Justin Trudeau: five problems with his pro-choice edict

A reader of my blog sent me a copy of a letter they wrote to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, regarding his decree that pro-life persons would be disqualified from becoming Liberal candidates. I received permission from the writer to post the letter here.

The letter is quite long, but well worth the read.

November 8, 2014

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

First let me say, how thankful I am that you and all our MPs are safe after last month’s attack on Parliament Hill. The experience no doubt must have been terrifying. Such a threat is a sombre reminder of how precious are our lives as well as our democratic institutions in Canada. The brave men and women who put their lives at risk in defence of what we so often take for granted surely are beacons of light in dark times and an inspiration to all peace-loving Canadians.

The main purpose of my letter to you today is to express my grave concerns over your edict that “all Liberal MPs, regardless of their personal views, would be expected to vote pro-choice”ⁱ and over the narrative you have chosen to attempt to justify taking this stance.

In a nutshell, you say that “since 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that a woman’s right to a choice in this matter is a Charter right.” You make a special point of highlighting your Catholic upbringing and then go on to say that we must put the Charter and the defense of “people’s rights” and “fundamental rights” before our “personal views.”ⁱⁱ

With respect, Mr. Trudeau, there are five serious problems with your attempted justification:

Firstly, the Supreme Court did not recognize a Charter right to abortion in the 1988 Morgentaler decision.ⁱⁱⁱ The Supreme Court has never recognized a Charter right to abortion. The Supreme Court has, on the other hand, recognized that the state does have an interest in the protection of the fetus, and on numerous occasions, including in Morgentaler, has said that it is Parliament’s responsibility to legislate fetal protection.^iv

Secondly, your argument that in order to defend human rights (i.e. “people’s rights”) we must defend abortion rights, is a circular argument: it is premised on the assumption that the fetal child has no human rights to protect and that the only human being in the equation is the woman—this is the very thing under dispute in the abortion controversy. Those who oppose abortion do not do so because they oppose women’s human rights, but because they support human rights for both the preborn child and the woman.

Thirdly, your starting assumption that the preborn child has no human rights to protect is itself a “personal view.” I appreciate that you may genuinely believe that the child ought not to receive any legal protection before birth. But it is a personal view, a belief, an opinion. Everyone’s views about what is good for society come from somewhere. Our beliefs are informed by some underlying philosophy or worldview, even if we are unable to articulate exactly what that worldview is. Beliefs (i.e. views) about the preborn child that are informed by the Catholic/Christian faith are no more “personal” than beliefs informed by Atheism, for example.

Ultimately, the only beliefs we have are “personal” ones because they are our own. Each Member of Parliament will have their own personal beliefs, whether informed by the Judaeo-Christian tradition or some other religious faith or Secular Humanism, or Atheism, etc. Each of these belief systems will help to inform the MP’s understanding of the nature of the human person, and thus, the nature of abortion.

Fourthly, by highlighting your Catholic upbringing and then going on to say that we cannot let our “personal views” get in the way of defending “people’s rights” and Charter rights, you imply that the Catholic Church does not support human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And fifthly, and perhaps most concerning, when you use your Catholic faith in this manner, you potentially lead other Catholics astray. As a political leader, your words carry a lot of weight. Those Catholics less informed about their faith may believe from your words that even faithful Catholics can, even must, support abortion rights. In this way, you overstep the bounds of your authority which is in the political realm, not the religious realm. Intentional or not, what you are doing amounts to using your position of political power to corrupt a Catholic person’s morals.

With respect, Mr. Trudeau, if you want to argue in favour of abortion rights, please be honest with Canadians. Please let Canadians know why you believe abortion is good for women and good for Canadian society (if this is what you honestly believe), without distorting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morgentaler; without misrepresenting what the Charter requires; and without suggesting that the beliefs informed by the teachings of the Catholic Church ought not to inform public policy because they are just “personal” beliefs, when in fact all our beliefs are “personal.” And please make your case without misrepresenting and marginalizing the Catholic faith.

Mr. Trudeau, for some reason having nothing to do with what the Charter requires, you are willing to sacrifice one of our most fundamental Charter freedoms (freedom of conscience and religion) for the sake of an absolute abortion rights ideology. This is very disturbing. I believe this will have a detrimental effect not only on the individual MPs who violate their consciences, but on Canada as a whole.

We all watched in horror last month as two Canadian soldiers were attacked and killed and as Parliament was terrorized by a gunman. We may never know exactly what motivated the two killers, but we do know that there are Canadians and citizens of other Western countries as well who are being radicalized into the hateful and violent ideology espoused by ISIS. I’m sure all peace-loving and freedom-loving people cannot help but wonder what could lead civilized people into abandoning Western values and buying into such hateful propaganda. I’m sure there are several factors involved, but if we looked at root causes, I can’t help but think we’d find that a poorly formed conscience must play a role.

Our consciences guide us in moral decision-making. We have to make moral decisions every day. Some decisions will have far more serious consequences than others. Some will be decisions literally about life and death. It is thus imperative that as a society we respect conscientious reflection and decision-making and not institute policies that would punish people—including Members of Parliament—who act according to their deeply held conscientious beliefs that are rooted in respect for the dignity of the human person. 

Mr. Trudeau, while I don’t believe it was intentional, your policy to force all MPs to vote “pro-choice” effectively discriminates against faithful Catholics since it would force them to vote against what they believe about the dignity of the human person. You would be imposing upon them a certain belief system that is at odds with their own. This disenfranchisement of Catholics and other Christians from public life would not bode well for society. We are warned of the consequences of ignoring conscience in this excerpt from the “Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life”:

Living and acting in conformity with one’s own conscience on questions of politics is not slavish acceptance of positions alien to politics or some kind of confessionalism, but rather the way in which Christians offer their concrete contribution so that, through political life, society will become more just and more consistent with the dignity of the human person. 

In democratic societies, all proposals are freely discussed and examined. Those who, on the basis of respect for individual conscience, would view the moral duty of Christians to act according to their conscience as something that disqualifies them from political life, denying the legitimacy of their political involvement following from their convictions about the common good, would be guilty of a form of intolerant secularism. Such a position would seek to deny not only any engagement of Christianity in public or political life, but even the possibility of natural ethics itself. Were this the case, the road would be open to moral anarchy, which would be anything but legitimate pluralism. The oppression of the weak by the strong would be the obvious consequence. The marginalization of Christianity, moreover, would not bode well for the future of society or for consensus among peoples; indeed, it would threaten the very spiritual and cultural foundations of civilization.^[26]v

Mr. Trudeau, if you can make your case for “pro-choice” honestly and leave your Catholic upbringing out of it and then respect each MP enough to give him or her the freedom to vote their conscience, you yourself will have garnered the respect that is impossible to attain by holding fast to your current edict and the narrative that surrounds it.

At a time when our world is increasingly being influenced and threatened by those bent on demolishing freedom and democracy and justice, I urge you, Mr. Trudeau, as one of Canada’s key political leaders, to make every effort to protect what is surely a crucial bulwark against injustice, violence and hate: freedom to act in accordance with one’s deeply held conscientious beliefs that are grounded in peace, love, and respect for the dignity of human persons.

If I may conclude by borrowing from the words spoken by the Right Reverend Michael Bird during the final blessing at Cpl. Nathan Cirillo’s funeral on October 28, may you and I and all Canadians remember always to “...live with courage, act with justice, and choose with love.”

Respectfully,

i http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-clarifies-abortion-stance-for-liberal-mps-1.2679783

ii http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Trudeau+defends+abortion+stance+cites+father+protection+rights/9843139/story.html

iii “The Supreme Court’s decision, profound as it was, did not create a right to abortion for Canadian women, nor did it offer any resolution of the abortion issue.”-- Gavigan, Shelley A.M., “Morgentaler and Beyond: Abortion, Reproduction, and the Courts,” in The Politics of Abortion, Oxford University Press, 1992, page 118.

“The majority of the judges (5 of 7) had decided that Section 251 violated Canadian women’s constitutional rights to the security of the person. Only one, however, Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, declared that women had a right to an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. Moreover, all of the majority decisions conceded the state’s interest in protecting the foetus.”-- Brodie, Janine, “Choice and No Choice in the House” in The Politics of Abortion, Oxford University Press, 1992, page 59-60.

For an analysis of what the Supreme Court decided in the 1988 Morgentaler decision see this resource from the Library of Parliament: Abortion: Constitutional and Legal Developments, prepared by Mollie Dunsmuir, Law and Government Division, Reviewed 18 August, 1998.

iv  R v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R.; Tremblay v. Daigle, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 530; Dobson (Litigation Guardian of)  v. Dobson, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 753; Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. DFG [1997] SCR 925

v http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Letters in the National Post: Killing in the name of medicine

Re: ‘The CMA’s Recent Change Of Heart On The Ethics Of Euthanasia,’ letters to the editor, Dec. 24.

Killing in the name of medicine, doctors speak out.

"For me to participate as a physician in euthanasia or assisted suicide would be to abandon my obligation to my patient to give them the best care I can. It would be to convert my action towards my patient from a conventional relationship of caring and scientific excellence, to that of a contractor who simply does what the patient requests for a fee." Paul Pitt, Toronto. 

"As a physician who has spent almost his whole career in joint hospital-based and family practice, I have never had reason to euthanize any of my patients, though I have been asked. Undoubtedly, some end-of-life patients suffer terribly, but there are adequate means to palliate this. 

My main objections to assisted suicide are two fold: One can never be certain that some apparently terminal patients may not recover and; in shared care, a doctor who plans to give a patient a few days to recover may discover that his or her patient has been euthanised while he or she was away, without the patient’s consent, because of pressure for beds. This has happened in Europe. This slippery slope pressure in going to increase with our increasingly aging population. 

If we are going to exterminate people, then we need a new trained professional. In the Hippocratic oath that we recited at graduation, we promised to never knowingly give a patient a deadly substance. It is, therefore, incompatible for a physician to do everything possible to cure a patient on the one hand, and assist with their suicide on the other." Terence Aitken, Stratford, Ont. 

"I feel betrayed by the Canadian Medical Association. It is are suffering from the delusion that you can have just a little bit of assisted suicide or euthanasia. There is no place for the physician in the deliberate ending of their patients’ lives. There is nothing dignified in this. Their role is to allow the patient to live with dignity until they reach a natural death." Anthony Kerigan, Dundas, Ont.

Conscience, Mind Manipulation, and the 4th “R”

Response to the Globe and Mail’s Dec. 11 editorial: "Ontario MDs should not refuse contraception out of religious belief"

By Jean Maloney

I found something quite outstanding about this editorial.

While it is clear the editorialist does not support physicians’ freedom to practice medicine according to conscience, what especially stands out for me is the lack of any cogent argument in defense of that position.

Let me say right off, I will not attempt in this article to defend freedom of conscience (although I do support it.) Rather, I will explain how the G&M’s attempt to justify its position against freedom of conscience is flawed. It behooves all of us to assess with a critical mind arguments put forward to justify a particular position on any controversial issue and not be misled by what might sound reasonable, but in fact, is either untrue or unsubstantiated.

To start with, there is an underlying false premise in the opening line: “A physician who is predisposed by faith or belief to make negative moral judgments about a patient is a bad doctor.” However, one needs to read the second paragraph before being able to put that opening line into context and thereby recognize the false premise. In the second paragraph we read: “The need for a new policy became clear when an Ottawa woman was turned away from a walk-in clinic last February after she attempted to get a refill on her birth-control medication – a rejection letter from one of the clinic’s doctors cited his ethical and religious objections.”

The G&M editorialist is in essence saying that the Ottawa doctor’s refusal to prescribe the birth-control pill to the woman amounts to that doctor making a “negative moral judgment about a patient.”

And that is false.

Although it is possible the woman may have felt that a negative moral judgment was being made about her, in fact, the physician was making a moral judgment not about her but about himself. He believed, for reasons having to do with medical judgment, professional ethics, and religious belief, that it would be wrong for him to prescribe the birth control pill, and thus to do so would make him culpable in an immoral act.

No one can get into the mind and heart of another person, and so no one is capable of judging the moral culpability of someone else, even if one might believe the action itself to be immoral. It would be up to the woman who wanted the pill to do her own conscientious reflection and morally judge herself. No one else can do it for her.

The G&M goes on to say “We turn to physicians to resolve our most intimate problems with wisdom and compassion and fairness, not to be rejected because we don't fit a sacred model.” But physicians who allow their moral/ethical code to inform their practice believe they are treating patients with “wisdom and compassion and fairness.” So it is clear that the G&M editorialist is using the words “wisdom” “compassion” and “fairness” to mean something entirely different than what conscientious physicians would mean by those terms. Yet without explaining what is meant by those three terms and showing how the physicians fall short of embodying the three qualities those terms express, the statement means nothing. And so it cannot advance the G&M’s argument (i.e. it carries no weight in defending the G&M’s position that physicians should simply give a patient the treatment they request, regardless of any objections the physician might have to that treatment).

Likewise with this statement: “But the College has refused to come down harshly on doctors who let their religious views get in the way of their duty to provide care.” The G&M has given no evidence that “religious views get in the way of [the Ottawa physicians’] duty to provide care.” The Ottawa physicians believe that prescribing the birth control pill is not a helpful form of care (why that is so is beyond the scope of this article). These physicians provide Natural Family Planning (NFP). That is the form of care they believe best comports with good medicine and respect for the dignity of their patients. And no doubt the Ottawa physician would have provided that care if the woman had requested it. Yet the G&M has given nothing to back up its claim that prescribing the birth control pill is good medical care, or why the alternative that the physicians do provide – NFP – is unacceptable medical care, or how the physician’s religious views got in the way.

Two more unsubstantiated claims that the editorialist makes are that conscientious physicians “confuse a religious judgment with a medical decision” and “substitute personal belief for science.” First of all, what does the editorialist mean by “religious judgment” and how is choosing not to prescribe the birth control pill an example of it? The editorialist doesn’t say. How is choosing not to prescribe the birth control pill not a medical decision? The editorialist doesn’t say. And how is prescribing the pill scientific but not prescribing it is not? Again, the editorialist doesn’t say.

Claim after claim made by the G&M editorialist is either untrue or unsubstantiated. If there is an argument to be made for forcing physicians to prescribe the birth control pill, the G&M hasn’t made it.

We arrive finally at what is so disturbing about this G&M editorial. It is not always easy to spot the lack of logically coherent arguments in opinion pieces. The reader may fail to recognize that a claim has not been backed up with evidence and may confuse opinion with fact. In the absence of sound reasoning, the reader may be swayed simply by emotionally evocative words and themes, for example, “wisdom and compassion and fairness,” “religious judgment,” “sinner,” “rejection,” “duty to provide care,” “dignity,” “personal belief vs science,” and so on.

This is disturbing. One would hope newspaper editorialists would feel duty bound, by their own professional code of ethics, to give a thoughtful reasoned argument in defence of their position, especially when something as fundamental as freedom of conscience is at stake, and when there is the potential for a whole class of citizens to be excluded from the medical profession if the draft policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is adopted.

Instead, the G&M editorialist has chosen to make misleading and unsubstantiated claims using language that can manipulate readers into bypassing their own logical thought processes.

The important lesson here for anyone who wants to protect their minds from being manipulated into accepting potentially dangerous ideas, is this: learn to think critically. Learn to spot logical fallacies / errors in reasoning. There are courses and books and articles, in print and online, on Critical Thinking /Argument /Logical Reasoning. Why such courses aren’t compulsory in school, is a mystery to me.

Along with the existing 3 “R’s” – Reading, wRiting and aRithmetic – we ought to add a 4^th “R” to the core curriculum in our schools: Reasoning.

Equipped with the basic tools of logic, we will be better able to withstand the attempts by others, especially those in positions of power, to confuse and mislead us.

What is Kathleen Wynne's hidden agenda?

We actually have a Canadian politician speaking out against the Kathleen Wynne's Liberals decision to hide all abortion statistics. Rod Taylor from the Christian Heritage Party:

"When governments try to cover up facts and statistics, it usually sends a signal that they are hiding something they are ashamed of, something that would prove embarrassing or hard to explain to voters and taxpayers. When they cover up the cover-up, that signal gets even louder."

Seems about right.

So exactly what is Kathleen Wynne trying to hide from Ontarians? Are abortion rates doubling? Are they tripling? If she had nothing to hide there would be no need to do this. What is she covering up from us?

Must be pretty awful or she wouldn't have to hide it.

Doctors shouldn't be forced to kill people

Doctors are healers, not killers

Re: Majority Support Assisted Suicide, Dec. 17.

Should Canada ever find itself in the sorry state wherein assisted suicide is legal, it should not be up to the doctors to perform this task. Doctors went into medicine to save lives, not to end them. Doctors are healers, not killers.

Instead, there should be a new “death technician” job for euthanasia and assisted suicide. These people would be technicians who are trained in killing people. They can’t be doctors, because obviously, it is a conflict of interest to be a doctor and also to end people’s lives. When we see one of these “death technicians” walking the halls of the hospital, there would be no mistake as to what their duties are.

When and if I am ever in the hospital knowing that my life is nearing its natural end, I want to make sure that my doctor — who has my life in his hands — would never ever willfully aid in my demise. Conversely if I see the death technician enter my room, there would be no doubt as to why he’s there.
Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

National Post

Trinity University - we need to support them

Read Hutchinson's excellent analysis of Trinity University:

"...This “little university that could” established a school of education, graduates of which the BC College of Teachers would only recognize if they completed an additional year at a public university. There was nothing wrong with TWU’s standard of education. In fact, TWU credits were fully transferable. The issue was the religious beliefs of the TWU community, summarized in a community covenant that was developed and agreed to by faculty, staff and students. TWU considered the College of Teachers’ position to be discrimination based on religious beliefs. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed, ruling in 2001 that the community covenant was appropriate for the private religious institution and that the professional body regulated only the behaviour of those academically qualified graduates who entered the profession, which TWU grads would be as long as the school met the academic standards established by the BC government and the College of Teachers. 

In 2004 the Supreme Court offered similar advice in its decision concerning same-sex marriage. The court noted Canada is a nation that constitutionally provides for a diversity of individual and institutional opinions on marriage, and Parliament had the constitutional authority to decide only a civil definition of marriage. Parliament recognized this diversity, and particular protection for religious individuals and institutions in the ”expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others,” in the 2005 legislation changing the definition of civil marriage to “the lawful marriage of two persons...” (emphasis added)

If it's good enough for the Supreme Court of Canada, then it's good enough for me

When politicians are pro-me

Christian Heritage Party (CHP):

"Canada's cultural and legal heritage are rooted in the Christian worldview which has provided freedom of speech and religion for all people. Increasingly, our governments have violated the 'separation of church and state', infringing on these guaranteed Charter rights. The Christian Heritage Party of Canada will protect Canadians' Charter rights and properly respect the separation of church and state." 

You know, I'm pretty disillusioned with politicians. Not too many of them will stand up for the unborn. Many of them, while saying they are pro-life, do nothing to show they are. In my books, that means you aren't pro-life, you're pro-me.

Yesterday I heard a story about a politician who lied. Bold faced lies. It made me realize that a lot of these people really only care about getting into power. How pathetic.

In Ontario politics, I can't even get a single politician to care about access to information on abortion services. Not one. How cowardly is that?

Last week I met with the leader of the Christian Heritage Party (CHP), Rod Taylor. What a breath of fresh air. Not only will he stand up for the unborn, but he also cares about smaller government AND freedom of Religion for all people. What a concept.

See Brian Lilley interviews with Rod here.

Maybe it's time to ditch the pro-me's and vote CHP.

Open letter to Justin Trudeau - still waiting for a response

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

We still haven't heard back from you regarding the letter I sent you in back in October. As of today, that's 368 Canadians who are patiently waiting to hear from you, about this very important freedom of conscience issue.

I know that Christmas is coming up, and you must be very busy. But please Mr. Trudeau, we would like to have your response to our concerns as soon as possible.

I'm afraid if we don't hear from you soon, the number of people who are signing this letter and asking for a response, will just keep increasing. It's hard to know how many more people might sign it.

Looking forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

IPPF: 45 million services, but no abortion?

You may recall that the $6 million funding Canada gave to IPPF through DFATD for Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan and Tanzania, was not to go for abortion services.

In fact, in the ATIP document I received from DFATD, there are multiple assurances from IPPF that the money is not being used for abortion services.Yet all we really have is IPPF's word for it.

Below I have summarized all the services provided by IPPF in fiscal year 2013/2014.

As you can see, that's a lot of services, yet many are not at all well defined.

So I asked for some clarifications on some of these services.

For item 1128 (Provide other SRH medical services) which had 1,798,317 services, I asked for a further breakdown of what these services were.

DFATD response:

"Consultation - Bangladesh, Mali
Diagnostic tests - Bangladesh, Mali,Tanzania
Therapy/treatment - Bangladesh, Afghanistan
Surgery - Bangladesh, Tanzania
Other - Bangladesh, Tanzania, Sudan"

As you can see these breakdowns still don't tell us what kinds of services IPPF is providing. So I asked for an additional clarification.

DFATD response:

"IPPF does not have additional description for these services, but it should be noted that these services do not relate to HIV, STI, abortion, gynaecology, obstetrics, etc."

So IPPF has no idea what exactly, these almost 2 million services include--yet we are simply expected to take IPPF's word for it that they don't include abortion?

Then for item 1211 (Other family planning services for young people), of which there were 4,860,975 services, I asked for a description of each of these "family planning services" and their breakdown by numbers, for each different category of service.

DFATD response:

"All family planning services are provided to young people. Essentially the same methods as the other FP indicators, for clients under 25. No information about how DFATD funding relates to this."

I then asked DFATD, if IPPF is saying that they do not know how much DFATD money goes to giving FP services to young people?

DFATD's response:

"IPPF does not price consultations or staff member’s time - by either age group or service category, therefore they cannot earmark a specific amount for what was spent on youth family planning services. IPPF estimates the cash value based on salaries and clinic space as they are the two key drivers of price."

So IPPF provided almost 5 million services to young people, with no further breakdown. Again we just have to take IPPF's word for it. And what is the ages of these young people?

DFATD's response:

"Member Associations (IPPF's local partners) abide by the legal limits in the country it operates."

And what are the legal age limits in these countries? I'm waiting for an answer to that.

But there in a nutshell, is the real problem with all this. The Canadian people give their tax dollars to DFATD. DFATD then gives that money to IPPF. IPPF then gives that money to its "member associations" to provide in most cases--undefined services.

If IPPF can't break down these services any further (and they can't), then how do they know the member associations are not using the money for abortion? Do we just have to take their word for it? Apparently.

Christine Elliott - does she care about open and transparent government?

Dear Christine,

I might be interested in your op-ed if I thought you really cared about holding Kathleen Wynne responsible for the Liberals attack on Freedom of Information in Ontario.

I've repeatedly asked you what you think about what Kathleen Wynne's government did with open and transparent access to government information.

I've also asked you if you became premier, would you repeal this harmful law that hides all abortion information, and its full frontal attack on democracy.

But all I get from you is--silence.

So no Christine, I didn't read your op-ed.

Thank you.

Patricia Maloney

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pat --

I thought you might be interested in my OpEd running in today’s National Post entitled “Kathleen’s war on jobs.”

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/12/10/christine-elliott-kathleen-wynnes-war-on-jobs

I am holding this Wynne government to account and standing-up against her job killing pension plan.

Sincerely,

Christine Elliott 

Pro-abortions fast tracking the slippery slope

Is this guy for real?

"Udo Schuklenk, a Queen’s University philosophy professor, argues that in rare cases of severely impaired, deeply suffering newborns, actively causing death is morally acceptable, if still illegal in this country.
...
He rejected the notion that allowing euthanasia in such cases would lead to a slippery slope where the idea is applied increasingly broadly."

Is he talking about the slippery slope he's already gone down?

The pro-abortions are so busy plying their radical trade, that they have become numb to any sane notion of human rights.

They can't get out of their own way fast enough, in their hurry to extend their slippery slope as far as it will go.

Cause and effect video

Cause and effect video

 "How we ‘see’ people affects how we treat people. It’s cause and effect. If you don’t see the beauty and value in another person, it’s easy to treat them like an object. But imagine the effect if we saw every other person as equally amazing, equally important, equally valuable. Imagine how things might change.

In 24 years of ministry we [CAS] have assisted over 16,000 women in distress."

What a shame that an anonymous blogger was able to ensure that funding for a crisis pregnancy centre (Pregnancy Options and Support Centre in Sarnia) was revoked.

All because that anonymous person doesn't like crisis pregnancy centres, and has a personal vendetta against them. I feel sorry for her.

I hope she watches this video. She could use a dose of love in her life.

Ontario: 18,330 abortions done in doctors offices in 2010

Wendy Norman grossly underestimates the number of abortions done in Ontario each year. She says it's about 6,000. In 2010 there were actually over three times that many abortions done in Ontario in physician's offices.

That's a whopping 18,330 abortions performed in doctor's offices in that one year alone.

But don't expect to find out how many abortions are being done in doctor's offices in Ontario this year. Because you won't. Not since the Ontario government, under Kathleen Wynne's pro-abortion agenda, continues to make sure that all abortions performed in Ontario are of the top secret variety.

Below see my chart that I published in 2011. These numbers are based on doctor's OHIP billings. In fact, of all those abortions done in doctor's offices, not one of them was reported by CIHI (CIHI doesn't report on abortions done in private physician's offices).

2010 is the only year we will ever see those numbers.

Can a person be small?

Mr. Leon Benoit (Vegreville—Wainwright, CPC):

"Mr. Speaker, in light of the 85th anniversary of the Persons Case, I acknowledge the many Canadians who are working to ensure that all human beings are recognized in law. 

Canada truly is among the world's elite when it comes to valuing and protecting human rights, except that we are one of only three countries in the world with no legal protection for children before birth. Sadly, this includes unborn babies who are eliminated and have their precious lives ended just because they are girls. 

Britain knows it is wrong. Its Parliament declared sex-selection abortions illegal by a 181-to-1 vote.

Canada can fix this too. Let us start by having this Parliament condemn gender-selection abortion. What better day to recognize this than on Persons Day? 

As Dr. Seuss once said, “A person's a person. No matter how small.”

Leno Benoit is quite logical. Imagine that.

Filomena Tassi is pro-life?

"Filomena Tassi has clinched the federal Liberal nomination for the new Ontario riding of Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas".

I can tell you one thing. If I lived in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas, I wouldn't be voting for Ms. Tassi.

Ms. Tassi is supposedly pro-life but is apparently willing to vote pro-choice on any bills that come up in Parliament.

Someone who says they have particular values on something, but in the next breath say that they are willing to flush those values down the toilet--for political expediency no less--is scary.

In fact if I was in that riding, and my only choice was to choose between a candidate who is pro-life and will vote pro-choice, and a candidate who is pro-choice and will vote pro-choice, I'd vote for the latter.

I get real queasy when people don't listen to their consciences. Especially politicians.

Of course I'm pretty queasy with Justin Trudeau too. If Ms. Tassi actually would vote pro-choice on a bill, then I guess they deserve each other.

Brian Gallant: the Charter made me do it

This is bad. Premier Brian Gallant of New Brunswick has just put the same foot in his mouth as Justin Trudeau did before him.

He actually said this:

"We have identified the barriers [to abortion] and are proceeding to eliminate them in order to respect our legal obligations under the Supreme Court of Canada ruling and the Canada Health Act regarding a woman’s right to choose.” 

What legal obligations is he talking about? As Peter Ryan from New Brunswick Right to Life says:

“No law or Supreme Court ruling has ever stated that a province must provide abortion on demand. What’s going on is a pro-abortion ideology is being imposed upon New Brunswick. That’s wrong.”

I don't understand why these politicians get away with making stuff up about what the Charter says on abortion.

You'd think that even the pro-abortions would get queasy when politicians like Gallant and Trudeau say these things. It really doesn't do their already misguided philosophy any good when such falsehoods are propagated, and yet, they remain silent.

It's like they can't come up with any good reasons for our-any-time-any-reason-tax-payer-funded-abortion-on-demand, so they feel compelled to say "Well the Charter says so".

Gallant really needs to read this information on our Charter and abortion. He really needs to educate himself.

CPC - funding revoked based on fake person's word

More on the anonymous blogger's witch hunt against CPC's.

Apparently the Ontario Trillium Foundation revoked the funds to the Pregnancy Options and Support Centre in Sarnia because Trillium:

"had an issue with the principles that were driving the umbrella organization: CAPPS.” and because "their revised policy now explicitly prohibits the funding of activities that seek to limit the legal rights and activities of Ontarians."

Trillium did this based on the word of one anonymous blogger.

What did this anonymous blogger tell Trillium to make them do this? What was the source of the information they used to base their decision to revoke the funds? Was the information vetted as valid, substantiated and factual? Because if it was, the grant money would not have been rescinded.

As a taxpayer funded Ontario group who dispenses with our money, one hopes that such serious decisions to revoke already granted funds is not based on information that in and of itself is grossly inaccurate.

Anyone who knows anything, knows that the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS) would never seek "to limit the legal rights and activities of Ontarians." Except perhaps a cowardly anonymous blogger who has made their mission in life to destroy these CPCs whose work is to support women in crisis pregnancy situations. Maybe the anonymous blogger doesn't like women.

As I've already said, my guess is that Trillium probably received a copy of the National Enquirer-esque Scholarly Document (NESD) penned by pro-abortion Joyce Arthur called Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC. A report that was replete with inaccuracies, hearsay and fiction.

Which is kind of ironic, when you remember that Arthur received a cool $27,400 for that piece of nonsense (that never was vetted as valid, substantiated and factual) from Status of Woman Canada. Money that she also never publicly acknowledged receiving, contrary to the rules of these grants.

I've now asked Trillium to tell me what they used to base their revocation of these funds. I've also asked them to read Brian Norton's own rebuttal of Arthur's report. 

Trillium needs to base their funding decisions on hard facts and not on fairy tales concocted by people without a name.

Oh. And I also signed my letter with my real name.

CPC funding revoked--why?

When anonymous pro-abortion bloggers write potty mouth outrageous nonsense, the best course of action is usually not to read said nonsense. (see here and here and see the Sarnia Observer who reported on it)

But when the nonsense goes on in a concerted and persistent fashion resulting in a witch hunt to destroy the reputation of Crisis Pregnancy Centres like the Pregnancy Options and Support Centre in Sarnia Lambton, to the extent of actually succeeding in having funding revoked by the Ontario Trillium foundation, well that's a different story.

Of course it's pretty easy to hide behind anonymity, and then delight in the harm caused, when you don't have the guts to stand up and behind your hateful words. Pretty easy indeed.

What I'd like to know is this. Did Trillium--an Ontario publicly funded organization AKA funded-by-you-and me--base their decision to revoke the grant to this CPC, on that National Enquirer-esque Scholarly Document penned by pro-abortion Joyce Arthur titled Exposing Crisis Pregnancy Centres in BC? Enquiring minds want to know.

And in the off chance you were ever actually fooled by the NESD through no fault of your own because you were in a state of hypnotic pro-abortion trance brought on by continued and repeated brainwashing by pro-abortion laughable misinformation campaigns--well I'll forgive you as long as you read the excellent factual rebuttal to that sorry piece of penmanship.

I intend to find out what happened here. Stay tuned.

We shouldn't have to pay for what is hidden

From today's National Post

"That damage [that the Liberal government is in no particular hurry to fix the fiscal mess in Ontario]— which will total almost $300-billion in accumulated provincial debt by the time the books are projected to be balanced — is substantial. Even if there are only smooth economic waters ahead for years to come, Ontario will struggle to compete while weighed down by that millstone. We hope that the province will one day have a government that realizes the enormity of this problem. We suspect it will have to wait at least four more years to get it."

For starters, why don't the Liberals defund abortion? How much money do we spend on abortion in Ontario you ask? Well we still don't know of course.

We do know that the Liberals could have spent as much at $70 million in 2010 on abortion, the last year that we have fairly decent statistics for.

After 2011, it's anyone's guess as to what we spend. Probably a lot more.

As long as the Ontario Liberals continue to hide all abortion related information, we won't know what we're spending.

If the Liberals want to hide that information then we shouldn't have to pay for it.

The value of human beings

Beautiful beautiful beautiful short film. Flaws and all. Even the pro-abortions should get it, and that has some merit. That is, if they are honest enough to admit it.

Freedom of information case

These two articles on my Ontario Freedom of Information case disappeared from the Ottawa Citizen's website. I had hard copies so I scanned them and posted them. They are from 2013.

How to jolt an apathetic public on abortion

Which Ontario PC leader supports open transparent gov't?

Dear Christine,

I received your brochure in the mail asking me to support your campaign.

If you hope to make the Conservative Party a party of inclusiveness, you might want to consider including those of us who are fighting for free and unencumbered access to information in Ontario. Right now this is not the case. I can't imagine a single Ontario resident who would be opposed to this right.

I ask you to please let me know where you stand on this issue before I decide whose leadership I will support, and whose leadership I will encourage others to support.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

CPCs helping in Zambia

So today I finally got around to filing. I don't like filing. It's one of those jobs that has to get done or else I start getting panic attacks because I can't find anything.

I picked up the newsletter from the Christian Advocacy Society of Vancouver and read it again.

One of their program directors was telling us about the work she was doing in Lusaka Zambia. She was doing training to educate pastors and their wives on the sanctity of life.

Norma and her team provided us with examples of the work they were doing there. Just one example:

"How does one support a pregnancy centre in a developing city in Zambia? Start a chicken and pig farm to finance their staff and services. This enterprise was supported by the church which the majority of our Lusaka team attends."

I thought to myself, wow how great is that? Imagine going to Zambia and helping the people there, like this pregnancy centre does. And to think that Joyce Arthur did (and continues to do) her darnedest to make life miserable for crisis pregnancy centres like the one in Vancouver and the life saving work they do.

I wonder if Joyce Arthur has ever done any pig farming in Zambia.

Mary Wagner - Defending life in Poland

Mary Wagner visits Poland to a hero's welcome.

"Mary Wagner’s message to Poland echoed the words of Saint John Paul II: “Do not be afraid of defending life, be not afraid of bringing the gospel of life in the streets.”  Thanks to Mary, there are now more people who will have the courage to continue the struggle."

Canada could learn something from the people of Poland and from Mary Wagner.

Justin Trudeau - Charter doesn't grant a right to abortion

Justin Trudeau tries to use his Father's views on abortion, to rationalize his own illogical views, on not allowing those who are against abortion, to becoming Liberal candidates:

"I had an extraordinary example in a father who had deeply, deeply held personal views that were informed by the fact that he went to church every Sunday, read the Bible regularly to us, and raised us very religiously, as Catholics. But at the same time my father had no problem legalizing divorce, decriminalizing homosexuality and moving in ways that recognized the basic rights of the people. He too held fast to his beliefs. But he also understood that as leaders, as political figures, and as representatives of a larger community, our utmost responsibility is to stand up for people’s rights. 

I share my father’s view of leadership in this regard..."

Yet Pierre Trudeau the senior said:

“You know, at some point you are killing life in the fetus in self-defence, of what, of the mother’s health, or her happiness, or of her social rights or her privilege as a human being? I think she should have to answer for it and explain. Now, whether it should be to three doctors, or one doctor, or to a priest or a bishop or to her mother-in-law is a question you might want to argue, you do have a right over your own body, it is your body. But the fetus is not your body; it’s someone else’s body, and if you kill it, you’ll have to explain,” 

Junior also never tires of saying that abortion is protected under the Charter:

"I would expect incoming MPs to vote in favour of a woman’s right to choose, which has historically found protection under Section 7 of the Charter."

But abortion is not protected under the Charter. Not now. Not yesterday. Not tomorrow.

If you would like to sign my letter to Justin Trudeau let me know at maloneyp64@gmail.com and I will add your name.

Open letter to Justin Trudeau - honouring conscience rights

Update December 10, 2015: There are now 417 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update September 1, 2015: There are now 416 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update August 9, 2015: There are now 397 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update February 16, 2015: There are now 394 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update January 27, 2015: There are now 392 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 13: There are now 367 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 14: There were a few duplicates from yesterday's post. There are now 364 names.

Update December 13: There are now 368 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 8: There are now 334 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update December 6: There are now 332 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Another comment:

"My concern is that the leader of the Liberal Party has made decisions without (seemingly) benefit of consultation. In my view, he is acting like an autocrat, and I find that very frightening. I cannot, in good faith, support the Liberal Party of Canada under these conditions."

Update December 3: There are now 330 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 30: Another comment:

"The way some elected officials are thinking is beyond belief & if it continues like this, pretty soon we will have no rights."

There are now 322 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 29: Another comment:

"In an effort to appear “progressive” in his ideas, he has actually displayed some ignorance, as well as a narrow minded perspective about rights and freedoms."

There are now 318 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 28: Another comment:

"He [Trudeau] certainly does not have ears that hear, eyes that see, nor wisdom to ever be a Prime Minister of our great country Canada."

There are now 262 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 27: There are now 252 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 23: More comments from signers:

"She [Pat] makes an excellent case based on the very Charter of which Mr. Trudeau seems to have minimal and selective knowledge."

...

"on the day after Mr. Trudeau’s announcement , as well as sending off a note to him, I also wrote to the Liberal Party of Canada and  to my local riding president. Within a day of receiving my letter, I received a phone call from the riding president. We we able to have a lengthy and civilized discussion on the topic. I found his ears open … and although his direct impact on Mr. Trudeau is limited, I felt that my opinions had been heard and that they would be carried back to party discussions, at least at the local level.I am convinced that this is an important route for people who are in disagreement with Mr. Trudeau’s new policy - be in touch at the grassroots! If change is to occur, I think this is where it may begin - when members hear the hearts of their own constituents."

...

"Please add my name to the list defending the Charter of Rights as stated, and not Me. Trudeau's convenient interpretation. Thank you (paying member of the Liberal Party of Canada, rescinded until freedom to vote according to conscience is reinstated)"

There are now 237 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 21: Another comment I received:

"Please add my name to Letter to Trudeau. He has definitely gone off the tracks."

There are now 232 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 17: There are now 225 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 17: Many people thanked me for writing this letter. Here is one such note I received:

"Thank you for initiating this. I am a "cradle Liberal" who was also a "card carrying Liberal" who is now re-evaluating her political views. While I find that I do not like what I hear from all parties, I will definitely not be in Justin's corner. He is not turning out to be our 'white knight' but quite the opposite. Please add my name to your letter."

Update Nov 16: There are now 219 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Nov 15: There are now 209 names on my letter. And we still haven't heard back from Mr. Trudeau.

Update Oct 16: Since I sent this letter to Justin Trudeau, I've received additional names which I've added to the bottom. I now have over 100 signatures. If you would still like to sign the letter please send me an email at maloneyp64@gmail.com and I will add your name to the letter. In a couple of weeks I will send Mr. Trudeau another letter with the updated names. The more Canadians who voice their displeasure with Mr. Trudeau's attack on democracy, the better.

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

We the undersigned, are very concerned about your recent edict to exclude pro-life people from being candidates for the Liberal Party. We are also concerned that you say you are doing this, because you are a strong believer in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We must confess, we find it impossible to reconcile the two.

First, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of conscience (See section 2(a) freedom of conscience and religion). This is a fundamental right and the Charter is very clear in that it promises that all Canadians have this right. This would include all persons who wish to run for political parties. How can you in good conscience, exclude people because their consciences guide them differently, than yours does?

Second, when some honourable ex-Liberal MPs wrote you, you dismissed their concerns because you felt the writers were "old men". This dismissal is also against the Charter, since your comments are both ageist and sexist, and so discriminatory based on same.
("See section 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability).

Would you likewise discriminate against a young female's opinion? Or conversely, perhaps you are implying that you would only listen to a young female's opinion? In either case, this would still be discrimination based on age and gender.

If you do not agree with these men's arguments, I would love to hear what your counter arguments would be. Instead you chose to ignore their arguments, preferring to attack the speakers instead of the subject at hand. This is not helpful in furthering honest and intelligent discussions on any issue including abortion.

Finally, on many occasions you have stated that a woman's right to choose is guaranteed by the Charter. But this is not the case at all. The Supreme Court Justices in the 1988 Morgentaler decision never stated that a woman had a constitutional right to abortion. How can you believe then, that her right to abortion is guaranteed by the Charter? It isn't. Please see here for a detailed discussion what is in that decision, as well as what isn't.

We must admit we are very confused by your understanding of the Charter. On the one hand, you ignore what is clearly guaranteed in the Charter, and on the other hand, you invent something that is clearly not in the Charter and say that it is. With all due respect Mr. Trudeau, your sentiments are logically incoherent.

We respectfully request that you welcome all persons into the Liberal Party regardless of their beliefs about abortion and that you respect their right to vote in accordance with their conscience.

We believe all persons deserve the same respect regardless of conscience beliefs, of gender, or of age.

Let the people decide if they wish to vote for these differing viewpoints. That is why we hold elections. It really isn't for the leader to decide this. We believe this is what democracy is all about.

We respectfully request that you respond to this letter, and we look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Adele Constantineau

Aileen Simpson

Alana Pelc

Aldo Dolcetti

Alice Fougère

Alida van der Vegt

Amber Friesen

Amelia Andal

Ana Stopa

Anastasia Bowles

Andre Pare

Andrea Mrozek

Angus Kelly

Angus MacDonald

Ankeje Snell

Ann Sullivan

Anna-Marie Kean

Anne Bonnah

Anne Egan

Anne Essiambre

Anne Marie Powell

Anne Stewart

Anne Waggoner

Annette Besner

Annette Downey

Arnold Bossa

Audrey Beard

Barbara Norris

Barry Dunn

Bea Suelirin

Beatrice Kyolaba

Bena Toscano

Bernadette McCormick

Bernie Langill

Betty Barrett

Bev deMontigny

Bibiane O'Gorman

Bill Vanderlinde

Bob Du Broy

Bob Riley

Bob Rudy

Bonnie Pember

Brett Bottyan

Brian Smith

Bridget Van Osch

Camille Bozozuk

Carl Hickey

Carls Aury

Carm Scine

Carmen D'Souza

Carol Cheslock

Carol Gaboury

Carol Gervais

Carol Gray

Carol Roch

Carol Talgoy

Carole Atkinson

Carrie Peters

Cathie Mary Butler

Cecilia Bowles

Céline d'Etcheverry

Chantel Drew Ward

Charlene Charron

Charles Fortin

Charles Saso

Charles Vince

Chris Belford

Chris Ward

Christian Lange

Clarissa Canaria

Claude A. Brule

Claude Leduc

Cliff Pyle

Cliff Snell

Colette Stang

Conny Barel

Corinne Ware

Craig Read

Curtis Ogilvie

Cynthia Bredfeldt

Cynthia Connolly

Cyril Winter

Daniel Hunter

Daniel Surprenant

Darlene Irvine

Daryl Sheppard

David Darwin

Deacon Rick Gervais

Deacon Wayne S. Lee

Debbie Duval

Debbie Ward

Deborah Egan

Delores Doherty

Denis Bergeron

Denise Davis

Diane Irvine

Diane Naipaul

Diane Stump

Dolly Moyse

Don Powell

Donald Andre Bruneau

Donna Barry

Donna J., Anderson

Donna Verner

Dr. E. Letourneau MD

Dr. Joseph Clarke MD

Dr. Robert Walley

Dt Bruneau

Edward Olszewski

Eileen Meunier

Eileen Steil

Elaine Black

Elaine Cavalier

Eliette Campau

Elizabeth (Betty) Donnelly

Elizabeth Doucette

Ellen Chesal

Elva Roley

Erie Eizenga

Ernestine Fronc

Ester da Silva

Eugene Leenders

Eva McGuire

Fabien Bergeron

Fr Joseph Kane, OMI

Fr. Autur Ockwood, MSF

Fr. Daniel Berniquez

Fr. Dennis Hayes CC

Fr. Hezuk Shroff

Fr. Kenneth Lao C.C.

Fr. Michael Weitl

Fr. Yves Marchildon CC

Francilia Poirier

Francis J. Barrett

François Savard

Frank Egan

Frank LeVay

Frederick Tremblay

Gail Goshko

Gar Knutson

Gary D. Knight PhD

Gary O'Meara

Gemma O’Sullivan

Gene Makish

Genevieve Moncrieff

George Olliver

Gerard Beltran

Germaine Gaudet

Gillian Keenan

Gisele C. Pitre

Gloria Pearson-Vasey

Glovana Clarke

Gordon Duncan

Gordon Verner

Grace G. Brule

Greg Doyle

Guy Dacquay Hani Zakhia

Harriet McEachen

Harry Norris

Helena Szakowski

Hildegard Krieg

Immaculte Nalukago

Ineesha Ym

Jackie Vince

Jacqueline Sullivan

Jacques Campeau

Jakki Jeffs

James Pierce

James Snell

Jane Langabeer

Janet Davidson

Janet Seward

Jauise Seteurnear

Jean Morgan

Jean-Pierre Dostaler

Jeannine Lebel

Jeannine Legault

Jen MacDonald

Jennifer Snell

Jessica Sheppard

Jessie MacIsaac

Jim Beard

Jim Cairney

Jim Leliveld

Jim Vandervoort

Joan Coyne

Joan Langtry

Joan Lemieux

Joan Lepage

Joan O’Brien

Joan Wills

Joanne Sabourin

Jocelyn Unsworth

Joe Sinicrope

Joe Stalmach

Joe Thottungal

Joe Winchester

John Bolech

John Hof

John Lammers

John Lange

John Sammut

John Sebok

John Stefan Obeda

John Ward

John Ware

Jonathon Van Maren

Jordan Beard

Joseph Patrie

Joseph van der Vegt

Josie O’Rourke

Joy Wolfenden

Joyce C. Allison

Judy Smith

Julia Irvine

Julie Culshaw

Julie Smulski

K. Neatyrexuslei

Karen Thomson

Karine Surprenant

Kas Pelc

Kathie Hogan

Kathy Vanderlinde

Kathy Waechter

Kay Newbold

Ken Martin

Ken O'Day

Kim MacMullen

Kim Tran

L. Jill Vince

Larry Chretien

Laura Gueguen

Laura Patrie

Lauralee Sopczak

Lauralee Sopezak

Laurelia Charlemagne

Lawrence Moore

Len Mihalicz

Leo Andal

Liana Gallant

Linda Allard

Linda Cobb

Linda Laperle

Linda Tensen

Lise Anglin

Lois Duncan

Lorelle Baptiste

Lorraine Lemay

Lorraine Lynch

Lorraine MacPherson

Lorraine Martin

Louis Seward

Louise Chretien

Louise Dubois

Louise Letourneau

Lourdez Mangaring

Lucette Pilon-Bergeron

Luciano Ingriselli

Lucie Bastien

Lucille Bourbonnais

Lyse Charron

Lyse Charron

M L Currie

M. Bozozuk

Madeleine Lafleur

Madeleine Thomas

Maeve Ryan

Magda Baillot

Malcolm Roddis

Marc Dennis

Marcel Sinasac

Marcelle Belanger

Margaret Thomson

Maria Cairns

Maria Torrone

Maria Ym

Marian Obeda

Mariana Marchand

Mariane Louis-Seize

Marianne Proulx

Marie Stalmach

Marie Vanbergen

Marie-Claire Fortin

Marion Labonté

Marlene Holt

Marnie Sebok

Marta Pan

Mary Ann A. Peralta

Mary Catharine Carroll

Mary Doyle

Mary F. MacDonald

Mary Jean Belford

Mary Knechtel

Mary MacDonald

Mary Michael

Mary Mitro

Mary Olszewski

Mary Pantone

Maryke Vos

Mat Uszewsko

Maureen Ward

Michael Liang

Michael Szakowski

Michael Ward

Michelle Sinasac

Miranda D. Reis

Moncia Roddis

Murielle Plante

Nancy Kerslake

Nancy Macri

Nancy Tremblay

Nancy Winslow

Natalie Grenier

Natalie Hudson Sonnen

Natasha Fernandes

Neva Lorenzon

Nicole Arranz

Nirmala Ym

Noreen Minifie

Norman Jay

Pat Laviolette

Pat Macdonald

Patricia Balis

Patricia Chura

Patricia Moore

Patricia Trites

Patrick Pena

Paul Charron

Paula Maloney

PAULETTE A. ST-JACQUES

Pauline Guzik

Peggy Doucette

Peggy Hunter

Peggy Kelly

Per Talgoy

Peter McGann

Peter Ryan

Philip Tan

Phyllis Dennis

Pierre Collette

Pierre Poirier

Ray Thomson

Rebecca Ocoma

Rebecca Richmond

Rejean Besner

Renald Veilleux

Rev. Mr. Rudy M. Ovcjak

Rhiel Perrin

Rick Stankiewicz

Rihad Lzrkncb

Rita Hude

Rita Hudec

Rita Magny

Robert Campbell

Robert Farley

Robert Halpin

Robert S. Anderson

Romana Dolcetti

Romana Pecek

Ron Trent

Rosanne De Luca

Rose Marie MacMullen

Rose-Marie Gagné

Rosemary Connell

Rosetta Caza

RS Ayart

Ruth Spearns

Savio Leon DeSouza

Scott Eagan

Se Ardaf

Sean Mulligan

Sean O'Carroll

Shane Allard

Sheila Knight

Sheridan Brace

Sherwin B. Peralta

Sheryle Snell

Shirley Leduc

Simone Gingnas

Stan Siok

Suma Joe

Susan Ditmar

Susan Duguay

Suzanne Lalonde

Sylivie Bozozuk

Sylvie Bissonnette

Ted Sabourin

Teresa Aitken

Teresa Kane

Teresa Psutka

Terry Cantin

Tess Sturgeon

Thea Streng

Theodore Morgan

Theresa Everett

Theresa McDonald

Theresa Winchester

Therese Lavergne

Tom Mockler

Tony Gosgnach

Tracey McAskill

Twilight Beltran

Ulrika Drevniok

Valerie Bottyan

Valerie Delaney

Veronica von Neubronn

Vicki Forsyth

Vince Berndt

Vince van den Bosch

Viviane Pelletier

Wanda Hartlin

Wayne Waechter

Wayne Weston

Wendy Wellington

Yvon Pelletier (416)