[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

So, let's assume she really is anti-abortion.  What can she do to stop abortions from happening, from her position as chair? 

Chair
Chairs of standing and special committees play a leadership role in planning and coordinating the committee's work and in conducting its investigations.

The Chair of a committee is responsible for recognizing members and witnesses who seek the floor to speak during a meeting and for ensuring that any rules established by the committee concerning the apportioning of speaking time be respected. Furthermore, the Chair is also responsible for maintaining order in the committee's proceedings. However, the Chair does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege; this can be done only by the House upon receiving a report from the committee pursuant to Standing Order 117.

As the presiding officer of the committee, the Chair does not move motions. Furthermore, the Chair does not vote, except in two situations: where there is an equality of votes, in which case the Chair has a casting vote; and when a committee is considering a private bill. (Note from Drakken: You mean like those private bills repeatedly submitted by Conservative MPs to control abortions?)

Committee reports are signed and usually presented to the House by the Chair, who must ensure that the text presented in the House is the one agreed to by the committee. During Question Period in the House, a committee Chair may respond to questions provided they deal with the proceedings or schedule of the committee and not with the substance of its work.

Standing Order 107 provides that the Chairs of standing committees (and House Joint Chairs of standing joint committees) form the Liaison Committee, which is responsible for the allocation of funds to standing committees.

Chairs of legislative committees have a role analogous to that of the Chair of Committees of the Whole. Unlike the Chairs of other committees, and, in conformity with the provisions of Standing Order 118(1), the Chair of a legislative committee is not considered a member of the committee for the purpose of quorum.

The Chair of a subcommittee has the same role as the Chair of the main committee. In practice, the Chair of the main committee serves as Chair of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure (the steering committee).

Yeah, no thanks. We'll pass Harder on this one.

However, the Chair does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege; this can be done only by the House upon receiving a report from the committee pursuant to Standing Order 117.
you conveniently forgot that part.  And again, she can not influence any kind budget related to healthcare. 

"Recognizing someone to speak" is simply telling them it's their turn to speak, to avoid cacophony.

(Note from Drakken: You mean like those private bills repeatedly submitted by Conservative MPs to control abortions?)

Please, describe to me the process by which a bill becomes a law.
It must have changed since I studied it, because it required a few septs:
1) First lecture.  The bill is proposed, MP vote on it, if yes, it is passed to #2.
2) Second lecture.  This is the committee part, when our friendly supposed anti-abortion MP would intervene.
3) Third lecture. House of Commons approve the bill as amended by the Committee.
4) Bill is sent to Senate, they study it, approve it as it is or send it back to House of Commons where steps 1-3 are repeated.
5) Once complete, the Governor general signs the bill, it becomes law.

But I must be wrong, because reading you it is as such:
1) Private bill is proposed.  An handful of MPs vote in favour.
2) The bill is sent to the relevant committees.
3) Evil chairmen/chairwomen skillfully navigate the rules of the committee, overstep their powers, censor opponents of the bill and manage to make it pass to 3rd lecture, even when they are not the majority party in the committee.
4) Bill is up for the 3rd reading, an handful of MPs from the opposition vote for it, it becomes a law, anyone opposed is arrested or killed, including the Supreme Court if they strike it down later.

Did I get this right?  It really seems to work that way.  Or there is some math rule where 8-3 against a bill means it pass to 3rd reading?  I must have missed that one too. Is it kinda like the Star Trek mirror universe where everything is the same, yet different, and this applies to math too?

[Drakken]

I do not know that, Trudeau did not ask her, nor any Liberal.  Did you ask her?  What did she answer?

Now is the time to say it. If she is so pro-abortion as you say, let her speak freely and undeniably, to both the House and her constituents, that she is in favor of women having the choice to abort their fetuses if they so decide, and that she should Chair the House Committee because she believes in women's choices.

But she won't. One, she is not pro-choice anyway, she wants to be registered as pro-life; and two, she would be politically dead in her riding and her party caucus. That she snivels slides around the issue here yet again works against her.

[HVC]

BB, would you be ok if the put someone who was anti-oil in the Alberta Minister of Energy or Associate minister within the Resource Development portfolio? The fact that you can't see this as a bad nomination (perhaps even purposefully provocative) is odd to me.

You should be ashamed for falling so easily into leftist propaganda. 

I'm more central, I've voted for harper in all elections except the last, and I have no idea what the liberal talking points for this women are. However, i'm pro-choice and I feel placing someone with, even if only publically perceived, her views is a stupid counter productive move. Screaming liberals are trying to shut down voices is going too far. you want to fight for anti-abortion stances, go for, run on that platform and win or lose on your merits, but placing her in the position is stupid at best.

[Drakken]

However, the Chair does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege; this can be done only by the House upon receiving a report from the committee pursuant to Standing Order 117.

you conveniently forgot that part.  And again, she can not influence any kind budget related to healthcare. 

"Recognizing someone to speak" is simply telling them it's their turn to speak, to avoid cacophony.

It's written right there, so it was not left out. Emphasises I put, however, are whichever I please to put.

3) Evil chairmen/chairwomen skillfully navigate the rules of the committee, overstep their powers, censor opponents of the bill and manage to make it pass to 3rd lecture, even when they are not the majority party in the committee.
4) Bill is up for the 3rd reading, an handful of MPs from the opposition vote for it, it becomes a law, anyone opposed is arrested or killed, including the Supreme Court if they strike it down later.

Did I get this right?  It really seems to work that way.  Or there is some math rule where 8-3 against a bill means it pass to 3rd reading?  I must have missed that one too. Is it kinda like the Star Trek mirror universe where everything is the same, yet different, and this applies to math too?

What's so daft to understand in the fact this government caucus - and a Liberal majority so candidly and avowedly pro-choice - simply do not want a pro-lifer to chair the Status of Women under their Legislature as a matter of principle? Powerless or not, she's still the frontwoman of a Committee which discusses and defend statutes she is personally against on moral grounds - and in a position she might use to embarrass the government. In fact, it is the very reason why she was put there - to embarrass the government in and of itself in the first place.

Liberals hold the majority, they vetoed, she's out. I won't cry over my bed and throw a temper tantrum over it, because it's consistent with their position: The Liberal government is rigidly in favor of maintaining statu-quo on free choice on abortion. But you and BB do, because it stopping you from putting an enabler of pro-life positions there as a political statement.

[Barrister]

What's so daft to understand in the fact this government caucus - and a Liberal majority so candidly and avowedly pro-choice - simply do not want a pro-lifer to chair the Status of Women under their Legislature. Powerless or not, she's still the frontwoman of a Committee which discusses and defend statutes she is personally against on moral grounds - and in a position she might use to embarrass the government. In fact, it is the very reason why she was put there - to embarrass the government in and of itself in the first place.

Then make the decision that the Status of Women Committee will be chaired by a member of the government.

If you're going to defer to the opposition to chair the committee, then defer to the opposition's choice.

[Drakken]

Then make the decision that the Status of Women Committee will be chaired by a member of the government.

If you're going to defer to the opposition to chair the committee, then defer to the opposition's choice.

In trust that the Opposition will play fair-game and place a Chairperson whose nomination that does not embarrass both government and Parliament alike, and refrains from scoring cheap political points.

By placing Harder there to score with its electorate and seek to put the Liberals in a binder, Scheer broke that gentleman's agreement. And so Liberal MPs decided to vote her out, to reply in kind and make you all look like damn fools.

[viper37]

Now is the time to say it. If she is so pro-abortion as you say, let her speak freely and undeniably, to both the House and her constituents, that she is in favor of women having the choice to abort their fetuses if they so decide, and that she should Chair the House Committee because she believes in women's choices.

Did you read what BB posted 3 pages ago?  She already said to her constituants she believes every woman should have access to abortion.  But that's not enough for the left.

As for adressing the House of Commons, MPs typically do not adress the HC for their personal affairs and I don't think the rules allows her to hold a press conference on the grounds of the parliament to affirm her political opinion with regards to a partisan play.

[Barrister]

Then make the decision that the Status of Women Committee will be chaired by a member of the government.

If you're going to defer to the opposition to chair the committee, then defer to the opposition's choice.

In trust that the Opposition will play fair-game and place a Chairperson whose nomination that does not embarrass both government and Parliament alike, and refrains from scoring cheap political points.

By placing Harder there to score with its electorate and seek to put the Liberals in a binder, Scheer broke that gentleman's agreement. And so Liberal MPs decided to vote her out, to reply in kind and make you all look like damn fools.

I'll let others judge who looks like a fool out of all this.

[viper37]

Screaming liberals are trying to shut down voices is going too far. you want to fight for anti-abortion stances, go for, run on that platform and win or lose on your merits, but placing her in the position is stupid at best.

Liberals.  Not liberals.  I would not define the antifa / hard-left crowd as "liberal".  "liberal" is a positive word.  I am a liberal.  I do not favour undue restriction on abortion.  I am not a medical expert, I have no idea how it goes for the doctor when asked to perform an abortion after 20-21-22-23-24 weeks.  Are they receiving undue pressures to perform the abortion anyway?  Are they accused of being pro-life if they refused?  I want to hear them.

And although abortion is part of women's health, it is not the sole, nor defining factor in their health and if you look at the agenda's committee, you would see that they never talked about abortion since it was created.

I would say give her a chance, respect the tradition that the opposition party get to name anyone they want.

If she really is as pro-life as you say, she can't do much.  And anything she does will be recorded and can be used by the Liberal party to prove their point that the Conservative party has an hidden agenda.

That "hidden agenda" has been there since 2005 and we haven't seen a trace of it yet.  Private bills on abortion where shut down by the Conservative leadership in the past.  And they will be again.  And even if they tried to out undue restriction on it, there is a Supreme Court ruling that kinda limits what they can do.  I suspect if anything, they would make it a law that abortion beyond 24 weeks are left at the discretion of a medical professionnal, thereby enshrining the status quo and shutting both sides.  Anything more, the party won't follow.

[Grey Fox]

You are not a liberal.

[viper37]

What's so daft to understand in the fact this government caucus - and a Liberal majority so candidly and avowedly pro-choice - simply do not want a pro-lifer to chair the Status of Women under their Legislature as a matter of principle?

[/b]
As BB said, ideological purity.

Powerless or not, she's still the frontwoman of a Committee which discusses and defend statutes she is personally against on moral grounds - and in a position she might use to embarrass the government. In fact, it is the very reason why she was put there - to embarrass the government in and of itself in the first place.

She was put there because the Loyal Opposition to her Majesty believed she was the most qualified.

This committed never had to deal with anything related to abortion since 1988.  The Liberals simply fear she would be competent and project a positive image of rational conservative thought.

As long as a religious person agrees to put her religious conviction aside while doing her job, I have no problem with that religious person holding any kind of position in the House of Commons.  Sikhs are against abortion and we have at least 2 Sikh MPs in the House of Commons that are serving under pro-choice parties.  Do you think a Sikh can make an exception to his religious beliefs for the common good but not a Christian?

Liberals hold the majority, they vetoed, she's out.

If the Conservatives do that, you will all say it's a dictatorship.

But I await with pleasure the time when the Conservatives take what's left of this country and censor the Libs out of every committee

But you and BB do, because it stopping you from putting an enabler of pro-life positions there as a political statement.

I was not a aware of being a pro-lifer.  Thank you for telling me, I will sleep better at night now that I know that I religious convictions preventing me from being pro-choice.

[Barrister]

That "hidden agenda" has been there since 2005 and we haven't seen a trace of it yet.  Private bills on abortion where shut down by the Conservative leadership in the past.  And they will be again.  And even if they tried to out undue restriction on it, there is a Supreme Court ruling that kinda limits what they can do.  I suspect if anything, they would make it a law that abortion beyond 24 weeks are left at the discretion of a medical professionnal, thereby enshrining the status quo and shutting both sides.  Anything more, the party won't follow.

Forgive the brief history lesson, but I fear people here are unaware of it.

In 87-88 the SCC struck down the existing abortion law.  What the SCC in the Morgentaler decision did not do was say that there could be no abortion law.  The SCC in fact gave guidance about what could and could not be in an abortion law.

Mulroney introduced a bill.  In generated intense controversey as it attempted to pick a "moderate" path, and was opposed by both pro-lifers and pro-choicers.  It narrowly passed Parliament, then died in the senate on a tie vote.

At that point Mulroney (who was deeply unpopular at this point) threw up his hands and said "I give up".

There was never a conscious decision to not have a national abortion law.  The SCC expected a new law would be passed in accordance with its decision.  There is some value in having a national law so that there can be national standards - I understand Alberta doctors are much more restrictive than Quebec.  By leaving it up to doctors it also puts the doctors in a difficult position - they of course have to advocate for their patient, so it can be tough for them to say "I'm sorry but I think your unborn child is too developed to abort at this point".

[viper37]

You are not a liberal.

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.

Freedoom of speech.  That is me.  Not Jacob, not Oex, certainly not Grallon.
Freedom of the press. That is me.
freedom of religion.  That is me, so long as it conforms to the next point.
secular governments.  Certainly not Jacob nor you, since you voted for Trudeau.
free markets.  Totally me.
civil rights.  Again, totally me.  Not the people who like beating up others whom they think do not share their views, nor the people who feel the need to destroy everything in their path.
democratic societies.  Again, totally me.
gender equality. Once again, I buzz present.
international cooperation.  Totally me.  Not you, since you oppose free trade agreements.

I think I am liberal, therefore I am.

[viper37]

By leaving it up to doctors it also puts the doctors in a difficult position - they of course have to advocate for their patient, so it can be tough for them to say "I'm sorry but I think your unborn child is too developed to abort at this point".

reason enough to ask them what they think of the current situation.  Certainly not a reason to shut down any debate as the left would want us to do.

[Grey Fox]

Once again, I did not vote for Trudeau. I don't vote for things BCE approves.