Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

The ministerial oral podectomy as a tool (ahem) of development assistance

by Paul Wells on Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:58pm - 122 Comments

In the House of Commons just now, Bev Oda moved swiftly to remove Lawrence Cannon’s foot from his mouth. A quick transcript:

Bob Rae (L): Last year, the G-8 summit contained words: “Voluntary family planning and sexual and reproductive health.” I’d like to ask the minister of foreigaffairs how is it possible that Canadian foreign policy has been highjacked by the tea partiers on the other side? Taking us away from great traditions and taking us away from the policy that our —that our policy should be consistent with what that government agreed to last year?

The Speaker: The honourable minister of international corporation.

Hon. Bev Oda: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And as the member opposite knows, the G-8 leaders will discuss and chart the way forward to tackle child and maternal health at the upcoming summit. As we’ve been saying all along, we are not closing the door on any options that will save the lives of mothers and children. Including contraception. And as we have been saying all along, we are not opening the abortion debate. Thank you.

Bob Rae: (Voice of translator): Well, you see a total change in the party’s policy. They said yesterday — and today, to the same minister. The minister, in her budget, announced cuts of narly $200 million in funding to the poorest countries, and the most fragile countries. How are those cuts compatible with a policy to take care of women and children in Africa? It’s completely incomprehensible what we’ve just heard.

Hon. Bev Oda: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaker, this government knows how to manage its finances. We know that we are in — in Speaker, we know that we are in fact increasing the budget for CIDA for its international assistance, Mr. Speaker. And we’ve been doing that consistently. In fact, we will reach a level of international assistance never reached by any other government before in the history of canada.

Marcel Lussier (BQ) (Voice of translator): Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago the government supported voluntary family planning. Why does it want to block access for contraception to African women? Why are the Conservatives forcing George Bush style doctrines on the world? Speaker, does this government believe in the benefits of contraception?

Hon. Bev Oda: Mr. Speaker let me again be very clear and to reiterate that at the G-8 the leaders will discussing maternal and child health. And in fact, okay, I’ve articulated, there are no doors being closed, even contraception.

Tags: Bev Oda, contraception, lawrence cannon

More by Paul Wells

Holly Stick

Removing one foot so the other has room to wiggle its toes.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

One thumbs up to get you the free one IntenseDebate hands out when you post.

Holly Stick

Thank you, I think? I'm not logged in so I can't vote.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

Motivated by genuine approval. It seemed unreasonable that you had a zero approval for a funny remark when I can get one for posting gibberish. ;-)

Holly Stick

Heh heh.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Credit where it's due, this is an extremely encouraging development.

http://intensedebate.com/people/ZestyMordant ZestyMordant

It's true. In each of their recent flips they've ended up with the right decision. But words are easy to flip – budgets and actual policies, not so much. Let's see what happens.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Makes you wonder what they were doing with 83 days off and how they could so badly misread the public on so many issues (add the anthem and great spending increases instead of any attempt at the deficit).

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

To truly flip flop wouldn't they have to replace the $200 million?

burlivespipe

How is this a flip-flop? From my parsing of Oda's empty echo, all i hear is that the G8's plan may/will consider contraceptives. That doesn't mean the CONs are all in for that kind of funding, too, right? They may just as likely behind close doors, along with their typical legal rider that is now part of their governmental operandi, dictate that their money goes to mosquito netting only (for example)…

http://intensedebate.com/people/G0D God

I think the problem here is that before today, Bev Oda didnt know what the word contraception means.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

But she's always been a tool…

http://intensedebate.com/people/ZestyMordant ZestyMordant

I'm starting to wonder if these almost daily about-turns are intentional (anthem, ten percenters, contraception…). The governing party always seems to benefit from increasing voter apathy, and constantly changing your position sure makes it hard for average people to know what's going on…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

constantly changing your position sure makes it hard for average people to know what's going on…

"Average people" aren't even aware of the about-turns, because they simply don't pay attention to such things. Most Canadians don't follow this kind of news very closely.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

I think classifying people as average is mean spirited. Though I can see how it could by useful to sum.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Is this a record?

The Conservatives flip flop on the inclusion of contraception, one day after ruling it out.

The Conservatives flip flop on 10%ers by voting in support of taxpayer waste in the morning and announcing that they will defy Parliament, and then announcing they support the elimination of the 10%ers in the evening.

The Conservatives flip flop on internet connections for libraries, by announcing they were reversing their decision to cut funding to community institutions that provide free internet access to Canadians who don't have affordable access at home or at work.

And that is just in two days.

Not turning out to be a good week for the Conservatives.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

I am guessing that they got massive blowback from constituents on each of these issues. I can't think why they would reverse themselves so quickly and so completely.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Don't forget the flag.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Well that flip flop was more than two days ago! If we're going to go back that far…

It does really make you wonder how much consulting with constituents they actually did during the Harper Holiday. None of these issues are really all that huge but each of them seems to be a terrible miscalculation of what ordinary Canadians think.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Is this a record?

Nope. Paul Martin still holds that record for his flip-flops on the notwithstanding clause.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Not entirely sure where Martin's flip flop was with respect to the notwithstanding clause (he never retracted his stupid and desperate proposal to ban federal use of the clause as far as I am aware), but assuming there was one that would be one.

Harper's had three in less than 48 hours. Go back a just a tad more for the anthem flip flop and you have four in a real short period of time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

It's funny that there were three flip-flops in 48 hours, but unless there are more coming down the pipe it will all be forgotten. Only political geeks like us keep tabs on this sort of thing. Average Canadians don't notice or care.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Right. Because no politician has ever made flip flops or broken promises a campaign issue before.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

My guess is that the Liberals would want to stay away from making "flip flops" a campaign issue, lest Canadian voters be reminded of the Liberal Party's ignoble track record in this department (Red Book, anyone?)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Don't confuse flip flops with not getting the job done.

That said, whether Canadians notice or care about flip flops or not, they really shouldn't.
Changing your position on something can simply indicate you've learned. Something I don't mind at all, and as pointed out above, these changes have all been, at least in my mind, for the good.

So really, the only reason to be concerned about these is, as was pointed out earlier, how they've all come almost directly after the government took time off supposedly to consult with Canadians. The changes are concerning because the original position makes evident the lie that that excuse for prorogation was.
wilson

The coalition flip flop still reigns supreme.

Every Opposition MP signed onto the coaltion of losers.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Careful wilson, that was almost on topic. You wouldn't want to spoil your record.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

I wholeheartedly agree with you about "flip flops". I tend to think a politician changing his/her mind is a good thing, it means they're learning and that maybe politics is somewhat approaching the Hegelian exchange that I like to think it should and is moving away from the current model of who can shout "I'm right and you're wrong" the loudest.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Agree. It isn't the flip-flop that's the problem. It's that they were so wrong (so often in a short period of time) in the first place.

burlivespipe

But Paul martin still managed to balance the budget in his sleep. These bunglers flip-flop and the deficit grows bigger and hungrier while they advertise gleefully about it…

canada101

tedbetts you are an idiot

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Such an eloquent, well thought and reasoned argument.

Loraine Lamontagne

I'd suspect they didn't spend as much time reaching out to their constituents as they claimed they did while parliament was prorogued.

I'd also say it's a good time to have an election. Can you imagine them announcing a policy with great fanfare one day and flip-flopping the next day – for 30 days… hi, hi, hi
D Mitchell

Well then tell your leaders in the Bloc, liberals and NDP to vote non confidence and bring it on!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

You do realize that the opposition actually needs a motion day to do that? They can't just fire it out as a point of order?

D Mitchell

Wasn't there just a vote on the budget? Face it lads the loyal opposition hasn't got the balls to stand up to the Cons. If they thought that the general public had their nickers in the same knot that the peanut gallery here has they would have brought this government down eons ago.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

It's funny. The left is always accusing opponents of forcing their views on others, yet here they are insisting that "contraception" be attached to measures that really don't have anything to do with sex.

Holly Stick

Well Dennis, improving womens' health includes things like contraception.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Again, what does sex have to do with maternal and child health? There are wonderful measures in these proposals, but you left-wingers want to nix them because they don't include condoms and abortions. What the heck?

Holly Stick

Dennis, someday you may learn what sex involves (with other people that is) and you may also learn that sexual behaviour has consequences, some of which affect people's health. You might even learn about the connection between sex and maternity. Ask your mom…

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

His mom won't tell him because he ends every conversation with "LOL, next"
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Seriously, is this all some of you have? You can't defend your abortion agenda, so you do this, then click thumbs up and down for the rest of the day – probably paid for by the very taxpayers you mock.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

It never ceases to amaze me how many of you cannot simply stick to the issues raise. Why is that? I think it's because you can't defend your agenda. You can't defend throwing sex into child and maternal health.

I absolutely agree that sex has consequences, which is why I think it should be dealt with responsibly, and not like this.

Lord Kitchener's Own

What does sex have to do with maternal and child health?

Dennis, just where do you think children come from?

Seriously, how can you be so apparently confused as to the relationship between sex and women having children?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Let me get this straight. A man and woman having sex has something to do with health issues involving a mother and her child. What, is the child in the room when they're going at it? Holy smokes, what an agenda.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Yes Dennis, it's because the child's in the room when they're having sex. That's it exactly.

There's just no way in which access to contraception could prevent a mother from dying in childbirth, or an unwanted baby whom the parents can't afford from dying of malnutrition. I mean, who'd be so loopy as to suggest that preventing pregnancy can prevent pregnancy-related deaths, or that the deaths of unwanted children could be prevented by stopping the conception of unwanted children?

Of course I realize now that you're being deliberately obtuse here just to stir the pot, so I'll leave you be I guess.

Jan

Well,Dennis I know you're aversion to sex but you'd be amazed at how directtly sex and pregnancy are connected. If I'm not mistaken, they've proven causality. And what are these wonderful measures of which you speak – all I've heard from Oda is 'clean water. innoculations and nutrition'.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your types have to be childish and angry about this. You can't deal with the issues raised. Who was talking about pregnancy and sex? In fact, abortion causes harm to children, doesn't it? The illogic of the left on these issues is truly something to behold. Then you turn around and pretend to be smart about it. You can't make this stuff up.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Who is proposing to nix anything? Stop making stuff up.

Besides, Harper has caved on this and now concedes that, like the other G8 countries to which he is making his proposal, it will be a part of the maternal and child health.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

OK, sorry. You guys yell and scream if your precious abortion and promiscuity agenda isn't attached to otherwise completely uncontroversial but valuable health measures. Do I have it correct now?
Holly Stick

I really, really feel like quoting Robin Williams in "Good Morning Vietnam" right about now.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Because, yet again, you have nothing else. Curious behaviour for peopel who think they're right all the time, including on issues such as abortion and promiscuity.
Holly Stick

I don't feel like engaging with a shrill hysteric who has nothing to say worth paying attention to. LOL, next.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

So then why do it at all, especially with inane taunts that only expose you as the mindless ideologue with no ability to use reason in defence of her agenda? Oh, except to refer to a movie without even citing a specific quote for impact. lol. Next.
Holly Stick

The grownups will get the reference.

Dennis, why is a boy like you so interested in women's private parts anyway?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Hmm…you keep yammering on about "you guys" and "leftists" and our "promiscuity agenda". Seems to me that our stance isn't even remotely controversial, after all the UK Tories themselves believe that "Giving women choice over whether they have children is incredibly important and helps open the door to economic progress".

So is Cameron a frothing pinko? Do I have *that* correct now?

_____________________

full quote:
"Around the world 200 million women who want to control their reproduction still do not have access to modern contraception. With the exception of a few oil-rich states, no country has risen from poverty
without lowering their birth rates. Giving women choice over whether they have children is incredibly important and helps open the door to economic progress.And as prosperity spreads, the economic need
for parents to have large families diminishes.We will place renewed emphasis on empowering women to take decisions about their reproductive and sexual health. "

Source: The 2009 UK Conservative Party platform on international development.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

I don't understand something. Why does "choice" always involve contraception and abortion for you social liberals? Why can't people exercise their "reproductive rights" by making other kinds of choices, such as engaging in reproductive behaviour with, wait for it, people they want to reproduce with? And why is it that there is a choice AFTER conception? If the sex was consensual, wasn't the choice already made? Weird.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Just once I'd like to see you engage in a good-faith discussion here. You know full well why choice involves contraception and abortion…because they're choices. Furthermore, I think you're fully aware that a major problem in developing countries is that the sex is very much not consensual.

I know you like to think you set out all these clever little traps on these message boards, but frankly you're not clever, you're tiresome. There are plenty of right-leaning posters here (like critical reasoning, hosertohoosier, madeyoulook, gaunilon to name a few) who seem capable of holding meaningful discussions with their ideological counterparts – but unlike you, they enter into them in good faith. If you want to just come here and sow discord and rile up the enemy, then go ahead – you aren't the first to do so and you won't be the last…but then to complain about how nobody likes you is a bit rich.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Well, I do believe that contraception involves a choice, but I also tend to believe that it involves a false choice, too. It encourages the specific behaviour that leads to the very consequences meant to be avoided: pregnancy, disease, etc.

I do not believe that abortion should involve a choice, because the choice has already been made. Again, if the sex is consensual, then why does the baby have to suffer?

Regarding your point about consent, I find it truly remarkable that you want to deal with a genuine issue of rape with the killing of unborn children.Again, that we tolerate such things I find unimaginable. We think gays have more rights to marry than unborn to life, or protection from slaughter. How did we get here?

Look, I don't hold back. People want to attack me simply for challenging their leftist agenda, I fight back. There's a lot that I don't like about that agenda, and I let it be known. Many of my adversaries can't deal with the merits of my arguments, so they lash out.

Frankly, if there were more people like, we wouldn't have 100,000 abortions a year, and demands that that agenda be attached to humanitarian efforts worldwide.

It's been my experience that leftists like their adversaries to be docile and controlled. Well, I believe in freedom, baby. If you don't, there's always Cuba.

And who complained that nobody likes me? Why do many of you have to make things up? Oh yeah, it's better than defending your agenda in the open. Hey, let's just be like Wherry and always try to get those blasted dumb conservatives.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

You do realize that it took you 17 posts before you actually made a point right? You aren't challenging anybody's "leftist agenda" (like David Cameron's apparently)…you're just trying to needle people and then complaining when people respond in kind.

Oh and the whole "I believe in freedom, baby. If you don't, there's always Cuba"? maybe the most painfully dumb thing you've written yet.

As for your one marginal point, you do realize that yours is the minority view right? That pretty much every nation in the developed world agrees that any programs aimed at improving women's health in developing nations must also include contraception and abortion. That you think humanitarian programs should appease your sensitivities is absurd. Your personal feelings on abortion are irrelevant.

Look, this is exceptionally simple. Too many mouths to feed and not enough money will ensure that developing nations remain developing. The United States tried your approach for 8 years under Bush, how did that work out?
http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

the over simplicity of your world view is breathtaking in an age where we have so much information at our fingertips. as a starter, do you think that everyone is actually in a position to make basic choices about who they have sex with and when? and whether that sex involves contraception (which you and yours make even more difficult with your efforts to stigmatize the use of condoms).

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

Dennis are you seriously this willfully ignorant. if you so that is really sad.

you want one example? how about the role of condoms in reducing aids prevalence including in utero transference from mother to child? does that count?

you should read more and talk less.

Wallace Cleaver

And the Minister agrees….

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Yeah, because you leftists wouldn't stop yelling and screaming about it until abortion and promiscuity was attached to genuine health issues. Yay, what a wonderful agenda.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Grampa – Is this you?
It's way past your bed-time!
Looking at the evidence here, I'm guessing you didn't take your medication…….

http://intensedebate.com/people/NoNameCS NoNameCS

I think you'll find the link between women's health and access to contraception in yesterday's post from P.Wells on this issue.

In a nutshell: lack of access to contraception leads to serial pregnancies, will serious effects on overall health for women in countries where health care, nutrition and standard of living are abysmal.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Serial pregnancies but also, as or perhaps more importantly, diseases.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Let me get this straight. Instead of educating people about making reproductive choices BEFORE conception, and advocating for health that way, we're not saying anything about that, but we're giving them abortions to kill unborn children after sex. And this is supposed to be about health, is it?

I find it absurd tying abortion to any notion of health. Are people crazy? Then they turn around and mock their opponents. I guess they have to if this is their agenda.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

Dennis – we totally need to send you as an ambassador, so you could preach the good word.
You would totally set them all straight, and all the problems would be gone.
When can you book a flight?
http://intensedebate.com/people/NoNameCS NoNameCS

Uh, Dennis ? I'm pretty sure I talked about contraception, not abortion. Yep. It's right there: c-o-n-t-r-a-c-e-p-t-i-o-n.

I used some of my valuable time on this earth to answer your first query. I think I should have looked you up before I bothered. There you are, ranting all over this comment section about "you people" and "the left", calling people crazy and so on. And yet, you are also demanding respect, complaining that people don't stick to the issue.

It's a little strange, Dennis. I'm just sayin'.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Oh, sorry, I thought that many of you considered abortion to be contraception. Don't you? I thought that was a huge part of what this was all about.

And, yes, I dare call people on the left side of the political spectrum, wait for it, leftists. Why do some of you consider this to be some kind of a swear word? Why always the hidden agenda?

I never resort to a childish personal attack. I always deal with the issues raised in the posts. Yet people like you always point me out, not some of your less intelligent ideological buddies. And, yes, they're less intelligent based on the specific behaviours they display on here.

It's like you're not allowed to disagree with the left-wing. You get mad, then can't defend your agenda. Then you consider that to be smart or something.
http://intensedebate.com/people/NoNameCS NoNameCS

I tend to consider myself an individual capable of making up my own mind on issues, Dennis, but I'm not sure you're too receptive to that notion right now.

We're all to someone else's "right" and to others' "left". It means nothing… unless you're trying to provoke arguments and goad people. Which I guess you are.

Hey, whatever tickles your fancy.

But you should be aware of how it makes you look. And from this end of the conversation, Don Quixote really comes to mind…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

LOL, next.

(credit to TJCook)
non-partisan

If you think that child and maternal health has nothing to do with being able to decide when you have a child you're an idiot.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

a) Why are you so angry?

b) Why don't you explain it to us, genius?

Next.

Wallace Cleaver

I thought that headline was the funniest thing I'd read all day.

Then I read the rest of the post, and came to this line:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaker, this government knows how to manage its finances.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

I saw it on newsworld…the opposition side all burst into spontanious laughter, even Peter Kent seemed to crack a smile :)

Wallace Cleaver

This is a wonderful day for humour. Now we have Dennis wondering why somebody ELSE is angry.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

What is it with some of you who can't justify your taunts with what people actually post? Then you spend the rest of the day clicking thumbs up or down. Is this all you have? lol

That person felt it necessary to call me an idiot, and you agree with this tactic. Lovely agenda.

Wallace Cleaver

But you ARE an idiot…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Why? Because I dare disagree with you? This is what I"m talking about. Many of you can't do anything to defend your agenda. You just get mad at opponents, just like in communism.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Why do you hate our communists, Dennis_F?
Kenneth

Hilarious! Getting mad at opponents is in some way a communist trait?

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Contraception gets classified "child and maternal health" because North Americans are too prudish to actually call it a component of sexual health.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Yeah, so why do you leftists have to throw it into child and maternal health, then turn around and accuse others of forcing your views into things?

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

the only thing that is forced here is your reasoning to enable your ideology.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

That's actually a good nuanced position. The door is closed on abortion, all options are on the table regarding family planning. ("family planning" here meaning both natural and artificial contraception)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I'm pretty sure that the abortion door is closed and I'm pretty sure that the contraception door is wide open. This seems like a good balance.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Yes, it makes sense both politically and ethically. Ethically it makes sense to let the contraception angle be determined by the prevailing evidence, and of course everyone here knows what I think the ethics of abortion are. Politically if the CPC caves on abortion they lose a great deal of their traditional support and all hope of poaching Catholics from the LPC, whereas contraception is not likely to hurt them.

I suppose the play on the part of the NDP is clear: hammer at them as a reincarnation of GW Bush. The LPC has to navigate a veritable minefield, however.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I suppose the play on the part of the NDP is clear: hammer at them as a reincarnation of GW Bush. The LPC has to navigate a veritable minefield, however.

You've pretty much described the NDP playbook on any social issue. I also agree that the Liberals have to tread very carefully here. At least a million traditional Liberal voters are practicing Roman Catholics, like Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. If the Liberals are too aggressive in insisting that Canadian taxpayers must fund abortions in the third world, there could be repercussions.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Canadians have never funded abortions in the third world and no on is proposing that. Why would you twist what they have actually said in such a pretzel manner. The PMO is already doing enough of that, thank you very much.

What we have done in the past and the Liberals are proposing is that we not exclude funding to, for example, a woman's clinic that happens to also provide abortion adivce or even abortions or to medical training so abortions are performed in a safe manner.

The Conservatives have said no, but what does that even mean? They won't say. Does it mean that if a women's maternal health centre in the middle of some African country also happens to provide abortion, Canada won't give any money to that clinic or they will just try to earmark it all the way from Canada? They won't say. Does it mean if the G8 decides to include funding for planned parenthood like education centres that Canada will back out? They won't say.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Pretzel? You're making a distinction between directly funding abortions and indirectly funding them, but it's not always easy to draw a clear line. If Canadian funds help to build an abortion clinic in Sierra Leone (or wherever) and Canadian grants subsidize the operating costs of that clinic so that the services can be provided free of charge, I don't think it's a stretch for Roman Catholics to say that "Canadian tax dollars are funding abortions in the third world".

By the way, I don't think that most RCs have much of a problem with their tax dollars being used to fund PP education centres, contraception and other family planning services in the third world (regardless of what the Vatican says). However, they would strongly oppose funding abortions in the third world, whether such funding is direct or indirect.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

I actually don't think that Catholics (myself included) would care much about the second option either. I strongly suspect that Catholicity just isn't a big political motivator in Canada anymore.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I don't have one ready to hand, but I've seen polls that suggest you're correct concerning those who identify as "Catholic", but you're incorrect about those who attend Mass regularly (i.e. "practicing Catholics"). There are enough of the latter to be a significant political voting bloc.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"By the way, I don't think that most RCs have much of a problem with their tax dollars being used to fund PP education centres, contraception and other family planning services in the third world …"

I think you're wrong there friend. RCs (at least practicing RCs) might not have a problem with funding agencies that also provide contraceptives, but lots would have a big problem with funding Planned Parenthood, particularly in the third world. This is because (a) PP is a huge abortion provider – it's their main line of business, (b) they do it for profit – they're not an aid organization, and (c) they have a disturbing history regarding the use of contraception and abortion to further eugenics.
Lord Kitchener's Own

I guess part of my confusion is why people would get up in arms about "Canadian tax dollars funding abortions in the third world", given that Canadian tax dollars fund abortions in Canada (I mean, of course I get why they're getting all up in arms, it just seems misdirected, though perhaps the idea is that this is an easier target… i.e. "we'll never manage to cut off Canadian women from abortions, but we can make sure African women have a hard time getting them").

As I said above, if it's legal, accessible and tax-payer funded in Canada, then deciding to NOT fund the same services for people in the third world with our foreign aid money seems kinda scummy, imho. I mean, are we not implicitly saying "access to safe abortions is important for Canadian women, and the government will fund this health service for Canadian women, but we don't think any of our funding for foreign aid in Africa should be used to give African women the same choices"?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"I guess part of my confusion is why people would get up in arms about "Canadian tax dollars funding abortions in the third world", given that Canadian tax dollars fund abortions in Canada…"

Those of us who get up in arms about it would like to see funding for Canadian abortion clinics halted as well. Many of us would also like to see the clinics shut down and have abortions treated like any other homicide.

None of that is currently on the table. Funding for abortion clinics in the third world is, so that's where the battle lines are currently drawn. When the Allies were fighting at El Alamein, it was no good saying "why aren't we attacking Berlin!"

http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

Yup, that's about right

kcm

" no doors being closed" is pretty wise, considering the number of times they've had to reopen them again lately.
Holly Stick

Not opening the abortion debate is not the same as no abortions. But since safe abortions are also a part of maternal and children's health, perhaps they will not be stupid enough to forbid them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Explain how a "safe" abortion relates at all to the child's health?

Holly Stick

When the child is pregnant, like this nine year old who was pregnant with twins:
"…Doctors said the girl was 15 weeks pregnant when the abortion was performed Wednesday in the northeastern city of Recife, where Sobrinho is archbishop. Health officials said the life of the girl — who weighs 80 pounds — was in danger…"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505183,00.htm…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/05/brazil-g…

Or many children who need their mother, when the mother is likely to die from too many pregnancies, or from malnutrition, etc. How long do orphans survive?

Lord Kitchener's Own

"we are not reopening the abortion debate"

To me, that seemed a strange thing for the Tories to say. Didn't the abortion debate in Canada, such as it was, end with the side who wanted unfettered access to abortions WINNING? I don't know where I stand on the funding of abortions overseas, but if we're going to refuse to fund something overseas that we're perfectly willing to fund here in Canada, isn't that the very definition of "reopening the debate"?

It would seem to me that an organization like Planned Parenthood would be perfectly fine with the notion of "not re-opening the abortion debate". In fact "Let's not re-open the abortion debate in Canada" might actually be their motto. They already won that fight. In Canada, there are no legal restrictions on abortions whatsoever. Right or wrong, refusing to fund a procedure overseas which is perfectly legal to fund (and is in fact funded) in Canada seems to me the very definition of re-opening the debate. Which shouldn't really be a problem imho. Let's have a debate.

http://intensedebate.com/people/canaidreform canaidreform

Its a sad comment on the quality and competence of the Canadian Ministry when Lawrence Cannon has to rely on Bev Oda to come to his defense.

Oda says "we will reach a level of international assistance never reached by any other government before in the history Canada".

Nonsense.

The agreed measure of commitment to foreign aid isn't spending in current dollars; its spending relative to GNI (Gross National Income). By that measure, Canada is at 0.3% well below the 0.5% achieved under a previous administration. But don't get too puffed up you Libs. That high point wasn't reached during a Trudeau, Chretien or Martin government but in '85-'86 when Mulroney was PM.
Ted

Canadians don’t care about flip flops?

Whew. That’s got to be a relief for Liberals. They won’t have to worry about anyone caring about flip flopping on the GST.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

The difference is that Liberal governments historically tend to flip-flop on hugely important issues, like free trade and the GST, while the Conservative flip-flops (3 in 48 hours!) are relatively minor, and are thus easily forgotten by the small percentage of Canadians who were even aware of them in the first place.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"The difference is that Liberal governments historically tend to flip-flop on hugely important issues, like free trade and the GST, while the Conservative flip-flops (3 in 48 hours!) are relatively minor…."

Er what? These ones are minor, sure, but…. stimulus spending? … Senate appointments? …. fixed election dates??? I don't think you attribute a monopoly to the Liberals when it comes to major-issue flip-flops.

Holly Stick

Remember those Olympics that Harper had so many photo ops at? Another record:

"…Most condoms distributed at a Winter Games…"

http://harperbizarro.blogspot.com/2010/03/harper-…
matt

Three questions:

a. Is this contraception "flip flop" strickly because Cannon interpreted "family planning" to mean "abortion"?

b. Is this because he did not know the maternal health file well enough to realize contraception relates to maternal health and falls under the umbrella of family planning? or

c. Is this because he was afraid the umbrella term was being used as a trap by reporters smelling blood in the water after Ignatieff used the word abortion earlier (and was under strict PMO orders to stay away from anything abortion related)?

I think the answer to all three questions is yes. And I think the conclusions that result from that are 1. Cannon sucks, 2. the media suck – they are *inhibiting* mature debate and gaming the system, so to speak, in chasing a story.

[p.s. a friend's theory is that Cannon just didn't know that the English phrase "family planning" included contraception - I'd be curious to know if there's anything to that, but at the end of the day as a Minister of the Crown on that file it doesn't matter, in that he ought to know]
matt

"strictly"
Holly Stick

The voice of experience:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/o-tories-try-…
wilson

CIDA already has family planning covered,
and no, abortion is not a contraceptive….
Gabby in QC

What happened to your previous post "Harper’s G8 “maternal health” plan: 0 for 3 and counting"?

I get the message "400 Bad Request nginx" when I try to access it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/charlesh Charles H.

Works fine for me: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/17/harpers-g8-mat…

Gabby in QC

Thanks. It did work via your link.

http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Perhaps Conservatives are not actually hostile to contraception, just unfamiliar with it. We all know that abstinence is the most effective method of birth control, but we too often forget that the most effective method of abstinence is being a Conservative.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

I'm not sure you can call it abstinence unless it's by choice.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Presumably at least one of the parties to the transaction is making a choice…..
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

They prefer to think of it as prorogation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NoNameCS NoNameCS

Hilarious typo of the day:

"The Speaker: The honourable minister of international corporation."

Paging Dr. Freud !!!
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Windsurfers, the lot of them.[youtube pbdzMLk9wHQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbdzMLk9wHQ youtube]
kcm

That's a pretty good add, as far as attack adds go.