It’s difficult to explain much about the caucus because it is so hush-hush, but it is currently headed by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge. It’s not just a Conservative party pet-project, either; apparently the caucus is over a decade old, includes members from all three major political parties, and was apparently once co-chaired by Liberal MP Paul Steckle.

Needless to say, the existence of this caucus makes me incredibly uncomfortable. I have no quarrel with MPs being pro-life; they are entitled to their own opinion. I do have a quarrel with them using my tax dollars to convene on a political agenda that would take away a woman’s legally recognized right to choose what happens to her body.

Granted, I don’t know what this caucus is doing, but I highly doubt that they are holding get-togethers just to complain about how abortion is legal in Canada and ending the meeting with, “Oh well, we can’t change the law.”

Are there other secret caucuses that support overturning Canadian laws? I know there are quite a few MPs who don’t agree with gay marriage being legalized in Canada — could they have their own caucus? Or would that constitute a hate group? I know LBGT activists, and even a good percentage of the Canadian public, would kick up a stink about the existence of such a caucus, so why is the existence of a pro-life caucus going unquestioned?

U.S. President Barack Obama recently reversed a Ronald Regan decision to refuse funding to overseas medical clinics that advertise or promote abortion or “family planning.” The Mexico-City Policy (named because it was announced in Mexico City, not because Regan thought Mexico was overseas — I hope) was overturned by Bill Clinton, but reinstated by George W. Bush. Oddly enough, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll of Americans, this is the least-popular move made by Obama thus far, with only 35 per cent of those polledin approval.

Obama doesn’t strike me as a dumb man — even George W. Bush knew that abortion was a contentious issue in America — and yet he recognized the unfair and possibly harmful repercussions of denying funding to clinics based on practicing something that is legal in the United States.

When is it that United States became a better place for women to live than Canada? Obama also recently signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act which gives any woman the right to sue for pay discrimination whenever she discovers it, eradicating the former 180 day statute of limitations.

Given the federal government’s recent statements about pay equity avenues for women in this country, for the first time ever, I’m jealous of America. I’m not about to move there, after all Canada is better off in this economic crisis. But it just goes to show what kind of situation we’re in when the United States of America treats its women better than we do.

In the 2009 Budget dropped on Tuesday, the government promises new legislation to modernize the pay equity process for public sector employees where ensuring pay-equity is the joint responsibility of both negotiators and employers.

That’s all well and good, but what happens if the employer and/or negotiator fall down on the job? What recourse do women have to fall back on? Who is going to watch employers and negotiators to make sure they do their job?

Stephen Harper didn’t relieve any concerns about this process, and instead resorted to the partisan name calling common among parliamentarians. Only after he got his jabs in at Layton did Harper say this method was both better, and already being used in Manitoba and Ontario. No proof was offered up of the success of this method in either province.

I propose that legislation to make pay-equity the responsibility of negotiators and employers in the public sector be passed, but — and this is a big but — the right to file a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission not be removed, and a pay-equity ombudsperson position created.

Despite what it says in the budget about the process being costly and time consuming, I think ensuring pay equality between men and women working in the Canadian public sector is worth the $4-billion paid in equity settlements since the 1980s.

One way the government can ensure the cost and process for pay-equity complaints procedures is reduced is to ensure that it is not easy for employers and negotiators to simply “overlook” or “forget” to pay women and men equally by installing an ombudsperson, and not taking away women’s recourse with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Since coming to power in 2006, the Conservative government has axed the national childcare program, cut $5.5 million in funding to Status of Women Canada — resulting in 12 of 16 of their offices closing across the country —, and made threats against the pay equity program.

Am I being bitter by not expecting anything in that $21-billion deficit for Canadian women?

To be fair, these cuts didn’t affect all Canadian women. According to the 2006 census, there were only 5.5 million families with children at home, and only slightly more than 5.5 million children under the age of 14.

Not all women work, either. According to that same census, only 76.3 per cent of women age 25-54 in Canada work for a wage. These same women average an annual income approximately $15,000 less than the average income of their male counterparts.

Of course, this could be because women traditionally take lower paying positions than men. But exploring why is an entirely different blog entry.

If a woman believes she is being paid lower than her male colleagues for the same work, she can take her case to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

But not for much longer if the Conservatives have their way.

Last November, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced they would scrap the pay equity process in favour of legislation that would make pay equity part of the collective bargaining process.

That’s great – if you’re unionized. How many women working at Wal-Mart, for example, can afford to pay for a lawyer to take their employer to court in order to receive wages equal to their male colleagues?

Quitting and finding another job isn’t an option for most people, particularly if you have a family. But juggling kids and a career became harder for Canadian families after the Conservatives axed the national childcare program and replaced it with $1,200 a year per child under six years old.

That isn’t enough to keep children in diapers, let alone daycare. It’s great if you can stay home with your children, but when the average two-parent family with both parents working only made $76,000 per year in 2006, not many women have that luxury.

So what’s next? Best case scenario is the status quo, as Harper isn’t going to reinstate old programs during a time of economic recession. Worse case scenario? We’ll just have to wait and see.

Blackmore's gay marriage defence is both ironic and unfair. Photo courtesy of Tantek's photostream.

It’s ironic considering The Fundamentalist Church of Latter-day Saints donated $20-million to the yes on Proposition 8 campaign against gay marriage last year.

It’s also strange, considering Blackmore’s defence lawyer is former B.C. Liberal MLA Blair Suffredine, whose party pushed for charges against Bountiful polygamists and eventually gave the nod to same-sex marriage in the province.

And it would be funny if the whole situation didn’t make me squirm in my seat.

I don’t like to be a fence sitter, but sometimes a situation isn’t black and white. This is how I feel about polyamory. Personally, it’s not for me, but who am I to deny a person’s right to be in a loving, consenting-adult relationship with more than one person?

Polygamy is different. Maybe I’m tarring all polygamists with the same brush here, but how many polygamist marriages are out there that don’t involve one man and multiple women? None that I know of.

Winston Blackmore, for instance, is reported to have 26 wives, some of whom may have been as young as 15 when they married.

Perhaps the age of consent in Canada had not yet been raised by the time Blackmore had reportedly married these child brides, but that doesn’t mean these girls were more mature than 15-year-olds today. I also have a hard time imagining any 15-year-old girl marrying Blackmore of her own free will.

Though I don’t know the particulars of Blackmore’s relationship with his wives, I have a hard time picturing equality between the man and his 26 spouses. Were they allowed to work outside the home? Was divorce an option? Was marrying Blackmore a choice or a decision made for them?

Gay marriage, like straight marriage, is a partnership between two consenting adults who are free to end the relationship if they so choose. Its legalization is not an excuse for people like Blackmore to abuse the system and collect women like property, particularly teenage girls.

Suffredine should also know better. It’s one thing to say a case is a case and everyone deserves fair and equal representation, but to come up with an excuse that plays right into the hands of conservative anti-gay marriage activists and politicians shows he doesn’t care who he sells out to keep his client happy, or keep money in his pocket.

I admit I have a difficult time taking a hard line stance on this subject because of my belief in a person’s right to live as they please. However, when that right infringes on the rights of others, particularly historically oppressed groups like women and children, I have to draw a line.

And when the oppressor tries to use gay marriage as an excuse, I have to make some noise.

That being said, I think he’s the perfect candidate to represent the women of New Brunswick in a civil suit against the government over funding of abortions.

Morgentaler launched the suit back in 2002 against the N.B. government because of their policy of funding abortions only if two doctors give consent and the procedure is performed in a hospital.

Abortions performed in private clinics, such as Morgentaler’s, are not covered by provincial medicare and can cost anywhere from $475 to $725.

The province argues Morgentaler should not be allowed to file suit against the government on behalf of the women of the province. They say only women who use the clinic should be allowed to file this particular suit.

Morgentaler already won the right to sue back in August 2008, but the province appealed the decision. On January 13, the Court of Appeal announced they would reserve their decision until a later, undisclosed, date.

In a perfect world, yes, a woman would be filing this suit. And she’d have enough money for a big shot lawyer to represent her, as well.

But, I suppose, in a perfect world we wouldn’t need to file this suit in the first place.

Morgentaler has the money, and there is no doubt in my mind that he has women’s best interests — and rights —at heart.

Feminism, at least the brand that I subscribe to, is about equality and if the best person for the job just so happens to be a man, so be it. Even if that job is defending the rights of women.

Dipping a little deeper into feminist theory, the state — played here by the N.B. government — is hegemonic patriarchy incarnate. Women occupy seven out 55 legislature seats, with predominantly white men rounding out the rest (not all are old, to be fair.)

Morgentaler is an old, white man but he’s fought against hegemony and patriarchy to bring abortion rights to the women of this country since the late 1960s, and continues to do so.

A Holocaust survivor and abortion defender, Morgentaler knows what it means to be oppressed and persecuted. He has always occupied the margins, been on the outside looking in, and unfortunately, so are most women — especially the ones too poor to afford an abortion in N.B.

I look forward to the day where I won’t have to write about abortion issues in Canada anymore. But until then, I’m glad Morgentaler is giving me something to write about.

Brazeau, former national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), is facing allegations of sexual harassment from two former employees: Jade Harper, and an unnamed woman, dating back to 2007.

Harper filed a complaint against Brazeau and the CAP with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario alleging drunkenness and sexual exploitation in the office. She told the CBC she decided to come forward after hearing about allegations made against Brazeau last year by another former employee.

Is it only coincidence, then, that Harper came forward as soon as Brazeau was appointed to the Senate?

It’s easy to dismiss Harper as a harpy, a vindictive woman determined to see her former boss fail because of some unknown grievance. What better time to exact revenge then when he’s appointed to a position of prominence and power in Canadian politics?

At the same time, Harper claims she went through complaints procedure at the CAP to no avail. Imagine her surprise, then, when she turns on the TV in December to hear the Stephen Harper has appointed Brazeau to the Senate.

After learning about the previous allegation, perhaps she decided to take her experiences to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to prevent Brazeau from treating his new female co-workers in the same manner.

Globe and Mail columnist Christie Blatchford takes the view in her January 10 column, “Watchdogs of sexual harassment as eager to bite as they ever were,” that Brazeau is at worst guilty of being an “old-fashioned” man.

While Blatchford believes it’s unfortunate women have to put up with sexual harassment in this day and age, she thinks women should just learn to cope with it.

Do we really want someone with such “old-fashioned” attitudes towards women in our Senate? I’m hard-pressed to see Blatchford take a pat on the head (or behind) by a male superior lying down, so why should we subject Brazeau’s female staff or Senate colleagues to the same treatment?

I agree sexual harassment is a grey area — I’ve worked in some sexually charged workplaces before where pats on the behind, sexual innuendo, and even drinking occurred on a regular basis. I was rarely offended, but I was working with friends. If they crossed the line, I let them know it.

We trod a very fine line, however, as newcomers might not share our depraved sense of humour. We ran a risk of subjection to sexual harassment allegations ourselves. But can you find me a newspaper run by university students that doesn’t?

That being said, everyone has the right to feel comfortable and safe in the workplace. And if they don’t, they have the right to make their concerns known and see them addressed.

Blatchford fears allegations of sexual harassment could ruin Brazeau’s reputation, even if he’s found innocent.  She cites an external investigation conducted into the first allegations last year, at the request of the CAP, which cleared Brazeau.

But former CAP Board Member Will Menard told CBC the investigation did determine there was inappropriate behaviour on Brazeau’s behalf. He also said Brazeau didn’t violate the CAP’s sexual harassment policy only because it was “so weak.”

This doesn’t prove Brazeau’s guilt, of course, but it does cast a shadow of doubt. If he really is innocent, Brazeau should face these allegations head on, with the best lawyer his six-figure salary can afford.

If he’s found guilty, however, Stephen Harper should not only strip Brazeau of his seat, but also take a long, hard look into the closet of his next appointee for any “old-fashioned” skeletons.