Tories, Bloc teamed up to kill NDP air passenger bill of rights - twice

So it seems that National Post columnist John Ivison -- who, it's fair to note, is right more often than not when it comes to these things -- is predicting, based on the usual unnamed source(s), that the Conservatives are poised to recast their party in a distinctly pro-consumer light by bringing forward legislation to address various and sundry universal gripes, including bank fees, wireless rates and airline travel.

If that's the case, New Democrat MPs could be forgiven for coordinating caucus-wide pointed coughs to coincide with the precise moment in the Throne Speech when the governor general gets to the last item on that list.

5 Blush-Worthy Public Expense Missteps

Canadian International Development Minister Bev Oda's $16 bottle of orange juice becomes the latest example of a public figure getting into trouble over his or her expense claims.

The minister generated headlines this week after documents obtained by The Canadian Press showed Oda refused to stay at one five-star hotel in London, England, last year and rebooked at a swanky establishment for more than double the cost.

Her office, which originally said the expenses met government guidelines, confirmed Monday the minister has personally reimbursed taxpayers for the difference in cost between the two hotels, the cancellation fee and a costly bottle of juice.

Here are a few examples of some red-faced moments in public expense reports, in which those involved likely wished they had gone back and done — or in the case of David Dingwall, said — a few things differently.

A mean town just got a whole lot meaner

OTTAWA—This is a small town.

The orbit inhabited by politicians, aides, lobbyists and journalists is smaller still.

In this village, two blocks from the halls of Parliament, stories are swapped over pints regarding the loves lives, infidelities, indiscretions and sexual orientation of ministers, MPs, aides and journalists.

Some are true, some no doubt fanciful. Others are merely vengeful, because this has become a meaner town over the years, a partisan playground where slights, real or imagined, are tallied and scores settled.

Beyond the aggrieved parties, such tales are of interest largely to those habitués of a tiny downtown radius, from the Confederation Building on the west to the Metropolitain Brasserie on the east.

The details of Vic Toews’s divorce were dissected here years ago, but largely, except for a few published details, they stayed here.

Lying politicians undermine the currency of democracy

Dirty tricks have always been part of politics. So it’s hard to know when to call any development a new low.

But when the Conservatives admitted in November that they were spreading a false rumour about Liberal MP Irwin Cotler in his Montreal riding, it had that feel.

It wasn’t even the act itself, odious though it was, but the defence of it by Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan, who characterized it as a matter of freedom of speech.

The rumour, which has dogged Cotler ever since he first won in the riding a dozen years ago, was used by a firm hired by the Conservatives as a reason for calling constituents in his riding of Mount Royal to identify Conservative supporters.

If they asked why they were being called, they were told that there was a rumour Cotler was leaving and there might be a byelection.

Ottawa bargaining in bad faith on land claims, native groups say

Native organizations have accused the federal government of negotiating in bad faith by imposing deadlines and making “take-it-or-leave-it” offers to bands trying to settle specific land claims.

The allegations were made in a lengthy document released Tuesday by the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council and the Alliance of Tribal Nations.

The Assembly of First Nations echoed the concerns, with National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo calling on Ottawa to clarify the situation.

“First Nations are naturally concerned about any apparent attempt that may diminish or deny our lawful claims,” said Mr. Atleo.

Abortion Foes' Latest Backdoor Ban

Kansas has long been a frontline in the abortion wars, so it isn't much of a surprise that anti-abortion crusaders there have pioneered one of the newest tactics for limiting access to legal abortion procedures: developing onerous regulations that specifically target clinics. And this strategy—which could lead to shutting down all of the state's abortion clinics by the end of this month—is being embraced by abortion foes in other states as a way to end abortion in practice if not in law.

This is how it works: anti-abortion legislators pass what are often called "TRAP" laws, or "targeted regulation of abortion providers." That is, regulations that only apply to abortion clinics, setting compulsory standards that are often difficult to meet, like mandated sizes for waiting and recovery rooms, reconfiguring of exits and entrances to facilities, and additional bathrooms. In Kansas, abortion providers last week were handed a long list of new regulations and told they must comply by July 1. Virginia and Utah have signed similar measures into law this year, joining states like South Carolina and Indiana that have previously targeted providers with stricter regulations, and a number of other states have been considering bills like these.

Americans United for Life, one of the largest national anti-abortion groups, has been urging its supporters to pass similar measures in their own states. When the Arkansas state Senate advanced such legislation this year, AUL praised the measure for its "unique pro-life protections."

Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, notes that though TRAP laws aren't new, they are now being used to place increasingly more strict and disruptive regulations upon abortion clinics. "There is quite a bit of momentum behind restricting access to abortion," says Nash. Sharon Levin, vice president and general counsel at the National Abortion Federation, a group that represents abortion providers around the country, notes that they have seen a lot more of this type of legislation advanced this year. "These are really politically motivated laws," says Levin. "These laws have nothing to do with patient safety."

In Kansas, the state legislature passed its TRAP law in April, which created a new licensing category for abortion providers. But the state didn't issue the final regulations until June 17, and then gave the clinics just two weeks to comply with the new rules or potentially be denied a license to operate. A staffer at one of the three remaining abortion clinics in the state told Mother Jones that the new rules would require it to dramatically expand the size of its waiting and recovery rooms, as well as the janitor's closet, and would be impossible for the clinic to comply in its current office. (As we've reported before, it can be very difficult for abortion providers to find new offices—especially in Kansas.)

The Kansas TRAP law also requires all doctors working at the clinics to have admitting privileges (or standing approval from a hospital to directly admit patients) at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. Obtaining that permission is a process that typically takes 90 to 120 days—a barrier impossible to surmount before the state's July 1 deadline. Abortion providers question the need for this regulation, since less than 0.3 percent of abortion patients have a complication that requires hospitalization, and clinics can still refer women to a hospital for care without the doctor at the clinic possessing admitting privileges.

Full Article
Source: Mother Jones