The Hamilton Spectator

Scheer’s pick rejected for good reasons

Harder lacks qualificat­ions to chair Status of Women

- MARTHA JACKMAN Professor Martha Jackman is a member of the Centre for Health Law Policy & Ethics at the University of Ottawa and the Co-Chair of the National Associatio­n of Women and the Law.

In decrying his failed nomination of Conservati­ve MP Rachel Harder as Chair of the Status of Women Committee, Conservati­ve Party leader Andrew Scheer is confusing freedom of expression with the basic qualificat­ions required for any MP holding such a Parliament­ary position. In the process he has revealed his disregard for the Committee and women’s rights.

Canadian law recognizes that human life begins at birth. In its 1988 decision in R v. Morgentale­r, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Criminal Code restrictio­ns on access to abortion because they violated women’s rights to life, liberty and security of the person under section 7 of the Charter. Since that time, an increasing number of Canadians have come to view abortion as matter for a woman herself to decide. Indeed, the PEI government recently acknowledg­ed that the lack of abortion services on the Island was sex discrimina­tory and had to be addressed.

In contrast to the majority of Canadians, Scheer believes that life begins at conception and that any attempt to end such life is wrong. Mr. Scheer is entitled to voice his opinion but when he and other anti-choice parliament­arians argue that their religious beliefs or moral values should dictate whether or not all women in Canada have access to abortion, that’s a problem.

Granting legal status to the fetus or recriminal­izing abortion services would violate the freedom of conscience rights of those who do not share Scheer and Harder’s religious beliefs or moral values. More significan­tly, however, the Criminal Code changes demanded by Harder and other anti-abortion MPs, would violate the life, liberty, security of the person of all women in Canada.

Sheer, Harder, and anti-choice organizati­ons like Campaign Life are free to express their views around abortion, including in Parliament and before Parliament­ary Committees. Neverthele­ss, as the Liberal and NDP members of the Committee pointed out in appointing Conservati­ve MP Karen Vecchio instead, Harder’s views on women’s reproducti­ve autonomy and choice provide a clear indication that Harder lacks the basic qualificat­ions necessary to be a member, let alone the Chair, of the Status of Women Committee.

Canadians reasonably expect the Chair of the Access to Informatio­n Committee to believe that access to government informatio­n is important; the Chair of the Justice and Human Rights Committee to support human rights and the rule of law; and the Chair of the Environmen­t Committee to believe in sustainabl­e developmen­t and the risks of climate change. It is for this reason that former Conservati­ve Party leader Rona Ambrose’s decision to remove Senator Lynn Beyak from the Senate’s Aboriginal Peoples Committee was universall­y applauded. Senator Beyak does indeed have the freedom to try to defend residentia­l schools. But in doing so, she revealed that she was unqualifie­d to sit on the Senate Committee engaged in the challengin­g task of transformi­ng relationsh­ips with Indigenous Peoples in Canada based on recognitio­n, rights and respect.

Likewise, a substantiv­e understand­ing of, and wholeheart­ed support for the freedom of conscience, security of the person, and equality rights of all women in Canada — starting with their reproducti­ve rights — are a minimum qualificat­ion for the Chair of the Status of Women Committee.

Whether or not Harder was appointed Chair of the Committee was not a freedom of expression issue. And, contrary to what Scheer would have Canadians believe, rejecting Harder’s nomination is not an attempt to suppress freedom of expression. The role of the Status of Women Committee — and indeed the constituti­onal obligation of Parliament and the Government of Canada as a whole — is to protect and promote the equality rights of all women and girls in Canada not just the rights of those who share Scheer and Harder’s religious beliefs.

Denying access to a health care service that only women require is clear sex discrimina­tion. The f ailure to grasp this f act showed not only that Harder was unqualifie­d to chair the Status of Women Committee, but that Scheer didn’t care.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada