Monday, November 26, 2012

Rob Ford Found Guilty of Conflict of Interest.

Today Rob Ford was found guilty of conflict of interest violation and will be removed from office in fourteen days barring a stay and appeal. Earlier I had written i could live with a verdict that found Ford incredible ignorant of the rules but not guilty. I felt that it seemed excessive to in effect overturn an election result; (Ford won 47.114% of the 50.55% of the electorate that bothered to cast votes. His electoral victory was provided by 23.82% of all eligible voters. Not much a mandate but a win is a win.) I'd rather he just be a lame duck mayor and head into the next election with an official ruling of "stupid" to campaign against. So I'm feeling a little bit good and a little bit sad.

But Ford lost, and if I can live with a not guilty verdict; I can adjust to a guilty one. I'm not one of those people that see this as a blow to our electoral system. It's not as if he suppressed voter turn =out through Robo Calls. I see no harm to our democracy in the short or long term resulting from Justice Hackland's decision. In a brief summary; Rob Ford was accused of breaching conflict of interest guild-lines; that were the result of a violation of a code of conduct guide-line that stemmed from a donation to his football charity. Rob Ford case seemed to depend on him being ignorant of the rules or the municipal conflict of interest act's lack of  applicability. In  a simpler form he wasn't responsible for anything he did.

So why is democracy not shredded? We had a holder of a High Political office, hauled before the courts by a citizen and found guilty. The court case was open to all; transparent to all and presided over by an impartial and qualified professional. Whether the outcome was guilty or not it represented a high standard in the rule of law. There are many  places where the courts are abusive to the common citizen; a network that acts to oppress rather than hold accountable the powerful.

I'm not elevating this case to that level; Rob Ford didn't really do something bad, just kind of stupid; that's were the aforementioned sad comes in. If Ford ultimately loses his job it will be unfortunate that it was over so very little; that a remedy could not be found before it went to court. That's another funny thing, the punishment for conflict of interest is non-negotiable; you do it, you're gone. Let mandatory minimums cheerleaders take note.

A quick response to the Talk Show caller I heard; he felt the Ford verdict justified revisited the idea of electing judges. I can only surmise he felt that the proceedings may not have been as impartial as desired. Electing judges is an awful idea. In favour, there is covering the bench with same electoral accountability now enjoyed other elected office holders. The ability to remove incompetent Judges.The negatives, the likely hood that popularity, ideology and money will win out over experience and quality. The last thing you want on the bench is a judge with his electoral prospects weighing into a judicial decision. Not saying it would, just saying we don't need to add that to the mix.

So Ford is maybe gone, everyone is either happy or upset, the system works or it doesn't. Just another day in Canada's largest city.

Update: (30/11/2012) Justice Hackland has clarified his decision on Rob Ford's ability to run in a by-election. In a statement issues this morning the Justice said Rob Ford is not barred from running if Toronto City Council calls a by-election to fill the vacated mayoral seat. That predicated on Rob Ford losing his appeal.

Update: (6/12/2012) Rob Ford has been given a stay as he pursues an appeal.





Thursday, November 15, 2012

A Woman, A Barber Shop and A Human Rights Commission

A story about a Barber Shop refusing service to a patron based on religious reasons is winding its way through the news cycle. This is the first I have heard of the incident, though it appeared to have happened almost two weeks ago. A woman wanted a man's style haircut; the Barber shop she choose is operated by observant Muslims; they refused her service because they are restricted in the manner that they may interact with women. No one in the shop could touch her, no touching no haircut. The women has filed a gender discrimination complaint with the Human rights commission. The relevant section can be found in The Human Rights Code Part 1, Freedom from Discrimination; services 1;

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012, c. 7, s. 1 

The barber shop, by refusing service to this women has violated this section. I could find no section where religious obligation exempted adherence to  provisions of the Human Rights Code.

So what do we do when rights conflict? The Human Rights Commission is going to be asked to rule on primacy of Rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees religious freedom; belief and practice. I am not sure if Section 15; equal protection and equal benefit of the law, extends to private citizens offering services to the public. We have seen a slow erosion of discrimination based on race; accommodations or jobs. We expect public and private facilities to be accessible to the physically impaired. The right to discriminate on religious grounds is the present conflict zone. 

What of accommodation? There are many barbers who would happily cut her hair. She was denied the services in one shop, not all shops. Is it in our interest to allow some discrimination an religious grounds? Especially in cases where their is ample alternatives available to the offended party. We already make some  exceptions regrading race, gender and religious discrimination. I would not force an all female only health club to except men. I support affirmative action; on racial and gender grounds,that is discrimination; though towards a positive end.  I certainly would never force a Church, Mosque or Temple to marry a Gay couple. 

The right to refuse a service because of religious reasons versus the right to equal treatment. This conflict has found expression in the case of a marriage commissioner refusing to provide services to gay couples, the Courts ruled that you do your job or your lose your job. The Courts did not recognize religious belief as valid excuse for discrimination. A government has an obligation to uphold fair treatment in the providing of services to its citizens. How well this translate to private persons providing a public service is not always clear. In British Columbia the Human Rights Tribunal ruled against a taxi cab operator who refused, on religious grounds, service to a blind man and his work dog. Again in BC a gay couple, by way of the HRT successfully sued a B&B for refusing them service. 

If you take these cases as indication of a trend it would appear that the Religious defense, an expression of conscience is not sufficient to exempt a business from charges of discrimination. That discrimination if allowed must provide a tangible benefit to the wider community.The HRC has its hands full with this case. in attempting to find a balance between the right of belief with right of access. 

 In Addition: With respect to discrimination rulings, religious or otherwise; the standard applied seems to be that any discrimination that is negative in practice and places an unreasonable burden on an individual, group or class of citizen should not be tolerated. In the absence of such a burden accommodation of some type should be sought.




Monday, November 12, 2012

On Marital Infidelity and Public Office or Influence

In the news, former General David Patraeus resigns as head of the CIA. His resignation is tied to the uncovering of emails during an FBI investigation; indicting an extramarital affair with journalist Paula Broadwell. Patraeus and Broadwell will over the coming weeks be, the subjects of opinion pieces. The affair will be dissected to satisfy the prurient needs of a bored public. If the handling of past affairs holds true for this one we can expect a lot of moral hand ringing apologies and snide commentary and a healthy does of partisanship.

Some will call the affair a "none event" and wax lyrically about the needs of powerful men; that power is attractive and women unable to resist its lure. The flip side of that coin has the CIA Director cast as a Good Man undone by bad judgement. Others bemoaning the Moral state of America will condemn Broadwell, ( more so than Patraeus) as a scheming seducer, home wrecker, morally deficient.

Neither narrative is especially kind to women; depicted as rewards for powerful men, little more than furniture to be used; or the temptress leading men to their doom, a modern Eve. The man does better. Sure he is weak or stupid, but what man can withstand the wiles of woman kind. He can safely be forgiven. It is a ridiculous them but it gets page clicks.

I am more interested in the question over private and public life; whether something like a sexual affair requires the resignation that often accompanies such a revelation. I hold that a Public Persons private life is their own; the only exceptions I make are for Hypocrisy and Performance. If you are an ardent promoter of Family Values, if your public life is centered around morality, then any sexual transgression removes your authority and with it any right to influence or offices obtained through such moral exertions.

How does a sexual affair impact performance? I address this as a function of credibility. If you are married you have entered into a contractual agreement with your spouse; by way of religious or civil ceremony. A sacred moment where you commit to certain actions, among them monogamy. When you have an affair you are breaking a your sworn oath. That is a performance issue. If your word is no good, you don't deserve to hold the public trust.

So to be clear it's not the sex; it's the notion that you as an Holder of the Public Trust will break your word; if you think you won't get caught; because you can't control yourself; any potential Office Holder willing to do the former or be subject to the latter would not get my vote. A person willing to cheat on their spouse shows disregard for that person; a disregard that might transition to the public. It suggest such a person that wishes to maintain the benefits that accrue from married life while satisfying themselves outside of it; the best of both worlds. All the cake, none of the crumbs. 

It is a question or Morals( if religious) and Ethics. A person worthy of Public Office or Public Influence must possess a certain type of Character. People who cheat are not bad people, they just aren't quite what I'm looking for in a representative.








Saturday, November 10, 2012

Bill C-377 An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations)

Another day another Private Member's bill. I'm getting the feeling the Harper Government is using it's back bench to shoulder some of the legislative burden. I don't think they are acting independently of Harper. Which begs the question; why isn't his government introducing this legislation instead of passing it through a backbencher. The MP in question is Russel Hiebert. A quick look at his political position places Hiebert firmly to the far right. It is then not unreasonable that he would present the Anti-Union bill, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (requirements for labour organizations). It's not a long bill and thankfully doesn't come with the usual Orwellian Alternative title. 


A piece of  legislation is presented to meet a need; the need may be defined as either practical or ideological.   The test of any legislation is whether it harms or benefits Canadian citizens. While this should be objective; more often than not it is an argument beset by partisanship. I take a simple approach; any legislative action should be neutral or beneficial to the majority of Canadians whenever possible; in cases where there is obvious harm, a pressing necessity must be demonstrated and that such legislation have an expiration date.

So what is the Bill C-377? It amends the tax code to require labour organizations to disclose all financial information, expenditures, investments salaries and other activity dealing with the disbursement of money. The information will be made available for public viewing. 

The reason given for given for the new reporting requirement is that it is a public tax benefit. While public money does not go directly to unions; union members receive tax benefits related to their membership. Public money however indirect means citizen have an interest. The best way to promote and protect that interests is the implementation of a rigorous and transparent reporting requirement. 

There are two fallacious notions being promulgated here "transparency" and "public tax benefit" in justifying an increased reporting requirement. They are closely entwined ideas, public money and knowing how that money is being spent. On their face it is hard to argue against the idea of supervision over public money. That is the slight of hand in this Three-Card-Monty, legislation. Their is no public money, it's a tax deduction; you get your own money back. If there is no public money then the need for transparency no longer applies. 

I will note that unions are require to make financial disclosures already. In fact union members have access to all the financial dealing of their unions. The idea inferred by C-377 is that union members are not in fact kept informed about union goings on. The notion that C-377 will actually help guard the interests of union members is laughable. You don't get this level of Orwellian logic till you encounter "Right To Work' legislation. 

The fact that other groups and associations charitable or otherwise will not face such strenuous reporting requirements indicates a subtler intent. Doctors and other fee paying entities who receive similar tax benefits do not face a heightened scrutiny. It can be argued that charities should receive greater public scrutiny because of the work they do and the level of trust given to them. The legislation imposes a burden on a particular type of association, labour, leaving similar groups alone. 

It is clear that Unions and labour is being singled out for an increased reporting burden. It won't be cheap to comply. It will cost money to hire personal to deal with the new level of disclosure. Government types sniff and say stuff like "Internet filing" and "digital"; as if the information is magically compiled and filed by accountant elves. Money spent on this regime, can't be spent furthering Labour interests; how convenient. A novel way to reduce opposition to conservative government.

The finally requirement of posting for public view the very detailed working and financial interest of a Labour organization, is ridiculous. Why does the public need to know what a Union leader is paid; union members already do. I imagine much like the purpose of "sunshine" laws; fill a days worth of conservative media; generate faux outrage and division. 

In any measure it can be said that C-377 doesn't meet the legislative test. It serves no practical purpose. It discriminates  against one type of association. It imposes a burden without a discernible benefit. There is no pressing level of necessity. It is partisan. It is a bill meant to challenge Labour, impose burdens and weaken the union movement. It should not pass.















Tuesday, November 6, 2012

This is The Canada-China FIPA Document


Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments

THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (the “Contracting Parties”),
RECOGNIZING the need to promote investment based on the principles of sustainable development;
DESIRING to intensify the economic cooperation of both States, based on equality and mutual benefit;


Edit: I am going to Add two columns on the China-Canada FIPA. One by Andrew Coyne and another by Gus Van Harten . These gentleman give their opinion of what the trade deal means.

My original idea was to post the deal as written and withhold comment. I had read the FIPA but found little overt harm. That may be attributed more to a lack of understanding and education in the field of International trade than a benign nature of the deal. So I waited for comment from the better informed to give perspective.

My only discomfort was that we were entering into a trade deal with a Dictatorship; a capitalist/communist hybrid, but still a Dictatorship. These types of regimes are unpalatable and we should think long and hard before dealing with them. I fear that while all the time suggesting that greater association and integration with democratic nations will bring change, Canada is looking at the "money". Pragmatism is the opposite of idealism, I think the best work is done somewhere between the two. This deal is more a work between equals; Canada and China are not equals.

Read both pieces. It will give you something to think about. I'm still unsure. I think that the deal has problems, concerning arbitration guidelines. Nothing unusual, I just don't like these types of mechanisms. Interpreting a contractual obligation is not always easy. Sometimes victory goes to the best lawyers rather that then the right position.

Monday, November 5, 2012

No Smoking in Doorways

Toronto Smokers are looking at a reduction in available spaces to light one up. The Toronto Board of Health is looking increase smoke free zones to include uncovered restaurant patios, public sports fields, bus stops; pretty much any public space where people gather. Public consultations will be held, and from that a new bylaw expanding areas where smoking won't be tolerated. I can't wait.

Smoking is a terrible habit or rather addiction. I know, i used to be a smoker. I'm celebrating 16 years smoke free next month, and I'll do it with a leisurely 12 or 15 km run. I am quite sure that if I was still smoking I wouldn't be running that or any other distance. 

I won't get into how I started smoking, it's a sordid affair, but I'll tell you how I quit. Five years before my final success, I has managed to stop smoking  for about a  year. I did not take. Almost a year quit, I did the unthinkable, I bummed a smoke. I figured it wouldn't matter, I was quit. Big mistake. Within two months I was back to a pack a day. I'd have to wait five more years, for my last cigarette. 
It was my, a very large number, attempt and it was the one that took. One Christmas I decided enough was enough, I threw a half smoked pack into the trash. I had done that a few times before but this time I hoped it would be different. 

Picking Christmas was important; it gave me an important date to hang my story on. Never underestimate the power of a good "quit smoking story" to help keep you clean. I quit cold turkey; the same as when I lasted a year. I have nothing against smoke cessation products but I rally hate to chew gum and I though cold turkey sounded better. Quitting is all mental. Moving past the withdrawal requires the right state of mind. So I built one.

The first thing I did, was admit that I was addicted to nicotine. Your first cigarette is a choice; all the rest are not. At the least it is a choice very much impaired by your bodies need for nicotine. When the first thing you do in the morning and the last thing you do at night is have a smoke, your body, in some small measure isn't your own. I remember taking painful puffs, during what was a really bad cold and thinking I had to be nuts. 

What I did next was to tabulate the relative cost of a pack-a-day habit. I tried to look at smoking in terms of what it cost me, monetarily and contrast it to other things. I translated cigarettes into car payments, rent, trips, clothes or savings and investments. Buying smokes meant giving up other things. I might as well have been smoking my cash and cut out the middle man. 

I considered what smoking was costing me physically in the present and what future I could look forward to. Physically, my performance was degraded; I liked to hike and bike; I still could but it always took more out of me than it should have. It would only get worse. I could look forward to lung damage, heart disease, cancer; on a pure point of vanity, early onset of the signs of aging, stained teeth and fingers, reeking of tobacco smoke. All of which I purchased on a daily basis.

My last act in building a frame of mind was to personify my cigarettes. I created an opponent; a well to do man, taking his ease at the beach. He was a Tobacco company CEO, perhaps an Investor. He was someone who profited from my addiction. He was a Non-Smoker. I pictured him lecturing his children about the dangers of smoking; making them promise never to smoke. I seems a bit silly but it did help.

So sixteen years smoke free, without ever a bummed smoke or a look back. I feel for smokers because I know what it's like to be addicted to nicotine. Just the same I support higher taxes in cigarettes and laws restricting tobacco use. It's good for non-smokers and in the end good for smokers too.










Friday, November 2, 2012

Two Private Member Bills C-217, C-309

Two Private members bills have made it through third reading, Bill C-217 and Bill C-309. They are now off to the Senate for a repeat of the procedure. Bill C-217 amends the Criminal code regarding mischief; War Memorials are recognized specifically and given the same protection and punishments accorded for acts against religious institutions, though for War memorials a regimen of fines and short confinement has been added. Bill C-309 amends the Criminal Code regarding riots and unlawful assembly, with the addition of new penalties unlawful acts occur while wearing a mask.

Of the two Private Members bills if  I find the Bill C-309 the most disturbing. But I will comment first on the changes regarding War Memorials. War Memorials have been elevated to the same stature as Religious institutions, with comparable punishments. That alone gives me pause. Memorials are not and should not be lumped in with Churches and the like. You may, if having caused damage to a War memorial be punished by Fine and limited incarceration; or with up to Ten years in prison. Having served in our Armed forces,RCN, I hold War Memorials as important centers for remembrance and contemplation of the sacrifice of our service persons. They should be well maintained and hold a pride of place in our communities; and be treated with respect by all citizen's regardless individual feelings on war or the military. Any mischief caused to them should be punished, but memorials are not objects of Religious veneration or at least should not be. I can accept, barely, ten years maximum sentence applied to damage to religious institutions; there may be an element of hatred or bigotry involved that left unpunished might encourage greater violence against these sacred places. The simple act of tipping over a statue; spray painting a cenotaph; all disgusting acts, but not so much that the proper punishment is ten years in prison. I whole heartily support fines or limited incarceration, 30 days, but find it egregious, a sentence of up to ten years.  I see this Bill as a continuing effort of the Conservatives to elevate War and the Military. Respect yes, Worship no.

The inclusion of mask wearing as a separate offence in the CCoC is something altogether different. I do not hold that Mask wearing is essential to protest nor do I agree that it should be encouraged. A citizen ought to feel comfortable and able assemble and protest in their own person, face uncovered. I hold that if a citizen feels that they must keep their identity secret, for whatever reason, when protesting an action by government or business; our Democracy is in far worse shape than than I suspected.

 I agree that there are those that go to assemblies in order to cause trouble either for political reasons or the shear mischief of it. That wearing a mask makes it less likely to find and prosecute those committing assault or property damage. These people do not have my sympathy. But i can not support ten year prison sentences for breaking a window. It is harsh and unreasonable. That is the amendment to section 65 of the CCoC. The section 66 amendment is even worse, in that if an assembly is declared unlawful, any mask wearing individual also faces up to ten years in prison.

The Harper Government must be seen, by allowing this Private Member's Bill to proceed, as acting against a citizens right to free assembly. A mask in and of it self should not be seen as criminal. The use of masks to parody or satire the powerful is a form of protest in and of itself and has a long tradition. Wearing a Stephen Harper Mask at a protest opposed to the Tar Sands should not earn you ten years in prison. The harshness of the penalty is aimed at discouraging protest. Yes, if you don't wear a mask you want be subject to this harsh penalty, but it must weigh in the minds of anyone who protests. Mistakes are made people charged with crimes they didn't, later to have the charges dropped. This legislation may have more of a chill effect on honest citizens, than dishonest. Our existing laws are fine, and work to provide a balance between allowing citizens to express themselves and  keeping the peace. The Mask law, like most that infringed to some degree on the Rights of Citizens to protest their government, are intended to make it easier for police and government to handle citizen protesters. Masks do not pose a threat to the state as would be inferred from the length of the sentence.

What is common to both pieces of legislation is the harshness imposed, the increased severity of punishments meted out. All laws are an attempt to modify behaviour. Punishment and reward used to shift the public in a desired direction. Where dissent is discourage a citizen becomes less free.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

A Casino for Toronto

Toronto is contemplating a Casino. A recent report says there is a lot of money to be made and the city should not pass on the chance to play host to Ontario's newest gaming house. The economic benefits are clear, construction jobs and then permanent ones; one time payments to the City and then ongoing tax revenue. The report also contained the figure of .2%, this is the number of expected problem gamblers. It was also noted that if the casino goes to somewhere else in the GTA Toronto will get fewer of the benefits but still deal with most of the problems associated with a Casino, addiction, entertainment competition. The conclusion is couched in the form of , "a casino is coming, it's better to be part of it."

I'm not a fan of Casino development. Gambling as entertainment is just a little more rational than burning money for heat. I understand that the development will include Rooms; shows; perhaps more convention space and restaurants. People go to Casinos for the Gambling. They take in a show; use a room or eat at a restaurant, but gaming is the central attraction.

Casino development brings increased incidences of gambling addiction, and perhaps a minor spike in crime. These are small and can be dealt with by diverting a portion of casino revenue to bulk up programs dealing with addiction and crime prevention. I'm not attempting to minimize the devastating effect of gambling addiction but it's effect is personal and with treatment addressable.

My interest is in the economic side of Casino development. Casino's are service providing industries. They don't make anything. They don't, like a clothing manufacturer turning cloth into suits, adding value. Like the retail outlet providing a space to sell the new suits; once again adding value; creating wealth. A casino is like Spa or Salon a service is provided that transfers wealth from the customer but does not create any.

Casinos are wealth redistribution devices, they take your money on the promise of a chance to win more than you spend. It's not an even circumstance, the Casino always comes out ahead because the gaming odds are in the theirs favour. People do gamble for fun; for the chance to be the exception to the rule and hit the 1/350000 chance and walk out of the Casino a winner. Most people go, lose a couple of hundred and walk out wishing they had won but also feeling they had a good time.

That  is the larger problem. Casinos are large gravity wells only they attract money instead of matter and lots of it, concentrating it in one place. Ideally money spent in a Casino is disposable income, as opposed to your rent money. This is income you might have placed in a savings account; spent at a retail outlet; Salon; given to charity; a homeless person you walk by on your way to work. The are many and diverse ways to use disposable income. We generally spread it around and in doing so support many wealth creating businesses as well as smaller wealth redistribution enterprises; and of course the employment of many of our fellow citizens. The impact on local business depends on how much wealth redistribution comes from local sources. If the majority of Casino revenue comes from outside Toronto locals business the harm is reduced and if the tourists spend money outside the casino, may in fact benefit. Though if you widen then scope, money spent by a tourist couple in a Toronto Casino, isn't spent locally on goods and services in there home town, the effect is the same, just removed from Toronto. One report I have read suggests the majority of Casino patrons are local, within 50 miles, exceptions are Border Casinos. The fact that there are 6 million people within 50 miles of Toronto may appear to lesson the impact. For a city like Kenora, for whom the report was authored, local participation in gambling is a major concern.

Whether you are diverting spending from local businesses or the hometowns of tourists the problem remains. Wealth is concentrated at Casinos at the expense of other outlets. The outcome will be reduced revenues at these businesses possible reduction in employment or closings. If such is the case, employment after the construction phase would be eventually out, with little net gains. This effect would also carry into the revenue side, not the property tax or hosting revenue but income tax or expected rise in taxes from businesses. These would no doubt reach an equilibrium if not on a local level then at least on a GTA or Provincial one.

Casinos bring benefits and headaches. Plenty of deliberation and debate should go into the decision to host such an enterprise. Our elected representatives must look past the revenues, hard in these cash strapped, anti tax times; and truly investigate the whether a Casino is the cure to what ills. They are a mixed blessing at best, at worst, they create more problems than they are meant to relieve.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Canada's Parliament Broken or Not?

They belief that Canada's Democracy is broken has been growing. It is not merely a matter of position; where the party(ies) presently out of power decry the abuses of government, that a few short years ago could be heard from those members presently going about abusing said government. I do think Canada's democracy is going through a period of decline; it is decades old and has not yet reach its apogee. What it isn't is broken. It is rather like a clock that runs too fast or too slow, it must be periodically reset, but still tells time after a fashion. The clock is not broken, it runs according to its specifications, but the tolerances are a bit wide.

Our Parliament is similar. It functions according to its laws and traditions or specifications and tolerances. In our case the tolerances are getting too wide and the effect is a Parliament functioning in a degraded fashion.

We can remedy the problem by adjusting the rules and traditions upon which Parliament functions. What does Canada's government look like?

In Canada the head of Government is Queen Elizabeth the Second, represented in Canada by the Governor General. Some of the powers of the Governor General are the signing of legislation, appointing Prime minister. At the next level we have the executive branch made up of the Prime minster and Cabinet drawn usually from the House of commons. The PM and cabinet propose laws and policy. The Legislative Branch which is an elective House of Commons and an appointed Senate. Here is where the the proposed laws are discussed debated and passed. The Judicial Branch makes up the third piece. The purpose of the this branch is ensure that that legislation conforms to to the constitution.

Ideally the system is bound together with checks and balances regulating the exercise of power. Abuses are prevented or mitigated and eventually reversed by competing branches of government. In reality checks and balances have a more voluntary or at best a time delay quality.

So how do we come to the place where the average citizen feel that government is broken? That is firmly rooted in the nature of our parliamentary system, Majority and to a small extent Minority governments. The House of Commons is where legislation is debated, passed or defeated. The Senate plays a part in legislation but as an appointed body its role is restricted; it can and has defeated legislation but usually it may consents to pass legislation whole or with some amendments; usually suggested by the PM. Legislation is passed on a straight up and down vote; so a Majority government should have no trouble passing legislation.

In a Majority government the Loyal Opposition can do little to stop legislation, they may delay it for a a time but can not defeat it. Governments knowing they have no substantial problems passing their agenda will work with Opposition parties to reduce rancor and make for smother passage of Bills. If they don't the tools available to the Opposition are to galvanize the public by exposing through debate, flaws in the proposed laws and shame if a piece of legislation is egregiousness. The only hope is to scare the Government or government MPs by way of future electoral defeat into altering or scraping a Bill. The Courts can act only after a law is passed so its effect is limited; though if consulted ahead of time by Government they can offer their private opinion on whether such and such a provision is legal. The only other check on the Majority government is the Governor General. Here we again come up against the nature of Appointment over elected official. The GG has the powers to prevent  but will not by tradition use those powers. The GG  takes "advice" from the PM, suggesting choice but effectively a PM's "advice" is an order.

Our Democracy is a combination of legal frameworks, what is allowed and Traditional and Conventions what is done. The abuses we complain about today follow not from legal changes but from the alteration of convention. That is conventions on the part of Government. Recent examples include prorogation of government to avoid accountability. Prorogation occurs at the end of a Governments legislative agenda. It has only one purpose to the reset of  parliament. Harper has used it to avoid answering to the House. There is now law against using prorogation this way but it is clearly not the intended purpose. That is a convention. The GG was given "advice" by the PM to prorogue, and acting within convention did so.

Convention is malleable. Any PM with sufficient cause or bravery will overturn convention, at need. They can do so and remain safely within the legal frame work. The problem is that the other elements of our Democracy can't or won't alter their actions in response to the Executive. The GG should have and would have been with their rights to deny prorogation, as it was intended for a purpose other than ending a completed legislative session. But it didn't happen, the PM violated convention but the GG didn't.

Our Democracy works according to its framework but because it leans heavily on convention is open to abuse. The checks and balances are not effective because they are either elective or or effectively non existent. The parliament of Canada is not broken, it is working but as with the slow clock with too wide a set a tolerances.

It is my feeling that the necessary step is a reduction in convention; it is an unreliable check. Codify in law the powers and procedures of government and reduce as much as is reasonable and possible, the role played by convention.


Sunday, October 28, 2012

The Supreme Court to Hear Prostitution Case

The Supreme Court is going to hear the appeal of of a prostitution case that has been in the works since 2009. Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior handed sown a 2010 decision that struck down provisions of the criminal code, sections-210, 212(1)(j) and 213(1)(c). The effect was a de facto legalization of prostitution. The relevant provisions can be found in the Canadian Criminal Code . Those sections dealt with Bawdy Houses, living off the the avails of prostitution and communication for the purposes of prostitution.

Having appealed the initial decision in 2010 by Justice Susan Himel and after being turned back by the Ontario's Court of Appeals in March 2012, it's now in the hands of Canada's top court. The Federal Government will finally have the case heard by the Supreme Court.

The question is will the Supreme court up hold the lower court rulings. I don't know if they will but I know they should.

From a rights standpoint a woman's body is her own, period. She should be free from unreasonable prohibition or restraints imposed by the state. This is something women have fought for over a very long time, make the largest strides in the last 90 years. The right to vote, to be persons separate and equal to men, sexual and reproductive rights. To be sure, the right to be a sex worker was not specifically pursed but it does follow from command over your own body.

The sex trade has been around for a number of millennial. It has been at times been promoted, banned or ignored. The prevailing attitude in the West has been one of Church censure and illegality and a Secular authority that shifted from bans to regulation and sometimes outright recognition.

Our present Laws on sex work reflect the moral sentiment of the Church and rather less a practical method on how to deal with issues surrounding the sex trade. It is not an accident. The duty of the Church is to guard the moral fiber of society, to prepare the flock for the afterlife. Sex and Women are to really sore points for the Church. Women figure unfavourably in the literature, unless confined in or to their proper role. Over the centuries religion has lost its grip; Western Societies reflect this decline the expression of their Laws. We have tried to remove those moral elements that prejudiced our laws. Most specifically those dealing with the rights of religious minorities or Women.

So we have moved on, from the sexual revolution, the pill; embraced the notion that women are equal. The anticipated Armageddon never arrived. But some of our laws still bear a hint of that moral censure directed at women; and to be fair also male sex trade workers, but that is an issue that runs parallel to this one. Canada's top Court will finally get to rule on this issue and hopefully brush of the moral bits while keeping the bits that matter.

What our Criminal code must to be able to do is protect the Sex trade worker, presently it exposes them to harm.  There are occasions of assault, rape or the simple act of a customer failing to pay. You can't rely on the police, the civil courts can not enforce contracts commercial because you are engaged in an illegal enterprise. When you are outside the law you are vulnerable, exploitable.

The remedy is to treat a sex worker in part like other trades persons, offering civil and criminal protections. It is not an endorsement of the sex trade but a recognition that the sex trade exists and our first priority is safety of the workers not to fix moral opprobrium. What the Justice left in place gives you an indication of the thought process. All provisions dealing with coercion of any kind through drugs,violence or threat, remain in force. By far the greatest harm is centered on the ruthless exploitation of sex workers rather than a moral failing of selling sex.

To be frank, I may question privately the choice to be a sex worker, but it should remain that person's choice. The more informed the choice the better.

I do have some reservations. They revolve around the notion of selling your body, for however short a time. I have tried to consider it in the same vein, once again, as the trades person. They sell their labour. You contract with the electrician you don't own them. The issue of intimacy is different in detail rather than level of exposure, say with your Doctor or divorce lawyer. The real difference is in the social acceptance, or at least tolerance.

I also recognize that in a world where women are sexualised from an early age and their worth seemingly calculated on a scale of attractiveness, normalizing the sex trade might make life worse for women. I think perhaps my concern is premature. Removing from our society the myth of the Courtesan, by normalizing the nature of the sex trade, could be beneficial. Their is nothing less exciting than the banal. As well, returning to the women the control over their bodies that prostitution laws had appropriated, can be seen as a measure of good.

I expect that legalization will bring an improvement to women and men in the sex trade; a first step that removes the fear, the violence, and the moral turpitude from their lives.













Thursday, October 25, 2012

Supreme Court ruling Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj

The supreme Court of Canada handed down its ruling in Opitz v. Wrzesnewskyj . It all began as a very close election win for Opitz in 2011. He won by 26 votes. Accusations or irregularity resulted in a lower court ruling tossing out the results. This lead to an appeal to the Supreme Court and the decision today. In a 4-3 split the Justices declared the 2011 election in Etobicoke to be valid over turning the lower court ruling. I would have preferred Opitz's appeal be denied and a new election be called, but I perused the ruling and find I can accept the decision. I'm not a lawyer, but here is how I understand the Courts decision.

Four of the judges found no evidence of deliberate fraud concerning the irregular votes. They acknowledged that the paper work attached to these votes, was filled out improperly, but that the proper procedures for establishing eligibility were followed. In effect a clerical error not fraud. Having come to that conclusion they asserted that the right to vote must be upheld in cases of recording errors.

I can follow the logic and I agree with that conclusion. The right to vote is the basis of the Democratic society. The right to select our own leaders should be as wide and as little encumbered as is reasonably possible. Where there is no evidence of deliberate fraud benefit must be given to the voter. In effect establishes the belief that it is likely that more people would be disenfranchised than voter fraud prevented; if clerical errors/procedure were allowed to effect eligibility. Anyone following the American politics has noticed attempts to legislate vote suppression through ID laws. This in the face of little no evidence of in person voter fraud.

The dissenting judges looked at it differently. They also saw no deliberate evidence of fraud either, but maintained that voting is combination of action and eligibility. This means that establishing eligibility is part of the voting process, as is the recording of that fact properly. If the act is not carried out in whole then, while not being fraudulent it is still not allowable. This is easily understood as the "maintenance of a systems integrity" the appearance as well as the fact of being correct. The consequence is that it disqualifies a vote that can not be shown to have met the standard. This would certainly prevent fraud, but also through error disenfranchise.

So we are here; that voter eligibility must be confirmed but errors occur, but that such errors can't be allowed to disenfranchise citizens. We can't with certainly reduce all fraud or error, but it would appear we can do better than we do now. Those that work these elections must be prepared to carry out their duties. It is incumbent on Elections Canada to provide for better training of those who undertake the responsibility of manning our election stations. I don't expect error free elections. Though I do think we can spend the money necessary to make them as close as reasonably possible. It is the least we can do.












Friday, October 19, 2012

Authenticity: Experience,Context and Awareness

This morning I discovered the the Wall Mounted Electric Fireplace. I sighed dramatically, bemoaned the steady decline of Western Civilisation, made a comment on twitter about authenticity. What a start to my day; to be faced with such an assault on authenticity. I finished my coffee; dressed for running; did my stretches and went outside. The day is sunny and cool; the grass still wet from last nights rain; drops clinging to the leaves. You could smell that pleasant odour of decay from fallen leaves and the smell of manure was in the air; farmers preparing their fields for the spring. Now, I thought to myself "that's nature, authentic nature", a far cry from electric wall mounted fireplaces. That brought to mind my father growing up in rural Newfoundland; and what I'm sure would be him laughing at what a suburbanite called nature. I'm faced now with the idea that authenticity is mutable. 

I'm reminded of a story he used to tell; waking up early in the morning, adding wood to the stove. Some days rigging up the horse heading into the woods to fell some trees; bringing them back, and cutting them into firewood. That story suggests quite forcefully that my notion of nature and fire is different from my fathers. From his perspective it's downright inauthentic.

What fire played a central role in my fathers life. Warmth through long winters, from cooking, bathing to clean clothes; fire was a necessity. When I was growing up the fireplace is redefined, becoming an accessory. In my experience, beautiful to look at, warm, pleasant smelling wood smoke; but not integral to life.  My experience is as true as my fathers but it can not be authentic, within his context and experience. 

So during the run I have to address my idea of authenticity, of what makes one experience valid the other fake. What is authentic is a declaration first and foremost. Some authority says that "this and not that " is a true thing. This is easiest to understand in the world of objects and provenance. When authenticity is tied to a recognized author or practitioner there is little to dispute, this is an authentic Rembrandt the other is fake. Fake meaning that it was done by someone other than the Dutch Master. But if you can't tell the difference what then?

Authenticity is tied to awareness. I love chocolate chip cookies. I like the real ones best of all. If I eat and enjoy cookies made with artificial vanilla, artificial sugar, artificial butter and artificial chocolate, then the cookies must be authentic, at least to me. When i become aware of the substitutions the next bite won't taste different but my understanding of it will change. The cookies I liked have now become fake. The authority of "real" ingredients determines authenticity. 

Authenticity without a supervising authority becomes entirely subjective. My father's experience of the Fireplace is different than mine, but without authority intervening, neither is less authentic than the other. So I find that while I can laugh at an Electric Fireplace hanging from a wall and say "that is not real" It should be understood only in terms of the object itself not the experience. For many that may be the only fire place they every see, and will be authentic within that frame work. 

It should be said that where it is required to separate out the real from the fake, do so. Where it is not relax and allow others the validity of their experiences.











Omnibus Bill 2 C-45, Orwell Title: Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

The second omnibus bill hit Parliament October 18th 2012. 

Title: A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures

Orwell Title: Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

I will endeavour to read this or the next little while. Feel free to do the same.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Word Usage Matters: Anti-Choice not Pro-Life

It is my habit to refer to people in the manner that they prefer. I find it causes me no problem to use First Nation, or if i know, by their Tribe or Band name. The use of Developmentally or Physically Disabled to refer to a person so affected seems reasonable to me. I don't find this in anyway restrictive to my freedom of speech or Kowtowing to the masters of  Politically Correctness; it is being respectful. Communications between people should not be a humiliating experience for either party. So when i found myself in conversation with Anti Choice advocates, I quite natural used the term Pro Life.

After receiving a polite comment or two about the usage of "Pro Life" instead of Anti Choice. I accepted the critique and looked at what I was doing. On a narrow level I was carrying on my normal habit of referring to a party or person in the manner of their own choosing. But was it the same circumstances as using LGBT when talking about the Gay community. I came to the conclusion that it was not the same. The flaw in my thinking was idea that self description was the same as accurate description. Using First Nations to describe our founding people is accurate and full. It doesn't mislead the listener or by using confusing or partial definitions.

"Pro Life" is accurate within a narrow space. They care about keeping the fetus alive till it is born, they express less interests after the birth. They seem to care little or nothing for the woman. Their stated goal is the elimination of Reproductive Choice. No choice means the fetus gets to live. So to call them Anti Choice is an accurate description because it encompasses the totality of their position.

So is there hypocrisy in my position now? Not at all. I am obliged to be respectful and conscious of other people and their naming conventions. But not to the point where is shifts from polite and honest recognition, to the participation in a masquerade. When the purpose is to draw the listener into some fictional space, I retain the right to disagree and call it as I see it.

Prorogation: Harper was Wrong and so is McGuinty

I sometimes employ a test to see if I'm being overly partisan.  So i pose the question "would I oppose a conservative policy or piece of legislation if it were instead promoted by the Liberals or NDP". This framing helps me to focus on the issue and not on the party responsible. An objective assessment of an action is necessary and only possible if rancour a partisanship is but aside .

Yesterday Dalton McGuinty resigned as leader of the liberal party. A surprise to the general public and perhaps to the elites as well. Then he dropped the other shoe, prorogation. Peter Loewen of the Ottawa Citizen offers up this analysis. For those needing a quick reminder of the definition of Prorogation is here is a handy reminder. Its use is quite specific.

"In the Canadian parliamentary system, the legislature is typically prorogued upon the completion of the agenda set forth in the Speech from the Throne..."

This is in my opinion, the only acceptable use of this singularly powerful tool. The executive brings to a halt all action in the legislature.

The principal effect of ending a session by prorogation is to terminate business. Members are released from their parliamentary duties until Parliament is next summoned. All unfinished business is dropped from or “dies” on the Order Paper and all committees lose their power to transact business, providing a fresh start for the next session. No committee can sit during a prorogation. Bills which have not received Royal Assent before prorogation are “entirely terminated” and, in order to be proceeded with in the new session, must be reintroduced as if they had never existed.

You can see the appeal of prorogation, for Governments facing legislative opposition, contempt allegations or loss of power. Harper has used it to avoid accountability in the house, 3 times. McGuinty is doing the same. Prorogation must be placed in the context that it occurs. Under the circumstances of a completed legislative agenda then prorogation carries no taint. But when used to avoid accountability it becomes odious.

Mr. McGuinty's reasons for the prorogue are spurious. He says that the need to act on public service pay  cuts and to engage in consultation on this issue with opposition parties requires the legislative break. So to carry on the business of government you need to close government. The purpose of the legislature is to deal with these issues, in public, not behind office doors. Yes the legislature is fractious and time consuming and work is delayed that might otherwise be moved swiftly forward. That is sometimes the cost of democratic government. A bill I am most willing to pay.

McGuinty has done good things for Ontario, in Education and Health. They have also done poorly on Energy, Ornge or E-Health. When they are facing real criticisms for damage done it is not appropriate for the Liberal government to side step these calamities by closing the Legislature. I would be appropriate if the Lieutenant Governor denied the request to prorogue, but that is unlikely. I surmise that the Liberals having taken a page from Harper's book on "Prorogation and avoiding accountability" hope to be as equally successful in retaining public support as Harper was. 

It was wrong for Harper to do it. It is wrong for McGuinty. 








Sunday, October 14, 2012

Sports-Doping and Competition

A few months ago Lance Armstrong quit fighting the USADA. He  has been at the center of a doping scandal for a number of years. Teammates claiming he was doping his way to 7 Tour de France wins. Now it's October and Lance Armstrong is still popular, still has his fans. This respect is a carryover from his cancer fighting foundation as much as an unwillingness of supporters to give up on a hero.

We are entering a phase of the Armstrong saga where some ask "how does this effect his legacy". This is not a question I want to address. Armstrong will be judge on what he did; by the knowledgeable and the ignorant. I'm more interested in the notion being raised on the periphery, if everyone is doping what is the problem. The wide spread belief that competitions are rigged, either through doping or match fixing. Match fixing and doping are not the same kind of cheating. The former requires one or more players to lose a match or perhaps not to win by too wide a margin; money is involved, bribes or illegal betting; the latter, doping is performance entrancement, often dedicated to personal enrichment, better stats mean bigger paychecks, or in a team environment more wins. 

I approach doping in sports from the perspective of what competition means. What are the expectations of participants and spectators? Fairness, is at the core of any competition, the idea that what we are seeing is a true account of effort, and not a rigged show. Fairness does not mean equal, nature gives us talent, training hones that ability, and competition is where that hard in skill is measured against our fellows. 

In the long history of recorded competition, fairness has a role to play, not always as I define it. Two warriors in single combat, status is gained from fighting an opponent. The notion of fairness is tied to worth, a strong adversary is preferable to a weaker one. Winning is good but beating a clear inferior has little honour to it. This maybe an idealized version, expressed more in theory than in fact, but it had an impact in literature and so probably in life. Fairness, in a life death circumstances is likely to be observed more often in the failure to be applied than its observance. 

We enter the modern era and the rise of the sporting world, where competition is less costly, socially or physically. The idea of Fairness is able to find fuller expression through a life of sport. Two people or teams compete, only there skill and training will determine the outcome. My notion of fairness are human beings competing without biological enhancement. Coaching, training and dedication to the chosen sport provided the edge that gave victory. It's not perfect, the United States has an edge over most countries in sports technology. This may not seem fair, but money and equipment does not reach the level of cheating, implied by doping. 

So our expectation for any competition is that it be between humans without external chemical aids, anything else is fraud. That is my answer to "why not doping". Doping undermines our idea of fair competition, because it involves a lie. The non doping participants and the audience are being fooled into believing that what they are engaging in and seeing is authentic, fair competition. Nobody likes a cheater. 

So what are we to do about doping? Should we openly accept it, by placing it in the realm of training tools, just another piece of equipment? Probably not a workable solution, because chemical enhancement provides more of a boost than coaching or training facilities can to performance. Anyone person competing drug free will be at a disadvantage, save for the most talented people. 

We can split competitions into drug free and drug enhanced athletes. This gives us the transparency. Everyone involved knows that what they are witnessing is enhanced humans competing. There can be no outrage or fraud if everyone knows what is going on. Whether it is workable to create parallel competitions or even desirable is hard to know. Do we want to begin going down the path of legitimizing Human Enhancement? At a minimum the notion of what is fair remains somewhat intact, though greatly diminished in meaning.

I think we are left needing to maintain an Idea, however romantic, of what fair competition means.I support continued efforts to find cheaters where and when we can, and suspending them from competing. 














Saturday, October 13, 2012

Human Nature and Belief

I'm reading a biography on Voltaire. I don't mention this to appear lofty. Voltaire is an interesting man and I have wanted to read about his life for a long time. I went to the library and picked up a copy of  "Voltaire: A Life" by Ian Davidson. It's a good read. as soon as I am done; it's off to Madame de Pompadour and Joan of Arc. It is often the case that one book leads to another.The  Madame was a figure in his life; Joan in the form a poem, that caused him no end of trouble. Intrigued, I decided to learn more about both. Let me put that aside now, for it is not the point of this piece, just a bit of background.

Early into the biography I discovered Voltaire was antisemitic.  What does that mean, other than he held the same view of Jewish people, that was common in his day. Voltaire can't be characterized as a frothing at the mouth, racist, but it is definite he had no love for the Jewish people. I accept the notion that people must be understood within the context of their time. It is only exceptional men and women that can transcend their eras and carve new and independent directions. Voltaire is one of those men. Calling for tolerance between Christens, reform of the Justice system and Freedom of Expression. Just not the one, that was able to look past societal racism. We are the totality of our actions, the good or the bad, and is improper to apply a filter. That lead me square to the point of this piece: Belief.

Our human nature is the framework, beliefs we hang upon it, the sum is who we are..What we believe changes, a lot, but not our natures. Throughout the biography are examples of our nature. All of those strengths and weakness that encumber us as a species, love, sacrifice, avarice, greed, ego and so many more positive and negative emotions. The 18th century human differs from us only in what they believe; and how such beliefs, guide by nature formed action. The slave owner is not a different species of human, even if today he would appear so. The only thing that separates us from him is that slavery is now believed to be wrong. That idea came gradually, refined over time to include more and more groups of people till there was none left to enslave. Slavery faded because it could no longer be defended; not its utility nor its purpose. Yet met still many clung to the idea regardless of the harm it inflicted on them personally. It is important to note that we didn't become incapable of enslaving people, we just decided not to do it any more. It  began with the elites of the day. First a few, then more, they raged on against it, the public intellectuals-philosophers, men and women of God. They worked hard to change the minds of those that could alter the course of events.

So I arrived at this point, if we can be moved away, by thoughtful conscientious elites, from the acceptance of slavery, of the oppression of women, LGBT or other minorities; we can be moved back.  Nazis Germany; a case study in the failure of elites to safeguard political and social advances. Some tried, but the current was against them, more were engaged in advancing an set of ideas that would give rise to the Nazis. But by no means was Nazi Germany's rise was inevitable, it was merely possible.  

So I arrive at the conclusion that no advance is safe because no idea and the belief that follow from them is permanent because we aren't. The more complacent we are; the greater our need for public intellectuals is. In our era, Elite is almost a swear pushed out through thin, tired lips. Science is held in disrepute by our fellow citizens and also far to many of those that govern. Our Rights are parsed and segmented till we are left with nothing, a phrase gutted, that no longer has the power to protect us. 

Our times are tougher, more information at the disposal of more people than ever before, at the same time seem less able to filter the good form the bad, false and misleading information has an easy appeal, hard to deny.  

Every generation has to learn about our fundamental freedoms and why we need to keep them in order to remain free. Our Elites need to be out front, engaged in dialogue with us, the citizens. Talk to us about our responsibility to the society in which we live. For it is the citizen that confers the power to govern and they must choose as wisely as possible.










Saturday, September 29, 2012

Pro-Choice M312, M408 the second kick at the Can

The fight over Motion 312 is over and the count was 203-91 against. The 87 of the 91 votes for the motion were conservatives, including 8 cabinet ministers. Elizabeth May of the Green Party, all the members of the NDP and all but four Liberals voted against the M312. Of note was Rona Ambrose Status of Women Minister, who voted for the Motion. She has come under fire for siding with Pro Life MP Stephen Woodworth. I think it is a fair criticism. The purpose of the Ministry for the Status of Women is the advancement of women. It is reasonable to say that supporting a motion that is a thinly veiled attempt to open a path to abortion regulation and eventual criminalization, runs counter to the Minister's portfolio. Ms Ambrose's  vote may be excused somewhat if she was voting her constituents wishes. But if she was voting her conscience, she should have resigned position as Minister before the vote. How can Ms Ambrose properly represent women if she is conflicted.

Fast on the heals of the defeated M312 came M408.

M-408 — September 26, 2012 — Mr. Warawa (Langley) — That the House condemn discrimination against females occuring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

This is a vote to condemn the selective abortion of females fetuses. How can that be a bad thing. How can anyone support aborting fetuses because they are female. So what we Recognized is a condition in which abortion is not acceptable. In comes Pro Life. They might say "if you agree that it's acceptable to limit a woman's choice in this instance, then how about...". That is the whole problem with the issue of Abortion. Pro Life wishes to end legal abortion, outright or a little at a time. Motion 312 was an attempt to create person hood for a fetus and a conflict of rights between the Mother and the fetus. Such a conflict would have to be addressed by the Courts, Legislation or both. The outcome would likely be an end to Legal abortion, or it's severe curtailment. The aim of Pro Choice is to preserve a Women's Reproductive Rights, and that must included abortion though it does not demand it. What a woman, unsure of whether she wants to be a mother, needs is support, information and compassion. What doesn't help is to be coerced, either to have an abortion or to keep the child. 

So the motion condemning sex selection is a trap of sorts. An attempt to suggest Pro Choice, Feminists or what have you are hypocrites. How the question is spat out "can you say you support women, only to allow their extinction in the womb". The Pro Life arguments will be rife with exaggeration, free of context and accusation. They will also be completely wrong. Wrong because Pro Life doesn't get what Feminists and Choice supporters are trying to do. 

I support Choice because a women must be secure in her body as men are in theirs. Part of that security is to be free of coercion. I'm not Pro Abortion, I'm Pro Choice. I accept that abortion is just one of the choices available. That brings us around to sex selective abortions. The CBC investigated fetal gender testingAlready pundits have staked out their positions decrying it's arrival in Canada. Many begin by quoting the down right awful incidence of selective female abortions in other countries. It is reasonable to believe it is happening here. The tools are available as are people who might desire to use them. The question is how many are doing it. From the Globe and Mail and article on sex selection in Ontario. Selected from the article is this point.

"During the study period, about 4,100 babies were delivered to Indian-born mothers who already had two or more children. Using the “normal” ratio of 1.05 males to female births, the number of baby girls expected to be born in that group would be 1,999; the actual number was 1754.
The calculations show the total number of “missing” girls is 245, which equals about 35 births per year, or less than one per cent of the total births to Indian-born women."
Sex selective abortion if occurring at all, has yet to reach a point where it presents a real problem. This indicates that in Canada those pressures that lead to sex selective abortions are being mitigated. This is where the Pro life chatter fails as usual. Sex selective abortion results from social or cultural pressure or more intimately from the family's desire for a male child. It is coercion. The problem with sex selective abortion is not the abortion, that is the end result; instead it is the desire for a male child due to the implied superior value of a boy, that drives it. If you want to stop sex selective abortions you need to address why women are so devalued? Why a family doesn't want a girl? The Pro Choice position is about ending coercion of any kind. It is about listening to the woman, understanding what she needs and providing it with compassion but without judgement.
It is not a surprising revelation that sex selective abortions seem quite rare in Ontario, if they occur at all. It says that in Ontario and in Canada, quite loudly; where women have equality and opportunity; where women have value outside the womb,they will have value in the womb as well.  
Motion 408 is another Pro Life attempt to strip women of choice. The argument that it protects women is shallow at best, at worst it's the hypocritical one. How do you protect and value women by reducing their status and rights whenever pregnant. I still have no problem supporting women or their reproductive choices.