'The government's parameters' - Macleans.ca

‘The government’s parameters’


The Conservative party has issued a statement from Bev Oda.

The Canada-led Muskoka Initiative, introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper is about making a difference in the lives of the world’s most vulnerable people.

Our goal is simple and straightforward:  saving the lives of mothers, newborns and children in developing countries.  We will do this by expanding life-saving services and programs such as better nutrition, treatment and prevention of diseases, proper medication, clean water and sanitation.

Canada’s generous contribution is part of a $7.3 billion overall commitment announced by G-8 leaders in Muskoka last June.  Eighty per cent of the Canadian contribution will flow to sub-Saharan Africa which has the greatest incidence of maternal and child mortality.  If Planned Parenthood submits an application that falls within the government’s parameters for the G8 Muskoka Initiative, there will be funding.

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper our Conservative government is focused on issues that matter to Canadians such as completing our economic recovery and providing Canadians greater financial security and a stable government.

Paul’s read is that this confirms Brad Trost’s version. My read is that it sidesteps the question of the funding application that Planned Parenthood submitted nearly two years ago and that the government was, at least as recently as last night, “still reviewing.”


‘The government’s parameters’

  1. Aaron, the Conbots won't believe that you are the one giving the Harper government the benefit of the doubt.

    I think I agree with Paul on this.

    Everyting is backdoor (but not hidden) with these guys.

  2. This is her canned QP response – not a response to Trost's claims.

  3. Good lord, how can we take anything this woman says seriously without slipping a 'not' into any sentence we choose? I can't read anything about her without chuckling.

    • You bet! And remember, Harper defends her – thus more and more chuckles!

  4. " If Planned Parenthood submits an application that falls within the government's parameters for the G8 Muskoka Initiative, there will be funding."

    I believe the whole KAIROS incident informed us that the "government's parameters" are solely determined by the minister of the day.

    • are solely determined by the minister of the day.

      Charles McVety.

      • Heh heh

    • "I believe the whole KAIROS incident informed us that the "government's parameters" are solely determined by the minister of the day."

      Whereas the preferred approach is…what exactly? Some kind of parameter lottery system? Letting the "bureaucrat of the week" establish the parameters? Have no parameters?

      • Knowing the parameters?

      • The preferred approach is for the parameters to be advertised. Then receive quotes from different organizations to fulfil the parameters that were advertised. Then choosing between the quotes offered; and then releasing a statement as to why the quote chosen was considered superior to the others tendered.

        It is terrible if the minister chooses one quote over another because the quote was presented in pink ink. Unfortunately, the Minister has that right and has no need to state that that is how she made her decision.

        • Are you seriously suggesting there is any mystery at all as to why Kairos or Planned Parenthood don't fit within this particular government's parameters for funding foreign aid organizattions, irrespective of how those parameters are established? Do you really think it is a mystery to Kairos or Planned Parenthood as to why they perhaps aren't the favoured recipients of taxpayer largesse, as doled out by this particular government?

          • I bet you can't find a statement from Hon. Oda that explains why KAIROS was not funded beyond "It did not meet the government's priorities". I say this after there were parliamentary committee hearings regarding this specific issue.
            It is a mystery how CIDA officials determine the proposal meets all the parameters they have been given, yet the Minister has other criteria that she is not willing to disclose.

  5. The Muskoka initiative is new money, so the statement that there "will be funding" for a Planned Parenthood initiative that supports this initiative says nothing about whether other pots of money will/may fund PP. It would be better if the Muskoka initiative explicitly said it would support abortion, as the NDP foreign policy does, but what can you do when neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives support that position?

    • The Muskoka Initiative is a worthy and needed program, however, it is not new money. The ODA (not the minister) has been frozen and will continue to be so. So the MI is actually being paid by withdrawing funds from other CIDA and/or DFAIT sources. I don't disagree with your general assessment but the Conservatives have cleverly implied that this is added funding to our international development strategies…when in fact, it is a case of a paying Paul by robbing Peter.

      • I thought the IAE was frozen in the defeated budget, the year after the MI was announced. Anyway, my point was the more prosaic one that statements about how this new program will run doesn't tell you how previous programming is being used.

    • "but what can you do when neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives support that position? " ____Well, you could choose not to vote for either party because of that position; or you could join one of those parties and fight for them to change their policy.

      • Absolutely. Even better, you could join the party that does have that position and help it elect more MPs.

  6. Break out the NOT!

  7. Separation of church and state…..the word 'not' isn't allowed.

    • Out come the knee-jerk slogans that have no bearing on this topic or even the Charter. Fascinating.

      • I have 14 emails already this morning Dennis….most of them from you.

        I have no interest in your religious fantasies, so find something else to do.

        Go to mass or something, or wash somebody's feet.

        • I think he's sweet on you Emily. You know how us guys are sometimes.

          • We're having our fourth $300 million election in seven years over this nonsense? lol. Thanks. Next.

          • Time for a new line Dennis; that one's waaaay past its Best Before date.

          • Why would you want me to stop telling the truth? Wow.

          • Actually we would like you to start telling the truth. But no one really thinks you will.

          • Are you saying that the opposition didn't force a fourth $300 million election in seven years, and this is supposed to be an example of you telling the truth?

            So, I tell the truth, you can't stand it and, in the process, you attack my personal character and integrity. What an agenda some of you want to shove down our throats.

          • Get down off that cross, Dennis – it's rude to be playing on it this close to Easter/

          • LOL yeah, I'm a nutbar magnet.

          • Leave out the last word, and that's about right. Nasty and disingenuous, too.

          • You're the one that keeps posting to me.

          • Because I don't think some of your nonsense should go unanswered, and I'm willing to put with your personal attacks to do so.

          • That makes it an even 10 this am Dennis….you're cluttering up my trash box. LOL

          • I take that back Emily. He's not sweet on you. He's stalking you.

            And if I may speak for the group, Dennis, you're getting creepy here.

          • Get a life, and a political argument. lol. Next.

          • "Getting"?

            Personally, I'm giving up understatement for Lent.

          • Yeah, he's a stalker….I've just gotten used to it.

        • I didn't bring religion into this. You did. It's your crusade. Next.

          • Actually, Harper did.

          • Really. Where? Why resort to these knee-jerk lies? This is why we're having our fourth $300 million election in seven years, is it?

          • Cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood.

            I wish you'd keep up.

            Oh…and check your talking points memo….you are now 3 weeks out of date on them.

    • It's not a separation of church and state issue – lots of non-church folk don't support taxpayer funding of foreign abortions.

      • If you support healthcare overseas, then you support it. Picking and choosing healthcare is a religious issue.

        • Really! Your depth of analysis always amazes. I'll tell the aforementioned non-church folk their objections are baseless because Emily says picking and choosing health care is a religious issue. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you consider these people closeted theists?

          • As usual, Emily is unassailably right. When the Ontario government cut government funding for eye tests, that was clearly a religious decision. Similarly, the decision not to fund cosmetic surgery – religious.

          • This is fun!

            Closing Calgary General? – required under the tenets of Ba'hai! Not funding new MRI machines? – the Scientologists have found alternative ways to see inside! Allowing excessive emergency room wait times? – good things come to those who wait upon the Lord!

            Though I'm one of your closeted theists, Emily, I fully support you getting the help you need.

          • Yes, I know lots of religions that ban eye tests, and cosmetic surgery.

            Be serious.

        • Not looking for a debate here, but it should be pointed out that one doesn't have to be religious to have ethical issues with abortion. I'll grant you it's more likely, but it is not a requirement.

          A friend of mine who recently had a child had been strongly pro-choice until her "accident". She says she now can't believe she ever thought of it as an option. I don't think she will be out picketing clinics or anything, but she now has definite ethical issues with the concept. And not an ounce of religion in her.

          Just sayin', not proselytizing…

          • This makes no sense – Trump's been saying the same thing on US television recently too. Why would you want abortion restricted just because you didn't choose that option? That's like saying Starbucks shouldn't sell lattes because you chose tea.

          • Babies and tea are not comparable. You don't have to believe in a God to belive that human life has value. I have carried two babies, and had a connection with them even before they were born. They were alive and they were people long before the delivery date. That's why people oppose abortion.

          • Not true – babies and tea will both stain your clothes if handled improperly. I understand that people have strongly held views about abortion for a variety of reasons. But you can think abortion is the wrong choice without thinking the government should interfere with that choice: abortion should be safe, accessible and rare. And the notion that you would shift to being anti-choice because you had an unplanned pregnancy is bizarre. "I am expecting" and "I believe it's a woman's choice" are wholly compatible.

          • Did I say anything about restricting access? I was simply countering Emily's point that you don't have to believe in God to think abortion is wrong. I hadn't planned ongoing here, but…

            My own take on abortion is that, while life begins at conception [unique genetic code that self-replicates is de facto life], as much as I personally think abortion is wrong, I also believe the mother has primacy of right, in the early stages of pregnancy, to decide whether to keep or terminate.

            I think that once the pregnancy reaches the stage where the infant can survive outside the womb, that – as long as the mother's own health is not in jeopardy – primacy of rights should shift to the infant, and the mother or any other person should be required not to do anything which would knowingly harm the child.

          • Pt 2:

            (Our current laws make one's status as a human dependent upon which side of the womb one is on – i.e. a question of geography; I think that, in the later stages of pregnancy, we should start introducing basic legal protections regarding the wellbeing of the child such that, say, a person beating a pregnant woman could be held responsible for the damage done to the child, not just the mother)

            I don't think we can legislate away abortions – they wil happen regardless of the law. I think better education can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and I think open discussions around science and ethics (not yelling matches and sign-waving) offers the best chance of convincing women to carry to term children who were unexpected. And no, I'm not talking indoctrination.

            But we definitely need a law – one that protects women's rights during the first half of the pregnancy (and throughout if her health is jeopardized), and (to a limited degree) the child's in the latter part. Primacy of rights: think about it.

          • She'd think differently again if it was discovered there was something wrong with the foetus.

            In any case, it means saving lives overseas…her's was an accident, not life-threatening.

          • Emily, explain to us why women sometimes have abortions upon learning that the foetus is female?

            Why are female foetuses aborted by female pro-choicers????

          • Emily,

            do you think that the choice to have an abortion because the feotus is female, that such choice should be paid for by our tax dollars??

          • Emily, are you aware that Canada has no abortion law to speak of?

          • Emily, do you think Canadians would be capable of holding an abortion debate?

          • Emily, the abortion issue is not strictly a religious one.

            The fact that humans can induce abortions speaks for itself. Humans will always be found to do what is humanly possible, no matter how you frame it.

          • Do you undertand what the coathanger symbol stands for, you cretin? Women who died from self-induced abortions because they could not get access to safe abortions. Do you think they deserved to die?

          • Emily,

            within an understanding of human possibilities, abortions will continue. But that does not answer the question whether the act of abortion is a right or wrong decision.

          • Not too long ago, in fact a few months ago, when doing an interview with Mansbridge, Harper's reply in regards to abortion legislation offered the following opinion:

            "The problem with abortions cannot really be legislated. To solve the abortion issue is a matter of the heart" (this is a rough quote)

            I agree wholeheartedly with Harper's opinion provided in that interview.

          • Like I said; not looking for a debate on abortion; just pointing out that your hypothesis that one has to be religious to be against it is flawed.

          • The word is 'pro-choice'…that means the woman and her doctor have the choice. They are not constrained by a religious law.

          • …and there's that word again: "religious". It's a question of ethics, not religion. I'd have thought an athiest like you would know there's a difference.

            We've discussed my views on abortion before; you ought to know by now that I think abortion is wrong but that I still support a woman's right to choose because I don't believe I have the right to force my personal ethics on this issue onto others.

            But I'm not going spiralling down one of your thread-holes tonight; I've said my piece on this one. Catch you on another thread, Emily!

          • ??? I don't intend to debate abortion at all. I never do.

            I just don't want any return of religious law.

          • Maybe; maybe not. But as she's an athiest like you the decision still wouldn't be based on religion.

  8. Doesn't seem to sidestep the existing application so much as imply that it will be rejected. If you ask your boss for a raise in your current job, and she says to you "If you take on a different set of responsibilities, then I will give you the raise" – that kind of construction tends to imply that you will otherwise not get the raise. That scenario was meant to be slightly analogous to the IPPF situation, but mainly the point is that in almost all kinds of situations this kind of phrasing implies the current offer is not accepted.

  9. Then cancel the fighterplanes.

  10. And the corporate give away, and the mega prisons

  11. And all subsidies including tax breaks to oil corporations.

  12. On the abortion issue, how Harper might handle private members legislation on abortion is of little real consequence because the record shows that he moves his contentious right-wing agenda forward not through legislation, but through budgets, funding and defunding, appointments and non-appointments, policy statements and other tools and levers available to him as PM.

    The real danger to free choice for women isn't private members legislation, it is that Harper will move to limit access to abortion through these other devices, and appointing anti-choice judges to fill SC vacancies. He doesn't even need a majority to do that.

  13. Hard to take it seriously until Mr. Baird says it …

    • And even harder after he says it!

  14. The rights of the unborn should trump the rights of a woman to choose.

    • Says a man.

      • And a woman agrees with him.

        • Most women don't. Our bodies, our choice.

        • A woman is free to agree and conduct her own life accordingly, so long as she grants other women the right to disagree and to conduct their lives accordingly. Which is why the pro-choice movement is called the pro-choice movement, not (as some folks who think they're being clever call it) the "pro-abortion" movement.

    • Ah, this explains Mr. Trost's presence.

  15. Something is very odd about the polls. Aside from never getting a call on my landline, so many people have cells! And these panels that Nanos uses, you can "apply" to be on them online – surely that means a certain type of person is attracted by being on a political panel, not exactly a normal thing for most people.

    And I know Facebook is not legit polling, but it has mattered in other elections around the world and what is happening there is completely different from published leadership/party polls. Stephen Harper was the most popular page BEFORE the election. But somewhere after that, Michael Ignatieff pulled into the lead, leaving Jack Layton in third about 13,000 behind Ignatieff. NOW, in just the last week, Stephen Harper's Facebook support has just stagnated. Layton was 7 or 8000 behind him weeks ago; today, he is just 3000 behind Harper and still moving. Harper's numbers on the page just dont' move anymore. As for Ignatieff, he has shot way past Harper, now over 10,000 people more popular than Harper, and 13,000 more than Layton. And both Layton and Ignatieff steadily add fans.

    Ok, I know there is nothing scientific about facebook. But all the margins of errors on Nanos polls and everyone else, particularly regional, can be up to +/- 10% . Especially the daily fluctuations that get the headlines, everyone is vastly within the margin of error from day to day.

    Facebook has to be an indicator of some kind, and its numbers for each leader is COMPLETELY different than anything I've seen reported.

    So does anyone care to comment or provide me with insight into this?

  16. And put the gazebo on Craigslist.

  17. Fortunately, Liberal candidates are allowed to attend these meetings. And lots of them oppose abortion! For example, Paul Szabo is running for re-election in Mississauga South and I would invite anyone interested in abortion rights to get out there and get him defeated.

    And the Liberal party won't make abortion funding an explicit part of international assistance! So you can still have lots of fun with your other questions.

  18. If Planned Parenthood submits an application that falls within the government's parameters for the G8 Muskoka Initiative, there will be funding.

    Given that the scope of said initiative is to serve those in the "developing world", I'm sure PP International is quite happy with this announcement they'll be considered equally when applying for funding for foreign aid.

    Now, how about PP Canada for local services?