TEMPORARILY POSTING USA CONGRESS and Trump Assassination attempt HERE ob•serv•er noun \əb-ˈzər-vər\ : a person who sees and notices someone or something : a person who pays close attention to something : a person who is present at something (such as a meeting) in order to watch and listen to what happens an OBSERVER
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Saturday, December 7, 2019
The Mace: Speech From The Throne From historical weapon to symbol of monarchy
see READ the speech here https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/431/debates/001db_2019-12-05-e#20
The Senate Mace: SPEECH HERE : https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/431/debates/001db_2019-12-05-e#20
From historical weapon to symbol of monarchy https://sencanada.ca/en/sencaplus/how-why/the-senate-mace-from-historical-weapon-to-symbol-of-monarchy/
The Senate Mace: SPEECH HERE : https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/431/debates/001db_2019-12-05-e#20
From historical weapon to symbol of monarchy https://sencanada.ca/en/sencaplus/how-why/the-senate-mace-from-historical-weapon-to-symbol-of-monarchy/
The Class of 2015
June 2016
Saturday, November 30, 2019
WAS A LIE : Warren Kinsella: The Fabricator depicting them as racists Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, Kim Campbell, and now Maxime Bernier
Stealth Campaigns Who's Next Mr. Ethical? ""The web of Hate "" was a lie. Without Prejudice
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/prominent-conservative-ed-fast-rejects-position-in-scheers-cabinet/?fbclid=IwAR2V1Y-A895SWUkM8aCGAzTkR_JIl6pC5QgPhzELeGxkx9AsHWhCnEGKbdY
Extract : A day before the settlement, CBC News published related audio recordings and excerpts of Kinsella firing up his staff for Project Cactus.
“I want the hatred you have for Maxime Bernier to wash over you as a purifying force,” Kinsella informs his staff in a recording CBC says was made at a May 16 meeting.
“We actually have a white supremacist trying to become prime minister of Canada. I’ve run campaigns depicting Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, Kim Campbell, depicting them as racists,” Kinsella boasts. “None of them were. But I was successful at depicting them as racists. This guy actually is a racist. Okay? So it’s low-hanging fruit.”
Click here for the full article https://www.thepostmillennial.com/prominent-conservative-ed-fast-rejects-position-in-scheers-cabinet/?fbclid=IwAR2V1Y-A895SWUkM8aCGAzTkR_JIl6pC5QgPhzELeGxkx9AsHWhCnEGKbdY
The
former Daisy Group employee accused of leaking Warren Kinsella’s
Project Cactus smear campaign against Maxime Bernier and the People’s
Party of Canada, has settled out of court and will not pay one penny of
the $1-million lawsuit filed against her.
“Daisy and Aziza Mohammed have resolved all disputes between them. None of the allegations of either side has been proven in court, and on some things – like the various allegations of discriminatory attitudes in the workplace – they have simply agreed to disagree,” said Mohammed’s lawyer Mark Bourrie in a statement.
“But
they do agree on the following. Daisy acknowledges that Ms. Mohammed’s
actions with respect to Daisy were informed by a desire to do what she
believed was right… (and she) advises that no other Daisy clients need
be concerned in that regard.”
Kinsella sued Mohammed after the Globe and Mail reported on October 18, 2019 that the Conservative party hired Daisy Group for a “seek and destroy” mission against the PPC and its leader Bernier.
A day before the settlement, CBC News published related audio recordings and excerpts of Kinsella firing up his staff for Project Cactus.
“I want the hatred you have for Maxime Bernier to wash over you as a purifying force,” Kinsella informs his staff in a recording CBC says was made at a May 16 meeting.
“We actually have a white supremacist trying to become prime minister of Canada. I’ve run campaigns depicting Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, Kim Campbell, depicting them as racists,” Kinsella boasts.
“None
of them were. But I was successful at depicting them as racists. This
guy actually is a racist. Okay? So it’s low-hanging fruit.”
According to Kinsella’s statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court two weeks after the Globe
story, he was suing Mohammed for breach of contract and breach of
confidentiality for alleged going to the media with the scheme.
To this date, neither Kinsella has acknowledged that his Project Cactus client was the Conservative Party nor has party leader Andrew Scheer or any of his associates admitted to hiring Daisy Group for the job.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/prominent-conservative-ed-fast-rejects-position-in-scheers-cabinet/?fbclid=IwAR2V1Y-A895SWUkM8aCGAzTkR_JIl6pC5QgPhzELeGxkx9AsHWhCnEGKbdY
Extract : A day before the settlement, CBC News published related audio recordings and excerpts of Kinsella firing up his staff for Project Cactus.
“I want the hatred you have for Maxime Bernier to wash over you as a purifying force,” Kinsella informs his staff in a recording CBC says was made at a May 16 meeting.
“We actually have a white supremacist trying to become prime minister of Canada. I’ve run campaigns depicting Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, Kim Campbell, depicting them as racists,” Kinsella boasts. “None of them were. But I was successful at depicting them as racists. This guy actually is a racist. Okay? So it’s low-hanging fruit.”
Click here for the full article https://www.thepostmillennial.com/prominent-conservative-ed-fast-rejects-position-in-scheers-cabinet/?fbclid=IwAR2V1Y-A895SWUkM8aCGAzTkR_JIl6pC5QgPhzELeGxkx9AsHWhCnEGKbdY
Warren Kinsella's $1-million lawsuit against Project Cactus 'leaker' ends in settlement
“Daisy and Aziza Mohammed have resolved all disputes between them. None of the allegations of either side has been proven in court, and on some things – like the various allegations of discriminatory attitudes in the workplace – they have simply agreed to disagree,” said Mohammed’s lawyer Mark Bourrie in a statement.
Kinsella sued Mohammed after the Globe and Mail reported on October 18, 2019 that the Conservative party hired Daisy Group for a “seek and destroy” mission against the PPC and its leader Bernier.
“I want the hatred you have for Maxime Bernier to wash over you as a purifying force,” Kinsella informs his staff in a recording CBC says was made at a May 16 meeting.
“We actually have a white supremacist trying to become prime minister of Canada. I’ve run campaigns depicting Preston Manning, Stockwell Day, Kim Campbell, depicting them as racists,” Kinsella boasts.
To this date, neither Kinsella has acknowledged that his Project Cactus client was the Conservative Party nor has party leader Andrew Scheer or any of his associates admitted to hiring Daisy Group for the job.
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Parliamentarians Class of 2015-19 Video by Paul Lauzon
Parliamentarians Class of 2015-19
Video by Paul Lauzon Ottawa
Video by Paul Lauzon Ottawa
Monday, September 30, 2019
Friday, September 20, 2019
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Saturday, August 31, 2019
Friday, August 16, 2019
Canadian Government: A Pedantic Style Guide
Bloggers note: DO Canadians Know your country s operational fonctionality. I bet you that a small fraction of 1% of Canadian has ever been familiar with this information;
Stuff that all Canadian educated citizen must a least, once in their lives have encountered. Such essential democratic information has been supressed ...DID our PUBLIC educational system fail us ....?
Stuff that all Canadian educated citizen must a least, once in their lives have encountered. Such essential democratic information has been supressed ...DID our PUBLIC educational system fail us ....?
Canadian Government: A Pedantic Style Guide
Governments don’t have mandates, they hold confidence.
Governments aren’t directly elected in Canada, they’re formed or continue governing based on their ability to hold the confidence of the elected house of the legislature.
Talking of a government’s ‘mandate’ to enact a platform, policy, or law, moreover, rarely makes sense.
Governments don’t have terms, they have parliaments/legislatures and length of ministries.
The life of governments is determined by their ability to hold or regain the confidence of the elected house of the legislature. A government can thus span multiple parliaments and a single parliament can have more than one government. First ministers can also dissolve the legislature pretty much at will. Equally important, governments only end when the first minister resigns or is dismissed by the Crown. So, an election doesn’t begin a governmental ‘term’, nor does a dissolution of the legislature end it.
When speaking of how long a first minister led the government, we should speak about the duration of their ministry, or if they’ve headed more than one government, ministries. The ‘tenure’ of a prime minister also works.
Prime Ministers and Ministers don’t sit (i.e. sitting Prime Minister), they serve.
Ministers are servants of the Crown. This is a capacity distinct from the seat they hold in the legislature. Conversely, as members of Parliament, they sit, rather than serve.
Before using serving/sitting, however, we should ask if it’s necessary for what we’re trying to convey. If not, don’t use it.
There are no interim Prime Ministers, only interim party leaders.
Interim implies that someone who is temporarily holding an elected position and that they themselves were not elected to that position. They’re holding it in anticipation of an election. Prime Ministers are appointed.
There is no Prime Minister-elect or Premier-elect. The technical term is Prime Minister-designate or Premier-designate
Since first ministers are not elected, but appointed by the Crown, we use designate to mean that the Crown has commissioned them to form a government but that they have not yet been sworn to office (h/t Richard Berthelsen).
Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their responsibilities, they are not responsible to Parliament.
Ministers are responsible for the exercise of executive powers and are accountable to Parliament for decisions and actions that fall under their responsibilities.
The Governor General is not the head of state, the Queen is the head of state (if you absolutely must use that term.)
The Queen personifies the state in law. She is the legal personality of Canada. In that sense, she holds the highest office of the Canadian state, what we would call the head of state, or more simply ‘the Sovereign’. As the Queen’s representative, the Governor General is always one rank below the Queen and thus not the head of state.
Parliament is not synonymous with the House of Commons.
Parliament comprises the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Queen. The House of Commons, the elected lower house, is one part of Parliament.
The Crown does not dissolve a legislature without advice.
Although the Crown’s power is required to dissolve a legislature the Governor General or a Lieutenant Governor will not do so without the advice of a first minister. As a result, it is incorrect to imply that the Crown will force a new election if no party can hold confidence or parties can’t get along, etc. The Crown must wait for a first minister to advise dissolution.
Supreme Court justices are appointed, not nominated. (h/t Emmett Macfarlane)
Supreme Court justices are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. While they may go before a committee of parliamentarians before their appointment is formalized, this is not akin to the legislative nomination process where the committee can exercise a formal veto on the Prime Minister’s choice.
Parliament does not ratify treaties.
The power to sign and ratify treaties belongs with the executive. The House of Commons may be asked to express its support for a treaty through a vote and Parliament is often required to legislate to give effect to a treaty. But it is the executive that ratifies the treaty.
Refer to parliamentarians as parliamentarians or legislators, rather than lawmakers.
Crafting legislation is only small part of what parliamentarians do. And for the most part, parliamentarians have limited influence over government bills. Private member’s bills, moreover, account for small portion of Parliament’s legislative agenda. Legislation is crafted by the executive, with parliamentarians scrutinizing bill tabled by the government. Describing parliamentarians as lawmakers distort who is crafting most laws.
Should we refer to a government, administration, or ministry?
Technically, first ministers lead Her Majesty’s government. In the United Kingdom, in fact, it’s not uncommon to refer to the executive as Her Majesty’s Government. The vast majority of the executive, moreover, is comprised of public servants who are non-partisan employees of the Crown. During the Harper years, this led to consternation about the term ‘the Harper government’.
Since the first minister heads the government as the Crown’s highest ranking servant, it is acceptable to say ‘Harper government’ or ‘Trudeau government’. While public servants are non-partisan, they are expected to loyally implement the policies and directives of the Crown’s ministers.
What about administration? During the colonial era, one could speak about the ‘local administration’ to differentiate colonial officials from the government in London. In the United Kingdom, when there is a change of prime ministers from the same party, they are said to be forming a new administration, instead of a new government (which is odd, but I digress.) In Canada, though, administration is more likely used because that’s how we refer to American presidencies. (Also, in the United States, the government does not refer to the executive alone, but to Congress and the courts, too.) Accordingly, administration should be avoided.
Another reason to avoid administration is that there is a better term: ministry. A ministry is the group of ministers led by the first minister that advises the Crown. If one is looking to avoid using government, then ministry is the correct term, and preferable to administration. Oddly enough, ministry is considered antiquated in the UK, which is seems to be why they’ve adopted administration.
Friday, March 8, 2019
Monday, March 4, 2019
Trudeau has support of remaining 33 members of cabinet, survey shows
Bloggers note : The Liberal caucus has 40 Lawyers as MPs ..40 Lawyers better be on the
right side of the "Can You pressure the AG" issue or their career after
politics will be in jeopardy...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-cabinet-behind-trudeau-1.5042887?fbclid=IwAR1C-0nM1FP1rUM5GjRbrswzwoq8QtL_9qwRsWM6BYKdZmkVul0kZah30A8
In the wake of Jane Philpott's sudden resignation from the federal cabinet over what she said was her "lack of confidence" in the way the Liberal government has handled the SNC Lavalin affair, CBC News reached out to the remaining 33 members of cabinet to ask if they still support Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
As of Monday evening, all remaining members of the federal cabinet were saying they continue to support Trudeau and the government. Some issued statements, others simply confirmed their support. Below is a list of statements from cabinet ministers who provided them to CBC News:
Minister of Indigenous Services Seamus O'Regan
"I have full confidence in this prime minister and am committed to continuing on with the important work ahead for Indigenous peoples and all Canadians."
Minister of Transport Marc Garneau
"Absolutely. I'm proud to work with a leader that is focused on jobs, growing the middle class and strengthening our economy."
Minister of the Environment Catherine McKenna
"Yes, Minister McKenna has full confidence in the PM and will remain in cabinet," said spokeswoman Caroline Thériault.
Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour Patricia Hajdu
"My confidence in the prime minister remains untouched. I stand by him and believe in his ability to lead a government that delivers for all Canadians. I am sorry to see one of my Cabinet colleagues step down and I wish her the best."
Minister of Small Business and Export Promotion Mary Ng
The minister told CBC that she supports Trudeau "100 per cent."
Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Carolyn Bennett
"I have absolute confidence in our government, and our prime minister, and will continue the vital work of advancing reconciliation and self-determination as the minister of Crown-Indigenous relations."
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism Pablo Rodriguez
The Quebec MP said he backs Trudeau "totally,"
Minister of National Revenue Diane Lebouthillier
"I support the prime minister and am proud of the work we have accomplished during the last three years to make life better for all Canadians."
Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould
"I have full confidence in the Prime Minister and this government."
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Ahmed Hussen
"Minister Hussen has full confidence in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his vision for Canada," said spokesperson, Mathieu Genest.
Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade Dominic LeBlanc
"I have full confidence in the prime minister. We will continue to take action to make life easier for Canadians, and create good, middle class jobs across the country."
Minister of International Trade Diversification Jim Carr
"The PM and this government as a whole has minister Carr's full confidence. He remains committed to his role as minister and to the important work the PM has given him to carry out on behalf of Canadians," said spokeswoman, Isabella Brisson.
Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie Mélanie Joly
''Of course, the Prime Minister has my full confidence.''
Minister of Infrastructure and Communities François-Philippe Champagne
"I absolutely have confidence in the prime minister and the plan he put in place for Canadians and I will continue to be a strong voice for rural Canada, for a strong and growing economy and for Quebec."
Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard Jonathan Wilkinson
"I am proud of the progressive accomplishments made under the leadership of the prime minister. I have full confidence in the prime minister and our government."
Minister of Natural Resources Amarjeet Sohi
"I have full confidence in our government. Canadians elected us to build a strong middle class and provide opportunities for those who work hard every day to join the middle class. That is what we have focused on since day one and this is what we will continue to do under the strong leadership of PM Trudeau."
Minister of Science and Sport Kirsty Duncan
"I fully support the prime minister and our government, and as minister of science and sport, will continue focusing on our important work for science and research, and on making sport safe for all."
Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility Carla Qualtrough
"I have full confidence in the prime minister and our government, and I look forward to continuing to serve Canadians.
"I'm sad to hear of Jane Philpott's departure from Cabinet. She was a valued member of the team around the table. I thank the Prime Minister for his faith in me as I take on the interim position of president of the Treasury Board and minister of digital government."
All remaining members of the federal cabinet have told CBC News that they continue to support Trudeau and his government.
'My confidence in the prime minister remains untouched,' says Patricia Hajdu
CBC News ·
In the wake of Jane Philpott's sudden resignation from the federal cabinet over what she said was her "lack of confidence" in the way the Liberal government has handled the SNC Lavalin affair, CBC News reached out to the remaining 33 members of cabinet to ask if they still support Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
As of Monday evening, all remaining members of the federal cabinet were saying they continue to support Trudeau and the government. Some issued statements, others simply confirmed their support. Below is a list of statements from cabinet ministers who provided them to CBC News:
Minister of Indigenous Services Seamus O'Regan
"I have full confidence in this prime minister and am committed to continuing on with the important work ahead for Indigenous peoples and all Canadians."
Minister of Transport Marc Garneau
"Absolutely. I'm proud to work with a leader that is focused on jobs, growing the middle class and strengthening our economy."
Minister of the Environment Catherine McKenna
"Yes, Minister McKenna has full confidence in the PM and will remain in cabinet," said spokeswoman Caroline Thériault.
Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour Patricia Hajdu
"My confidence in the prime minister remains untouched. I stand by him and believe in his ability to lead a government that delivers for all Canadians. I am sorry to see one of my Cabinet colleagues step down and I wish her the best."
Minister of Small Business and Export Promotion Mary Ng
The minister told CBC that she supports Trudeau "100 per cent."
Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Carolyn Bennett
"I have absolute confidence in our government, and our prime minister, and will continue the vital work of advancing reconciliation and self-determination as the minister of Crown-Indigenous relations."
Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism Pablo Rodriguez
The Quebec MP said he backs Trudeau "totally,"
Minister of National Revenue Diane Lebouthillier
"I support the prime minister and am proud of the work we have accomplished during the last three years to make life better for all Canadians."
Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould
"I have full confidence in the Prime Minister and this government."
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Ahmed Hussen
"Minister Hussen has full confidence in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his vision for Canada," said spokesperson, Mathieu Genest.
Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade Dominic LeBlanc
"I have full confidence in the prime minister. We will continue to take action to make life easier for Canadians, and create good, middle class jobs across the country."
Minister of International Trade Diversification Jim Carr
"The PM and this government as a whole has minister Carr's full confidence. He remains committed to his role as minister and to the important work the PM has given him to carry out on behalf of Canadians," said spokeswoman, Isabella Brisson.
Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie Mélanie Joly
''Of course, the Prime Minister has my full confidence.''
Minister of Infrastructure and Communities François-Philippe Champagne
"I absolutely have confidence in the prime minister and the plan he put in place for Canadians and I will continue to be a strong voice for rural Canada, for a strong and growing economy and for Quebec."
Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard Jonathan Wilkinson
"I am proud of the progressive accomplishments made under the leadership of the prime minister. I have full confidence in the prime minister and our government."
Minister of Natural Resources Amarjeet Sohi
"I have full confidence in our government. Canadians elected us to build a strong middle class and provide opportunities for those who work hard every day to join the middle class. That is what we have focused on since day one and this is what we will continue to do under the strong leadership of PM Trudeau."
Minister of Science and Sport Kirsty Duncan
"I fully support the prime minister and our government, and as minister of science and sport, will continue focusing on our important work for science and research, and on making sport safe for all."
Minister of Public Services and Procurement and Accessibility Carla Qualtrough
"I have full confidence in the prime minister and our government, and I look forward to continuing to serve Canadians.
"I'm sad to hear of Jane Philpott's departure from Cabinet. She was a valued member of the team around the table. I thank the Prime Minister for his faith in me as I take on the interim position of president of the Treasury Board and minister of digital government."
All remaining members of the federal cabinet have told CBC News that they continue to support Trudeau and his government.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Saturday, March 2, 2019
L'Affaire SNC-Lavalin: The Public Law Principles
L'Affaire SNC-Lavalin: The Public Law Principles
Saturday, February 9, 2019 At 9:15AM
http://craigforcese.squarespace.com/public_law_blog/2019/2/9/laffaire-snc-lavalin-the-public-law-principles.html?fbclid=IwAR2E4Ho_uSePiuH-aMEzzNoksbQ4dUgqfMfTlCnYLSly8WsiWHS2HDaC9rE
By Craig Forcese
By Craig Forcese
I have not posted to this blog branch of my website for years, but shall do so this morning on the issue of: the role of the Attorney General in criminal prosecutions. The context: the Globe and Mail reported on Thursday, February 7:
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office attempted to pressJody Wilson-Raybould when she was justice minister to intervene in the corruption and fraud prosecution of Montreal engineering and construction giant SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., sources say, but she refused to ask federal prosecutors to make a deal with the company that could prevent a costly trial. [emphasis added]
The article uses even stronger language later:
Sources say Ms. Wilson-Raybould, who was justice minister and attorney-general until she was shuffled to Veterans Affairs early this year, came under heavy pressure to persuade the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to change its mind [in relation to seeking a remediation agreement in lieu of prosecution]. [emphasis added]
The Prime Minister’s office asserted the “Prime Minister’s Office did not direct the attorney-general to draw any conclusions on this matter,” a position repeated by the Prime Minister himself the next day: "At no time did I or my office direct the current or previous attorney-general to make any particular decision in this matter”. The Prime Minister also stated: “The allegations reported in the story are false.”
The matter is now a matter of political controversy, and partisan preoccupations will drive the narrative. My concern here are the public law issues. I cannot resolve the contested facts, but I will try to suggest the legal standards that apply in assessing them.
1. Starting Observation
I shall, throughout this note, assume that the Globe’s sources are being truthful in recounting what they believe happened, and likewise that the PMO and the Prime Minister are honest. From a public law perspective, this is the line in the Globe story which galvanizes this post: the Attorney General “came under heavy pressure [from the PMO] to persuade the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to change its mind.”
I note right away the story is inconsistent on the degree of this pressure. In its opening line it says “attempted to press”. Later, it says “Sources say officials from Mr. Trudeau’s office, whom they did not identify, had urged Ms. Wilson-Raybould, Canada’s first Indigenous justice minister, to press the public prosecution office to abandon the court proceedings.” The story then variously uses "pressure" and "political pressure".
These are all different degrees of influence – and as I shall note below, that matters. The first point, however, is that the reporting is ambiguous, even if you accept the anonymous sources as credible. No judgment can be made, in the end, about the propriety of the relationship between the PMO and the AG on this matter without much more specificity.
That is because the rules in this area are nuanced.
2. What Does the AG Do?
The AG is not a minister like all others. In our system, he or she does have a more classic ministerial administrative or political function, as “Minister of Justice”. As “Minister of Justice”, the minister manages and directs Justice Canada. The minister is also the “official legal advisor to the Governor General and the legal member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada”, which makes the minister the chief law officer to Cabinet. Among other things, the minister must “see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with law”.[1]
In her or his role as AG, however, the minister has very different functions. Here, the minister inherits the traditional powers and duties belonging to the office of the AG of England “by law and usage, to the extent applicable to Canada”.[2] Most critically, the attorney-general oversees federal prosecutions in Canada’s criminal justice system. By long-standing constitutional tradition, the attorney general is expected to be above partisan concerns in supervising prosecutions, creating an independence within executive government not shared by other members of Cabinet.[3]
3. What is AG/Prosecutorial “Independence”?
The most famous recognition of the “constitutional convention” of AG independence came from the Supreme Court of Canada in Krieger: “It is a constitutional principle that the Attorneys General of this country must act independently of partisan concerns when exercising their delegated sovereign authority to initiate, continue or terminate prosecutions.”[4] The Court also noted: “The gravity of the power to bring, manage and terminate prosecutions which lies at the heart of the Attorney General’s role has given rise to an expectation that he or she will be in this respect fully independent from the political pressures of the government.”[5]
In the United Kingdom, this AG independence is preserved by leaving the AG out of Cabinet. Because Canada “double-hats” the AG and Minister of Justice function, we do not have this structural safeguard. Thus, as the Supreme Court noted, “Membership in Cabinet makes the principle of independence in prosecutorial functions perhaps even more important in this country than in the UK”[6]
The principle of AG independence is nicely summarized by Justice Rosenberg of the Ontario Court of Appeal as follows:
The most important of these constitutional conventions is that although the Attorney General is a cabinet minister, he or she acts independently of the cabinet in the exercise of the prosecution function. This convention is now so firmly entrenched in the Canadian political system that any deviation would likely lead to the resignation of the Attorney General or would, at the very least, spark a constitutional crisis. The resignation of the Attorney General would expose any attempted interference by the premier or the cabinet both to the public and especially to the press, and would further entrench the convention of institutional independence.[7]
More generally, prosecutorial independence from the rest of executive government, Parliament and, to a considerable degree, judicial supervision, is a carefully protected expectation in Canadian law.[8] At the federal level, it is reinforced within the Justice portfolio by a statute that separates Justice Canada and the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC). Under the supervision of a director of public prosecutions, the PPSC conducts most federal prosecutions and its law imposes transparency requirements where the AG her- or himself assumes the conduct of a prosecution, or directs its initiation or conduct.[9] Put another way, we have added a layer of additional buffers between Cabinet and prosecutors. If an AG were to compromise and surrender his or her independence, the PPSC structure makes it more difficult to act on that surrendered independence, at least not without considerable risk of exposure.
To be sure, this does not mean that PPSC/prosecutors operate with impunity. There is such a thing as lawsuits for malicious prosecution – though the threshold for winning such lawsuits is high.[10] And prosecutor discretion can be structured through general policy, such as the PPSC’s manual.[11]
4. Why AG/Prosecutorial Independence?
The reason for this AG/prosecutorial independence is straightforward: the role of the AG and prosecutors is to act in the public interest, not in the interest of whoever is in the PMO. They must, therefore, not be under the thumb of the political executive, and indeed must be insulated from political pressures that would, for instance, leave some people favoured in the criminal justice system, and others targeted. A core ingredient of the “rule of law” is that “there is, in short, one law for all”.[12]We do not have one criminal law for the powerful and influential, and another one for everyone else.
5. Where would AG/Prosecutorial Independence be Violated?
The key issue is: what degree of “interference” would trammel AG independence. Justice Rosenberg summarizes the standards in what is called the “Shawcross” doctrine, now practiced throughout Canadian jurisdictions:
First, the Attorney General must take into account all relevant facts, including the effect of a successful or unsuccessful prosecution on public morale and order — we would probably now call this the public interest. Second, the Attorney General is not obliged to consult with cabinet colleagues but is entitled to do so. Third, any assistance from cabinet colleagues is confined to giving advice, not directions. Fourth, responsibility for the decision is that of the Attorney General alone; the government is not to put pressure on him or her. Fifth, and equally, the Attorney General cannot shift responsibility for the decision to the cabinet.[13]
Sir Hartley Shawcross’s statement itself reads:
I think the true doctrine is that it is the duty of an Attorney-General, in deciding whether or not to authorize the prosecution, to acquaint himself with all the relevant facts, including, for instance, the effect which the prosecution, successful or unsuccessful as the case may be, would have upon public morale and order, and with any other considerations affecting public policy.
In order so to inform himself, he may, although I do not think he is obliged to, consult with any of his colleagues in the Government; and indeed, as Lord Simon once said, he would in some cases be a fool if he did not. On the other hand, the assistance of his colleagues is confined to informing him of particular considerations, which might affect his own decision, and does not consist, and must not consist in telling him what that decision ought to be. The responsibility for the eventual decision rests with the Attorney-General, and he is not to be put, and is not put, under pressure by his colleagues in the matter.
Nor, of course, can the Attorney-General shift his responsibility for making the decision on to the shoulders of his colleagues. If political considerations which, in the broad sense that I have indicated, affect government in the abstract arise, it is the Attorney-General, applying his judicial mind, who has to be the sole judge of those considerations.[14]
From these standards, it is clear political advice is one thing, but a political executive “direction” to the AG in a criminal justice matter would exceed the Shawcross standard. In response to such a direction, the AG should refuse – and resign. [Addendum Sun Feb 10: on AG resignations, see the addendum below the footnotes in this post.]
The murk lies where discussions fall short of “direction”. To use the language from the Globe article “heavy pressure” would raise, in my view, serious Shawcross standard problems – indeed, I do not see how “heavy pressure” could be consistent with those standards. As Justice Rosenberg notes, “responsibility for the decision is that of the Attorney General alone; the government is not to put pressure on him or her.”
I am less certain what to make of the Globe’s other statements: “attempted to press” and “urged”. Without knowing what was said and in what context, it is essentially impossible to know if these were discussions of the sort the Shawcross principle do allow; or whether the line between discussion and pressure was crossed. “Urged” is clearly gauche and the sort of thing a carefully organized Cabinet office would avoid at all costs (for appearance sake at least). Applying Shawcross, it sounds like “telling [the AG] what that decision ought to be”. Meanwhile, I simply have no idea what to make of “attempted to press” – the universe of things that might fall in that category is so broad it is impossible to apply the Shawcross standard to the allegation.
In sum, without clarity on the specific statements made and their context, it is simply impossible to measure “heavy pressure”, “urged”, or “attempted to press”. These descriptors all encapsulate the judgment of either the Globe’s sources or the Globe reporters themselves. And I have no idea what criteria they have applied to arrive at that judgment.
At risk of being very wrong, one might infer that people in the AGs office thought a line had been crossed – someone was, after all, the Globe’s source. But if a clear Shawcross line was crossed, the expectation would then be that the AG would resign. That did not happen.
The Prime Minister’s rejection in the Globe story suggests that, at the very least, whatever happened did not cross the unquestionable redline of “direct”. (There is now a lot of Kremlinology-like speculation about this wording. My assumption when I heard it was just “oh, in using that ‘direct’ language, he has been responding to legal advice that has focused on this clear Shawcross redline.”) His further statement that “the allegations reported in the story are false” might also be a denial of the “attempted to press” and “urged” standards. If so, a clear statement might be useful -- because if none of what is reported happened, then we are all wasting a lot of time while the sea rises.
Bottom line: right now, no one beyond those in the know can presently make a definitive judgment on whether this is a public law nothing-burger, or a rule of law train-wreck. (And I would like to know what lines the people in the know are using in arriving at their conclusions.)
6. Does it matter that this was a remediation agreement issue?
A final point relates to the fact that at issue was the prosecutors’ unwillingness to enter into a remediation agreement negotiation. Some on Twitter Law School have suggested this fact relaxes the traditional strictures on AG/prosecutorial independence.
I do not see how that could be. First, a remediation agreement is, essentially, an off-ramp from a prosecution for corporate economic crimes. It is simply impossible to imagine that use of the off-ramp may be a politicized exercise, while only driving down the highway is protected by independence. That would mean, in effect, there is no independence: the off-ramp would available to the politically-favoured companies, who never take a ride down Highway Prosecution if they had friends in high places. We would have, in effect, two Criminal Codes: the Code for corporate friends, and the Code for everyone else. That would do considerable violence to the rule of law. (I would note, also, that the Supreme Court in Krieger was clear that the AG’s independence extended to the “authority to initiate, continue or terminate prosecutions”. By extension, so too would prosecutorial independence extend to these matters.)
I would resist, therefore, any assertion that prosecutorial independence is unavailable where a prosecutor acts under Part XXII.1 of the Criminal Code.[15] At any rate: the Code itself does not anticipate politicking. Section 715.32 places the discretionary decision on whether to enter into a remediation agreement negotiations in the hands of the prosecutor, whose decision to negotiate would be approved by the AG. In this context, because of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, the AG should be read as the “director of public prosecutions”.[16](Put another way, unless the AG proactively intervenes under the express powers to do so in that Director of Public Prosecutions Act, noted above, he or she is not personally involved in this decision.)
The Code sets out (in considerable detail) the factors the prosecutor is to consider in exercising their discretion. This is a fettered discretion. And even if there were no constitutional conventions of independence applicable here, prosecutors would still err if they were to depart from the language of the Code and contemplate political variables like “heavy pressure”, “urge” or “attempts to press” from the PMO. Specifically, if they did not enjoy prosecutorial independence, they would be fully subject to administrative law discipline. And that discipline would preclude abuses of discretion. While administrative law “standards of review” are a muddled mess, it would still be an unreasonable exercise of discretion to act based on improper considerations not anticipated by the statute. In sum, even if the prosecutor were stripped of independence for Part XXII.1 purposes, we are still talking about a legal error, were he or she responsive to political pressure.
[1] Department of Justice Act, s.4, online: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/J-2/page-1.html#h-4.
[2] Ibid, s.5.
[3] Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta, 2002 SCC 65, online: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2007/index.do.
[4] Ibid at para. 3.
[5] Ibid at para. 29.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Marc Rosenberg, “The Attorney General and the Prosecution Function in the Twenty-First Century,” (2009) 43(2) of Queen's Law Journal 813, online: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/publications/attorney_general_prosecution_function.htm
[8] See Hinse v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 35 at para. 40, online: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15406/index.do.
[9] Director of Public Prosecutions Act, S.C. 2006, c. 9, s.121 at ss. 10 and 15.
[10] See Hinse v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 35 at para. 40, online: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15406/index.do
[12] Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217 at para. 71, online: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do
[13] Marc Rosenberg, “The Attorney General and the Prosecution Function in the Twenty-First Century,” (2009) 43(2) of Queen's Law Journal 813, online: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/publications/attorney_general_prosecution_function.htm(emphasis added).
[14] UK, H.C. Debates, vol 483, cols 683-84, (29 January 1951), reproduced at https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p1/ch01.html#section_1.
[15] Criminal Code, RSC, 1985, c. C-46, online: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-179.html#h-263 .
[16] SC 2006, c.9, s.121, at ss. 3(3).
I am receiving quite a few queries about this posting over Twitter. I fear I cannot respond to all, for which I apologize, especially the ones involving hypothetical facts. In relation to the question of when an AG should resign, perhaps the best consideration of that question I can point to, as a matter of past practice is the speech given by BR Smith, upon his resignation as Attorney General in BC in 1988 (hat tip to one of my colleagues who wishes to go unnamed for the hyperlink).
Monday, February 25, 2019
Friday, February 15, 2019
The incredible miscalculation by Trudeau and co.
Bloggers Note: Let the chips fall where they may!
The incredible miscalculation by Trudeau and co.
Stephen Maher: Trudeau and his inner circle turned a completely manageable concern into a scandal. And one of them will need to take the fall.
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-incredible-miscalculation-by-trudeau-and-co/
by Stephen Maher
Feb 13, 2019
Telford and Butts look on
as Trudeau delivers his opening remarks during the Meeting of First
Ministers in Ottawa on Friday, Dec. 9, 2016. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean
Kilpatrick)
Former attorney general Peter MacKay told the Toronto Sun
this week that the police should be called in to investigate the
SNC-Lavalin affair, because someone may have obstructed justice.
“When I was prosecuting cases, if a politician had ever called me up, I would have put down the phone and called the police,” said MacKay, adding that we are in “uncharted waters.”
MacKay is right to warn about the danger of political intervention in a prosecution—although it is likely premature to call in the cops—but he is wrong to say that we are in uncharted waters.
When MacKay was a student at Acadia University, his father, Elmer, then solicitor general in Brian Mulroney’s cabinet, was demoted to revenue minister, just as Jody Wilson-Raybould was demoted to veterans affairs.
I don’t want to pick on Elmer, who is, I hope, at 82 enjoying his retirement in beautiful Pictou County, or on Peter, whose frequent appearances as a media commentator offer useful insights. But the story is a reminder that there is nothing new under the sun, and that the waters we are in are actually pretty well charted.
The difference is that MacKay was demoted for making a politically awkward intervention in a prosecution, while Wilson-Raybould was demoted after refusing to make such an intervention.
MacKay’s meeting with the top Mountie didn’t violate any rules, but it led to nasty questions in the House of Commons, with Liberal MP John Nunziata pressing the government and calling for a public inquiry.
To put such questions to rest, Mulroney moved Elmer out of the job and everyone lived more or less happily ever after.
It is not clear that everyone will live as happily ever after in this current case of a politically problematic intervention into a prosecution, for political, not legal reasons.
In 1985, MacKay was found not to have violated any laws because he didn’t apply pressure. He didn’t say to the commissioner, “Let Hatfield off the hook or else!”
We do not yet know if someone said something like that to Wilson-Raybould about SNC-Lavalin, but it is unlikely anyone would have been stupid enough to do that.
We will likely eventually know the truth, thanks to an investigation by the ethics commissioner, but it seems likeliest that Trudeau or his people told Wilson-Raybould that there were good political reasons—jobs and votes—to overrule the director of public prosecutions rather than letting her prosecute SNC-Lavalin for bribing Libyan officials.
Laying out that case is sleazy but legal.
On the other hand, someone may have said: “Do you like your job? It would be a shame if you lost it. You wouldn’t want to end up visiting Legion halls all the time, would you? Justin needs a new veterans affairs minister, you know. So, watch out. Pay attention to this file!”
Neither possibility can be summarily dismissed.
We know that the Liberals stealthily inserted a clause into a budget bill that made this kind of agreement possible, seemingly with a view to helping SNC-Lavalin, a company that made more than $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions to the Liberals, and we know that Trudeau demoted Wilson-Raybould after she declined to cut the firm a sweetheart deal, and replaced her with a Quebecer who would presumably be more likely to give SNC-Lavalin what it wants.
Still, it’s hard to know what really happened, unless you are a partisan, in which case it’s all crystal clear, depending on your inclination, and Trudeau is either a blameless and virtuous leader being hounded unfairly, or a profoundly corrupt leader finally revealed as the poltroon that he is.
Until we learn the facts, we can tentatively conclude that some of the smart people in the prime minister’s office are not as smart as they think they are.
Wilson-Raybould was unhappy with the government’s failure to deliver on Indigenous issues, and she cast doubt on the government’s commitment to reconciliation. The SNC-Lavalin matter gave her a cudgel with which to strike the PMO, delivering a meaningful blow for First Nations and writing her name in the history books.
Trudeau and his aides misjudged her badly by handing her the cudgel and then giving her the opportunity to wield it by demoting her as they did.
As Trudeau is a prince, born to power, she is a princess, daughter of hereditary Kwakiutl chief Bill Wilson, a lawyer and national leader who negotiated with Trudeau’s father to ensure Aboriginal rights were enshrined in the 1982 constitution. By demoting her, Trudeau and his people humiliated her, seemingly to send a message about who holds the reins in Ottawa: Trudeau, chief of staff Katie Telford and principal secretary Gerald Butts, two advisors who have more clout than any ministers.
It was an enormous miscalculation, and now Trudeau is locked in a zero-sum game with a formidable opponent who has undercut his argument that he is a feminist leader committed to reconciliation with indigenous Canadians.
The Elmer MacKay-Richard Hatfield matter is now a forgotten footnote. It did not profoundly damage the Mulroney government because MacKay remained a cherished member of the clan.
Wilson-Raybould more closely resembles Lucien Bouchard, who led a key part of Mulroney’s constituency away from him, ultimately ensuring his government’s defeat.
This is rattling Liberals, and will put pressure on Trudeau to get rid of Telford or Butts, who Liberal MPs resent for their historically unusual centrality to his government.
Trudeau likely shouldn’t get rid of them, because he wouldn’t be prime minister if it wasn’t for his unusually close working relationship with them. But the situation requires a fall guy, some kind of signal to Liberals and a tedious ongoing damage-control exercise that will follow Trudeau like a bad smell into the election.
“When I was prosecuting cases, if a politician had ever called me up, I would have put down the phone and called the police,” said MacKay, adding that we are in “uncharted waters.”
MacKay is right to warn about the danger of political intervention in a prosecution—although it is likely premature to call in the cops—but he is wrong to say that we are in uncharted waters.
When MacKay was a student at Acadia University, his father, Elmer, then solicitor general in Brian Mulroney’s cabinet, was demoted to revenue minister, just as Jody Wilson-Raybould was demoted to veterans affairs.
I don’t want to pick on Elmer, who is, I hope, at 82 enjoying his retirement in beautiful Pictou County, or on Peter, whose frequent appearances as a media commentator offer useful insights. But the story is a reminder that there is nothing new under the sun, and that the waters we are in are actually pretty well charted.
The difference is that MacKay was demoted for making a politically awkward intervention in a prosecution, while Wilson-Raybould was demoted after refusing to make such an intervention.
READ MORE: Canada, the showThe elder MacKay met with the RCMP commissioner to discuss the Mounties’ investigation into New Brunswick Premier Richard Hatfield, a colourful figure known to jet down to New York to disco at Studio 54. The Mounties found marijuana in his luggage during a royal visit to Fredericton, and were considering charging him.
MacKay’s meeting with the top Mountie didn’t violate any rules, but it led to nasty questions in the House of Commons, with Liberal MP John Nunziata pressing the government and calling for a public inquiry.
To put such questions to rest, Mulroney moved Elmer out of the job and everyone lived more or less happily ever after.
It is not clear that everyone will live as happily ever after in this current case of a politically problematic intervention into a prosecution, for political, not legal reasons.
In 1985, MacKay was found not to have violated any laws because he didn’t apply pressure. He didn’t say to the commissioner, “Let Hatfield off the hook or else!”
We do not yet know if someone said something like that to Wilson-Raybould about SNC-Lavalin, but it is unlikely anyone would have been stupid enough to do that.
We will likely eventually know the truth, thanks to an investigation by the ethics commissioner, but it seems likeliest that Trudeau or his people told Wilson-Raybould that there were good political reasons—jobs and votes—to overrule the director of public prosecutions rather than letting her prosecute SNC-Lavalin for bribing Libyan officials.
Laying out that case is sleazy but legal.
On the other hand, someone may have said: “Do you like your job? It would be a shame if you lost it. You wouldn’t want to end up visiting Legion halls all the time, would you? Justin needs a new veterans affairs minister, you know. So, watch out. Pay attention to this file!”
Neither possibility can be summarily dismissed.
We know that the Liberals stealthily inserted a clause into a budget bill that made this kind of agreement possible, seemingly with a view to helping SNC-Lavalin, a company that made more than $100,000 in illegal campaign contributions to the Liberals, and we know that Trudeau demoted Wilson-Raybould after she declined to cut the firm a sweetheart deal, and replaced her with a Quebecer who would presumably be more likely to give SNC-Lavalin what it wants.
Still, it’s hard to know what really happened, unless you are a partisan, in which case it’s all crystal clear, depending on your inclination, and Trudeau is either a blameless and virtuous leader being hounded unfairly, or a profoundly corrupt leader finally revealed as the poltroon that he is.
Until we learn the facts, we can tentatively conclude that some of the smart people in the prime minister’s office are not as smart as they think they are.
Wilson-Raybould was unhappy with the government’s failure to deliver on Indigenous issues, and she cast doubt on the government’s commitment to reconciliation. The SNC-Lavalin matter gave her a cudgel with which to strike the PMO, delivering a meaningful blow for First Nations and writing her name in the history books.
Trudeau and his aides misjudged her badly by handing her the cudgel and then giving her the opportunity to wield it by demoting her as they did.
As Trudeau is a prince, born to power, she is a princess, daughter of hereditary Kwakiutl chief Bill Wilson, a lawyer and national leader who negotiated with Trudeau’s father to ensure Aboriginal rights were enshrined in the 1982 constitution. By demoting her, Trudeau and his people humiliated her, seemingly to send a message about who holds the reins in Ottawa: Trudeau, chief of staff Katie Telford and principal secretary Gerald Butts, two advisors who have more clout than any ministers.
It was an enormous miscalculation, and now Trudeau is locked in a zero-sum game with a formidable opponent who has undercut his argument that he is a feminist leader committed to reconciliation with indigenous Canadians.
The Elmer MacKay-Richard Hatfield matter is now a forgotten footnote. It did not profoundly damage the Mulroney government because MacKay remained a cherished member of the clan.
Wilson-Raybould more closely resembles Lucien Bouchard, who led a key part of Mulroney’s constituency away from him, ultimately ensuring his government’s defeat.
This is rattling Liberals, and will put pressure on Trudeau to get rid of Telford or Butts, who Liberal MPs resent for their historically unusual centrality to his government.
Trudeau likely shouldn’t get rid of them, because he wouldn’t be prime minister if it wasn’t for his unusually close working relationship with them. But the situation requires a fall guy, some kind of signal to Liberals and a tedious ongoing damage-control exercise that will follow Trudeau like a bad smell into the election.
MORE ABOUT JODY WILSON-RAYBOULD:
Thursday, January 17, 2019
a Unitive Proposal : Gestational abortion laws are a trap.(for Parliamentarians)
Bloggers note: a U N I T I V E Proposal for 2019 and beyond.
------------------------------------------------------
Gestational abortion laws are a trap
January 16, 2019
Why abortion pills have changed the future of pro-life activism in Canadaby Marie-Claire Bissonnette
(Republished with permission of LifeSiteNews.com)
Mifegymiso is the Canadian brand name for an abortion drug called RU-486, which was brought into Canada in January of 2017 after approval by Health Canada in 2015. Not yet two years since its introduction and it has already begun to alter the entire landscape surrounding abortion practices and attitudes in Canada.
The pro-life movement will struggle to keep pace with these changes as they accelerate, and so I write this as a warning and an injunction to all pro-life individuals and organizations in Canada, who risk greater marginalization and even irrelevance if they don’t reassess their strategy in light of this evolving situation.
Chemical abortions are much less offensive to our sensibilities than surgical abortions such as suction and aspiration, dilation and curettage, saline abortion, and partial birth abortion. Whereas these procedures expose their true murderous nature with the resulting lifeless bodies of butchered or burned babies, Mifegymiso is portrayed as a clean, convenient and easy abortion method, consisting of a two-pill combination ingested by the mother, who then discards her pregnancy at home, concealing her child’s visible humanity under a toilet seat.
The first pill, Mifepristone, blocks the flow of progesterone and starves the embryo to death. 24-48 hours later, the second drug, Misoprostol, causes severe muscle contractions in the uterus, relaxation of the cervix, and shedding of the endometrium.
Along with much blood and other tissue, the baby is flushed down the toilet, often denied even the dignity of being gazed upon by human eyes. What the mother might see, had she the courage to look, would be her baby’s tiny body in the pregnancy sac, with visible fingers and toes that can be counted at Mifegymiso’s current off-label legal gestational limit of ten weeks.
It’s no less heinous than any other form of abortion of course, but the brutality is more easily ignored, and this is encouraged by the media, who distort the truth, omitting several important facts about Mifegymiso.
Leaving aside the obvious—that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being—the first thing everyone should know, but what most women will not be told, is that after the first pill, Mifepristone, has been taken it is possible to reverse the effects and save the baby’s life should the mother intake progesterone.
Second, Mifegymiso can have serious side effects, which include nausea, vomiting, cramping, fever, dizziness, hemorrhaging, loss of consciousness, salpingitis, arrhythmia, bronchospasm, infection, septic shock, future infertility, future ectopic pregnancies, and even death due to infection, blood loss, or future ectopic pregnancy.
Third, the media’s claim that the pills cost between $300 and $550 ignores the cost of the initial pregnancy assessment and counselling with a physical exam, infection check, blood test, and ultrasound; any further blood tests; and finally, follow-up appointments, not to mention the on-average 1 in 20 chemical abortions that will fail and thus be followed up with either a second chemical abortion or a surgical abortion. (Overall success rates for Canadian trials of Mifegymiso were between 92.9% and 97.3%).
The facts are that Mifegymiso is both dangerous to women and expensive, but also that its effects are reversible within a limited window. The media won’t report any of that, however, because chemical abortions are just so convenient. (Also because the concept of “pro-choice” apparently doesn’t extend to a woman’s choice to change her mind.)
RU-486 was invented in 1980, since which time its use has become widespread across Europe. This can give us a glimpse of the future of abortion in Canada, where, as recently reported by the National Post, Mifegymiso has already been prescribed more than 13,000 times.
According to a public report by the UK’s Department of Health and Social Care, in Scotland in 1992, one year after RU-486 was introduced, 16.4% of all abortions were chemical. By 2016 that figure had risen to 83%. The numbers are even more startling in Scandinavia. In Norway, 87% of all abortions are chemical abortions; in Sweden, 92%; in Finland, 96%. This is what we have to look forward to in Canada: a future where nearly all abortions take place at home, discreetly, with a couple of pills.
Pro-life goals in light of chemical abortions
But it’s worth considering how an analysis such as this can hinder as well as help the pro-life cause. Focusing on the side effects and the public cost is ultimately beside the main point. The reduction of both ought no less to be in the interests of the pro-abortion movement; these should be areas of common ground between us and pro-abortion organizations that are ostensibly committed to women’s health and value to the taxpayer. It’s possible that, by highlighting these issues, I could be furthering the pro-abortion cause.
If, in five years, the next version of RU-486 is a fraction of the current cost and has no side effects, will these arguments against the drug have helped to save any preborn lives?
This brings me to two long-standing divisions within the pro-life movement. The efficacy (to say nothing of the morality) of gestational laws and graphic images is hotly debated, and although the two disputes don’t directly map onto each other, they do cut across one another.
On the one hand, gestational laws and graphic images might help to save lives in certain circumstances, but on the other, they may also play into the abortion industry’s hands simply because the sophisticated pro-abort probably doesn’t like late-term abortions or bloody fetuses either. The introduction of Mifegymiso puts an abrupt end to this whole argument and the nays, as they say, have it. But this point may require further unpacking.
Many pro-life campaigns use graphic images of dead babies, post-abortion, to show the grisly, gory reality of surgical abortion. It’s an obvious and bold tactic. Abortion is sickening, bloody and shocking. Surely, by exposing this in public it will change minds. Indeed it does. But that’s not all it does.
The pro-abortion movement, conceivably, also might be opposed to the gore. It is not impossible that there are some pro-abortion activists who may find surgical abortion methods unpalatable and see such images as motivation to “clean up” the procedures.
Supposing Canada responded by doing away with the gruesome surgical abortion methods and then introduced what abortion activists would bill as a clean, bloodless procedure that left no dead baby’s body behind—a method that somehow vaporized or disintegrated the child, painlessly and quickly?
With Mifegymiso, we aren’t far away from this reality, in which gruesome images are far less powerful because abortion is no longer visibly gruesome. And the abortion activists would say, problem solved.
In the short term, if graphic images have helped a woman to rethink her decision and choose to carry her child to term, they have done an unquantifiable good. But in the long run, such images may also provoke abortion activists to clean up the business of killing preborn babies so as to take away the firepower of this useful pro-life tool.
Gestational laws – a trap
Canada’s lack of a law on abortion is staggering and leaves our nation with fewer legal restrictions on abortion than any other developed country in the world. The obvious response is that we need a gestational law of some kind. But supposing we got one? What if the government merely legislated what is already common practice and introduced a law that makes abortions legal until 24 weeks?
Assuming Canada takes its lead from Scandinavia, and Mifegymiso becomes the abortion method of choice for over 90% of abortions, will a gestational law make any difference at all?
Consider the situation in Denmark. Denmark’s abortion law is quite restrictive, relative to other Western countries. Abortions are legal only up to twelve weeks; however, this is not an example of some mysterious social conservatism, since Denmark is certainly one of the most leftist countries in the world. (It was, for example, the first to allow same-sex "marriage," and the first to legalize pornography.)
And where Denmark goes Canada tends to follow not far behind. I believe that such an early gestational law is, in fact, the situation Canada would eventually reach, even if we all were to abandon the pro-life agenda entirely right now.
It’s tempting to think that a twelve-week limit would be so much better than no law at all, that it would be a sort of stepping stone, that the logical sequence of events will inevitably have to go from no restrictions to some restrictions before a full ban can be even contemplated. But this is a fallacious argument, as Mifegymiso proves. For as we attempt to reduce legal limits, the abortion industry is simultaneously working to provide abortions earlier. These two efforts prove to go hand in hand.
Reducing the legal gestation limit for abortion doesn’t protect any preborn children at all. Think about that for a moment. The only hope is that some lucky fetuses might slip through the cracks by becoming too old to be aborted; a gestational law still targets all preborn children because all babies pass through the same stages of gestation. It merely narrows the scope to target them when they’re young enough so that it’s easier not to think of them as human beings.
The Nazis dehumanized the Jews in order to make it easier to kill them. A gestational law does the same.
A preborn child old enough to kick and to resemble a newborn baby has the advantage of eliciting an emotional reaction, hence why ultrasounds have been so effective in counseling women to choose life. A younger baby doesn’t have this advantage. A first-trimester fetus is tiny. It doesn’t look as “human”. It doesn’t feel pain. The abortion that kills it appears less violent. It is, therefore, more vulnerable than an older preborn child.
But hasn’t this always been the challenge for the pro-life movement?
That it’s more difficult to defend preborn babies than born babies because their human appearance is less obvious? The same applies at each stage of gestation.
The younger the fetus, the easier it is to deny its humanity. And some in the pro-life movement are in danger of unwittingly contributing to this trend, which, in the long run, will lead to little progress and possibly much damage.
Sure, Danish law requires women to make the decision at an earlier stage, as does Mifegymiso, but with enough propaganda and encouragement, that won’t prevent many women in such an affluent and educated country from carrying out their decision to have their child killed, especially if it involves nothing more than a couple of pills. (A further effect is that many women rush into the decision to have the abortion, only to regret it later.)
And once the law has entrenched itself, and passed itself off as an acceptable and civilized alternative to the laws of other countries, what chance is there of ever reforming it?
If, in our zeal to restrict abortion access, we are able to arrive at the same kind of law that Denmark has, we will have done a great disservice to the preborn, in strengthening the legal status quo by bestowing upon it a perceived but false level of modesty and reasonableness.
If the pro-abortion movement were to start pushing for a twelve week limit, we might think they’d taken leave of their senses, and begin celebrating such a remarkable development, but the ultimate result would be a law that appears so eminently reasonable, and which would carry such widespread support, that it would be all but impossible to change.
We would have replaced an unacceptable situation where all preborn babies are under threat, with an equally unacceptable situation where only younger preborn babies are under threat (and therefore, still all babies until they grow old enough), which merely marginalizes them further and moves the issue further from people’s minds.
Our new law would then, effectively, be targeting only the most helpless, minimizing the emotional tug on many of those who might come to their defense. It is a fact that of those countries with gestational laws, almost none have budged from their original parameters; there is very little evidence to support the claim that a gestational law can lead to greater protection of preborn life. A gestational law prunes the weed of abortion while nourishing its roots. It’s not a stepping stone. It's a trap.
Pro-life tools becoming obsolete
But my chief point here is that Mifegymiso makes this whole argument a waste of our time.
Already in Canada, over 90% of abortions take place within the first trimester.
In Finland, 96% of all abortions (not including the abortions from contraceptive use) not only take place within the first trimester, but are performed with RU-486. When Mifegymiso takes off, there won’t be any need for a legal gestational limit because unwanted preborn babies won’t survive to the age of protection. And there won’t be a need for the most graphic of images because abortion will be carried out with chemicals and household plumbing instead of knives and forceps.
The remaining 10% of Canadian abortions that occur after the first-trimester likely consist mostly of terminations of once-wanted children due to later-revealed health conditions, and of abortions for women who may not have had ready access to abortion in their first trimester. Mifegymiso will solve the problem of access and, even if passed, any potential gestational legislation in Canada would almost certainly grant exceptions for fetal abnormalities and disabilities, as is the case in other states with gestational laws, ensuring the continued legality of these abortions.
Even in Denmark, late-term abortions are legal in cases of low income, rape or incest, expected birth defects, and physical or mental health risks to the mother, essentially covering nearly all reasons for late-term abortions.
Let's remember that the situation that’s existed in Canada for thirty years is the result of political cowardice surrounding a hot-button issue as much as anything else. Denmark’s situation is the result of an actualized and considered anti-life ideology. Abortion isn’t a hot-button issue there. It’s no wonder that such a liberal country has greater restrictions on abortion. They know what they’re doing.
If Canada were fully to embrace that ideology, we’d certainly have a law. The fact that we don’t indicates that we’re not that far gone. With no law, those of us in the pro-life movement have more weapons at our disposal to make a rational as well as an emotional case to the reasonable citizens of this country.
These weapons have included showing that certain abortion methods are harmful to women, that abortion is gruesome and bloody, that an absence of legal protection for the preborn is a national travesty. I’m not arguing that these facts are unimportant. Insofar as they are truths, they ought to be exposed.
But we must not forget that they're peripheral to a more important truth, and only useful insofar as they support that truth. With Mifegymiso, however, all these tools are fast becoming obsolete.
Campaigning for an end to messy abortions will result in a no less barbaric practice and campaigning for women's health and safety will result in a practice that merely hurts women in a subtler way, perhaps only psychologically. Campaigning for a gestational law will result in an accompanying erroneous moral defensibility. In all cases, the slaughter of the innocents continues.
Mifegymiso is a much more formidable enemy than abortion methods of the past and whatever comes next will be even more so. We don’t have the luxury to deviate from our core purpose in order to make short-term gains.
But perhaps arguing solely for a complete abortion ban remains too grand an objective and some kind of incremental strategy is needed. If gestational laws are irrelevant and graphic images no longer efficacious, what smaller, more achievable goals are there that don’t play into the abortion industry’s hands? No doubt those in the pro-life movement in Canada have many ideas of where to direct our efforts. Here I will suggest two.
Incremental strategies
First, defund all abortions. The Canadian health care system is increasingly expensive and public money must be directed towards necessary health care. Canadian taxpayers ought not to be funding elective procedures at all, especially those that constitute destruction of human life.
Even believers in the right to abortion don’t necessarily believe that abortion should be publicly funded. Second, protect the conscience rights of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists who refuse to perform, prescribe or sell abortions and who won’t refer patients to abortion providers. Is it unrealistic to set as a goal the establishment of a chain of pro-life pharmacies or a public database of pro-life doctors across the country once these conscience rights have been secured and are respected?
These are achievable, reasonable, though by no means easy, goals, which can be pursued alongside political advocacy and public education. There are many others. There is nothing (adequate funding and inter-organizational drama notwithstanding) stopping all Canadian pro-life organizations from collaborating in order to accomplish them, building public support and persuading courageous politicians to take them on as policy objectives.
But whatever strategies in defense of the preborn are conceived, let them take shape with a recognition of the new predicament facing the preborn in Canada: a chemical holocaust administered from a prescription pad and a final resting place in a mess of blood and excrement – better known as Mifegymiso, “the World Health Organization’s gold standard of medical abortion.”
Marie-Claire Bissonnette is Youth Coordinator for Campaign Life Coalition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)