Consumer groups and opposition parties support move to block Rogers-Shaw merger

The Competition Bureau’s move to block the telecom mega-merger between Rogers and Shaw was applauded by consumer advocates and political opposition parties on Monday.

A woman holds two cellphones in this photo illustration, Monday March 29, 2021 in Chelsea, Que. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology is hearing from Rogers and Shaw Communications executives on a merger.

Anja Karadeglija - 8h ago

 National Post

“For consumers, it’s a strong message that their affordability concerns do matter right now,” said John Lawford, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

The Competition Bureau said it would seek to block the deal “in an effort to protect Canadians from higher prices, poorer service quality and fewer choices, particularly in wireless services.”

The $26-billion merger raised concerns about wireless competition and affordability because it would see Rogers — one of Canada’s Big Three wireless providers that hold 87 per cent of the Canadian wireless service market — buy Shaw.

Shaw’s Freedom Mobile has been credited with driving down prices as the fourth competitor in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

But the Competition Bureau said Monday that “removing Shaw as a competitor threatens to undo the significant progress it has made introducing more competition into an already concentrated wireless services market.”

The bureau said its investigation found that competition between Rogers and Shaw has already declined and “if the proposed merger is allowed to proceed, that harm will continue and may worsen.”

Lawford said the decision was unexpected, going by decisions the bureau has made in the past. “I suspect… the government is falling off its chair in surprise, as am I,” he said.

Telecom researcher Ben Klass also said the move to block the deal “definitely wasn’t expected.”

Advocacy group OpenMedia called for the Liberal government to join the Competition Bureau and “kill a deal that is good for no one but the Rogers family and Shaw family.”

Competition Bureau seeks to block Rogers-Shaw deal in bid to fight higher wireless prices

Competition authorities 'opposing' $26-billion merger of telcos Rogers and Shaw

The Rogers-Shaw deal must pass three different regulatory approval processes: from the CRTC, the Competition Bureau and Innovation Canada. The CRTC has already approved the deal, and now the bureau has said it will block it, but the decision by the Innovation Minister is still outstanding.

The Liberal government has previously said the companies would have to divest Freedom to another buyer.

NDP finance critic Daniel Blaikie noted his party has been opposed to the merger. “We’re glad to see the Competition Bureau taking this seriously…this is something that ought not to be going ahead.”

He said in an interview the Liberals should follow the Competition Bureau’s lead. “They should also be opposing this merger, because we have not seen convincing evidence that it’s going to lead to better prices or better service for Canadians or that it won’t mean job losses in Shaw offices.”

Conservative innovation critic Gérard Deltell said Conservatives “appreciate the decision by the Competition Bureau to challenge the Rogers-Shaw merger on the grounds that it would result in less competition, fewer choices, and higher prices for Canadians.”

Alex Wellstead, director of communications for Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne said in an emailed statement the ministry will continue its process. He noted the Competition Bureau is an “independent law enforcement agency.”

“As it relates to requests to transfer licensed spectrum, ISED will continue to review any application on its merits and will render a decision in due course,” Wellstead said. “As Minister Champagne has previously stated, our government is committed to promoting competition and ensuring affordability in the telecommunications sector.”

Klass said in his view, “the right thing to do is to block the merger outright.” He said “none of the obvious suitors really present a strong case to fill that role of a fourth carrier in Ontario, B.C., and Alberta on a sustainable basis.”

The Competition Bureau process is not public, meaning it’s not clear what option Rogers and Shaw presented to the regulatory body.

One of the options is Xplornet, who became Manitoba’s fourth player after the merger of Bell and MTS. The Globe and Mail reported last month that Rogers presented the government with a deal that would see Xplornet take over Freedom Mobile.

Klass said in an earlier interview Xplornet was “given a chance to try and compete in the mobile sector and they’re not doing it there… they’re offering way less data for the money than the other companies.” On Monday, the biggest plan advertised on Xplore Mobile’s site was a 10 GB plan for $70. In comparison, in Manitoba the Big Three offered 25 GB plans for between $60 and $75, and Bell a 10 GB plan for $55.

Rogers has turned to Quebecor as a potential buyer in recent days in an effort to rescue the deal, according to media reports.

Consultant Gerry Wall said in an earlier interview Quebecor has a history of driving competition in Quebec, where it currently operates. “They have the lowest price on a lot of different plans in the Quebec market. So they not only know the business, know how to do it, but they’re also demonstrably aggressive in terms of their pricing.”

Still 'non-negotiable': Canada's natural resources minister redraws line on Line 5


WASHINGTON — Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson is doubling down on Canada's assertion that the continuing operation of the Line 5 pipeline is "non-negotiable."


© Provided by The Canadian Press

Wilkinson made the comments Friday in the House of Commons as Opposition MPs seized on media reports that the controversial cross-border pipeline is facing yet another court challenge.

On top of efforts by the state of Michigan to shut down Line 5, an Indigenous band in Wisconsin is now asking a judge there to do the same.

The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa argues in court documents that Enbridge Inc., the pipeline's owner, no longer has the right to operate on its territory.

Fifteen of the 20-year easements that allowed the company to operate on band territory expired back in 2013 and were never properly renewed, they argue in court documents.

"Enbridge has continued to operate the pipeline as if it has an indefinite entitlement to do so," say the documents, first reported by the Globe and Mail.

"This constitutes an unlawful possession of the subject lands, and an intentional, ongoing trespass upon them."

The band filed a motion in February seeking a summary judgment against Enbridge — in other words, to shut down Line 5 without a trial.

"The continued operation of Line 5 is non-negotiable," Wilkinson said Friday in response to a question from Conservative MP John Brassard.

"We will take appropriate steps to ensure the continued safe operation of this critical infrastructure. And we continue to work closely with the owner of Line 5."

Wilkinson said he will continue to raise the matter in discussions with his U.S. counterparts. Federal officials say the minister will be in D.C. for meetings on a number of bilateral issues in the coming days, potentially as early as next week.

The Conservatives, however, want the government to take a harder line, urging Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly to intervene in the Wisconsin case the same way they did in Michigan: with an amicus brief to put Canada's economic interests on the record.

"As before, the government needs to take a 'Team Canada' approach to combat this latest legal challenge to an international pipeline that is critical to our nation," Conservative MPs Greg McLean and Marilyn Gladu wrote in a letter to Joly earlier this week.

"We call on you to fully advocate and support Canada’s interest once again, by filing an amicus brief and ensuring the terms of the 1977 Transit Pipeline Treaty are respected."

Enbridge, meanwhile, is in the process of trying to relocate the pipeline away from band territory, said spokesman Jesse Semko, adding that a 1992 agreement with the Bad River Band allows for operations to continue until 2043.

That relocation project will involve a Wisconsin contractor and union and Indigenous labour, as well as $46 million spent specifically on Indigenous businesses and communities in the area, Semko said.

"Agreement has been reached with 100 per cent of private landowners along the re-route, which was chosen because it minimizes environmental impacts and protects critical resources."

The Wisconsin challenge comes as Enbridge tries to fend off Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who fears an ecological disaster in the Straits of Mackinac, where the twin lines cross the Great Lakes.

Enbridge insists the pipeline is safe and has already received a level of state approval for a $500-million concrete tunnel beneath the straits that would house the line's twin pipes and protect them from anchor strikes.

In the Michigan case, Canada has invoked a 1977 bilateral pipelines treaty aimed at ensuring the uninterrupted flow of energy between the two countries, and has petitioned the court there to allow those talks to play out.

It's not yet clear whether the federal Liberal government will do so again in the Wisconsin matter, although it would likely require a separate set of negotiations, Semko added.

"Given Line 5’s volumes, there are no easy alternatives for the upper U.S. Midwest and Canada," he said in a statement.

"Moving the same volumes by truck or train would require more trucks and train cars than are currently available, would cost substantially more, and would burn more fuel in order to move it."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 6, 2022.

James McCarten, The Canadian Press

Definition of 'inefficient fossil fuel subsidy' still elusive in Canada

Friday,May 6, 2022
 The Canadian Press



OTTAWA — Thirteen years ago, as part of a commitment made by all G20 nations, Canada began promising to scrub out all inefficient fossil fuel subsidies from the government's books.

The commitment has been made in every G20 communique since, found its way into the 2015 Liberal election platform, and in 2016 the Liberals set a deadline to do it by 2025.

As an election promise last fall, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau moved that up to 2023.

But what exactly is an "inefficient fossil fuel subsidy"?

The government still doesn't know.

"The work to put parameters around the definition of inefficient is ongoing," said Hilary Geller, an assistant deputy minister for strategic policy at Environment and Climate Change Canada, on Thursday.

Geller was among several environment and finance officials appearing at the House of Commons environment committee, which is in the midst of a study of fossil fuel subsidies.

She said the work is supposed to be done "in time to have the phaseout" of the subsidies by the end of 2023. But when exactly the definition will be ready is "unclear at this time."

Conservative MP Colin Carrie was puzzled by the admission.

"How can you eliminate a subsidy if you can't define it?" he wondered.

Geller said it isn't as if the government is working blind.

"The government, I think, can be clear on what an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy is not," she told Carrie.

She said the G20 commitments are clear that the subsidies don't include programs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or developing and installing renewable and clean energy sources.

Environmental advocates want the government to consider any federal aid given to fossil fuel companies to be an inefficient subsidy. Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson made clear last fall that aid to help companies reduce greenhouse gas emissions would not be considered "inefficient."

But landing on the definition to show exactly where the line is drawn has proven tricky.

NDP MP Laurel Collins, for example, asked if the new carbon capture and storage tax credit — which she opposes — would only be given if companies don't increase their production after they get the equipment.

The tax credit, introduced in the spring budget, has no such restrictions. Collins pointed out even if the emissions from producing the oil are trapped, emissions still arise when the products are used.

Last fall, environment commissioner Jerry DeMarco criticized an aid program to help oil and gas companies cut methane emissions to meet new federal regulations. He said the program allowed more than half of the companies to increase their production, but it didn't account for the increased emissions when that extra fuel was burned.

Canada has consulted for years seeking to define which subsidies it needs to eliminate. In 2018, it launched a G20-approved peer review with Argentina to examine each other’s programs to identify the subsidies that should be phased out.

Similar reviews done by China and the United States, Germany and Mexico, and Indonesia and Italy were completed in under two years.

On Thursday, Miodrag Jovanovic, an assistant deputy minister for tax policy at the Department of Finance, told the committee that Canada and Argentina likely won't complete theirs until the end of 2023.

Julia Levin, the national climate program manager at Environmental Defence, said that timeline means it’s unlikely any subsidies identified by the review will be eliminated by the end of next year.

"It's pretty shocking," she said.

In 2019, the auditor general blasted the federal government for refusing to provide documents to review any progress Canada had made eliminating the subsidies.

Jovanovic said Thursday Canada has cancelled nine tax-related subsidies for fossil fuels since 2009, with the last one he says exists on its way out after this year's federal budget.

That is a tax program allowing oil, gas and coal companies to use flow-through shares to pass certain tax deductions on to investors.

Jovanovic said there is no ambiguity in defining a fossil fuel subsidy for Finance Canada: it's any tax measure that supports fossil fuel consumption or production.

It's the "inefficient" part where there is disagreement, he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 6, 2022.

Mia Rabson, The Canadian Press

Uber, union reach settlement in Ontario unionization case: UFCW Canada


 The Canadian Press

Friday, May 6, 2022


TORONTO — Uber Technologies Inc. has fought off a unionization attempt from Toronto drivers for its premium Uber Black service with a settlement it signed with the private sector union trying to represent the workers.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada on Friday confirmed the settlement, which it said had been in the works since January, five years after the union started pursuing a case against the ride-hailing giant.

Debora De Angelis, the union's regional director of Ontario, said the settlement includes commitments that will see both parties explore new rates for commercial insurance, which tend to be high for gig workers, spend more on marketing airport rides that have dropped during the pandemic and increasingly involve drivers in product development.

Both sides will also team up to advocate with the Greater Toronto Airport Authority and municipal governments on shared interests impacting the hundreds of Uber Black drivers, who ferry customers around in premium cars, often making trips to and from Toronto Pearson International Airport and downtown Toronto.

Uber spokesperson Laura Miller confirmed the settlement in an email, saying it was "made possible" because of an agreement the company signed with the UFCW in January that will see the union provide dispute resolution to Canadian drivers, but the deal does not unionize workers.

The two sides reached a resolution in the case because they realized they could agree on several issues and help each other, meaning the Ontario Labour Relations Board will no longer be making a ruling in the case, De Angelis added.

The union took the settlement, she said, “because ultimately, what was that decision going to be? We don't know.”

“We heard what the drivers were saying and we were able to actually make sure that they have a voice.”

The union had been pursuing the case since 2018, when an Uber Black service driver was seeking representation after his account on the Uber app had been deactivated over a trip cancellation issue.

De Angelis recalls that the driver had a vehicle leased for $1,330 per month and once the app was deactivated, he lost his ability to earn a living and felt “helpless.”

The union and the driver eventually filed unionization papers on behalf of 300 Uber Black workers, but in labour board hearings in 2020 Uber argued union had not met the threshold of 40 per cent of the Uber Black driver population needed to become the drivers' bargaining agents.

The settlement will put an end to one of several cases Canadians working for Uber have pursued in recent years in hopes of unionizing, being designated as employees and earning rights like vacations, sick pay and better wages.

Uber has fought such asks in several countries, arguing the flexibility it offers workers to choose when, how often and where they work should not require it to give workers increased benefits, allow them to unionize or dole out more benefits.

In recent months, the company has lobbied provinces and territories to force Uber and other app-based companies to create a self-directed benefit fund to disperse to workers for prescriptions, dental and vision care, RRSPs or tuition.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 6, 2022.

Tara Deschamps, The Canadian Press

CN Rail pressed by federal transport minister over its 'unacceptable' English-only board of directors

The Canadian National Railway Company (CN) got a symbolic slap on the wrist by Transport Minister Omar Alghabra for its absence of French speakers on its board of directors.

Catherine Lévesque - 

National Post

May 9, 2022.

© Provided by National Post

Transport Minister Omar Alghabra speaks at the House of Commons official languages committee on May 9, 2022.

Speaking at a parliamentary committee on official languages on Monday, Alghabra insisted that the situation at CN Rail was “unacceptable” and said he made it very clear to the company that it must be corrected even though the Official Languages Act does not explicitly require their board of directors to have a representation of French speakers.

“I think it is really important that CN and others like Air Canada set a leadership example. Of course, they have a responsibility to meet their obligation under the Official Languages Act. But even on things that may be where the act was silent, they have a responsibility to demonstrate leadership,” said Alghabra during his testimony to MPs, Monday afternoon.

“It’s unacceptable that (CN’s) board of directors does not have a francophone representative on it,” he added, all the while admitting that the federal intervention is limited, as CN Rail is a private corporation and he cannot appoint directors.

CN Rail has been heavily criticized in Quebec media over the past weeks after La Presse revealed that the company’s board of directors had no French-speaking members since former Quebec premier Jean Charest stepped down unexpectedly to join the federal Conservative leadership race. He had been nominated to the board three weeks prior for a five-year mandate.

Air Canada CEO grilled by MPs for not learning French before taking the job

SNC-Lavalin CEO delays speech planned mostly in English

Julie Godin, the only other French-speaking board member before him, stepped down last fall to focus on her other professional duties. CEO Tracy Robinson will be the only member representing Quebec on the 11-member board and is said to be taking French lessons.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did not mince words towards CN Rail in April, saying he had been shocked to hear that the railway company had not learned from Air Canada’s mistakes. CEO Michael Rousseau was chastised by politicians and media alike for a predominantly English speech made in front of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce last fall.

Rousseau told reporters at the time that he had been able to live in the province of Quebec without speaking French for 14 years and that he thought it was “a testament to the City of Montreal” that he had been able to do that. He apologized afterwards for his comments which he admitted were “insensitive” and has been taking French lessons ever since.

Rousseau reiterated his apologies to MPs when he was asked to testify in front of the Official Languages Committee on the “importance of official languages at Air Canada” in March and even said a few sentences in French in his opening statement.

CN Rail’s representatives were less apologetic when they testified in front of that same committee.

Sébastien Labbé, one of CN’s vice-presidents, said in April that he was aware of the absence of French-speaking individuals on the company’s board of directors and said that the situation would be resolved in the next year, as two of their board members’ mandates are ending. Labbé, who is from Quebec and speaks French, offered his opening statement in English only.

The federal government has been urging MPs to adopt C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to strengthen the law and give more powers to the official languages watchdog, but has been facing resistance notably from the Bloc Québécois who sees it as a way of promoting bilingualism.

Alghabra reiterated that plea to the members of the official languages committee on Monday, but was met with little compassion on their end.

“The problem is I think that the federal government is not preaching by example,” answered Conservative MP Joël Godin, who highlighted the fact that Prime Minister Trudeau appointed Mary Simon as Canada’s first Inuk Governor General last year even though she does not speak French fluently and is taking lessons to perfect it.

Godin then went on to ask if the government would be open to amending C-13 to make sure boards of directors have a minimum of French-speaking members.

“We know that both of the organizations we’re talking about, CN and Air Canada, are private companies. … Having said that, I don’t want to pre-empt the study of your committee. I know you’re going to study it thoroughly,” said Alghabra, who encouraged his colleagues to vote for the second reading of this bill.

The federal government had presented a first bill to modernize the Official Languages Act in June 2021, but it died when Prime Minister Trudeau called an election.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

SNC-Lavalin to pay $30M under agreement with Quebec over bridge bribes

The Canadian Press


MONTREAL — SNC-Lavalin Inc. says it will pay Quebec nearly $30 million over three years to settle criminal bribery charges stemming from bridge work in Montreal.

The charges against SNC-Lavalin and SNC-Lavalin International related to events that occurred between 1997 and 2004 in connection with the Jacques Cartier Bridge deck rehabilitation project between Montreal and Longueuil.

Negotiations with Quebec's Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions (DPCP) began immediately after charges were filed on Sept. 23.

The RCMP had arrested the same day two former executives of SNC-Lavalin — Normand Morin and Kamal Francis, former respective vice-presidents of SNC-Lavalin and SNC-Lavalin International.

The charges followed the 2017 conviction of Michel Fournier, former president and CEO of the Federal Bridge Corp.

He had admitted receiving $2.23 million in bribes from SNC-Lavalin in connection with the $128-million project to repair the bridge.

The remediation agreement will allow SNC-Lavalin to continue to do business with Quebec, Canadian and foreign governments, thereby reducing the negative consequences for the company's employees, retirees, customers and shareholders.

The agreement requires approval from the Quebec Superior Court at a hearing on Tuesday.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 6, 2022.

How Canada came to have no federal law whatsoever on abortion

Tristin Hopper 

POSTMEDIA

 Sunday, May 8,2022

In France, getting an abortion after 14 weeks gestation requires approval from a physician. In Germany, anybody seeking an abortion must undergo mandatory counselling. Norway has abortion on request, but only in the first trimester.


© Provided by National Post

Dr. Henry Morgentaler talks to reporters in Ottawa after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in his favour in a challenge of Canada's abortion laws, Jan. 28, 1988.

But in Canada, there is no federal law whatsoever restricting abortion.

Trying to abort a healthy fetus at eight months gestation will get you rejected by a hospital’s ethical guidelines, but there’s nothing illegal about it. And it’s all due to a rapid-fire series of events in the late 1980s so politically traumatic that most Canadian politicians still prefer to pretend it never happened.

Prior to 1988, Canada had a far more restrictive abortion regime than the United States. While the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision had cleared the way for legal elective abortion in all 50 states, in Canada abortion existed only as a rare medical exception.

For an abortion to be performed, it had to be approved by a “therapeutic abortion committee” of doctors who were instructed to reject any abortion that did not directly risk the life or health of the mother.

And even this was a more liberal regime than what had existed prior to the 1970s, when the country criminalized the practice outright. In the same 1969 package of criminal code reforms that legalized homosexuality, “therapeutic abortions” became the first legal way to terminate a pregnancy in Canadian history. The law was certainly restrictive, but it was far from a blanket ban: In the last year of the regime, in 1987, 63,662 “therapeutic abortions” were performed in Canadian hospitals.

Politically, abortion spent much of the 1970s and 1980s on the parliamentary back-burner. Then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau championed any number of progressive causes during his 15-year premiership, but elective abortion definitely wasn’t one of them. It didn’t arise as a major issue in any of the six federal elections between 1968 and 1988.

When the word “abortion” was brought up in the House of Commons, it was often levelled as a Progressive Conservative insult against the NDP, who were the first major party to put legalized abortion in their official platform. And even then, many NDPers continued to say that while they supported abortion access, they still weren’t tremendously enthused about the procedure itself.

“I do not favour abortion,” the NDP’s Stuart Leggatt said in a 1977 debate when a Progressive Conservative opponent accused him of using the term “family planning” as a euphemism for legalized abortion.

What changed everything was R. v. Morgentaler, the 1988 Supreme Court of Canada decision that struck abortion from the Criminal Code.

The case was the culmination of nearly 20 years of open civil disobedience on the part of Henry Morgentaler, a Polish-born Holocaust survivor who in 1969 opened Canada’s first publicly advertised abortion clinic in Montreal as an open challenge to the status quo.

The result for Morgentaler was a near-endless stream of raids, charges, appeals and — at one point — a brief prison sentence. But it was a 1983 raid on Morgentaler’s newly opened Toronto clinic that would yield a charge of “conspiracy with intent to commit abortions” which he would spend five years challenging all the way to the Supreme Court.

The basis of the resulting decision was that a law against abortion was akin to forcing Canadian women to give birth. “Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference,” it reads.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was only six years old, and Canada’s existing abortion bans were struck down as a violation of the newly codified right of “security of the person.”

Despite popular belief, R. v. Morgentaler didn’t codify abortion as a constitutional right. The text even said it was a “perfectly valid legislative objective” for Canada to have laws protecting unborn fetuses. The Charter of Right and Freedoms, it read, did indeed authorize “reasonable limits to be put upon the woman’s right having regard to the fact of the developing foetus within her body.”

All R. v. Morgentaler did was quash the existing criminal ban and throw the issue back to the House of Commons. The Supreme Court at the time would have assumed that Canada would continue to have a law governing abortion, albeit one that wasn’t as

 “restrictive.”

This was a decidedly unwelcome development for the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney. Already neck-deep in controversy for its pursuit of free trade with the United States, Mulroney was suddenly tasked with diving headlong into an issue he would soon describe as “too wrenching and divisive to be allowed to continue much longer.”

In recent polls, more than three quarters of Canadians have been found to support some form of legalized abortion. But the public mood was decidedly different in the late 1980s, and in the wake of the Morgentaler decision Mulroney was soon warning his caucus that “public feelings against abortion may be hardening in the country.”

The result, tabled in 1990, was Bill C-43. Shaped under the oversight of then-justice minister Kim Campbell, observers at the time called it a model of parliamentary compromise. It restricted abortions only to cases where the mother’s health was at risk — although it left open a pretty substantial loophole by including mental health in that category. Self-induced abortions — or abortions performed by anyone other than a licensed physician — would be punishable by two years in jail.


© Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press/File

The Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling on R. v. Morgentaler didn’t codify abortion as a constitutional right, as many believe.

The bill passed the House of Commons but suffered a sudden death the next year when it yielded a surprise tie in the Senate, which by the rules of the Red Chamber meant the legislation’s automatic defeat. For better or for worse, it remains the most consequential thing the Senate has done since its 1867 inception.

“It is going to be a very long time before a federal government tries to legislate abortion again, certainly not in the remainder of this century,” read the words of Calgary Herald columnist William Gold, penned just after the Senate vote. “There are no political rewards for this work, and there will be many other pressing problems crying for attention,” he added.

Thirty-one years later, Gold could not have been more prescient. Aside from a few fringe private members’ bills, the House of Commons has run headlong from anything even close to resembling an abortion law.

There are compelling arguments for an abortion law on both sides of the political spectrum. The pro-choice camp sees it as a way of codifying abortion access as a protected right (rather than a medical procedure permitted by virtue of a legal vacuum). The anti-abortion camp wants a legal framework that could ban late-term and sex-selective abortions.

But the moment abortion hits the order paper, both sides know it won’t be over until another round of “wrenching and divisive” debate has been completed.

It’s why, in sharp contrast to their conservative cousins in the United States, the Conservative Party of Canada has strenuously fought elections in which abortion was mentioned as little as humanly possible. This week, when news broke of Roe v. Wade’s possible reversal in the United States, the immediate reaction of interim Conservative Leader Candice Bergen was to say she didn’t want anything to do with it.

Canada welcomes Americans who lose access to abortion, but clinics say they're at capacity

Tom Blackwell - Saturday, May 7,2022

© Provided by National Post 

An abortion rights rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on May 5, 2022. With the U.S. on the verge of ending its constitutional protection for abortion rights, clinics in Canada are bracing for a potential influx of Americans.

Before the 1989 Morgentaler decision effectively erased criminal restrictions on abortion in Canada, women here routinely travelled south to have their pregnancies ended in the United States.

In neighbouring cities like Buffalo, some doctors even expanded their services to accommodate the cross-border demand, recalls Carolyn Egan, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics.

Now with the U.S. on the verge of ending its own constitutional protection for abortion rights, clinics in this country are bracing for a potential influx in the other direction. That could mean longer waits for service or the possibility of having to grow existing facilities or even open new ones to meet the demand, they say.

“Because it happened historically going south it’s only natural to assume it could happen with Americans going north,” said Egan. “There is a real lived memory of the graciousness provided by clinics in the U.S. when Canadians were in need and I think that would be reciprocated.”

The Women’s Health Clinic in Winnipeg says it will care for any woman seeking the procedure and that includes Americans, who already come in small numbers, says executive director Kemlin Nembhard.

Still, a mass movement north for abortion would present challenges, she said.

“We’re not going to be turning people away,” said Nembhard. “But as a country that has 10 per cent of the population of what the U.S. has, it’s unrealistic to think we could fulfill the needs of what could potentially be flowing north.”

The issue is already on the radar south of the border, though. If the right to abortion in the States is overturned, “could you go to Canada to have an abortion?” asked the Detroit Free Press in a story this week.

That said, no one really knows what might happen.

The extraordinary leak of a draft decision from one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s judges suggests that Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established the American right to abortion, is on the verge of being overturned.

If that happens, states would be free to set their own laws on the controversial issue. Abortion-restricting legislation recently enacted in Texas and other states would be validated, while those still on the books elsewhere from pre-Roe days could be revived.

Removing the abortion right would make no difference in a little under half the U.S. jurisdictions, Democratic strongholds like New York, most of New England and the west coast where the procedure would remain legal — and available to women from abortion-denying jurisdictions.

But some states bordering Canada could well be affected. That includes Michigan and North Dakota, which still have pre-Roe anti-abortion laws, and Montana, which passed legislation in 2019 that’s currently barred by the U.S. constitution.

While much is still uncertain, the possibility of an American influx “is definitely being discussed” among clinics here, said Jill Doctoroff, executive director of the National Abortion Federation Canada. “People who work in abortion care are quite passionate…. Folks want to be as helpful as they can be.”

And Doctoroff said that she’s been approached in recent months by abortion advocates and providers in the States asking about the possibility of Canada dealing with some of the U.S. demand if Roe is overturned.

Meanwhile, the federal government has indicated this country will remain open to serving American women seeking abortions. Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino said this week he would instruct the Canada Border Services Agency to ensure such patients can enter Canada.

But exactly what a potential influx of abortion tourists might mean for clinics here is less clear, especially since many are currently at or beyond capacity.

Egan said she believes Canadian abortion providers would expand or launch new facilities if the demand grew significantly, saying that clinics in Ontario, at least, are not currently over-burdened.

“If there was indeed a need, I would be pretty optimistic that medical personnel here in Canada would try to set up a facility to help.”

But Nembhard said the number of patients accessing her Winnipeg clinic already exceeds the provincial funding it receives by a quarter to a third every year. Even without an American influx, she’d like to see governments improve the procedure’s availability through more money and other measures — like mandating abortion training in medical schools to increase the pool of doctors who can do the work

“ Obviously the U.S. is a much bigger country ,” said Joyce Arthur, head of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. “We can’t accommodate huge numbers of people coming up from the United States.”

Meanwhile, if Canada does become an abortion destination for American women, that market may be limited by economic and social factors. Many would be too poor or otherwise marginalized to obtain a passport and pay for transportation to and accommodation in another country, advocates here note.

“Unless reimbursed from American abortion funds,” said Arthur, “it will only be a viable option for women who have some means and can travel.”

‘Alarming’ Roe v. Wade draft ruling shows Canada must protect abortion access: minister

Aya Al-Hakim - Yesterday 
Global News

The U.S. Supreme Court draft ruling on overturning the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade demonstrates why Canada must continue to "stand up" to protect access to abortion, says one cabinet minister.

In an interview with The West Block guest host Eric Sorensen, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development Karina Gould said news that the U.S. Supreme Court appears set to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling is "very alarming" and drives home the need to protect access in Canada.

"We're not immune to the forces that want to limit or restrict a woman's right to access abortion services in Canada," said Gould. "We have to, first of all, stand up and protect it."

Read more:

Canada will ensure border officials know Americans can travel for abortion: Mendicino

However, she did not provide any specifics when pressed on what she's going to do next to address the fact that abortion isn't accessible everywhere in Canada.

A leaked initial majority draft opinion first reported on May 2 by Politico suggests the court has voted to overturn the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion in the U.S. The resulting outcry has seen Canadian leaders weighing in to advocate for abortion access, while facing questions about continued challenges facing access to abortion domestically.

Ontario, Canada's most populated province, has the most abortion clinics in the country with 23, according to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada.

Quebec has 12, Alberta and Manitoba have three, British Columbia has eight, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan have five and the other provinces and territories have four or less abortion clinics.

"We need to be doing everything we can to ensure that if someone needs access to sexual and reproductive health services, it is available to them wherever they live in this country," Gould said.

Video: Possible overturn of Roe v. Wade reigniting abortion access conversation in Saskatchewan

Gould explained that most of the power to improve abortion access in Canada lies with provinces through their authority on health care.

"That's why we're using the tools available at the federal levels of the Canada Health Act," she said.

One of these tools was used in 2021 when the federal government withheld health transfers to New Brunswick in relation to events at Clinic 554 in Fredericton.

The Blaine Higgs government was criticized for refusing to pay for abortion services offered at Clinic 554, forcing it to scale back its operations.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at the time that New Brunswick is not getting its full health funding because it continues “to make it difficult for women to access the full range of reproductive services."

Gould said the tools that the federal government has used don't happen in a vacuum.

"They happen after conversations between the federal and provincial government, between the ministers. Those conversations are absolutely ongoing," said Gould.

"And the message that we sent from the federal government is that the provinces and territories have a responsibility to uphold the Charter rights of their citizens when it comes to access to reproductive and sexual health services. And certainly, we will continue to press that and to work with them."

CANADA

$45M sexual, reproductive health fund not yet released a year later: advocates



The Canadian Press


OTTAWA — A year after the federal government announced a $45-million fund for organizations making sexual and reproductive information and services more available, advocates say none of the money has been released.

Frederique Chabot, director of health promotion at Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, said her organization applied to the fund. Her group promotes reproductive and sexual rights and provides Canadians with direct support and referrals.

"In terms of the actual announcements, (they have) not been made yet in terms of who will get the funding," said Chabot.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government sought to assure Canadians last week that it would protect access to a safe and legal abortion, following the unprecedented leak of a U.S. Supreme Court draft decision that would overturn that right south of the border.

But the turmoil in the United States has heaped new scrutiny on the Trudeau government’s promises on abortion and the speed at which it is implementing them.

The government announced the fund, to be spread out over three years starting in 2021-22, in last year’s budget. Health Canada was tasked with administering the fund to community-based organizations focused on reproductive and sexual health.

Those organizations spread public awareness, create inclusive training for sexual and reproductive health-care providers and help people who have travel long distances to access abortion care.

By the start of 2022, $16 million from the fund was projected to be spent, according to last year’s budget.

A spokesperson for Health Canada said it has signed nine contribution agreements worth $15.2 million, but did not confirm whether any funds had been released.

"Funding will be provided in accordance with the terms of the agreements," said Charlaine Sleiman.

She said the projects include two related to abortion access, five for LGBTQ communities and two for youth. Two have elements focusing on Indigenous Peoples, and per capita funding of $9.7 million will be given to support Quebec-based organizations, she added.

Joyce Arthur, executive director of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, said she has heard advocates in the field reporting delays in releasing the funds.

“The money is kind of waiting there, and paperwork or contracts should be signed or something like that. There's a holdup and it's frustrating,” said Arthur, whose organization has not applied for the funding.

Jill Doctoroff, executive director of the National Abortion Federation of Canada, said her organization submitted a proposal and is waiting to hear back.

Chabot of Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights said it is worth celebrating the government for making “unprecedented” investments in sexual and reproductive health, and it’s understandable that it would take some time to set up the fund.

“They had to build that program from the ground up. Who's going to be the grant officers? How is this money going to be disbursed? How are we going to track it?” Chabot said.

"But then let's make sure that this investment doesn't go to waste and this needs to be a permanent fixture of Health Canada moving forward."

Doctoroff said three years of funding is not sufficient.

"Access issues aren't going to be addressed in a three-year period. You need to have ongoing dedicated funding for people who need to access abortion," she said.

Arthur said there are concerns that the three years could come to an end before Health Canada gets around to disbursing some of the money.

Once the funding dries up, organizations that spent those years building capacity and scaling up their services would have to scale them right back, likely undoing whatever progress was made, she said.

Those who access the services would also feel these effects, she added.

"They can come to rely on these programs, and could even in some cases be life-saving for them. And then it's like having the rug pulled out from under them," Arthur said.

Action Canada hopes to see the one-off investment renewed alongside longer-term structural changes to already overstretched health-care systems across the country.

Specifically, Chabot said she hopes to see a portion of investments into the health-care system be dedicated to sexual and reproductive health, adding it has been siloed and neglected for a long time.

"We are seeing really big problems across the country, despite the fact that it's a core aspect of people's health, and it's not treated as such," Chabot said.

Chabot and Arthur said they would like to see a federal health transfer that would have strings attached, such as ensuring provinces improve access to sexual and reproductive health care in their jurisdictions.

The government said it would work with provinces and territories to ensure "equitable and appropriate access" to a full range of reproductive and sexual health services in any upcoming Canada Health Transfer funding discussions, according to last year's budget.

During the 2021 election, the Liberals promised to introduce regulations under the Canada Health Act to ensure abortion services were clearly medically necessary and publicly funded.

Trudeau said last week he has directed Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos and Status of Women Minister Marci Ien "to look at the legal framework'" around abortion to ensure women's rights are protected under his government and those in the future.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 8, 2022.

———

This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Meta and Canadian Press News Fellowship.

Erika Ibrahim, The Canadian Press