(28) This was evident during the Conservative national policy convention in Winnipeg last weekend, at least when it came to issues concerning women.
Passed were three policy resolutions that affect women, and their rights, and choices.
In ascending order of outrageousness, they are:
Resolution P-305 would allow for income splitting for families with children, which would ease the tax burden on the main earner and put more cash in the couple's pockets.
That means spouses – usually women – who don't work outside of the home for pay could also get some financial reward for their contributions to the family, assuming, of course, that they actually see some of the dough.
Now, on the surface, this is great.
Except for one thing: It discriminates against single-parent families, many of who struggle to make ends meet.
It also works more to the benefit of the rich than the middle classes. The more income that a couple can split, the bigger and better the tax break. And aren't non-working spouses dependents anyway?
What income splitting as official policy really says is, especially in the absence of a national daycare program, a woman's place is in the home.
Resolution P-213 should hardly come as a surprise to anybody following the Harper government's efforts to wipe out any and all support for women's rights.
The proposal eliminates support for full gender equality as well as equal pay for work of equal value.
Let me repeat that: It would eliminate support for full gender equality.
Oh it couches that in airy fairy speak, stating that the party is all for "the full participation of women in the social, economic, and cultural life of Canada." But the phrase "gender equality" was scrubbed and equal pay will only go for "equal work."
That means male parking lot attendants can continue to make more than female child care workers, even if the latter have university educations and are entrusted with your precious kid instead of your car.
Which says a lot about where the Cons stand on the issue of women's work and independence.
And, if you still don't get their agenda, consider what bloggers Dr. Dawg and Danielle Takacs both reported from the floor. At least one delegate objected to the resolution because women already have it "too good" and the proposal should have included men.
Last but, oh so very far from least, is Resolution P-207 which is all about, here we go again, protecting "unborn children" from violence.
Rewind to the eve of the last federal election when Harper pulled the plug on the controversial Bill C-484, the so-called "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" because it contained language that could lead to the definition of the fetus as a legal person.
Well, a similar bill could be back like the stink of skunk after the rain. According to Kady Malley of Maclean's, when one delegate got up to say that passing this would open the door to fetal rights, she was cheered. But, when the applause died down, she concluded that this was not a good thing. Which was when she was booed.
True, after the vote, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson told reporters Harper has publicly stated he has no intention of reopening the abortion debate. So why can't he close it in his own party ranks?
It's obvious that, whatever face Harper presents to Canadians, his dark grass roots will always be showing.
Antonia Zerbisias is a Living section columnist. azerbisias@thestar.ca. She blogs at thestar.blogs.com.
