The Supreme Court of Canada's 1988 decision to invalidate federal criminal law restrictions on abortion is often portrayed as paving the way for unregulated “abortion on demand” in Canada. This depiction belies the patchwork of regulatory barriers to access in place at the provincial level and obscures a host of litigation for improved funding and access across the country. This article explores the policy and legal landscape surrounding abortion access since 1988. Our findings suggest that provincial policies and lower court judgments have shown considerably different interpretations of what the Court's landmark ruling requires. In part, this is a result of a problematic distinction that the Court's reasoning makes between “negative rights,” which are protections against state interference, and “positive rights,” which would require the state to take action or provide funding to ensure access. We examine the implications of this distinction from both a rights and policy perspective, ultimately arguing that courts are not the only, or best, body through which to realize positive rights. Instead, we argue that legislatures need to take seriously their obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This article uses the Canadian military’s gender-mainstreaming strategy—gender-based analysis plus (or GBA+)—as a case study to explore the implementation of gender mainstreaming in militaries. Utilizing a mixed method approach, including group interviews and surveys, we employ Jahan’s model of gender mainstreaming to understand how GBA+ has been operationalized. We argue that the implementation of GBA+ in the Defense Force constitutes a more superficial integrationist approach to the implementation of gender mainstreaming rather than a transformative, agenda-setting approach, despite the internalization of messaging to the contrary by many in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the Department of National Defence (DND). While not ideal, we suggest that an integrationist approach does not necessarily mean a GBA+ agenda will fail in a male-dominated organization like the CAF; rather, we contend that it could constitute a valuable starting point for progressive, large-scale change.

In 2016, the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) committed to the adoption of a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) toolkit across the forces. This article finds that the organizational culture of DND/CAF has helped them to adapt to this new policy approach, but that learning and transformation are not occurring. Based on DND/CAF documents, published internal DND/CAF studies, participant observation, interviews, surveys, and focus groups with DND/CAF staff, this article suggests that internal efforts to adjust to GBA+ continue to be challenging because of organizational culture.Sommaire : En 2016, le ministère de la Défense nationale (MDN) et les Forces armées canadiennes (FAC) se sont engagés à adopter une trousse d'analyse comparative entre les sexes plus (ACS+) à l'échelle des forces. Dans cet article, nous découvrons que même si la culture organisationnelle des MDN/FAC leur a permis de s'adapter à cette nouvelle approche politique, l'apprentissage et la transformation n'ont pas lieu. En se fondant sur des documents des MDN/FAC, des études internes publiées des MDN/FAC, l'observation de participants, des entrevues, des sondages, et des groupes de discussion avec le personnel des MDN/FAC, cet article laisse entendre que les efforts internes pour s'adapter à l'ACS+ restent difficiles à cause de la culture organisationnelle.

The landscape of abortion access in Canada has undergone major changes in the last two years, especially in the Maritime provinces. Long heralded as the worst provinces in Canada in which to find oneself in need of an abortion, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick represent holdouts to the creation of substantive abortion access in Canada: no services have been available on Prince Edward Island since 1982, while New Brunswick, in response to the decriminalization of abortion in 1988, created onerous restrictions on the circumstances in which the procedure could be accessed under medicare. These barriers to access were so longstanding that they seemed to be a permanent feature of access in Canada. That is, until, in a few short years, virtually all of these barriers were lifted. Using the multiple streams approach (MSA), this article attempts to explain why these changes came about when they did, and how they were able to take effect so rapidly.

Malgré une règlementation développée, soit la Loi de 2014 sur la procréation assistée (LPA) et son règlement d’application de 2007 fondé sur le consentement, le désaccord persiste sur le cadre approprié pour résoudre les différends relatifs aux embryons et aux gamètes au Canada. Le paysage juridique est dominé par des cadres basés sur la propriété et le consentement, qui sont souvent considérés comme contradictoires. Dans le présent article, je soutiens que la catégorisation des embryons et des gamètes en tant que propriété, comme dans une récente affaire judiciaire ontarienne qui a fait jurisprudence, SH c DH (2018), n’empêche pas l’utilisation d’un cadre fondé sur le consentement, et ne mènera pas nécessairement non plus à la commercialisation du matériel de reproduction. Cela dit, je préconise l’adoption d’un cadre juridique basé sur le consentement, comme celui qui est établi dans la LPA pour gérer l’utilisation du matériel de reproduction au Canada. Je soutiens que le cadre fondé sur le droit de propriété a conduit à une commercialisation inadmissible du matériel de reproduction dans d’autres pays et que cette catégorisation risque de limiter l’autonomie de reproduction et de perpétuer l’inégalité.