Canada General Discussion: Trudeau II

[Njall]

The leadership election for the Alberta Party, which will conclude on February 27th, looks like it's shaping up to be a three-person race to succeed former leader Greg Clark. While candidates have until January 15th to enter the race, it seems unlikely at this point that anyone else will step forward. The currently-declared candidates are as follows (alphabetical by last name):

Rick Fraser: MLA for Calgary-South East since 2012. Fraser was elected as a Progressive Conservative MLA in both 2012 and 2017. He initially joined the UCP in July, but left the party to sit as an Independent in September while decrying the increasing polarization in Alberta politics. Prior to his election, he was a paramedic, and was for a time the President of the CUPE union local which represented a majority of Alberta paramedics. Concurrent with his leadership announcement, he also crossed the floor to the Alberta Party in the legislature, bringing the party caucus to 3 MLAs.

Kara Levis: Calgary-based lawyer for Transcanada Corporation and President of the National Womens' Liberal Commission (womens' engagement arms of the Federal Liberal party). Levis was also a founder of the non-profit Ask Her, which was active in the 2017 Calgary municipal election encouraging more women to put themselves forwards as candidates for City Council.

Stephen Mandel: best known as being the Mayor of Edmonton between 2004 and 2013, and a strong advocate for urban and social issues. He also served as Health Minister in Jim Prentice's brief PC government, and was MLA for Edmonton-Whitemud between November 2014 and May 2015. Prior to his entry into politics, he was President of the Mandel Group (a real estate company), and was and continues to be active with a number of community organizations in Edmonton. He was also, as of recent, appointed Chancellor of Concordia University in Edmonton.

[NewYorkExpress]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/01/12/sex-offenders-sentence-delayed-so-can-finish-college.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shouldn't there be laws covering this?

[Njall]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/01/12/sex-offenders-sentence-delayed-so-can-finish-college.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shouldn't there be laws covering this?

Covering which part of this? He was sentenced, so by definition there were laws covering this, though it's arguable that they weren't applied stringently enough. For the part of the University, as the article explains, they can't do anything regarding his student status because he was not a student at the time that this occurred.

[MaxQue]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/01/12/sex-offenders-sentence-delayed-so-can-finish-college.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shouldn't there be laws covering this?

Yes. The moment short jail terms are done can be ajusted to allow for work/studies.
The ultimate endgoal is than the person still stay in the society.

[136or142]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/01/12/sex-offenders-sentence-delayed-so-can-finish-college.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shouldn't there be laws covering this?

Covering which part of this? He was sentenced, so by definition there were laws covering this, though it's arguable that they weren't applied stringently enough. For the part of the University, as the article explains, they can't do anything regarding his student status because he was not a student at the time that this occurred.

I can't understand why the university can't act on the basis that he did not disclose any of this.  I think this is a fairly tough issue because there are legitimate competing interests, but I certainly think it's fair to argue that he should be required to serve time and take rehab courses while in jail before a university lets him back on their campus.

[Njall]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/01/12/sex-offenders-sentence-delayed-so-can-finish-college.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shouldn't there be laws covering this?

Covering which part of this? He was sentenced, so by definition there were laws covering this, though it's arguable that they weren't applied stringently enough. For the part of the University, as the article explains, they can't do anything regarding his student status because he was not a student at the time that this occurred.

I can't understand why the university can't act on the basis that he did not disclose any of this.  I think this is a fairly tough issue because there are legitimate competing interests, but I certainly think it's fair to argue that he should be required to serve time and take rehab courses while in jail before a university lets him back on their campus.

I'm not sure where in the process of applying to university this would have come up. That said, I agree that his sentence shouldn't have been moved, and that he should have served his sentence before coming back to attend classes.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

BC Supreme Court has ruled solitary confinement is unconstitutional

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/solitary-confinement-in-canadian-prisons-ruled-unconstitutional-1.4491526

[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.

[MaxQue]

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

[mileslunn]

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.

[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.

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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In terms of 'due process and equal protection' I think these groups could certainly argue they are being discriminated against in terms of having a broad question like that be asked to apply for a grant when the funding these groups want the grant for has nothing to do with abortion.

I think Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pretty much admitted this when he defended the government's new policy here with a ridiculous false binary along the lines of 'we either have legal abortions or we fund these groups.'

I don't normally watch At Issue, but I read on Twitter that Andrew Coyne was outraged that the Liberal government was trying to demonize anti abortion types.  I agree with him that that is the ultimate aim of the Liberal government here.  I disagree with the Liberals methods here, but I can sympathize with the idea of pro choice groups and feminists trying to make those who want to make abortion illegal again in Canada out to be pariahs.  For instance, Andrew Scheer played his usual simple minded politics on this, but I can just imagine how outraged he'd be if the Liberals gave a grant to an organization that as part of its mandate wanted to (re)legalize adults being able to have relationships with minors, even if the grant had nothing to do with that, specifically.  

I don't think that's all that minor either, although it's certainly something most people wouldn't publicly state or advocate for, after all, Roy Moore did get 49% of the vote in Alabama.

[136or142]

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

The churches do a lot of good work that probably can't be easily replaced.  I don't care much for 'but who will think of the children?' arguments, but in this case, they are the ones who would literally be hurt by this heavy handed policy.

[MaxQue]

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

The churches do a lot of good work that probably can't be easily replaced.  I don't care much for 'but who will think of the children?' arguments, but in this case, they are the ones who would literally be hurt by this heavy handed policy.

Bible Camps are mainly religious indoctrination. Give the money to towns to organise music or science summer camps.

[136or142]

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

The churches do a lot of good work that probably can't be easily replaced.  I don't care much for 'but who will think of the children?' arguments, but in this case, they are the ones who would literally be hurt by this heavy handed policy.

Bible Camps are mainly religious indoctrination. Give the money to towns to organise music or science summer camps.

Maybe I'm biased, but when I was a student I had friends who went to Bible Camp and they were decent people.  Religious groups may be anti-abortion but we don't have large numbers of Southern Baptists here in Canada.  Even most of the Baptists in Canada that I know (I live in an urban area, so maybe they're more moderate) aren't Southern Baptists.

As far as I can tell, to the degree that they're 'indoctrinated,' the lessons they learn are to be kind and to help others.

[DC Al Fine]

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

The churches do a lot of good work that probably can't be easily replaced.  I don't care much for 'but who will think of the children?' arguments, but in this case, they are the ones who would literally be hurt by this heavy handed policy.

Bible Camps are mainly religious indoctrination. Give the money to towns to organise music or science summer camps.

Adam and Miles I'm busy now but will address your points when I get a chance.

[RogueBeaver]

Leitch retiring.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

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.

Do pro-lifers even have any influence in Canadian politics?  Why would they even need to marginalize them?

[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.

Do pro-lifers even have any influence in Canadian politics?  Why would they even need to marginalize them?

I think that's a decent question, but I think that so many, I assume, sincere people, have falsely claimed in response to this story that 'there is no right to an abortion in Canada', shows that anti abortion activists do have a great deal of sympathy in Canada, even among people who are primarily pro choice.

Also, there were many parts of Canada until recently, especially the Atlantic provinces, where getting an abortion used to be difficult.

Finally, this isn't just about anti abortion, it's also about gay rights.  In the minority Liberal government just before the 2006 election, more than 30 social conservative Liberals voted against protections for the LGBTQ community.   And, of course, the sleazy Jason Kenney in Alberta is still playing whistle dog anti LGBTQ. 

[136or142]

Kind of a loaded question, but who are considered to be the rising stars (a brazen term, sure) in the Liberal Party at the moment? Asking for a Timeline.

A bit premature given that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is barely half way through his first term.  In terms of those who are considered to be the best performers in cabinet, nearly all of them have 'blotted their copybook' at least once, but from my vantage point as an interested observer (I'm no insider), I would look at:

1.Environment Minister Catherine McKenna.  Once the carbon tax (carbon pricing) goes into effect, I think we'll get a better sense of her capabilities.

2.Justice Minister Jody Wilson Raybould.  Obviously has had significant problems with the missing and murdered aboriginal women's inquiry to the degree that she's responsible for it, but seems to be a generally highly capable person.

3.Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott.  Moved recently from the Health Ministry where she was regarded as having performed well.  The Health ministry is sort of a 'sexy role' in that most Canadians I'm pretty sure think that it's one of the top responsible ministries, but the provinces are actually responsible for health services (other than to indigenous Canadians) and the main responsibilities of the ministry are just public health and some of the responsibilities that in the United States are part of the Food and Drug Administration.

4.International Trade Minister Francois Philip Champagne.  I know just a little while ago people were asking "what does he do?" since the Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland is still responsible for the U.S trade portfolio.

5.Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland.  I think she is the one undisputed 'star' of this government.

So, there is only one male in this group.  Partly this is because the ones who I'd say are the most capable male cabinet ministers: Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale are in their mid 60s.

Of those not in cabinet, the ones who seem to be getting the best notices on the back bench, from what I've heard, or were getting the best notices are Kim Rudd and Pamela Goldsmith Jones.
 

[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?

[DC Al Fine]

In other news, some of my Tory sources tell me that Cecil Clarke, former MLA for Cape Breton North and current mayor of Cape Breton is planning on running for the Nova Scotia Tory leadership, and is planning to declare in early February. That would bring the field to three.

Leitch retiring.

Good

[Hatman 🍁]

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.

[Jeppe]

I was actually talking about rising stars in Trudeau’s government and how most were women. People were complaining about Trudeau’s gender-equal cabinet, but I think maybe there should be more women than men, given how low-profile or scandal-prone the men seem to be (Bill Morneau, Kent Hehr, Harjit Sajjan, and Hunter Tootoo). On another note, Carla Qualtrough has been doing really well, it seems, well enough to have gotten a higher profile cabinet posting in the last shake-up.

[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.

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.

[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.