Mark Carney's government continues its discriminatory practice against pro-life students

---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Patricia Maloney 
Date: Tue, May 26, 2026 at 4:06 PM
Subject: RE: Taxpayer funded summer job grants
To: EDSC.SM.CORR.DEPT-MS.CORR.DEPT.ESDC@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca <EDSC.SM.CORR.DEPT-MS.CORR.DEPT.ESDC@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca>
Cc: Patricia Maloney <maloneyp64@gmail.com>, Prime Minister/Premier ministre <pm@pm.gc.ca>, <mark.carney@parl.gc.ca>, <Patty.Hajdu@parl.gc.ca>

Dear Mauricette Howlett,

You state that:

job activities respect reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, as a condition for receiving federal funding...All employers under the CSJ program are required to provide a safe and inclusive work environment that respects individual human rights as outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When applying for funding through the CSJ program, organizations must attest that any funding under the CSJ program will not be used to undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.

As we know, and have known for many years, there is no Charter right to abortion -- abortion is not legally protected in Canada. 

This means that the young people who are prevented from accessing the summer jobs programs are being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs since it is faith based organizations and persons who are the ones not eligible for the grants because of their opposition to abortion. Even if there was a charter right to abortion, and there isn't, preventing someone from receiving the funding based on their deeply held religious beliefs would still be discrimination.

Canada supposedly prides itself in its freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, speech, assembly and association. But only sometimes. And only when the government says so. This is wrong.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 1:47 PM NC-INFO-HRSDC_RHDSC-GD <nc-info-hrsdc-rhdsc-gd@servicecanada.gc.ca> wrote:

Dear Patricia Maloney:

 

On behalf of the Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, I am responding to your email, which the Office of the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Mark Carney, sent to her on April 22, 2026, as well as your follow-up email to Minister Hajdu of May 10, 2026. You wrote about the launch of Canada Summer Jobs (CSJ) 2026 and the availability of 100,000 positions for young people.

 

In your emails, you specifically raised concerns about the 2018 policy which requires CSJ program applicants to attest that their core mandate and the job activities respect reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, as a condition for receiving federal funding. You indicated that this requirement could result in the exclusion of organizations with pro‑life beliefs and asked whether this policy would be discontinued under the current government. I appreciate your taking the time to write and convey your perspective on this matter.

 

The objective of CSJ is to create quality jobs for youth across Canada by providing them with valuable work experiences during the summer employment period so that they gain and develop skills and competencies.

 

All employers under the CSJ program are required to provide a safe and inclusive work environment that respects individual human rights as outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When applying for funding through the CSJ program, organizations must attest that any funding under the CSJ program will not be used to undermine or restrict the exercise of rights legally protected in Canada.

 

In addition, all CSJ applications are assessed against 15 eligibility criteria outlined in the CSJ Applicant Guide. The CSJ Articles of Agreement outline the obligations of applicants to ensure that all funded job opportunities take place in a safe, inclusive and healthy work environment free from harassment and discrimination.

 

Employers who are approved for CSJ funding sign agreements confirming that they have understood and will comply with the rules of the program. The Department conducts a range of monitoring activities to ensure that funding is used according to the terms of the program outlined in the agreement with each employer. The provision of false and misleading information or failure to comply with the Articles of Agreement may result in revocation of funding.

 

Each year, the Department makes modifications to improve CSJ based on the feedback received from participants and stakeholders and will continue to implement as many innovative changes as possible to improve program delivery and adapt it to address the evolving needs of youth and employers across the country.

 

I hope that this information is helpful in addressing your concerns.

 

Yours sincerely, 

 

 

 

 

 

Mauricette Howlett

Director General

Workforce Development and Youth

Program Operations Branch

Service Canada

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 4:39 PM Patricia Maloney wrote:

Dear Ms. Hajdu,

I look forward to your response to my question to the Prime Minister.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 1:50 PM Prime Minister | Premier Ministre <PM@pm.gc.ca> wrote:

Dear Ms. Maloney:

On behalf of the Right Honourable Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated April 21, 2026.

The Prime Minister values feedback and suggestions from Canadians, and he appreciates the time you have taken to offer your views. Please be assured that your communication has been received and carefully read.

At the federal level, responsibility for the issue you raise rests with the Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, the Honourable Patty Hajdu. For this reason, I am sharing your remarks with the Minister for information and consideration.

Thank you for writing.

J.P. Vachon
Manager / Gestionnaire
Executive Correspondence Services/Services de la correspondance de la haute direction


------------------- Original Message -------------------
From: Patricia Maloney
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2026, 4:15 PM
To: mark.carney@parl.gc.ca;
Cc: maloneyp64@gmail.com; media@hrsdc-rhdcc.gc.ca; Jennifer.kozelj@labour-travail.gc.ca; PM@pm.gc.ca; mona.fortier@parl.gc.ca; pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca
Subject: Taxpayer funded summer job grants

Dear Mark Carney,

Today you announced the summer jobs program grants:
https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/2026/04/canada-summer-jobs-2026-youth-hiring-period-now-open-with-up-to-100000-jobs-available.html?utm_campaign=esdc-edsc-censv2-24-25&utm_medium=email&utm_source=news-from-the-government-of-canada&utm_content=news-product-260420-en-2pm
There are 100,000 jobs available.
Will your Liberal government now put an end to Justin Trudeau's discriminatory practice of excluding pro-life people from receiving these grants?
As a self-proclaimed practicing Catholic one would think that you would be happy to not exclude those who hold Christian beliefs that the child in the womb is as valuable as any other Canadian human being and that organizations who espouse pro-life beliefs are as worthy of taxpayer funded summer job opportunities as any other Canadian.
I look forward to hearing back from you.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

When a Charter right isn't a Charter right

There are currently four Charter challenges being brought against the federal government regarding the Summer Jobs Program's unconstitutional attestation clause. Most likely there will be more coming.

This is all really good news for the people of Canada, and especially for those of us (all of us?) who value our Charter rights.

The media, even those from the left, see the massive problem with the Trudeau attestation. In fact the only people in Canada who think the attestation is fair--are Justin Trudeau and maybe some of his MPs, but most likely not all of them.

All this because our feminist prime minister decided to invent a new Charter right: "reproductive rights". Also known as the Right to Abortion. Justin Trudeau also likes to use the new buzz words "Charter values". Another meaningless notion.

Except instead of doing anything constitutional to create this new "right", he simply dreamed it into existence.

And now companies who have been denied funds under the SJP have to defend their actual Charter rights--all in the name of a non-existing Charter right.

In other words, under a Justin Trudeau government, actual Charter rights can only become actual Charter rights once you go to court, spend a whole lot of money, and spend a whole lot of time to put forward your case. A case that any grade school child could easily comprehend if you put it to them like this:

"I have a right to my religious beliefs. I have a right to not agree with abortion because I think it's morally wrong. I have a right to listen to my conscience. So why do I need to go to court to ask a judge to grant me these rights? I thought they were already mine? The Charter says I have them, so why can't I have them without going to court? 

Is a Prime Minister really allowed to create a new right, just because he wants to? I don't understand this."

And there is another important fact about all this.

Can you imagine the millions of dollars the tax payer will have to fork out so that Justin Trudeau can defend his make believe Right to Abortion? After all, these are his "charter values" not ours. So why will we have to pay for Justin Trudeau to defend himself?

Does Justin Trudeau get his marching orders from Joyce Arthur?

Just one more excellent article on Justin Trudeau and Liberal Labour Minister Patty Hajdu ridiculous attestation clause for the summer jobs program.

There have been so much written on the subject it's hard to keep track. In fact the only people in Canada who support the attestation (besides all liberal MPs minus two) are the radical fringe pro-abortion advocates.

All the media, all religious organizations, and most likely 99% of Canadians are against the attestation.

""Whatever we do, it will be still with the policy goal of ensuring that we don't in any way support organizations that are in any way working to undermine Canadians' rights," the minister told HuffPost. 

Translated, it means the government will continue insisting applicants tick the box to attest that they don't oppose Canada's unrestricted access to abortion. The minister apparently can't get the point that opposing abortion undermines nothing that has anything to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the contrary, the freedom of citizens to peacefully oppose abortion, or anything else, is the very base on which all rights — indeed, the charter of rights itself — are founded."

Imagine basing eligibility on government funding on whether or not you support unrestricted right to abortion, a right that doesn't even exist? A pseudo right.

This article says it best I think. Fr. De Souza discusses terms like, "dictatorship of relativism",
"ideological dictator" and "how a “liberal doctrine of diversity” can become a dictatorship."

"Whether it is called a “dictatorship of relativism” or “ideological colonization” or “thinly disguised totalitarianism,” it is easily recognized as spreading in Canada today. Fr. Rosica did a service by calling it out by name."

All these descriptions aptly describe our current government in Canada, headed up by a man who cares not a whit for Canadians' freedom of conscience rights, freedom of speech rights and freedom of religion rights. Who is advising Justin Trudeau anyway? Because their advice is not doing him any favours.

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics - part 2

From the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL):

• The CCRL’s opposition to Bill 163 focuses on the following:
• The government has failed to identify or address any need for the intrusion and limitation into the constitutional right to freedom of expression
• The bill’s penal sanctions are an intrusion into the federal power over criminal law, and present a lowering of the thresholds typically required to constitute the offence of “harassment” under the Criminal Code
• All parties by their support of the bill are engaging in political suppression of dissenting viewpoints, with the invention of the need for broad areas of “no go” zones, the total effect of which (conceivably, bubble zones around all pharmacies in urban areas), the bill engages in overreach to impose its dubious objectives

This is what Catholics won't be able to do anymore: Pray peacefully and silently at the abortion facilities across Ontario. 

Please sign the petition. 

Then send an email to Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, Premier Kathleen Wynne, PC leader Patrick Brown, and NDP leader Andrea Horvath telling them to respect our freedom of conscience rights, freedom of religion rights. freedom of assembly rights and freedom of expression rights.

kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
ynaqvi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
patrick.brown@ontariopc.com
ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics

Don't kid yourself. This new bubble zone legislation isn't about the supposed harassment that goes on at abortion facilities by pro-life persons. It's about discrimination against Christians.

And we have Strawberry Social Jim Watson to thank for this stupidity.

We already know that there is no need for a bubble zone. My FOI on police reports at 65 Bank Street revealed no assaults where a charge was laid.

This is what the bubble zone will do:

3 (1)  While in an access zone established under section 6 for a clinic or facility, no person shall,  (a)  advise or persuade, or attempt to advise or persuade, a person to refrain from accessing abortion services;  (b)  inform or attempt to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;   (c)  perform or attempt to perform an act of disapproval concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;  (d)  persistently request that,           (i)  a person refrain from accessing abortion services, or          (ii)  a protected service provider refrain from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services;  (e)  for the purpose of dissuading a person from accessing abortion services,           (i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,          (ii)  physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the person,         (iii)  intimidate or attempt to intimidate the person, or         (iv)  photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the person;   (f)  for the purpose of dissuading a protected service provider from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services,           (i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,          (ii)  physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the provider,         (iii)  intimidate or attempt to intimidate the provider, or         (iv)  photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the provider; or  (g)  do anything prescribed for the purpose of this clause.

Notice this clause:

(i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,

I am not kidding. You cannot OBSERVE an abortion facility.

Are Kathleen and friends serious? The only "observing" I've ever seen done at the abortion facility is when people stand across the street silently praying and "observing" said abortion facility. Which Catholics do. Which I have done. Which I will do. During this year's 40 days for life. And at other times. You can't do that. Anymore.

What about my religious right to say the rosary? Is that banned too? Is that what Kathleen and friends have in store for us next?

I'm not even talking about the gross trampling this law will have on our rights to freedom of speech, freedom or assembly, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

This is a sneaky witch hunt against practicing Catholics. Of course the Liberals are good at sneaky. They wrote the book on sneaky.

Will the leader of the opposition Patrick Brown speak up for us? I doubt it.

Mass intention: Protection of Pro-Life Doctors

Where: St. Monica's

Date: Sunday, July 2 at 11 am

Address:  2080 Merivale Rd, Nepean, ON K2C 3H1, Canada

Tell your MPP you want doctor's conscience rights protected

Yesterday I called my MPP Nathalie Des Rosiers' office regarding Bill 84 Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act. She was in Queen's Park so this is what I said to her assistant:

"Regarding Bill 84, Medical Assistance in Dying Statute Law Amendment Act: when Nathalie spoke in the legislature on this bill, I noted that there is no mention about a provision in the bill to ensure that conscience rights are protected. That's because there is no such provision in the bill. In fact The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is forcing doctors to make "effective referrals" which is against many physicians' freedom of conscience. This is of great concern to me."

I then told her assistant to make sure she relayed my concerns to Nathalie. She told me many people had already called her. Her assistant also told me that on Thursday March 20th there will be committee hearings in Toronto on this, and that people can request to call in to it to express their concerns about the lack of protection for doctor's conscience rights.

People can also send in a written submission to Peter Milczyn, MPP, Chair, Eric Rennie, Clerk erennie@ola.org 

Interested people who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation on Bill 84 on Thursday, March 30, 2017 should provide their contact name, mailing address, phone number, and email address to the Clerk of the Committee by 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 28, 2017.

Requests to present via teleconference will be accommodated.

Those who do not wish to make an oral presentation but wish to comment on the Bill may send a written submission to the Clerk of the Committee at the address below by 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 30, 2017.

Telephone: (416) 325-3506 (Collect calls will be accepted) Facsimile: (416) 325-3505 TTY: (416) 325-3538 

Please call your own MPP (Nathalie's email is NDesRosiers.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org) and tell them you want doctor's conscience rights protected. And send an email to the committee at erennie@ola.org.

It is very important we make our views known to the politicians. If we don't, we are in real danger of losing our doctors who will be forced into referring people for assisted suicide, or leave their practice. 

We must make sure doctor's conscience rights are protected.

Real and imaginary Charter rights

It's been a difficult time for pro lifers.

First there are the pro-life clubs still trying to practice their freedom of expression rights on campuses when they protest abortion. And still they receive no help from the very institutions (universities) that we would (incorrectly) expect would be a bastion of free speech rights.

Next we have hospitals having to defend their freedom of conscience and freedom of religion rights against being forced to participate in assisted suicide. In fact it used to be wrong to kill someone. Not anymore.

Then there's the radical Joyce Arthur who just can't bring herself to support Cassie and Molly's Law because:

"it It gives some human rights to fetuses and could thereby pose a threat to women’s constitutional rights and abortion rights."

Never mind that Bill C225 would not give human rights to pre-born children:

"This bill is about protecting pregnant women and their preborn children from the actions of third parties who want to do them harm. It addresses those tragic and horrific situations, like the case of Cassie Kaake and her preborn daughter, Molly, who were victims of a brutal attack. This bill does not in any way impact a woman’s choice to terminate her pregnancy. Abortion is, by definition, excluded from the bill because of the clear wording in the bill that makes causing injury or death to the preborn child an offence only if the person does so “while committing or attempting to commit an offence under this Act against a female person that the person knows is pregnant.”  In other words, these new offences are not stand-alone offences. The new offences in “Cassie and Molly’s Law” address only the situations where a third party harms or kills a woman’s preborn child while committing or attempting to commit a criminal offence against the woman – action to which she clearly has not consented. This legislation honours and protects a woman’s ‘right to choose’ to give birth to her baby."

And never mind that there isn't even a constitutional right to abortion. Never mind any of that. Arthur just opposes the bill because as she said about Bill C-484:

“If the fetuses are recognized in this bill, it could bleed into people’s consciousness and make people change their minds about abortion.”

For Arthur, changing people's minds about abortion would be a pro-choice mortal sin. It must never be allowed to happen and she will do everything in her power to make sure it never does. 

Actual constitutional rights of freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, are always trumped by the magical mythical right to abortion. 

That pesky thing called conscience

From MP Ed Komarnicki:

M-590 — March 26, 2015 — Mr. Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain) — That, in the opinion of the House, all Members of Parliament should be allowed to vote freely on all matters of conscience.

So how will the Liberals and NDP vote on this motion? I guess we'll find out.

"...the safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear from death." Voltaire

CPSO - Getting rid of pro-life doctors

The pro-abortions seem quite gleeful that doctors will now be forced to provide abortions and contraception.

Dr. Carol Leet president of CPSO says there have been complaints:

"There have been some complaints about access to care".

How many complaints? A handful? One?

Its pretty hard to believe that access is a problem, with the number of "pro-choice" doctors out there.

So what's the real motivation for this policy? I think CPSO just wants to rid their profession of pro-life doctors. Discrimination by any other name.

CPSO's "effective referral" policy misunderstood by spokesperson?

CPSO is seeking public input on a draft policy that would force doctors to refer for services which they are legally entitled to.

From the National Post:

"If ap­proved, the new pol­icy would re­quire doc­tors to make those re­fer­rals. 

In an emer­gency, doc­tors would even have to pro­vide ser­vi­ces them­selves, re­gardless of re­li­gious be­lief. 

Sim­i­lar poli­cies are al­read­y in place in Al­berta, Mani­toba, Que­bec and New Bruns­wick, 

Dr. Ga­bel says: “This is noth­ing new.”"

But Dr. Marc Gabel is wrong to say Alberta, Manitoba and NB have "similar" policies to CPSO's "effective referral" policy.

CPSO's "effective referral" is:

"Where physicians are unwilling to provide certain elements of care due to their moral or religious beliefs, an effective referral to another health care provider must be provided to the patient. An effective referral means a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician or other health care provider."

Those provinces require a referral to a doctor who will provide information about a procedure, not the procedure itself. See: Appendix 3 of CPSO's annual meeting of Council.

New Brunswick:
Referrals: When moral or religious beliefs prevent a physician from providing or offering access to information about a legally available medical or surgical treatment or service, that physician must ensure that the patient who seeks such advice or medical care is offered timely access to another physician or resource that will provide accurate information about all available medical options.

Manitoba:
Referrals: If the moral or religious beliefs of a member prevent him or her from providing or offering access to information about a legally available medical treatment or procedure, the member must ensure that the patient who seeks that advice or medical care is offered timely access to another member or resource that will provide accurate information about all available medical options.

Alberta:
Referrals: When moral or religious beliefs prevent a physician from providing or offering access to information about a legally available medical or surgical treatment or service, that physician must ensure that the patient who seeks such advice or medical care is offered timely access to another physician or resource that will provide accurate information about all available medical options.

See my previous posts on CPSO and conscientious objection here and here.

CPSO is taking a dangerous position on conscience rights

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), wants to change how doctors are required to refer for care. Their draft policy, Professional Obligations and Human Rights states:

“Where physicians are unwilling to provide certain elements of care due to their moral or religious beliefs, an effective referral to another health care provider must be provided to the patient. An effective referral means a referral made in good faith to a non-objecting, available and accessible physician or other health-care provider. The referral must be made in a timely manner to reduce the risk of adverse clinical outcomes. Physicians must not impede access to care for existing patients, or those seeking to become patients”

Here are four reasons why CPSO shouldn't go ahead with this bad policy.

1) Freedom of conscience for doctors. It is wrong to force doctors to betray their conscience. This is not a difficult concept to understand. A civilized society does not force anyone to act against their conscience. And if a doctor is forced to refer for a procedure that is against her conscience, she is complicit in the act itself, which is the same (morally) as performing the act herself. This is wrong and against every moral definition one can think of.

2) Patient/doctor trust. If a patient knows their doctor can leave their conscience at the door when it comes to abortion, contraception or assisted suicide, how can the patient be expected to trust their doctor with their other health issues?

3) Retroactive requirements. Changing the guidelines in this way, is an unethical act towards the doctors affected. When doctors who are currently practicing, or are in medical school, first became doctors, they did so with the understanding that they would be able to conscientiously object to procedures that are against their conscience (including referring to another doctor).

This change would be a retroactive requirement of being a doctor. This is patently unfair to doctors. It means that doctors who are already in the profession or are in medical school, and chose the profession based on the current guidelines that do uphold their freedom of conscience rights, will now be expected to act according to a new and very different set of rules. Many doctors would have no choice but to leave their chosen profession in order to not be forced to be complicit in acts they find morally reprehensible.

4) Loss of livelihood to doctors. The huge investments required to become a doctor in the first place (time, money, family dependency on the doctor's livelihood, etc), would all be thrown away. Not only would these doctors who have invested large sums of money and time in becoming a doctor be forced to quit, but their entire livelihood would be at risk, and the livelihood of their families.

Dr. Marc Gabel who works for CPSO and is the chair of the college’s policy working group reviewing “Professional Obligations and Human Rights”, seems to have no problem with the harmful consequences this policy would impose on doctors:

“It may well be that you would have to think about whether you can practice family medicine as it is defined in Canada and in most of the Western countries.”

Dr. Gabel's flippant dismissal of the very real dilemma this new policy would incur for many doctors is worrisome. Forcing doctors to either refer for procedures that go against their conscience or, leave their profession altogether, is not a trivial matter.

These are all very serious considerations. CPSO and Dr. Gabel need to seriously rethink this policy because of these negative outcomes for doctors, the patients they treat, and society as a whole.

Doctors and members of the public can comment on the draft policy up to Feb. 20. Submit your comments here.

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

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.

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

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.

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)