The delay of M-312: What does it mean?

In my ongoing series on what to expect while we’re expecting Motion 312, here is some more information, specifically about the delay in the second hour of debate and the vote. 

You will recall that the second hour of debate had been scheduled for June 7 with a vote for June 13. All indicators were that this motion was an embarrassment to the government and Mr. Woodworth’s attempt to re-open the abortion debate would fail miserably. In fact, a June 6, 2012 article in the Globe and Mail reported that a vote in favour of the motion would be considered a vote against the Prime Minister and Tory MPs were being urged to quash it.

That article had likely already gone to print on the night of June 5 when word came out very late that night that the vote was going to be delayed. The word was Mr. Woodworth was having a family medical emergency. In an email to supporters he explained that his mother was ill and added, “The new arrangement has personal benefit for me.”

The “personal benefit” he receives from the delay is that he gets the summer to lobby. According to Miriam Rycroft, Policy and Stakeholder Relations Officer with the NDP, Mr. Woodworth’s office is trying to book meetings with some of the male MP’s about M-312. The request for meetings states that he wants “to better educate his colleagues on the real issues within the bill.” He goes on to say that, “some issues have been distorted by the media and are not well understood.”

I think Canadians understand what’s going on with your motion just fine, Mr. Woodworth. Do I have to excerpt Gordon O’Connor’s speech against the motion in the House again?

Woodworth may be hoping to gain momentum from anti-choice activities happening over the summer. The fetus-mobile blood and guts road show isn’t winning any friends from what we can see, so I think this effort will fail.

The note that he is specifically approaching male MPs is telling. Apparently, as with his GOP brethren to the south, Mr. Woodworth thinks men are better able to think straight about women’s bodies.

But having said all that, the process undertaken to delay the motion seems a bit convoluted and needs a second look. Normal protocol would be that the House Leader’s office would deal with scheduling private member’s business. But this is not how it worked in this case. Mr. Woodworth swapped his motion with a Liberal to get the timing changed, which seems to indicate his request to delay the motion was turned down by the House Leader’s office already.

I have always found it mystifying that in spite of the Prime Minister’s insistence that he wants this issue buried, it lives on. I have wondered before on this blog if this means Mr. Harper slipping a bit in his control-fest. Did Woodworth do an end run around him by going to the Liberals for the switch? Possibly. But it is also entirely possible that the Conservatives are putting on another show and doing an end run around us, using another private member’s bill to appease their base on an issue that is not supported by the majority of Canadians. With the delay, they make the Christian right wing anti-choice base of the party happy, while at the same time being able to deny responsibility for the delay and the continued presence of this issue in the public. Good Game. Looked at from their side, this delay has a bright side both for the MP and the PM. But looked at from the pro-choice side and the side of the vast majority of Canadians who are pro-choice, every day this motion hangs around is another day for us to remind ourselves that this government is perfectly willing to put women's rights up for debate, to play politics with our health and our security, and raise the spectre of recriminalization.

The important thing to know is that the anti's haven’t given up on this. For the pro-choice side, this means we can’t get complacent. Continue to email your MPs and get petitions signed, knit wombs, and plan your actions. It’s not over.

Meanwhile, I'm still reeling from the Omnibus Budget Bill. Talk about shenanigans. I wouldn't put anything past this government. If you aren't already, follow ShitHarperDid on Facebook and search the hashtags #denounceharper and #blackoutspeakout on Twitter for more about the C-38, F-35s and other letter number combinations that will get your head spinning and make you wonder what kind of tin-pot dictatorship Canada is becoming thanks to Mr. Harper. 

Democracy is as Dead as Monty Python's Parrot

Today, I wish to register a complaint. Democracy is dead. I know a dead democracy when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now. It's not stunned. It's not pining for the Fjords, it's not just tired and shagged out after a long squawk. It's dead. It has been nailed to it's perch since Harper got away with proroguing Parliament. Twice. But now there is no denying it really is dead, like the Norwegian Blue Parrot of Monty Python fame. It has ceased to be. Gone to meet its maker. Joined the choir invisible. 

Apparently, in Harper's world, democracy takes too long. He warned us we wouldn't recognize Canada when he was finished with it, and he was right.  As the Hamilton Spectator said, he treats Parliament as an inconvenience. It is more efficient to attach 400 pages to a five page budget bill that don't have anything to do with a budget because everything can be done at once. Amend or kill 70 Acts. End Fair Wages. End environmental assessment. Let the minister approve Gateway without it. Or with it. Why bother even doing an environmental assessment since the Minister now has the power to approve projects like Gateway no matter what the studies say?

The smarmy Andrew Scheer couldn't push back. As Speaker, he agreed to limit the time for votes on amendments and group the amendments. And Canadians could not find 13 brave CON MPs to stand for Canada and stand against this sham. Afraid to be made an example of like the hapless David Wilks, they towed the line for Steve, but not for us. They pulled a fast one on us. They got C-38 over with quick before Canadians woke up and smelled the stench of democracy rotting.

I've been concerned about what is happening to dissent and democracy in Canada for years. Recently, we've seen the Harper government muzzle scientists who want to talk about climate change. Even when they had a minority government, their efforts to control the message were clear. They have made the collection of data needed to write and refine public policy difficult by ending the long form census. Munir Sheikh, former head of Statistics Canada, resigned his post over Harper's decision to do this. He would have had to put up or shut up, and he couldn't do either. To me, he is a hero. Another high profile dissenter against the Harper agenda was Linda Keen. Remember her? She was dismissed as head honcho at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. when she refused to authorize the restarting of the aging Chalk River reactor because of safety concerns. The Harper government both kills the message and the messenger.  

Yesterday, while the Ominousbus Bill was being considered, news broke that Parks Canada employees had been sent emails warning them not to criticize the government. C-38 included massive cuts to Parks Canada, including cuts to ecological researchers and cultural and historical experts. One Parks employee had referred to the cuts as a lobotomy of the Parks system. I wonder if the fellow who said this still has a job. It has been made clear that criticism of the government would be considered disloyal to the government. Disloyal. Words like that scare the heck out of me. This is a word used in dictatorship. In a Democracy, we would call criticism free speech, or maybe even just "criticism."

Maybe next we'll have American style attempts to ban climate change action and limit information about the negative impacts of climate change offered to us on the already cow-towing CBC. I've been shocked by the lack of critical coverage of C-38 from CBC. With their knees knocked out from under them by Harper's funding cuts, I guess they've learned the lesson. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

But the thing is, it isn't Harper's hand who feeds them. My hands feed them, and yours. And I want CBC fed. I want the scientists fed and I want their dinner conversation too. I want reports from the parks from ecological researchers that can help me understand my world, not faded, dumbed down interpretive sign posts. I want real experts willing to share detailed knowledge. I want to know. But in C-38, any chance I have of knowing what's going on and influencing what's going on gets hit again. We might as well just turn the whole kit and kaboodle over the the Koch brothers now. That would really save time.

A local progressive paper, FFWD, has just completed a survey naming Stephen Harper as Calgary's best villain and most embarrassing citizen. The same survey ranked him third in the "claim to shame" category, but that was done before C-38. I'm sure he'd make the top of the list now.

Democracy, like the Norwegian blue parrot, has ceased to be. It is nailed to its perch, and the salesman, Harper, pretends it is alive. But we know a dead parrot when we see one.

Is M-312 nothing but a Distraction from the Omnibus Budget Bill?

Sometimes it's hard to tell if Art is imitating Life or Life is imitating Art.

Canadian Playwright Michael Healey wrote a satirical play called "Proud" which is about a fictional Prime Minister who bears a remarkable resemblance to Stephen Harper. The Globe and Mail published an excerpt of "Proud" in which the PM asks a backbencher to put forward a pro-life bill to distract Canadians from his real agenda. Oh dear. As soon as I read it, I felt the truth of it. That's the great thing about fiction, how it can sometimes get at truth that, ironically, non-fiction can't reach. 

Meanwhile, in real life, here we are waiting for the second hour of debate on an anti-choice motion being floated by a backbencher, Motion M-312, while Stephen Harper pushes through Bill C-38, a bill that changes so much in Canada it boggles the mind. This bill has everything but the kitchen sink in it. Besides a budget which apparently is buried in it somewhere, here is a partial list of what
Bill C-38 includes: 

• massive changes to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. According to Davis LLP, this is "one of the most fundamental shifts in Canada’s regulatory and environmental policy in its history." This is the part of the bill that seems to have attracted the most attention. A close reading of this bill indicates the Harper government really has a hate on for anything "environmental."
• amendments to 60 different acts, including changes that weaken and undermine the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act,  the Energy Board Act, the Species at Risk Act, and the Nuclear Safety Control Act (the latter two described in earlier links)
• cuts to water programs and the monitoring of effluent. See the Green Party for more on this.
• the end of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy
• severe cuts to ecological oversight and research at Parks Canada and many cultural and heritage programs. As one Parks employee put it in an article by Anne McIlroy, this is a "lobotomy" of the parks system.
• the end of the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy
• the end of several acts including the Fair Wages and Hours of Work Act
• cuts to workers' eligibility for Employment Insurance. If this passes, if a worker on EI won't take a job, any job, that the Minister of Human Resources deems suitable for them, they will no longer receive benefits. In the past, workers have been able to look for work in their field and work at a comparable salary to what they had. Laid off from a high tech firm as a software developer? Get used to the phrase, "Would you like fries with that?"
• the removal of independent oversight from 12 key government agencies—including the Northern Pipeline Agency, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canada Revenue Agency
• changes that give final say over pipeline project approvals to Conservative cabinet ministers regardless of environmental impacts
• changes that exclude concerned citizens from assessments of major projects like the Enbridge pipeline
• the end of access to primary health care for refugee claimants
• the implementation of controversial changes to pension eligibility, meaning Canadians will not retire until age 67
• implementation of yet another round of cuts into the CBC, this after the CBC has already undergone one round of cuts, and ironically, at a time when the organization seems to be doing quite well with the public according to former president, Richard Stursberg
• the end of audits of internal government departments while $8M is added to audit capacity to harass charities suspected of political advocacy
• changes the regulations in agriculture, including how downer cows are assessed and whether they can be put back into the food system. In the past dead cows were excluded from the food chain. Now, apparently, someone will glance at them and decide it they are fit to eat, throw them in the back of a truck and add them to the live cows that go into the slaughterhouses. The bill paves the way for private contractors to perform food safety inspections. This change particularly grossed me out. I might become a vegetarian after all.

As Andrew Coyne recently wrote in the National Post, "Omnibus bills are not unknown.... But lately the practice has been to throw together all manner of bills involving wholly different responsibilities of government in one all-purpose “budget implementation” bill, and force MPs to vote up or down on the lot. While the 2012 budget implementation bill is hardly the first in this tradition, the scale and scope is on a level not previously seen, or tolerated." He goes on to say, "There is no common thread that runs between [items in the bill], no overarching principle; they represent not a single act of policy, but a sort of compulsory buffet."

There has been critique, of course. Elizabeth May calls it "The Environmental Destruction Act." Many are noting how the bill is bad for democracy because it rolls so much into one bill, limits the time for debate, obfuscates the individual issues by slipping them into a bill too long to really comprehend, that it guts environmental protection and so on. The NDP tried to get the bill split up so some of these radical changes could be considered individually, but the CONs have a majority, so this will not happen.

But Canadians are all sleeping through this.

In a recent column, Richard Poplak writes that with Omnibus Bill C-38, we are at the cusp of a moment in history. Canadians have to decide if they will protest this bill, a bill that is sure to pass with a majority CON government. As Poplak says, "Good policies? Bad policies? Doesn't matter. Properly, each of those items should be sent to committees and considered individually. That's how our system is designed to work. What the Conservatives have engineered isn't illegal, merely rotten - another in a long line of tricks defiling the democratic process." Proroguing Parliament comes to mind. While I personally agree with ending the production of the penny (another item in this bill), even this should see some debate. That's what Parliament is for. But in Harper's government, a government allergic to transparency according to Poplak, our Parliamentary tradition of debating key public issues is dead.

Meanwhile, what is being debated? Motion 312. A distraction, for sure. And we are protesting it with all of our strength and capacity. And protest it we must, because if I don't have control of my body, little else matters. But, if the CONs really wanted a personhood bill, they would have thrown it in with C-38. Just sayin'. That is why I am convinced that M-312 is exactly what Healey describes in "Proud," an attempt to distract us from the real agenda.

So much to protest, so little time.

And here's another meanwhile. Meanwhile, in Quebec, the students protest tuition increases. As Poplak notes, this is one of the biggest protests we've ever seen in Canada, in a province with a history of protest. Now going far beyond the original issue, the protest has become a more broad scale renunciation of the Charest's government attempts to infringe on personal freedoms and the right to express dissent. Quebec students are showing us the way.

We need to Occupy this.


Go petitions has a sad little petition with about a hundred signatures on it right now. Avaaz has one that is attempting to reach 500. Sad. Change.org has one that hasn't met 200 names yet. Honestly, what is wrong with us?   Here's a link to the Green Party's petition, one that you print, sign and send in. Maybe they are doing better. And anyway, hard copy petitions mean more in Parliament, so Go Green. But for heaven's sake, protest this bill. If you have time to protest M-312, take an extra minute to do something about Bill C-38. Please. It matters.

Now, to finish the story of Healey and "Proud." When Tarragon theatre in Toronto, a theatre to which Healey had been playwright-in-residence for eleven years, refused to produce the play on the grounds that it may be libellous and defamatory to the real Prime Minister, Healey resigned from Tarragon. As a recent article in the Globe and Mail described the situation, "A playwright writes a play about a famously controlling prime minister with a reputation for punishing people who cross him, only to have the play refused by producers who fear being punished by the famously controlling prime minister."

I hope  Michael Healey finds the cash to produce "Proud." May I be so bold to suggest that like me, when you can't find a producer, DIY. Sometimes, it's the only way to get your work out there. I think this is a play Canadians need to see and I hope I get the opportunity to see it.

While Healey works on that, the rest of us can put together some DIY activism. Get busy.

My Canada includes Women's Rights

Today I am grateful for all of the Canadian women and men who have stood up for women's rights and affirmed my right to bodily autonomy, security of the person, affirmed my right to express my own conscience and control my own destiny. Thank you to all who spoke in the House of Commons against Woodworth's regressive motion. Thank you to Niki Ashton who connected her words so eloquently to the work of her feminist fore-mothers. Thank you to Hedy Fry who managed to demonstrate the absurdity of the motion while assassinating the government's record. Thank you to Francoise Boivin for your passion. Thank you to Gordon O'Connor, Conservative Whip, who clearly stated all the failings of the motion and affirmed that Canadians do not want to go back in time. Thank you to all of you who were so eloquent and passionate.

I have always been against debating abortion. Human rights are not up for debate. But here we were, fighting the most regressive and misogynist forces in our country, debating. Although part of me wanted to block out the spectacle and wished MPs would stand in the House, refuse to speak and even turn their backs, I have to admit I watched intently and was moved by what was said. A few times, I was moved to tears. To hear my values stated in our House of Commons was powerful for me. As my American ally Charlotte Taft reminded me, we have to engage when our rights are threatened. But I'm glad I didn't waste a lot of energy "debating" the antis over the years, whose minds will never change, and had the energy to get fully involved when it counted. I've also always said, as activists, we have to be smart about where to put our energy.

This does not mean I am grateful the debate happened or that I am in any way pleased that Mr. Harper allowed it to go forward. There is no reason to put women or any group of people in a position in which they feel threatened and unsafe, in which they feel their rights may be taken away. Women my age and older often complain that young women take their rights for granted. Why shouldn't they? Why shouldn't all of us? To a very large extent, we should be secure in our rights, secure in this country, secure that our government isn't plotting against us. I fault Mr. Harper for putting so many Canadians in a position where they are insecure and feeling unsafe. And it is not just women. Dissenting groups beyond Status of Women Canada feel the chill, especially environmental groups. I will continue to fight for a Canada in which progressives are heard and our agenda is mainstream.

This Motion 312 business isn't over. There will be another hour of debate, and I won't be relieved until this next incursion on our rights is voted down. But I am grateful, grateful to our MPs who spoke on our behalf and grateful to all of our allies.

Happening on the heels of the defeat of the Wildrose in Alberta, I feel doubly happy. My Canada is a Canada in which I am respected and in which I feel safe and my daughter is safe. I am grateful. I belong here.

What to Expect While You're Expecting Motion 312

Lots of people have asked me what this “Motion 312” business is about, and I realize I tend to write this blog as though everyone already knows. So here is my Motion 312 Adviser, also known as “What to Expect While You’re Expecting Motion 312.”

Background: The Big Picture - What is Motion 312?

The motion is a question raised by MP StephenWoodworth, a real piece of anti-choice work. In his motion, he asks Parliament to strike a committee to study whether or not the fetus (or in his words, “the child”) is human. His intentions with this motion are clear to all of us; he wants the fetus declared a person so that abortions will be criminalized along with any women having them. For a full discussion of all the arguments against this motion, please look at the wonderful Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) site here. To put it in a nutshell, there is one argument that moves me the most. When fetuses are persons, women are not. Two persons cannot exist in one body and both have rights. This means that if the fetus is given personhood, the woman who carries it loses personhood. Not to put too fine a point on it, the woman will be considered only in terms of her capacity as incubator.

In Canada, we may be fortunate to have the word "persons" so strongly associated with women's rights, something that is not shared by our American sisters. The Famous Five famously ensured that women in Canada were considered persons under the law, and that changed everything for us. As persons, we are entitled to everything a man is entitled to, including security of the person. Most women understand we cannot give that away.

I did an interview for a local Calgary paper about Motion 312. You can hear the audio here, if you are interested. Stephanie Grey and Wendy Lowe, also interviewed, are both anti-choicers. Listen if you feel like getting angry. (caution: trigger warning) Bruce Foster is the final interviewee. If the writer of the piece asked Bruce Foster on to balance out the perspective, it might have been nice if Foster had been a little more clear on whether he thought women had rights. Apparently, his role was to give a political perspective. But I do appreciate his point that this will go where most private members' bills go, which is nowhere, and that it will die on the order paper.

The specifics:

To understand Motion M-312and the discussion that follows, it’s probably a good idea to read it first, so here it is in full.

"That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

"that the membership of the special committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

"that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);

"that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and

"that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

" (i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth?,

" (ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth?,

" (iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth?,

" (iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1)?

For the record, Standing Order 114(2) is about substitution of committee members.

What is the Process?

On April 26, the House will have its first hour of debate on this motion. The first speaker will have 20 minutes with 10 minutes for questions and answers. The government gets the most time here, so there won’t be much time for opposing MPs to speak. So far, I understand that Francoise Boivin, Jean Crowder and Ruth-Ellen Brosseau plan to speak against motion. There may not be time for any others. We cannot, as citizens opposed to this motion, think that many opposition party members and pro-choice members will be given time to say their peace on this issue. Debate is severely limited. However, opposition party members can have 60 seconds to say something in the 15 minutes before question period every day. They could get up every day to present paper petitions, could read off names of individuals who signed the online petition, or just mention the online petition and say that it is growing every day. If you have an opposition member as your MP, it would be a good idea to ask them to raise this issue on your behalf in this short time they have available to them.

The second hour of debate will be scheduled for some time in June or perhaps September. The thinking is that if Stephen Harper is truly embarrassed by this motion, it will be pushed back. My own thought is that the outcome of the Alberta election makes a difference here. Now that the Wildrose Party (a party closely aligned with old Reformers and present day federal Conservatives) has been soundly defeated, Harper has to realize there is still massive opposition to a regressive social agenda, even in Alberta. He has to see that this motion will still alienate the vast majority of Canadians. I think that if Wildrose had won, Harper would have been more inclined to let the M-312 play out and try to appease his base. But as Bruce Foster notes in the audio interview mentioned above, Harper also knows abortion is the third rail of politics. Better to leave it alone.

After the second hour of debate, there will be a vote, and the House will decide if this “Women Can’t Be Trusted Motion” will pass, and a committee will be struck to investigate when “a child” as the motion puts it, becomes a “human being.”

Then What?

At this point, if it gets this far, it is important to take note of the membership of the committee as outlined in the motion. Membership of the committee must be established within twenty days of the committee being struck. Looking back at the text of the motion, we can see how membership will be weighted towards anti-choice Conservatives. The Vice-Chair must be from opposition, but there are anti-choice opposition members. This will be something to watch for. If an anti-choice opposition member is chosen, there is really not much hope. (addendum: April 25. The NDP caucus is unanimously opposed to M 312)  The Chair (a Conservative) will not vote unless there is a tie, but again we can assume the chair will be anti-choice. It is quite reasonable to challenge the validity of this committee because of the bias inherent in its membership.

How will we know what the committee is doing?

In the past, committee proceedings were often public, and sometimes even broadcast on CPAC, and committee proceedings get put on the web. However, these days, increasingly, committees meet “in-camera,” which is interesting considering the Conservatives claim to be all about transparency.

Further, it is highly likely that people who speak to the committee will only be allowed to speak on the motion itself. The motion is carefully worded to exclude any mention of the woman carrying the fetus. For example, the questions ask the legal impact on “the child” and its human rights, but not on the woman and hers. Also, it asks only about medical evidence. There is no debate about whether medically, the fetus is human. It has human DNA. Case closed. The real question in terms of abortion is if the fetus is a person in legal terms. These are two significantly different issues, and Motion 312 only deals with the first. In other words, the Committee can deny witnesses who wish to speak about the legal issues, because it’s not part of the motion. Witnesses may only be permitted to speak to what medically identifies the fetus as human.

Also, we have no way of knowing who will be called to speak at the committee and give evidence. Again, this evidence will likely be limited to the motion itself, and witnesses who wish to speak about the woman carrying the pregnancy or the legal aspects of personhood may be excluded. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely the committee will find anything they don’t want to find.

Pro-Choice advocates will definitely not speak to the motion if they don’t ask to speak, so it is important that we do ask to submit briefs anyway, even if we expect our requests to be denied. The process for doing so is outlined here. Although I would like to agree with my optimistic fellow blogger at “Fat and Not Afraid” that pro-choice voices will be heard, I am less optimistic. I think this committee, if it is struck, is not going to be transparent and won’t hear the excellent arguments put forward against the motion by allies like ARCC.

To understand what happens to Motion 312 after the committee finishes its "work" and presents its findings, it is probably most instructive to look at the anti-choice’s perspective outlined on this website. (caution: another trigger warning.) If you don't want to go there, which I totally understand, ARCC summarizes their plan in this way. The anti-choice will "bring forward the biology of fetal development as 'scientific evidence' that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are human beings from conception and deserve legal protection. However, this would subordinate women to their fetuses and eliminate many rights and legal protections for pregnant women."

I hope this brings some clarity to the process and explains the myriad reasons for concern. Again, there is plenty of action in the coming days against this motion. Get involved however you can, and don't worry that you have blown it if you don't have something ready for the 26th. All of our actions must continue throughout this process, and certainly to the second hour of debate.

-----
The Abortion Monologues is available as an ebook on Smashwords and through Kindle, Kobo, iBooks or any of your other favourite formats. There are a very few paper copies left for sale, which can be purchased by going back to the website. This will be the last print run.