot more #MeToo inbound for all 3 parties.

Wonder when this will blow up.  I suspect a whole bunch of politicians will get swept out of office on the #metoo.  Could even impact not just Ontario election, but also Quebec and New Brunswick if any leader is involved (not suggesting any are, just saying in terms of implications).  Likewise in BC, if two or more NDP/Greens get named the government could potentially fall (not suggesting this will happen just saying a possible implication). 

[2952-0-0]

If what they claim is true, then when was the last time the entire political establishment of a country was decapitated on such a scale?

[mileslunn]

If what they claim is true, then when was the last time the entire political establishment of a country was decapitated on such a scale?

The only one I can think of is Saskatchewan in the early 90s when several cabinet ministers of the Grant Devine government went to prison.