Narrow That Message, Bev

The "Eye of the Needle Award" goes to Bev Oda. Yesterday in the House, Minister Oda said this about the U.S. policy toward aid and abortion:

Mr. Speaker, this government wants to ensure that the G8 initiative is actually going to get results.

What I want to ensure is that that side of the House has done its homework. If members go to the U.S.A. website, they will find that the U.S.A. does not support the funding of equipment, the training of people who perform abortions, and neither does it support research into abortion.

They should do their homework. We know the facts and we know how to really make a difference in the lives of mothers and children.

I noticed how narrowly and carefully the Minister framed her response. That always gets my bullshit detector flashing red. I went to the website as she suggested and found this page which outlines the U.S. policy on abortions overseas. I draw your attention specifically to the rescinding of the Mexico City Policy. The U.S. government allows USAID to fund organizations that carry out abortions, as long as the funding for abortions comes from non-U.S. government sources. So, unlike in Canada where it appears our government is cutting off any agency that provides abortions for any reason, regardless of the source of funding, the U.S. is going a different route. Canada is going the Mexico City Policy route which, like all things Republican, is more in line with the thinking of the Conservative Party's base.

I am sure Ms. Oda wasn't trying to suggest that Canada was onside with the Obama administration's general aid aims on maternal health. I am sure she was just trying to give the PMO's crack Propaganda-Abteilung research team a shout out.

Recommend this Post

Keep Kory Teneycke On CBC

With due deference to Charlie Angus, I think the CBC has done the nation a service by putting Kory Teneycke on Power and Politics. Watch his contribution to the "Power Panel" here. Anyone who can, as Kory does starting about the 43:00 minute mark, argue that the groups heretofore funded by the government are merely sops to the Liberal base and that Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth should not sit with the Conservative caucus, because she is not a conservative by his definition; should be encouraged to speak out daily. Kory Teneycke is the voice of the smirking frat boy wing of the Conservative Party and in my opinion, of Stephen Harper. If you want to know what the real Conservative vision for Canada is, you need to hear from people like Kory Teneycke.

Recommend this Post

Charm Offensive

Conservatives to the women of Canada: "Shut the fuck up', or else. I thought, as a country, we were past the point of threatening women with violence, even metaphorically .

Recommend this Post

Negotiating With The Harperites

A quote from Homer Simpson illustrates the problem. If you remember, on one of the Halloween episodes, Homer had the ill fortune to be granted some wishes, but each wish did not turn out to his liking. In fact, he kept getting screwed. So, in frustration and with his last wish, Homer says:

I wish for a turkey sandwich on rye bread with lettuce and mustard. And... and I don't want any zombie turkeys, I don't want to turn into a turkey myself, and I don't want any other weird surprises, you got it?

And so it appeared that Homer got his way, but upon tasting it, he found the turkey was dry! Homer was screwed again. That is what I imagine the opposition is up against during their negotiations with the Harperites. You just know that the opposition will come out with what they think is a agreement from the government to disclose the documents, only to discover that the Harperites have found a loophole allowing them to screw them again. With the Harperites, there are no "good faith negotiations", only battles of wits. I just hope the opposition has the sense to see that.

Recommend this Post

Seeking The Truth?

Dear Christie Blatchford and Tim Powers,

If you wanted to know whether or not Richard Colvin is a liar, all you needed to do is urge the government to release the unredacted documents. That neither of you did that tells me you are not interested in the truth, but only in smearing Colvin on behalf of the government. Thank you and have a pleasant Sunday.

Recommend this Post

Opposition Poison Pill

Amir Attaran offers an interesting way of forcing Harper's hand:

And what if the Harper government rejects both of these options? Simple: the opposition should bring a motion holding it in contempt of Parliament and Canada's Constitution. Since that could trigger an election, the opposition needs to design its contempt motion to benefit at the polls, while communicating the government's untrustworthiness and incompetence in the war itself.

In March 2008, Harper sought Parliament's conditional consent to extend the Afghanistan combat mission to 2011. Parliament gave consent, but only because Harper's motion contained a requirement that "the government must commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on ... detainees."

Now, with Harper breaking his own condition and hiding the detainee documents from Parliament, he is inviting Parliament to place the combat mission back on the table. Thus when the opposition introduces a motion finding the government in contempt, that should also recall Harper's March 2008 motion, and revoke Parliament's consent to the combat mission extending through 2011. Harper will howl, but he linked "greater transparency" to the combat mission's continuance in the first place.

Done this way, Harper will fear making the contempt motion a confidence matter, because if he precipitated an election, the Conservatives would be isolated as the only party backing an unpopular war. This they cannot afford: over half of Canadians polled oppose the war. And more will soon oppose it, once the summer fighting resumes, bloodier this year because of more aggressive American tactics in Kandahar.

Not that Harper cares about breaking his word. The man is a pathological word breaker, but it would be interesting to see how he would handle the idea that since he did not live up to his word on the mission in Afghanistan, the agreement is null and void.

Attaran also does a nice job of summing up a coherent opposition strategy:

In sum: negotiate, as the Speaker asked. Aim for compromise on a public inquiry or secret House session, but rule out lesser options, because the underlying issues -- Canada's Constitution, and mismanagement of the war -- are too serious. If negotiation fails, bring on the contempt motion, and tie it to Harper violating his own conditions for extending the combat mission. If that triggers an election, fine, then confront Harper on his record of risking Canadian soldiers' lives, under an appalling detainee policy he stubbornly defends.

Recommend this Post

The "Legal Obligations" Smokescreen

The Conservatives have no intention of complying with the Speaker's order. Coyne lays it all out for us here. Parliament has the constitution on its side. If one part of Parliament wants to see documents and they are not categorically excluded from seeing them in legislation they themselves passed (which they are not), then the government has no choice but to comply. This whole "legal obligations" nonsense is nothing more than a framing device for an upcoming election Harper will call if the opposition doesn't bend to his will. The bottom line, Harper is stretching the truth to beyond the breaking point and we would be better off as a country if he was retired and writing papers about flat tax schemes at the Fraser Institute.

Recommend this Post