RCMP must finally investigate born-alive abortions

Campaign Life Coalition is asking for the RCMP to open up an investigation into the tragedy of abortions that result in the live birth of a child. These children are born alive and left to die.

'Data from Statistics Canada and from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, a government-controlled reporting body, show that abortion attempts were made against the lives of these babies in regulated Canadian medical facilities. The data shows that these babies survived these assaults, that they were born alive, and then they died'

In 2021-2022 alone there were 149 of these tragic live born deaths from abortion.

MP Maurice Vellacott also asked the RCMP look into this in 2013. At the time Commissioner Bob Paulson refused to investigate these deaths; it seems he allowed his pro-abortion ideaology to get in the way of impartiality:

"Your assertion that some, any or all of these occurrences constitute a crime requires an untenable contortion of the Criminal Code far removed from the legal consequences of the Morgentaler decision and the reality of a quarter century of deliberate Parliamentary inaction.'

Hopefully Commissioner Mike Duheme will do the right thing and finally investigate these horrific deaths.

Canada continues to allow born alive aborted babies to die because too many people just don't care

Speaking of Canada's shameful practice of allowing aborted babies to die after being born, I did an ATIP to the RCMP regarding this story, that you may remember:

"On January 23, 2013, three Conservative MPs (Maurice Vellacott – Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, Wladyslaw Lizon – Mississauga-Cooksville, and Leon Benoit – Vegreville-Wainwright) wrote a letter to RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson calling for a criminal investigation into the deaths of 491 babies born alive after abortions but left to die. The deaths occurred between 2000 and 2009. Vellacott wrote a letter of clarification after the initial erroneous media coverage, saying “contrary to what some of the media have been reporting, my colleagues, Leon Benoit and Wladyslaw Lizon, and I did not ask the RCMP to investigate any/all abortions after 19 weeks as possible homicides.?? He explained, “our request to the RCMP was not about the deaths of preborn children, but rather the deaths of children who had already been born alive and who are, therefore, recognized as ‘human beings’ in Canadian law.??"

This is what I asked for:

"I would like to see all documentation (emails, letters, briefing notes, etc.) related to this request to the RCMP; that is, to and from the MPs and the RCMP. Also all documentation to and from the RCMP and any other government organization including the PMO, regarding this MP request for an investigation of possible homicides to the RCMP."

This is what I received back. Other than Maurice Vellacott's own letters, there are only two letters from Commissioner Bob Paulson to Mr. Vellacott. No other documentation of any kind to show that the commissioner did anything with the complaint.

A couple of points to note:

First, the Commissioner never acknowledged Mr. Vellacott's letter because he thought the "RCMP's public acknowledgement...was sufficient to confirm reception". Perhaps an actual response letter to Mr. Vellacott would have been in order? It's called common courtesy.

Second, the Commissioner summarily dismissed Mr. Vellacott's complaint of possible criminal behaviour regarding these born alive abortions. Without any reason, and without any investigation on the very serious allegations. Even when Mr. Vellacott details the pertinent criminal code section, which at the very least should give someone pause:

223 (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

• (a) it has breathed;

• (b) it has an independent circulation; or

• (c) the navel string is severed.

Marginal note:Killing child

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

Third, the second letter from the Commissioner. In this one, his disdain for these allegations is clear:

"The Statistics Canada figures you reference in your correspondence purportedly represent occurrences recorded in regulated medical facilities involving medical practitioners, who must abide by their professional obligations..."

Fourth, the commissioner's using the word purportedly shows that he didn't even bother to reach out to Stats Canada. Otherwise he would have learned that yes indeed, these are late term abortions where a child dies after it is born. It is not purportedly at all. Does he not trust Stats Canada?

Fifth, just because these abortions happen in regulated facilities, does that mean that we don't investigate possible occurrences of criminal behaviours? Think of Kermit Gosnell, the master of botched abortions.

Sixth, "Your assertion that some, any or all of these occurrences constitute a crime requires an untenable contortion of the Criminal Code..." How could it be an untenable contortion if you didn't investigate? The Commissioner's pro-abortion bias just oozes out from his choice of language.

Seventh, it is bizarre that Mr. Paulson was provided with both the data of the possible crimes and the Criminal Code citation, and then evasively indicates that the public is supposed to do his investigation for him.

Of course, we all know there is one set of rules for pro-life people, and one set of rules for pro-abortion people. Commissioner Paulson, on his own, without any investigation whatsoever into these very serious allegations, decided they had no merit.

Some might think this is all water under the bridge now because this happened ten years ago. But it isn't. These helpless little infants continue to be born alive after an abortion, and continue to die. And because of Canada's unrelenting pro-abortion ideology, we will continue to do nothing to stop it.

Assisted suicide: notwithstanding clause and palliative care‎

For Immediate Release                                                                               February 10, 2015

Vellacott urges use of “notwithstanding clause” in face of Supreme Court allowing doctors to use lethal injection on their patients

OTTAWA –In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Carter case, in which the Court gave Parliament one year to enact legislation in light of the Court declaring unconstitutional the Criminal Code provisions that “prohibit physician‑assisted dying for competent adults who seek such assistance as a result of a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering,” MP Maurice Vellacott said:

I am deeply concerned and saddened by the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize in some circumstances what it calls “physician-assisted death.”

How we respond now to this landmark decision will affect the people of Canada and the values we hold dear for years and decades to come. We are at a turning point in our history. In responding to this decision, we are called upon to grapple with tough questions about our nature as human beings and as social beings, questions about the sanctity of human life, compassion, hope, autonomy, fear and despair.

The road ahead for Canada in the aftermath of this life and death decision imposed on us by the Supreme Court is unclear. Many are fearful of what lies ahead for them, that protections on which they once relied will be gone. The medical profession is looking to Parliament to set parameters on the power the Court has now given them to help their patients end their lives.

Given all the stakeholders who will need to be consulted on this emotional and sensitive issue, and given the profound consequences for individuals, for the medical profession, and for society, it defies understanding why the Supreme Court would give Parliament only one year to respond with new legislation.

Canadians are divided on this issue which involves the deliberate taking of human life. No major political party is united on this issue. All parties support access to palliative care for all Canadians who need it.  If ever there was a time to take back the political principle of “the supremacy of Parliament,” the time is now.

As such, I am calling upon all party leaders to set aside their partisan differences and unite in support of using the Charter’s section 33 “notwithstanding” clause in order to give Parliament the time itneeds to conduct broad enough consultations to discern: how we can implement a plan to provide the resources and substantial palliative care‎ to significantly alleviate suffering so that requests to die will be reduced to a minimum; and how to provide appropriate parameters and safeguards in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Now is the time for Parliament to act with courage, for the sake of all Canadians, and for the future of Canada. Let us not look back years and decades from now with regret that we didn’t take the time to get it right when we had the chance.

– 30 –

For further information and comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249; email: maurice.vellacott.a1@parl.gc.ca

CPSO - freedom of conscience rights are sacred

My letter in the National Post today

Why would the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Ontario insist doctors be forced to refer for treatment that goes against their conscience? As MP Maurice Vellacott recently stated, there is “no other jurisdiction that currently allows euthanasia or assisted suicide imposes such an obligation.”

Requiring doctors to act against their conscience and/or be complicit in an act they find morally reprehensible is a surely not a road we wish them to travel. If I knew my doctor could so easily leave his conscience by the side of the road when treating me for “A,” then how could I ever trust him when treating me for “B”?

When doctors signed up to become doctors, they did so knowing their freedom of conscience rights were sacred. Creating a policy that tramples on these fundamental rights is wrong and dangerous.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

"Pro-choicers" attempt to kill conscience rights

Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin

Saskatchewan physicians to be forced

to participate in killing their patients

For Immediate Release January 29, 2015

OTTAWA – “The assault on freedom of conscience that is spreading across our country ought to be of grave concern to every freedom-loving Canadian ,” MP Maurice Vellacott said upon learning of yet another province (this time his own) that plans to force physicians to participate in morally objectionable procedures, including those that kill. “No health care worker should be forced against their will to take part in the killing of another human being. It would be a grotesque violation of their human dignity.”

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) has adopted in principle a policyⁱ which it basically “cut and paste” from the Conscience Research Group’s (CRG’s) Model Policy on Conscientious Objection in Medicine.ⁱⁱ

Mr. Vellcott asked a series of questions that paint a disturbing picture of the process, or lack thereof, that went into CPSS’s adoption of this objectionable policy: “Was the CPSS aware that the drafters of the Model Policy, notably Professor Jocelyn Downie of Dalhousie University, are abortion and euthanasia activists? Did the CPSS solicit input from anyone other than Professor Downie and her team at the CRGⁱⁱⁱ before adopting this policy? Did the Saskatchewan College let on to anyone else that it was even considering this issue? Is the CPSS aware that this policy was rejected by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA)?”

Mr. Vellacott explained: “Professor Downie and co-author Sanda Rodgers, in a 2006 guest editorial in the CMA Journal, ignited a firestorm of controversy when they falsely claimed that CMA policy requires physicians to make abortion referrals regardless of their conscientious/religious beliefs. As Sean Murphy, Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project, points out in his recent news release, that claim was repudiated by the CMA and vehemently rejected by physicians. And partly as a result of that negative response, Professor Downie turned her attention to the regulatory Colleges to try to convince them to impose mandatory referral.”^iv

Earlier this month, Mr. Vellacott spoke out against a similar draft policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO). At that time, he expressed concerns that if the Supreme Court of Canada strikes down Canada’s current ban on euthanasia or assisted suicide, then CPSO’s policy would mean Ontario’s physicians would have a ‘duty to refer’ patients for these life-ending procedures. He stressed that no other jurisdiction that currently allows euthanasia or assisted suicide imposes such an obligation. ^v

“While the CPSO policy is not identical to the CPSS/CRG Model Policy, in principle it is the same—a coercive attempt to involve physicians in the killing of some of the most vulnerable members of our human family,” Mr. Vellacott said. “The sheer fact that these Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons feel that a coercive policy of referral for these controversial procedures is necessary, is itself testament to the fact that there is something inherently problematic about these procedures in the first place. If they were procedures just like any other medical procedure, there’d be no need to coerce physicians into sacrificing a fundamental part of who they are—their very consciences—in order to provide them.”

“No good can come from forcing a doctor to practice medicine in a way they find morally reprehensible. Killing the consciences of our medical doctors will cause inestimable harm to the people of Canada and society as a whole.”

“One cannot help but wonder, what is the real motivation of those pushing us down this dangerous path? And will we have the courage and wisdom and foresight to stop it?”

For information on providing input to CPSS on its draft policy, visit: http://www.cps.sk.ca/CPSS/CouncilAndCommittees/Council_Consultations_and_Surveys.aspx

– 30 –

For further information and comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249; email: maurice.vellacott.a1@parl.gc.ca

i The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan (CPSS) is currently seeking input on a conscientious objection policy dubbed “Conscientious Refusal,” which it has adopted in principle. This policy would require physicians who object to providing certain “legally permissible and publicly-funded health services” to “make a timely referral to another health care provider who is willing and able to accept the patient and provide the service.” In cases where the patient’s “health or well-being” would be jeopardized by a delay in finding another physician, the physician would be forced to provide the service even when it “conflicts with physicians’ deeply held and considered moral or religious beliefs.” See: http://www.cps.sk.ca/Documents/Council/2015%201%2019%20Conscientious%20Objection%20policy%20approved%20in%20principle%20by%20Council.pdf

ii http://carolynmcleod.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/04_Downie-McLeod-Shaw.pdf

iii http://conscience.carolynmcleod.com/meet-the-team/

iv “Saskatchewan physicians to be forced to do what they believe to be wrong,” Protection of Conscience Project news release, Jan. 27, 2015, 

http://consciencelaws.org/blog/?p=5548

v See Jan. 8, 2015 news release at: http://www.mauricevellacott.ca/2003%20MV%20Speaks/Jan.%208,%202015%20-%20MV%20Release%20-%20No%20legal%20%27duty%20to%20refer%27%20for%20euthanasia%20or%20assisted%20suicide%20anywhere%20in%20the%20world.pdf ; and Backgrounder at: http://www.mauricevellacott.ca/2003%20MV%20Speaks/Jan.%208,%202015%20-%20MV%20Release%20-%20No%20legal%20%27duty%20to%20refer%27%20for%20euthanasia%20or%20assisted%20suicide%20anywhere%20in%20the%20world%20-%20Backgrounder.pdf

MP questions CIDA due diligence insuring IPPF isn't funding abortions

We now have more cause for concern regarding CIDA/DFATD's $6 million funding of IPPF.

In an ATIP to DFATD I asked for correspondence regarding the Muskoka initiative on maternal and child health.to the PMO and CIDA.

This yielded a few letters, but one in particular was noteworthy.

On October 27, 2011, in a very detailed letter from MP Maurice Vellacott to Stephen Harper, Mr. Vellacott voices his concerns to the Prime Minister by asking seven questions about the $6 million funding IPPF received as part of the Muskoka initiative. (see below for Mr. Vellacott's letter and the responses from Mr. Harper and Ms. Oda).

In a nutshell, Mr. Vellacott's questions what due diligence is in place to ensure the funding would not go to pay for any abortion services, as was stipulated by the contribution agreement between CIDA and IPPF. All pertinent questions I thought, some of which I've also asked myself to CIDA/DFATD. (For all my links to the CIDA/IPPF funding see this page.)

The Prime Minister doesn't answer any of Mr. Vellacott's questions. Not one. And then the PM simply forwards Mr. Vellacott's letter on, to then Minister Bev Oda, who also doesn't answer any of his questions. Not one. In fact Ms. Oda's reply is obviously a form letter, since it is exactly the same as all of her responses to the other letters in the package.

So why were Mr. Vellacott's questions never answered?

MP Maurice Vellacott chooses equal shared parenting bill C-560 - for the sake of the children

Of four items of equal merit, Vellacott selects equal shared parenting bill C-560, for the sake of the children

For Immediate Release                                                                     January 31, 2014

OTTAWA – MP Maurice Vellacott gave the following statement in the House of Commons today, announcing which initiative he was bringing forward for debate in Parliament this spring:

Mr. Speaker, I have had a difficult decision to make. I have 4 items on the Order Paper, and all of them are of great importance. One is a democratic reform initiative, and two are explicitly pro-life measures. One bill I have on the order paper is for the sake of the children. They all deserve to proceed in this place, but regrettably I can only choose one at this time.

I have selected Bill C-560 to move forward to 2nd reading debate in this Chamber. It is my bill to amend the Divorce Act to make equal shared parenting a rebuttable presumption in cases of marital breakup involving children.

Aside from proven abuse or neglect, over three quarters of Canadians want equal shared parenting to be the presumption in our courts when marriages unfortunately break down. Research clearly demonstrates that equal shared parenting is in the best interests of children.

Also based on conversations I have been a part of, I have good reason to believe that the other 3 items I have on the order paper will be picked up in due course by other good MPs who have spine and foresight. And for that I am also truly grateful!

– 30 –

For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249

Why we need Motion 490

I think the timing of Maurice Vellacott's Motion 490 is perfect.

M-490 would change the votability process for Private Members' Business through amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

Mr. Vellacott wrote this in his backgrounder on Motion 490:

Examples of how the current votability determination process has failed  

The most recent and obvious example was Mark Warawa's Motion 408 in 2013. Mr. Warawa appealed the PMB Subcommittee's non-votability ruling to the PROC committee. The members of PROC, which upheld the subcommittee's decision, conducted their deliberations behind closed doors--even MPs who had attended the meeting as observers were told to leave.

I have been compiling the results of my most recent ATIP to the PCO on that very Motion of Mr. Warawa's.

I had asked for all correspondence from the public and from the media, to Prime Minister Harper, regarding Mark Warawa's motion 408.

In other words, I was looking to see how much support there was for Motion 408.

What I learned, was that the Prime Minister received a total of 699 individual emails/letters. Of these 699 letters, there were only two letters against the motion.

That's two letters against the motion. 2 letters. Two letters. T-W-O letters.

Without putting too fine a point on it (pun intended), that means that only point three percent (.3%) of Canadians were against Motion 408.

In one of that large number of against-the-motion letters, the letter writer simply provided the Prime Minister with some of Joyce Arthur's usual pro-abortion nonsense on the subject.

Letter #1:

The second against-the-motion correspondence, is listed below, and includes the letter writer's original email. Then the PM's response. Then the writer's additional response to the PM's response.

Letter #2:

Dear Prime Minister Harper and Minister Ambrose:

Just one day after Minister Ambrose finally acknowledged that the majority of Canadians have no interest in debating abortion, the Canadian Press is reporting that (text blacked out) used House of Commons letterhead to request that the RCMP investigate any abortions performed after 19 weeks in Canada as possible homicides.

Not only do these MPs pretend ignorance of Section 223 of the Criminal Code, which excludes a fetus from the definition of human being in relation to homicide law, they implicitly challenge the constitutionally protected right and freedom of women to choose to have safe, legal abortions.

I note, too, that House of Commons time has been taken up with numerous anti-abortion petitions since the defeat of Motion 312, and that, if legislative experience in the U.S. on the matter of a ban of sex-selective abortion serves as an indicator, more time will be taken up in defeating the equally unwanted Motion 408.

When will the government shut down the useless and tremendously costly anti-abortion lobbying such as (text blacked out) currently wallow in? 

I look forward to your response.

The PMO responded with this:

Please know that your e-mail message has been received in the Prime Minister's Office and that your comments have been noted. Our office always welcomes hearing from correspondents and being made aware of their views.  

Thank you for writing.  

Sachez que le Cabinet du Premier ministre a bien reru votre courriel et que nous avons pris bonne note de vos commentaires. Nous aimons titre bien infonnes de ('opinion des correspondants.  

Je vous remercie d'avoir ecrit au Premier ministre.

To which the outraged letter writer responded:

Excuse me, I asked the Prime Minister to respond to my question: When will the government shut down the useless and tremendously costly anti-abortion lobbying such as (text blacked out) currently wallow in? He has not responded. Will he kindly respond?

So like Bill C-510, nearly all Canadians who wrote the Prime Minister on M-408 (99.7%), supported it. (Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 had 97% support)

So why doesn't the Prime Minister listen to the majority of Canadians? Why is he instead listening to only two Canadians? Is this the kind of people Mr. Harper is getting his advice from?

If it is, then I think Mr. Vellacott's newest Motion is just the thing we need.

Maurice Vellacott gives notice of motion on Democratic Restoration of Private Members’ Business

Nice motion Mr. Vellacott.

This is the fourth Motion of late that Vellacott has put on the Notice Paper. 

One is his equal parenting bill. And his other two Motions are here.

The only question left is, which one will Mr. Velacott choose? 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see which one he decides to go forward with.

For Immediate Release                                                                                  January 27, 2014

OTTAWA – MP Maurice Vellacott gave notice today of a Private Member’s Motion that would reform the way Private Members Business is conducted. The motion will be on the Notice Paper tonight.

The motion would fix a current vulnerability in the system that has led to a situation where a small group of MPs are able to control, often from behind closed doors, what issues are and are not allowed to be voted on in the House of Commons.

“Private Members’ Business is one of the few mechanisms a backbench MP has to speak out on issues of the day that are of deep concern to them and thousands of Canadians” said Vellacott. “Yet a handful of MPs who, for whatever reasons, don’t want an issue to come to a vote, actually have the power to prevent their colleagues in the House from voting on that issue” Vellacott said, “--even if a majority of Canadians want that issue to be voted on! That kind of a muzzling is a blight on democracy!”

“The motion I am proposing is a bulwark against arbitrary and capricious decision-making when it comes to Private Members Business. Were this motion to pass, decisions on the votability of private members’ bills and motions would be made in a fair and objective fashion, free from any sort of political interference or shenanigans. It will be an important step forward on the road to restoring Canadians’ trust and confidence in our political institutions.”

Vellacott concluded: “This motion will help prevent the erosion of democracy and transparency in Parliament. It will help to restore respect for the rights of individual MPs from all parties to represent Canadians on significant issues. And it will help to restore our freedom to stand up and be counted.”

Protecting the innocent - why man invented criminal law

In December in the National Post, Mike Schouten commented on Maurice Vellacott's motions M-482 and M-483.

Schouten said:

"The Supreme Court justices of 1988 would never have anticipated a 25 year legal vacuum surrounding the rights of children before birth. They struck down Canada’s abortion law on constitutional grounds, but were very clear that it was the mandate of Parliament to enact new laws protecting pre-born children. In fact, even Justice Bertha Wilson opined as to where protections should be placed when she said, “The precise point in the development of the fetus at which the state’s interest in its protection becomes compelling I leave to the informed judgment of the legislature which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines. It seem to me, however, that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester.” In light of this judgement, as well as more recent jurisprudence in this area, it is entirely appropriate for Parliament to study the impact of the status quo in our law."

A letter writer didn't agree that an abortion law was needed. The letter writer said:

"Any law that is designed to deal with emotional issues and issues linked to biology is inherently flawed. Laws cannot impose compassion and understanding. I feel that any woman who is contemplating aborting her fetus is in acute need of support or treatment. It follows that any action that addresses her mental, emotional or physical health is to be decided as an individual case. The law is not the instrument of choice to handle such a situation."

I responded with this letter:

Letter-writer Ruedi Mueller feels that a law is unnecessary to protect the unborn, as “any law that is designed to deal with emotional issues and issues linked to biology is inherently flawed.” Since crimes against humans always involve emotions (like rape or murder), his reasoning makes no sense. We create laws to protect the innocent; it is exactly why man invented criminal law. Preborn children are the prime victims in abortion and they are incapable of protecting themselves. As a civilized society, it is up to the rest of us to make sure that we provide that legal protection. 

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

MP Maurice Vellacott puts two motions on the Notice Paper

As Mike Schouten, director of WeNeedaLAW.ca points out, Mr. Vellacott has given Canadians two early Christmas presents.

See here for Mr. Velacott's Private Members' Notices of Motions.

M-482 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to: (a) study the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada since 1988 related to children before birth in order to understand what the Supreme Court has said about Parliament’s responsibility with respect to resolving public policy questions in this area; (b) propose options that the House and/or the government could take to address any negative impact these decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada may have had, directly or indirectly, on women, men, children and Canadian society; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee report its recommendations to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.

M-483 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to determine what legal protections Canada ought to provide to children before birth, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada ratified in 1991, which states that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth“; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-Chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee present its final report to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.

MP Maurice Vellacott speaks out

MP Maurice Vellacott sent this letter to Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (the old CIDA) regarding the drug Jadelle which we Canadians are paying for. A drug that isn't good enough for Canadians, but apparently just fine for Tanzania.

 

I'm looking forward to hearing Mr. Rochon's response.

 

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

 

September 26, 2013

Paul Rochon

Deputy Minister of International Development
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
200 Promenade du Portage
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0G4
Fax: 819-953-3352

Dear Mr. Rochon,

The accompanying report provides evidence that Canadian foreign affairs bureaucrats have approved the use of Canadian taxpayer dollars to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) for a project that administered the sterilization drug Jadelle (Norplant-2) to Tanzanian women. Jadelle (Norplant-2) was developed by the Population Council.

Norplant-2 is not available in Canada. It is also not marketed in the United States, where Pfizer spent millions of dollars to settle a lawsuit with thousands of women over alleged harm caused by the contraceptive implant.

Canadian foreign affairs officials have funded this drug to be distributed to Third World women, when it is viewed as harmful to North American women, and therefore not marketed in Canada or the US.

Besides the drug’s threat to women’s health, it is also highly unlikely that women in Tanzania were given adequate information about the drug to provide truly informed consent for the implant.

If the drug companies can't make Jadelle available in Canada and America, due to negative health repercussions for women here, why the double standard? Why is it good enough for women in Third World countries, especially when this is contrary to the goals and aims of our government’s maternal health commitment?

Our government made a strong commitment in 2010 to prioritize foreign aid funding to projects that contribute to maternal, newborn and child health. The information about sterilizing Tanzanian women with this troubling drug is found in an annual progress report on a 2013 project, and was uncovered by Canadian researcher Pat Maloney.

This report would indicate, then, that these foreign affairs bureaucrats are pursuing an agenda at odds with the Canadian public and with our government’s stated priorities. They are failing in the due diligence we expect from them when allocating Canadian funds to foreign aid projects.

There needs to be greater oversight of these foreign affairs employees, and their allocation of taxpayer dollars, to ensure that all their activities are consistent with our government’s priorities before we allocate further funding to them.

I am sending a copy of this letter to the Foreign Affairs Minister, and although it did not happen under his watch, I know he'll be rightly upset at this blatant undermining and sabotage of our Government's good international initiatives to improve maternal and child health in developing countries.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin

Cc. Hon. John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Who's stupid?

Oh yi yi, who peed into this guy's cornflakes?

Now I know we are all entitled to our opinion, but when that includes personal attacks about people we don't agree with calling them "stupid" and "bushwackers", well that's a different matter entirely:
"Bushwhackers embarrass PM - Ignorant of the law, three Tory backbenchers revisit abortion issue".

And "ignorant of the law"? Ah, no. Too bad the writer, Marc Bonokoski, didn't take ten or twenty seconds, to read the letter in question.

Now I wouldn’t call Mr. Bonokoski stupid or a bushwacker, but maybe if he had bothered to read the letter, he'd see that he was, how shall I put this, not the sharpest needle in the haystack. The letter was about the possibility of born babies dying, and nothing being done to help them.

The original letter, and clarification press release of the letter, explains why they wrote to the RCMP in the first place:
"Our request to the RCMP was not about the deaths of preborn children, but rather the deaths of children who had already been BORN ALIVE and who are, therefore, recognized as "human beings" in Canadian law.Section 223 (2) of our Criminal Code makes it a crime to cause injury to a child before or during birth as a result of which the child dies AFTER being BORN ALIVE. The Criminal Code calls it homicide. That is not our opinion; that is the law today."

Mr. Bonokoski also thinks that the letter to the RCMP written by Messrs. Velacott, Benoit and Lizon was unconscionable. Why? Because Mr. Harper stated that the abortion debate was closed, don't you know? Well I hate to break it to Mr. Bonokoski, but the letter wasn't about abortion.

I thought newspaper professionals were supposed to read stuff they're writing about. Apparently some don't need to.

Second, exactly what was "unconscionable" about this letter? I don't think Mr. Bonokoski knows the meaning of that word, but here's a hint, it's when you don't listen to your conscience. The MPs raised an issue that in good conscience they wanted to be investigated, so it wasn't unconscionable, got it?

Lastly, Mr. Bonokoski said:
"Until I grow a uterus and am able to bear children, it is absolutely none of my business and certainly outside my emotional and psychological purview."

So here's a question for Mr. Bonokoski. If you lived in a country where female genital mutilation is legal, I suppose you'd be okay with that too? After all it's also "absolutely none of your business and certainly outside of your emotional and psychological purview", right?

Illogical reasoning aside, here's the question I'd really like Mr. Bonokoski to answer. Why is he standing up for Mr. Harper and his "I won't reopen the abortion debate" mantra? I always puzzle when I hear someone say this, especially a newspaper person whose raison d'etre is supposed to be free speech (I thought), something that this mantra categorically dismisses. So what is that all about anyway?

I wonder. Is this guy trying to get some kind of brownie points in his weird Mr. Harper adulation? Maybe he's wants to run for the Conservatives and become an MP.

Mr. Bonokoski says he sought the Canadian Alliance nomination in the federal riding of Nepean-Carleton in 2000. Does he not realize that the policy of the CA and the policy of the existing Conservative party is that individual MPs have the freedom to vote their conscience on these moral issues? So it's a good thing that voters rejected Bonokoski because he didn't even know CA policy, and it seems like he still doesn't.

Perhaps he harbours some bitterness over his loss in Nepean-Carleton due to his pro-abortion world view that compels him to lash out at anyone who might have the courage to stand up in defense of Canada's most vulnerable citizens? Could that be it?

Or maybe he wants to become Minister for the Department of Diputs Elpoep. Could be.

Fact checking works wonders

It's been an interesting week for abortion politics.

The week got off to a shaky start when a Canadian Press article on the 25th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision came out with some factual errors, and was subsequently picked up by pretty much every media outlet:
"It's been 25 years to the day since the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that criminalizing abortion violated a woman's charter rights."
and
"The Canadian Institute for Health Information says at least 64,000 abortions were performed in Canada in 2010, the most recent year for which information is available."

I sent CP an email and told them that no, the Supreme Court never ruled that criminalizing abortion violated a woman's charter rights, and that those 64,000 abortions are grossly under reported because:
"A) Quebec did not report their statistics for 2010 at all. B) It is not mandatory for clinics to report abortions, and many do not. C) all the abortions done in private physicians offices are not captured at all. There were at least 44,000 abortions done in Ontario alone in 2010 (only 28,765 were reported by CIHI for Ont. in 2010. My numbers are based on freedom of information requests I did of the Ont Min. of Health based on Dr's OHIP billings. BTW Ont recently excluded abortion services from FOI's). See here:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/05/revised-2010-ontario-abortions-tell-sad.html

Then later in the week Maurice Vellacott issued a press release, which anyone who actually bothered to read, would see it contained a very significant bit, about abortions resulting in live births--that the Canadian Press once again, didn't immediately report the live births variable.

The media reports came out saying that three MPS wanted the RCMP to investigate any/all abortions after 19 weeks as possible homicides. Even Mr. Harper and other MPS in the House of Commons were all on about, their favourite topic: "not reopening the abortion debate."

That wasn't even what we are talking about people. Once again, most of the major media outlets picked up the wrong information.

Again I contacted the CP. Finally on Friday I heard back from them and was assured that they had updated their reports. Thank goodness.

Watch MP Maurice Vellacott discuss the born alive abortions with CBC.

Take particular note of NDP Niki Ashton who talks about something--abortion--that Mr. Vellacott is not talking about. Ms. Aston says that it is an "egregious statement equating abortion to murder." It's too bad she didn't actually listen to Mr. Vellacott, because that isn't what he's saying at all. He's talking about babies left to die after an abortion.

Now I have no problem with educating the mainstream media and NDP MPs about abortion, and in fact it's kind of fun. But maybe they should check out some of the facts for themselves before speaking to the world about it. I have to do that, so why shouldn't they?

(In today's paper, at least the National Post gets it right here and here: And yesterday CFRA got it right too after some not so right newscasts the night before.)

We're staying

What is wrong with the majority of MPs in this country? Some are brave. And the rest? Well, I'll leave you to answer that question for yourself.

I just received a press release from MP Maurice Vellacott. He forwarded on an email he received from a Debbie Fisher who was shall I say, less than pleased with MP Bob Rae's comments regarding Mr. Vellacott nominating Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner for the Queen's Jubilee medals. Mr. Rae had said:
"By encouraging others, this could clearly be interpreted as inciting others to break the law, which in itself is a criminal offence.”

Ms. Fisher replied:
"If memory serves me correctly it was the irresponsible Bob Rae government that caused this illegal temporary injunction in the first place and as a result of your disregard for women, thousands have now suffered the trauma of abortion without being fully informed of the consequences. I held a young girl in my arms yesterday who underwent an abortion 14 months ago at the Bloor clinic where Mary Wagner has been arrested. She told me they told her it was a short procedure to remove the "contents of the uterus" and she would be fine. Her marks have dropped, she has lived with guilt and remorse for over a year and she said she couldn't look at her boyfriend anymore because he reminded her of that day. Where is the counselling for this child who misses her child? Where are the resources for thousands like her? By the way Mr Rae, her child's name is Kaysen. My dead child's name is Noelle Marie. I was told to shut up when I started screaming for my child after my abortion because I was upsetting other people in the recovery room. I know better today that my child was not a blob of tissue and a mass of cells."

Then of course there was MP Stephen Woodworth's motion 312 that was defeated in in the House recently, a motion that simply asked to have a discussion on when a child becomes a human being.

Nope can't have that discussion.

And we can't discuss these things because some MPs are absolutely enthralled with that word "abortion", and its first cousin, "Women's rights". Can't talk about it. Can't think about it. Can't debate it. And please don't ask us to even talk about what a pre-born child is. No no no.

It has become so riduculous that even the Supreme Court has no idea what to even call a pre-born child:
"The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada is seldom at a loss for words. But even Beverley McLachlin stopped in her verbal tracks last month while hearing arguments in the matter of Regina v. Ivana Levkovic. The facts were enough to make you glad you’re not a judge: Levkovic, a former stripper from Mississauga, Ont., was accused of leaving the body of her newborn daughter on her apartment balcony, to be found—badly decomposed in a plastic bag—by her landlord when she vacated.

Levkovic was charged under Section 243 of the Criminal Code, which forbids concealing the body of an infant “whether the child died before, during or after birth.” But pathologists were unable to determine whether Levkovic’s baby was born alive or dead, and under Canadian case law, a child has no legal rights before it has emerged from the womb. By using words like “child,” “baby” or “girl,” therefore, the judges could be implying humanity on the part of the deceased. They’d also be undermining Levkovic’s defence: if an unborn child has no right to legal protection, her lawyers had reasoned, how could the law stand?

Thus began a kind of linguistic minuet, as the judges reached for acceptable nomenclature for a hypothetical baby that the law might not regard as a person. McLachlin tried “object” and “being” and, at one cringeworthy point, referred to it as “this, um, dead, um, whatever.” Her colleagues didn’t fare much better. During a discussion of the applicability of mens rea, Justice Michael Moldaver, a former criminal lawyer who joined the court one year ago, referred to the infant in such cases as “the thing.”

Our Supreme Court Justices. Don't know. What to call. An unborn child. A pre-born child. A human being. What. Is. Their. Problem.

So...we can only leave it up to some MPs who do some thing.

Like Mark Warawa's recent motion M-408 "That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination."

I wonder if those naysayer MPs like Mr. Rae and Mr. Harper, and all the rest of them, think we are going away? I hope not, because we aren't. Nope. We're here to stay.

The media - are they anti pro-life or am I imagining things?

The media is all in a flap about Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons receiving the Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee medals.

Andrea Mrozek gives us an excellent synopsis as to the story behind why pro-life heroes Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner keep going to jail. And it isn't because they are criminals:
In 1994, a “temporary” injunction was set up around some abortion clinics in Ontario at the request of abortion providers, violating freedom of expression and assembly. These protest-free bubble zones, generally with a radius of 60 feet from the actual clinic, included public sidewalk space. Linda Gibbons peacefully and quietly enters those boundaries.

Those asking for the injunctions claimed that abortion protesters were intimidating and harassing clients and staff. They argued women who had already made a decision about abortion needed to be protected from messaging that might offend them.

Pro-lifers, on the other hand, have long argued that women choosing abortions are not getting full information and support.

It is true that the injunctions go back to a time when abortion protest was more heated, in the direct aftermath of the Morgentaler decision of 1988, when Canada’s abortion laws were struck down.

Today, however, there is a much different movement of abortion protesters outside clinics. They hand out literature and in some cases, openly pray. Linda Gibbons, who has spent nine years in jail over the past two decades for refusing to stay outside of the bubble zones, has signs that read: “Why mom? When I have so much love to give.”

In fact, as Ms. Mrozek says:
"Karla Homolka, Canada’s notorious and violent sexual offender, didn’t spend much more time behind bars than Linda Gibbons has."

Maurice Velacott gave us his reasons for the medals:
"Unlike the Justice Minister, Vellacott was unable to award these medals to the victims of crime, because these baby victims are dead, so instead the award to those “heroines of humanity” Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons who are trying to protect defenseless, voiceless human beings in the womb from butchery and death, and trying to let vulnerable women know that there are other options and support and adoption possibilities. It’s what you would expect in a caring compassionate society."

Hard to argue with that logic.

And my own letter today in teh Ottawa Citizen although I couldn't find it on line:
"I was very pleased to hear that Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons have won Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee medals for the work they do in their advocating for the saving and protection of preborn children. These women, at great risk to themselves, are willing to go to jail for their belief that the killing of the weakest of the weak is wrong.

According to Wikipedia, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, "in spite of the risks to himself—loss of career, prison for years or for life—he decided to perform safe, sterile abortions for women and, at the same time, challenge the law." For Morgentaler's civil disobedience and his belief that abortion should be a "woman's right" at the expense of the unborn child, he won the Order of Canada.

At least Mary Wagner's and Linda Gibbons' civil disobedience is for the purpose of saving lives, not taking lives."

So the summary, of the summary, as to why Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner deserve these medals:

These women are not criminals; Ms. Gibbons spent not much less time in prison than notorious murderer Karla Homolka; Mr. Vellacott couldn't give the medals to dead babies; unlike Henry Morgentaler, Ms. Gibbons' and Ms. Wagner's goals are to save babies and help their mothers, while Morgentaler kills babies and harms their mothers.

So give it a rest media.

How Harper hid his agenda that was hidden

In a bold move yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper held a press conference in support of three back bench Conservative MPs. He was also surrounded by his entire 165 member caucus. He issued this statement:

I just want to tell all Canadians, that Brad Trost, Maurice Velacott and Leon Benoit, who spoke out against International Planned Parenthood, did this on their own.

What they did, one after the other, in quick succession, quickly and decisively, was to protect me from those who would accuse me of reopening the abortion debate. I have always kept my promise not to reopen the abortion debate. I said this from day one. That I would not reopen the abortion debate. I have kept this promise.

This is how I accomplished it.

When I was first elected in 2006, pro-choice Canadians kept saying I had a hidden agenda. They said that if I were elected, I would reopen the abortion debate. I said I would not reopen the abortion debate. I held firm and did not reopen the debate. I refused to talk about abortion. I was elected Prime Minister, albeit with a minority government, and I continued to promise not to reopen the abortion debate.

You may recall that in January of 2010 I announced my maternal and child health initiative to help mothers and their children in third world countries. This initiative did not include abortion. Shortly thereafter, the Liberals insisted abortion be included in the initiative and they brought forward a motion to include abortion in my initiative.

I, of course, as already stated, did not want to reopen the abortion debate. In fact in March of 2010, I clearly recall saying "we do not want a debate, here or elsewhere, on abortion." I remember I said that. I then instructed my caucus to vote against the motion. The motion was defeated. Even though abortion was on the table, it wasn't me who put it there. The Liberals did. I did not reopen the abortion debate.

Then this year, before I received my first ever majority government, one that I really, really wanted, I continued to tell everyone I would not reopen the abortion debate. I repeated this. Many times. Over and over again. I held firm to this promise.

Last week, Minister Bev Oda, promised International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) $6 million for family planning in third world countries. As many of you know, IPPF is one of the world's largest abortion providers. Their goal is to make abortion legal around the globe and to make abortion an international human right. Again, the abortion debate was on the table, this time opened by my faithful servant, Oda. But notice, once again, I did not reopen the abortion debate. Once again I did what I said I would do. I stuck to my guns so to speak (small pun there).

Now I stand before you, with my entire caucus, with my coveted majority government, and I say to you: I never once reopened the abortion debate. I still have no intention of reopening the abortion debate. I will never reopen the abortion debate. The abortion debate will never be reopened by me.

Abortion is now on the table, it has been unhidden from where it lay hidden all these years. And still I stand firm with my promise never to reopen the abortion debate.

I can never be accused of reopening the abortion debate. I have kept my promise.

Thank you.

DISCLAIMER: All characters and events portrayed in this posting are a satirical examination of the abortion debate in Canada. Some readers may not share this sense of humour.

Pro-life MP speaks out (part deux)

Maurice Vellacott, MP
Saskatoon-Wanuskewin

The Dupes of Hazard Reruns - International Planned Parenthood’s Weasel Words, Dishonesty, Deceit and Death

For Immediate Release                                                           September 30, 2011

OTTAWA – Member of Parliament Maurice Vellacott commented today on IPPF’s deceitful language on abortion to con the Canadian government for taxpayer dollars under the Muskoka Maternal/Child Health initiative.

IPPF had revised and resubmitted its funding proposal to CIDA after the 2011 election. http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/09/22/pol-planned-parenthood-funding.html

“The IPPF is trying to dupe us into believing that because Canadian taxpayer dollars are going to countries where abortion is supposedly illegal, the money won’t be spent on abortions,” says Vellacott.

“But we know in Bangladesh, for example, where Canada is funding, this nefarious organization will do early abortion which they euphemistically call ‘menstrual regulation’ by vacuum suction. If a woman hasn’t had her period in 8 weeks, they will do a ‘menstrual regulation’ – that’s an early abortion by another name.

“In this way, IPPF will be using Canadian taxpayer dollars for funding abortions directly or, to use other deceptive language, they will be ‘establishing non-pregnancy in the first trimester.’ http://www.ipas.org/Library/News/News_Items/Ipas_launches_country_program_in_Bangladesh.aspx

“So funding IPPF in these 5 countries contradicts a criterion for Prime Minister’s Stephen Harper’s noble initiative to save the lives of women and children in developing countries.

“Even in those countries where abortion is technically illegal, it’s naïve to think that Canadian tax dollars are not being used to promote abortion. One of IPPF’s main publicly stated goals is to aggressively dismantle abortion laws in each country around the globe and have abortion recognized as a universal human right.  “Sexual Rights: An IPPF Declaration”  http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/0DB48DF8-921A-47D3-AB23-A21CE2FB83EB/0/IPPFsexualRightsPocketsize.pdf

“Under the guise of ‘education’ Canadian taxpayer dollars will be used to advance IPPF’s unfounded claims that abortion is necessary to prevent maternal deaths, when in fact abortion does great harm to women. http://www.mauricevellacott.com/Newsroom/March%205,%202010%20-%20AAPLOG%20letter%20re.%20Joyce%20Arthur%20assertions%20on%20abortion.pdf

“In addition, 6 million Canadian taxpayer dollars to IPPF frees up money from other sources to fund abortions directly.”

Vellacott continued: “Earlier this week we heard that a US Congressional Committee is investigating the national chapter of IPPF in America, for financial irregularities and concerns about the cover-up of sex trafficking of women. http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/27/congress-to-investigate-planned-parenthood-abortion-business/ PPFA has also covered up cases of incest and the rape of minors. There are also reports of their racial/ethnic targeting, for example, against Blacks and Hispanics. http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html ^, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/29/report-proves-planned-parenthood-targets-blacks-hispanics/

“IPPF has come a long way in sanitizing its language to disguise its true agenda since the days of its founder, Margaret Sanger, the leading exponent of the modern eugenics movement. Sanger was much more direct about her motives. Sanger freely criticized charitable programs that helped poor pregnant women and their children whom she referred to as ‘dead weight of human waste.’ “The Pivot of Civilization,” by Margaret Sanger, Chapter 5: “The Cruelty of Charity” at http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_05.html And her ‘plan for peace’ included ‘a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation’ for those she deemed ‘unfit.’“A Plan for Peace,” by Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108) at http://roaringrepublican.com/blog/2010/08/21/text-of-a-plan-for-peace-by-margaret-sanger/

“But Planned Parenthood’s coded language today doesn’t fool me,” Vellacott concluded. “This controversy over funding will in the end have a positive effect. It will have exposed the lies and destructiveness of IPPF’s agenda, and it exposes what this abortion giant is surreptitiously trying to achieve worldwide.

“It’s still not too late to stop this 6 million dollar misappropriation of Canadian taxpayer funds, because IPPF does not meet the criteria of our commendable maternal and child health care initiative. IPPF will be doing abortions by another name.”

– 30 –

For further comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249

1 http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2011/09/22/pol-planned-parenthood-funding.html

2 http://www.ipas.org/Library/News/News_Items/Ipas_launches_country_program_in_Bangladesh.aspx

3 “Sexual Rights: An IPPF Declaration”  http://www.ippf.org/NR/rdonlyres/0DB48DF8-921A-47D3-AB23-A21CE2FB83EB/0/IPPFsexualRightsPocketsize.pdf

4 http://www.mauricevellacott.com/Newsroom/March%205,%202010%20-%20AAPLOG%20letter%20re.%20Joyce%20Arthur%20assertions%20on%20abortion.pdf

5 http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/27/congress-to-investigate-planned-parenthood-abortion-business/

6 http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html

7 http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/29/report-proves-planned-parenthood-targets-blacks-hispanics/

8 “The Pivot of Civilization,” by Margaret Sanger, Chapter 5: “The Cruelty of Charity” at http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/abortion_eugenics/sanger/sanger_05.html

9 “A Plan for Peace,” by Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108) at http://roaringrepublican.com/blog/2010/08/21/text-of-a-plan-for-peace-by-margaret-sanger/

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

Some pretty interesting reading there on Margaret Sanger and her "legacy", International Planned Parenthood. Quite the pair those two.

It's time to stop giving Canadian tax dollars--that would be my tax dollars and your tax dollars--to IPPF for abortion promotion.