[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

Same question to you, what bones do you think he will throw?

I expect things like this:

Foreign aid being funnelled more towards faith based groups, voting against things in the UN that includes anything with women's rights or abortion, abstaining on any protections for homosexuality when that comes up internationally and so on. Similarly, I expect he'll team up with people who want to enshrine an international definition of religious freedom that includes "persecute homosexuals."

Basically, where ever it's possible to hit the hard social conservative agenda points through foreign policy, especially involving foreign aid recipients, I think Harper will take the opportunity. It'll register with the social conservative amongst his supporters, but amongst the broader Canadian population the only other people who will care would never vote for Harper anyways.

Domestically, I also expect some softer procedural changes in how things are done, rather than hard line legislation. Maybe doctors and pharmacists will be allowed to opt out of giving/ filling prescriptions or performing procedures they have "moral objections" to, so what if they're the only potential source in town?

Maybe to get the morning-after pill you'll need a prescription from a doctor, rather than just getting it directly from the pharmacist.

I expect that funding for women health focused groups will get cut, especially targetting poorer parts of society (like, say on native reserves) and especially ones that involve help with women's reproductive rights. Most likely this will all be due to "fiscal necessity" to Canada at large, but sold as "look what we did for you" to the social conservative constituency.

Nothing that would be more than a minor inconvenience for a well educated middle class individual, but that nonetheless could have a real negative impact on more vulnerable members of society.

I also expect more social services to vulnerable people (various shelters and outreach amongst the poorest of the poor) to be funnelled through private groups that just happen to have a heavy religious component as well.

On gay rights, I don't expect anything big. Maybe some devolvement of decision-making to lower levels of gov't. So Harper won't outlaw gay marriage or gay adoption, but I wouldn't be shocked to see local gov't and organizations (where the sentiment is socially conservative) getting away with making it practically impossible.

With immigration, I expect to see an even stronger focus on economic migrants at the expense of family reunification and refugees. There'll be ways around it for those with connections, of course.

I also expect there to be a stronger focus on undesirable immigrants and cracking down on "abuse and criminality"; not because they're big problems, but because it plays well with people who are uncomfortable with immigration. I expect there'll be an active division of "these are the good immigrants" (the ones with money, who stay in immigrant heavy communities and vote Conservative (or at least might) like Richmond; or are white anglo- or franco-phones) and "these are the bad ones" (other immigrants). This, I expect, will be more of a tone-of-the-debate thing than actual legislation, though I expect longer wait times and harsher penalties for "bad immigrants" and quite possible "good immigrants" if they don't have money.

... that kind of thing. Nothing super drastic and no clear ideological grand stances; but a real change nonetheless, if you happen to be amongst the groups directly affected.

[Valmy]

Similarly, I expect he'll team up with people who want to enshrine an international definition of religious freedom that includes "persecute homosexuals.

This is one of the most hilarious tricks the right wing assholes ever developed.  Suddenly it is 'religious discrimination' and 'intolerant' to require them not to persecute people.  Never has their been a more contemptible group of bigoted whiny victims.

[crazy canuck]

But I reject the notion that social conservatives are all Little Old Ladies. They are a fairly large group, including many Catholics and other Christian faiths, many of whom, but not all , voted for the Conservatives.

My God, there are people of faith and some of them even voted Conservative. For sure Harper must veer right now!

[Jacob]

My God, there are people of faith and some of them even voted Conservative. For sure Harper must veer right now!

That's not what he said. He said that social conservatives involve representatives of a number of faiths and they're not all little old ladies. Furthermore, he added the caveat that not all members of the faiths in question are social conservatives nor did they necessarily vote for Harper.

[Oexmelin]

To what Jacob wrote, I would add what we have already seen during the last government: suddenly, the Canadian government stopped protesting whenever a Canadian citizen faced the death penalty elsewhere, which had been previously standard policy.

[crazy canuck]

I expect things like this:

... Domestically, I also expect some softer procedural changes in how things are done, rather than hard line legislation. Maybe doctors and pharmacists will be allowed to opt out of giving/ filling prescriptions or performing procedures they have "moral objections" to, so what if they're the only potential source in town?

FYI doctors already choose what procedures they will perform.  Historically some doctors choose not to perform abortions - if that is what you are getting at.  And the State has never been able to force them to do so.  If it were otherwise I would have some significant concerns completely unrelated to any issues of social conservatism.

Maybe to get the morning-after pill you'll need a prescription from a doctor, rather than just getting it directly from the pharmacist.

That is a matter of provincial jurisdiction - as is the regulation of pharmacies.

I expect that funding for women health focused groups will get cut, especially targetting poorer parts of society (like, say on native reserves) and especially ones that involve help with women's reproductive rights. Most likely this will all be due to "fiscal necessity" to Canada at large, but sold as "look what we did for you" to the social conservative constituency.

Funding for Native reserves does not work like that.  It is administered under the Indian Act and, as a practical matter, most decision are made at the band level.  Other such funding you are talking about is in the Provincial jurisdiction as you are talking about matters that come under health.

I also expect more social services to vulnerable people (various shelters and outreach amongst the poorest of the poor) to be funnelled through private groups that just happen to have a heavy religious component as well.

Again Provincial jurisdiction.  The one exception to that is the injection site here in Vancouver which is operating under a special Federal exception to the Criminal Code which is about to expire again.  That matter is still before the Courts I believe.

On gay rights, I don't expect anything big. Maybe some devolvement of decision-making to lower levels of gov't. So Harper won't outlaw gay marriage or gay adoption, but I wouldn't be shocked to see local gov't and organizations (where the sentiment is socially conservative) getting away with making it practically impossible.

You are a bit fuzzy here.  How is it possible for the Federal Government to give power to a "local government" - which I assume you mean a municipality when all municipal powers derive from the provincial government?

With immigration, I expect to see an even stronger focus on economic migrants at the expense of family reunification and refugees. There'll be ways around it for those with connections, of course.

At least this one is within the Federal sphere but how does this related to social conservatism?  As a fiscal conservative I see a lot of merit in putting the focus on economic migrants at the expense of reunification and especially refugees.  Btw the counter arguments made in favour of family reunification also revolve around the economic merits of a family unit being more productive. 

I also expect there to be a stronger focus on undesirable immigrants and cracking down on "abuse and criminality"; not because they're big problems, but because it plays well with people who are uncomfortable with immigration. I expect there'll be an active division of "these are the good immigrants" (the ones with money, who stay in immigrant heavy communities and vote Conservative (or at least might) like Richmond; or are white anglo- or franco-phones) and "these are the bad ones" (other immigrants). This, I expect, will be more of a tone-of-the-debate thing than actual legislation, though I expect longer wait times and harsher penalties for "bad immigrants" and quite possible "good immigrants" if they don't have money.

The division, as you already said, is an ecomonic one.   Why is that a particularly social conservative issue.  Seems to me that making economic judgments about what types of immigration should be encouraged fall firmly on the economic side of the ledger.  If what you are really saying is that you disagree with fiscal conservatism then fine the Conservative party probably wont appeal to you but I dont think you can conflate economic issues with social issues to try to prove a point that social conservatism is alive and well in the Conservative party.  If you want to say that all economic issues have a social aspect then I think we start losing any meaning in the words.

[crazy canuck]

My God, there are people of faith and some of them even voted Conservative. For sure Harper must veer right now!

That's not what he said. He said that social conservatives involve representatives of a number of faiths and they're not all little old ladies. Furthermore, he added the caveat that not all members of the faiths in question are social conservatives nor did they necessarily vote for Harper.

He said they were in large numbers.  Again with the Shadowy group people like to point to that are mysteriously going to cause Harper to veer right.  Exactly like the media I spoke about earlier.  Its becoming a tiresome trope that I wish to call bs on.

[crazy canuck]

To what Jacob wrote, I would add what we have already seen during the last government: suddenly, the Canadian government stopped protesting whenever a Canadian citizen faced the death penalty elsewhere, which had been previously standard policy.

You of all people should have understood that most of what Jacob identified was not within Federal Jurisidiction.

I dont think it is accurate to say that Canadian Government has stopped protesting in all cases.  Do you have something in particular?

[Oexmelin]

The division, as you already said, is an ecomonic one.   Why is that a particularly social conservative issue.  Seems to me that making economic judgments about what types of immigration should be encouraged fall firmly on the economic side of the ledger.  If what you are really saying is that you disagree with fiscal conservatism then fine the Conservative party probably wont appeal to you but I dont think you can conflate economic issues with social issues to try to prove a point that social conservatism is alive and well in the Conservative party.  If you want to say that all economic issues have a social aspect then I think we start losing any meaning in the words.

I think you are doing a stretch, from the other side - such readings could putatively transform any issue into an economic one. I don't think any sees immigration as a predominantly economic matter. Indeed, transforming it into an economic concern might be one of the perverse side effect / strategy of limiting immigration without appearing to be anti-immigration.

[crazy canuck]

The division, as you already said, is an ecomonic one.   Why is that a particularly social conservative issue.  Seems to me that making economic judgments about what types of immigration should be encouraged fall firmly on the economic side of the ledger.  If what you are really saying is that you disagree with fiscal conservatism then fine the Conservative party probably wont appeal to you but I dont think you can conflate economic issues with social issues to try to prove a point that social conservatism is alive and well in the Conservative party.  If you want to say that all economic issues have a social aspect then I think we start losing any meaning in the words.

I think you are doing a stretch, from the other side - such readings could putatively transform any issue into an economic one. I don't think any sees immigration as a predominantly economic matter. Indeed, transforming it into an economic concern might be one of the perverse side effect / strategy of limiting immigration without appearing to be anti-immigration.

His main complaint is that prefering economic immigrants (the ones Canada has historically preferred) to other immigrants is somehow an issue of social conservatism.  Please explain to me how that is possible.

I understand that from a Quebec perspective immigration does become more of a social issue because of the language issue and the wish, frequently expressed by Grallon, that the Separatist movement does not wish to be outnumbered through immigration.  But in that case aren't you now doing what you accused Malthus of doing earlier?

[Malthus]

That is a matter of provincial jurisdiction - as is the regulation of pharmacies.

Minor clarification: while the provinces do indeed determine pharmacy practice, and can "schedule" drugs for the purposes of determining where they are kept in the pharmacy  - for example, behind the counter (usually based on the NAPRA drug schedules), ultimately the feds, who licence drugs, can determine whether a drug would be a prescription-only or "Schedule F" drug (that is, a drug which requires a prescription from a practitioner to sell to the public).

[Malthus]

In terms of immigrants - the odd thing is that the Cons have picked up many votes in this last election from immigrant-heavy communities, which used to religiously vote liberal. Many of these groups are neither White nor Christian.

This suggests to me that the Cons are not likely to embrace unfriendly-to-immigrants policies in the future.

The Cons have also made major inroads into the Jewish vote - part of which because they are pro-Israel.

They would lose that if they came out too strong on the pro-Christian stuff.

[Oexmelin]

I dont think it is accurate to say that Canadian Government has stopped protesting in all cases.  Do you have something in particular?

You are right, it is not systematic. But it is (was) a matter of policy to stop protesting when "a person tied in a democracy which suscribes to the Rule of Law cannot expect the Canadian government to interced in his favour, especially when he has committed violent or grave crimes" "Clemency must be merited". (L. Cannon, in the Commons, 20-6-2009 ). This was for the guy named Smith, in Montana, who was refused aid in trying to get his sentence commuted in life imprisonment.

The UN condemned such two-tiered policy, which has the side effect of passing judgement on whether or not a country suscribes to "The Rule of Law".

[Jacob]

Well, if you can promise me that none of my concerns, or anything like them, will come to pass, that's a great relief

I don't have specific hot button issues that I *know* the Conservatives are waiting to pounce on, so I don't expect the specific scenarios to happen exactly as I outlined. Nonetheless, those are areas in which I expect to see some sort of "financial" and "administrative" changes that nonetheless have a real impact. I think Harper (or any politician in government) is better at figuring out the exact levers to pull to get their results, but whatever levers they are I expect to see some of them being pulled in those areas; possibly with semi-innocuous legislation thrown in to facilitate it.

Specific to the various health care issues, I thought that while it was a provincial responsibility, the federal government still set broad policy goals (enforced by transfer payments) and had ways of influencing how it's implemented. I mean, they're the ones who mandate universal health care, aren't they?

In any case, when it comes to the various aspects of health care and social services I don't claim to know exactly what mechanisms the federal government has available to it, but I expect whatever they are will be used to throw bones to social conservatives. If you assure me there's no scope (other than say cutting the funding to numerous agencies that they already did as a minority government), that's very comforting.

As for immigration, as I noted, I expect the biggest change is going to be one of tone in the debate when it comes to social conservatives. You're right economic vs family class immigrants is a financial issue, I just brought it up because we've talked about it early and it's personal for me.

Now, I admit that I'm fretting. You asked me what sort of bone throwing I expected to see. I outlined it. The real test is what we see over the next two to three years. Perhaps you're right, and there's no scope for that sort of thing in those areas. That will be a relief then. Or maybe Harper doesn't even have a desire to throw bones like that, that too will be a relief. We'll see.

As an aside, I noticed you didn't address anything about the foreign policy aspects I brought up. Can I take from that, that you consider there to be scope for social conservative bone throwing in those areas?

Also, regarding pharmacists, is the classification of drugs not a federal responsibility? Can, say, the provincial government declare that cocaine is okay to purchase at pharmacies, or conversely, can the provincial government outlaw abortion or put the morning after pill in a category that it requires prescriptions? Is there really a significant difference in how drugs are prescribed (and which ones are available) across the country? I'd expect there to be if this was completely under provincial jurisdiction as you say.

[Oexmelin]

His main complaint is that prefering economic immigrants (the ones Canada has historically preferred) to other immigrants is somehow an issue of social conservatism.  Please explain to me how that is possible.

I.e., restricting immigration quotas in order to only keep economic immigrants (why?); a tougher stance of refugees.

I understand that from a Quebec perspective immigration does become more of a social issue because of the language issue and the wish, frequently expressed by Grallon, that the Separatist movement does not wish to be outnumbered through immigration.  But in that case aren't you now doing what you accused Malthus of doing earlier?

This didn't even enter my mind.