MPs should respond to constituents

I just received the latest newsletter from my MP, Mona Fortier. She opens her newsletter with this: 

"with the election behind us and the swearing-in of the new government...I want to sincerely thank you for once again placing your trust in me. It's an honour to represent you, and I remain committed to serving every member of our community--no matter who you voted for...my door is always open."(emphasis added) MP Mona Fortier 

Since it's an honour for my MP to represent me, one would think that she would have the courtesy to reply to my letter -- no matter who I voted for. (I have now asked her four times for an answer. No response.)

Her newsletter contains the usual Liberal talking points about how much the government is going to do, but not a single word about where that money is going to come from to do it. 

She did have time to write the newsletter and have 14 pictures taken of herself to include in her newsletter, but not 10 minutes to answer my letter.

The role of an MP is supposedly:

"The member of parliament represents his constituency through service in the House of Commons. This does not mean, however, that he spends most of this time sitting in the House, or even that attendance there is the most important part of his work. An MP spends far more of his working life outside the House than in it … . The job is people-oriented, involving talking about and listening to ideas, proposals, and complaints, reconciling opposing viewpoints, explaining party or government policy to citizens and citizens’ views to party and government, getting action out of the government on problems of constituents, and examining how the government uses or abuses the power it exercises on behalf of the people of Canada." (Emphasis added)

Just answer my questions. It's your job to do so. Even if I didn't vote for you.

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

What Feminism and Liberalism have done for women

Lucinda Creighton was Fine Gael TD in Ireland. Up until today that is.

(TD stands for Teachta Dála, and is a member of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas, the Irish Parliament).

She said:

"When a politician in good conscience promises matter and on such a fundamental issue, she could not in conscience support what was proposed."

Ms. Creighton voted against a section of her party's Bill, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy. The section was on the risk of loss of life from suicide. She was automatically expelled from her party. She had been a member of Fine Gael since she was 18. She is now 33.

She had an amazing speech before the vote that is well worth the read. Here is only a small part of that speech:

"...I have never regarded myself as a pro-life campaigner. I was not motivated to become active in politics because of the abortion issue. In fact I have spoken previously about the fact that I held a very different view on this matter when I was a student.

However, after much reflection, my views have evolved over the years; as I learned more about the topic, as I came in contact with friends and family affected by abortion, and as I matured and developed my own independent analysis of this most sensitive topic.

Crucially for me I stepped outside the “groupthink” which I genuinely believe dominates this debate in Ireland. It seems that if you do not succumb to the accepted view that abortion is a “liberal issue”, a “women’s rights issue”, a cornerstone of the “progressive agenda”, then you are deemed to be a backward, illiberal, Neanderthal fundamentalist who belongs to a different era. The distinct irony of this prevailing view, is that it is so illiberal in its intolerance of any alternative outlook.

Yet, when one steps back from the stifling groupthink, and reflects, I think one arrives at a different view. I am a woman and I am happy to say that I am also very much in favour of women’s rights. But by that I mean all women. Not just adults or adolescents or children – I mean babies too.

The sad reality, as we look around the globe at how women’s rights are advocated, promoted and defended, it is clear to me that abortion is in fact, often a tool for the oppression of women.

Look at China, India, Korea and indeed some parts of Europe and the United States. The societal preference for boys over girls has led to the obliteration of tens of millions of baby girls who were simply never born. A famous feature carried by the Economist magazine in 2010 showed just how females are discriminated against in this age of abortion.

One paragraph from that edition of the Economist jumped out at me and frightened me:

Until the 1980s people in poor countries could do little about this preference: before birth, nature took its course. But in that decade, ultrasound scanning and other methods of detecting the sex of a child before birth began to make their appearance. These technologies changed everything. Doctors in India started advertising ultrasound scans with the slogan “Pay 5,000 rupees ($110) today and save 50,000 rupees tomorrow” (the saving was on the cost of a daughter’s dowry). Parents who wanted a son, but balked at killing baby daughters, chose abortion in their millions.

It would be bizarre if we, as legislators and hopefully, as thinkers, did not ask the obvious question “What is the net difference” between such screening followed by intentional gender-based abortion, and the intentional killing of that baby after delivery? The answer is of course none.

The net effect is exactly the same, which is to say that an innocent baby, is simply wiped out. The scale of this exercise is such that in China, by the year 2020, there will be 30-40 million less women than men walking the earth, growing up, having families, going to work and generally contributing to society . 30-40 million less women is hardly a triumph for feminism or liberalism..."

The woman lost her high-profile political job, because she had to be true to her beliefs.

Here is her statement after losing her job:

“I am deeply disappointed to have to vote against the Government’s abortion Bill today. I never wished or expected to be expelled from the Fine Gael parliamentary party. This is the party I have worked for unstintingly since I was 18 years old. I will, of course, continue to be a Fine Gael member.

I feel deeply and strongly that aspects of this Bill are based on flawed logic and absolutely zero medical evidence. I could not vote for it, particularly in light of Fine Gael’s clear commitment not to introduce abortion prior to the last election. Promises matter in politics, but particularly in relation to matters of life and death. This is a promise I could not renege on in any circumstances.

I believe that I have made the correct decision."

Quite the courageous person. Quite the courageous, young female political person, who also just happened to be a Minister. What a great example for Canadian female MPs.

Who will the MPS listen to?

Check out Ted Gerk's excellent analysis of what Chief Justice Bertha Wilson said about abortion rights and abortion law. And about how Parliament is the place for debate on this subject to take place.

We already know only too well, how many Canadians are influenced by the extreme pro-abortion advocates in this country and it is unfortunate, since much of what they say is a perversion and twisting of reality. As Ted points out the pro-abortions even contradict themselves, changing their tune as they scoot along their merry pro-abortion way.

As a result of this loud and noisy revisionist nonsense, many Members of Parliament are also afraid to allow Canadians to debate abortion on any level, even when the discussion is only about a discussion on when does a child become a human being.

As for the pro-abortions, are they afraid of what might happen if we get to have this discussion? That their abortion rights house of cards might come tumbling down?

Let's hope our MPs use their own consciences today to decide for themselves whether or not Canadians should be allowed to discuss the point of Stephen Woodworth's motion.

Long winding road to read petition

(or Petitions 101)

On March 12, 2012, I emailed my Member of Parliament Mauril Belanger, and asked him to read a petition with 25 signatures. I was told by his office to send them in, which I did, and by which time I  had 50 signatures.

This was my petition:
"Whereas Canada is the only nation in the Western world and in the company of China and North Korea without any laws restricting abortion; And whereas Canada's Supreme Court has said it is Parliament's responsibility to enact abortion legislation; Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible."

Simple, right? Wrong.

Now remember, I am not allowed to just waltz into the House of Commons any time I please, and stand up there and read my own petition in Parliament. No siree, I can't do that. I must follow the rules, and the rules say that I have to get my MP to do that (1).

I continued to email and call Mr. Belanger's office on a regular basis for the next two months, to ask if he would first of all, read my petition in the House, and second, when would he do it? I never got any absolute confirmation to either of these questions until May 24 when I was told it would be "tabled" in Parliament, but not "read".

Now I wasn't exactly sure what "tabled" meant and how that differed from "read". And this was not the first time Mr. Belanger's office had used this word. I always used the word "read", since that is what I asked my representative in Parliament to do for me: to "read" my petition. So I needed to do a bit of research.

There are two ways to "present" a petition. One is done orally by an MP (tabled and read in the House and written up in the Debates (Hansard) and Journal), and the other is to file it with the Clerk of the Petitions (tabled only and written up in the Journal only) (2). In both cases, the government responds officially to the MP. (3)

I thought about this and decided that no, if I couldn’t have my petition actually read orally in the House, and written up in the Debates, then I didn't want it just "tabled" (i.e. filed with the Clerk of the Petitions only). I wanted my petition back.

So on May 25 I called again and spoke with Mr. Belanger.

It was quite the interesting conversation.

I asked Mr. Belanger if he was going to read my petition. He said no. I said, okay, then I want it back unless you are going to read it. He said I will not read it and it has already been certified. I said I don't care what's happened to it, it's my petition and unless you are going to read it in the House I want it back. He said no. I asked him why he refused to read it. He said that it was his choice to read it, or not to read it. I am not kidding. I asked him if he was always rude to his constituents. He said he wasn't being rude. I said I want my petition back. He said no. I said I want my petition back. He hung up on me.

So I made a few phone calls...

And then, miracle of miracles, last Thursday I received another email from Mr. Belanger's office. This is what it said:
"Enclosed you will find the electronic link to the Hansard of yesterday. My colleague Sean Casey, Liberal M.P. for Charlottetown, presented the petition you had sent to my office, as per your wish that it be read into the record as opposed to being tabled."

Please refer to page 8574:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/House/411/Debates/130/HAN130-E.PDF

Halleluiah! My Petition had been read. In the House of Commons. By an MP. Which is all I ever wanted.

And here is what was said in the House of Commons, and is now in the Debates (Hansard) record:
"Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today, each of which may sound a bit familiar given the petitions that have already been presented today. The first one is on behalf of residents of the greater Ottawa area, including Gloucester, Nepean and Orléans. The petitioners point out that Canada is the only nation in the western world, in the company of China and North Korea,without any laws restricting abortion. They call upon the House of Commons to speedily enact legislation that would restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible. "

Persistence paid off.

(1) Presentation of Petitions
http://www.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch22&Seq=4&Language=E
"As outsiders are not permitted to address the House directly, petitions are presented by Members. Therefore, groups and individuals with petitions for the House must enlist the aid of Members to have their petitions certified and presented. Members are not bound to present petitions and cannot be compelled to do so; [53]  nevertheless, it is evident that many Members consider it a duty to present to the House petitions brought forward by citizens. [54]  The Member, whose role it is to make the presentation on behalf of the petitioners, is not required to be in agreement with the content of any petition he or she may choose to present, and no such inference is to be drawn. [55] 

(2) "Certified petitions may be presented in two ways: orally during Routine Proceedings, [62]  or by filing them with the Clerk of the House during any sitting of the House. [63]  In practice, the majority of petitions are presented during Routine Proceedings"

(eg. Statistics compiled by the Clerk of Petitions indicate that 2107 of 2361 petitions presented in the Second Session of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1996-97) were presented orally during Routine Proceedings)

"When petitions are presented during Routine Proceedings, the Members’ remarks are recorded, transcribed and printed in the Debates for that day. An entry is also made in the Journals, the official record of House proceedings. The petitions are listed as having been certified correct and presented pursuant to the Standing Orders. Petitions filed with the Clerk are of course not mentioned in the Debates, but they are listed in the Journals. Certified petitions once presented to the House (by either method) are then delivered to the Clerk of Petitions who is responsible for their reception and processing."

(3) Government Responses to Petitions  http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/PracticalGuides/Petitions/petitionsPG2008__Pg04-e.htm

Abortion petitions include 3,816 names

Further to my good news story about abortion related petitions being read in Parliament, I have learned the actual number of names on the petitions, and the MPs who read them.

I don't know, but I think we really need to continue doing this across the country. We need to continue gathering signatures and telling our politicians that we want protection for unborn children.

Here again are the links ARPA has on their website for the first two petitions below, here and here, for you to print and get more signatures.

We can't stop doing this.

Petitions Regarding Abortion

Presented in the House of Commons during the 1^st session of the 41^st Parliament

#1:

"Whereas Canada is the only nation in the Western world and in the company of China and North Korea without any laws restricting abortion;

And whereas Canada's Supreme Court has said it is Parliament's responsibility to enact abortion legislation;

Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to speedily enact legislation that restricts abortion to the greatest extent possible."

INQUIRY	Member of Parliament who presented the petition (riding of the MP)	DATE*	NUMBER OF SIGNATORIES
411-0374	Mr. Cannan (Kelowna-Lake Country)	Feb 1, 2012	138
411-0416	Mr. Rafferty (Thunder Bay-Rainy River)	Feb 7, 2012	139
411-0422	Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)	Feb 8, 2012	99
411-0455	Mr. Allison (Niagara West-Glanbrook)	Feb 13, 2012	113
411-0457	Ms. Charlton (Hamilton Mountain)	Feb 13, 2012	25
411-0484	Mr. VanKesteren (Chatham-Kent-Essex)	Feb 15, 2012	139
411-0493	Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)	Feb 15, 2012	25
411-0494	Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)	Feb 15, 2012	70
411-0495	Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)	Feb 15, 2012	66
411-0496	Ms. Shipley (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex)	Feb 15, 2012	50
411-0539	Mr. Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills)	Feb 29, 2012	47
411-0540	Mr. Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills)	Feb 29, 2012	220
411-0543	Mr. Tilson (Dufferin-Caledon)	Feb 29, 2012	25
411-0553	Mr. Komarkicki (Souris-Moose Mountain)	Mar 1, 2012	75
411-0563	Mr. Warawa (Langley)	Mar 1, 2012	25
411-0575	Mr. Sweet (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale)	Mar 2, 2012	194
411-0576	Mr. Rajotte (Edmonton-Leduc)	Mar 2, 2012	35
411-0587	Mr. Warawa (Langley)	Mar 5, 2012	41
411-0636	Mr. Tweed (Brandon-Souris)	Mar 12, 2012	89
411-0647	Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)	Mar 12, 2012	25
411-0648	Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)	Mar 12, 2012	85
411-0649	Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)	Mar 12, 2012	56
411-0650	Mr. Merrifield (Yellowhead)	Mar 12, 2012	64
411-0655	Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)	Mar 12, 2012	130
411-0656	Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)	Mar 12, 2012	44
411-0657	Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)	Mar 12, 2012	80
411-0673	Ms. Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar)	Mar 14, 2012	99
411-0674	Ms. Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar)	Mar 14, 2012	102
411-0686	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	79
411-0687	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	25
411-0688	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	25
411-0689	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	42
411-0690	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	25
411-0703	Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)	Mar 15, 2012	116
411-0711	Mr. Sopuck (Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette)	Mar 16, 2012	30
411-0729	Mr. Lunney (Nanaimo-Alberni)	Mar 26, 2012	40
411-0742	Mr. Cannan (Kelowna-Lake Country)	Mar 27, 2012	75
411-0769	Mr. Wallace (Burlington)	Mar 29, 2012	143
411-0777	Mr. Schellenberger (Perth-Wellington)	Mar 30, 2012	27
411-0829	Mr. Braid (Kitchener Waterloo)	Apr 5, 2012	50
411-0831	Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon)	Apr 5, 2012	92
411-0832	Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon)	Apr 5, 2012	29
TOTAL SIGNATURES			3,098

* Date the petition was presented in the House of Commons.

#2:

"Whereas Canada’s 400 year old definition of a human being says a child does not become a human being until the moment of complete birth, contrary to twenty-first century medical evidence;

And whereas Parliament has a solemn duty to reject any law that says some human beings are not human;

Therefore, we call upon the House of Commons in Parliament assembled to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending Section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect twenty-first century medical evidence."

INQUIRY	Member of Parliament who presented the petition (riding of the MP)	DATE*	NUMBER OF SIGNATORIES
411-0677	Mr. Hoback (Prince-Albert)	Mar 14, 2012	25
411-0685	Mr. McColeman (Brant)	Mar 14, 2012	26
411-0695	Mr. Mayes (Okanagan-Shuswap)	Mar 14, 2012	50
411-0704	Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)	Mar 15, 2012	99
411-0730	Mr. Lunney (Nanaimo-Alberni)	Mar 26, 2012	37
411-0733	Mr. Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills)	Mar 26, 2012	25
411-0768	Mr. Miller (Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound)	Mar 29, 2012	52
411-0780	Mr. Cannan (Kelowna-Lake Country)	Apr 2, 2012	25
411-0783	Mr. Woodworth (Kitchener Centre)	Apr 2, 2012	25
411-0810	Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)	Apr 4, 2012	52
411-0813	Mr. Kamp (Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge-Mission)	Apr 4, 2012	52
411-0828	Mr. Hillyer (Lethbridge)	Apr 4, 2012	75
411-0833	Mr. Strahl (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon)	Apr 5, 2012	96
TOTAL SIGNATURES			639

* Date the petition was presented in the House of Commons.

#3:

We, the undersigned Citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

That the Supreme Courte on January 28^th 1988 stated that it is for Parliament to enact the appropriate defences of its legitimate interest in the lives of all subjects, including those yet in the womb.

That a destructive vacuity in the Criminal Code has resulted in the failure of the Supreme Court to strike down the phrase ‘after becoming a human being’ (223(2)) along with the then Section 251 of the Criminal Code;

That this phrase has long exposed to destructive harm a child in anyone’s womb at anytime in Canada;

Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament consider restoring to the Criminal code the prudence it held prior to 1968, by removing the words ‘after becoming a human being’ from Section 223(2).

INQUIRY	Member of Parliament who presented the petition (riding of the MP)	DATE*	NUMBER OF SIGNATORIES
411-0249	Mr. Norlock (Northumberland-Quite West)	Dec 7, 2011	40
411-0357	Mr. Norlock (Northumberland-Quite West)	Jan 30, 2012	39
TOTAL SIGNATURES			79

* Date the petition was presented in the House of Commons.

GRAND TOTAL: 3,816

Source: Office of the Clerk of Petitions

Educating Francoise

On Sept 29, MP Françoise Boivin (NDP) said some curious things in the House of Commons, regarding the funding of International Planned Parenthood and the infamous "Women's rights" ideology:

She started with this:

"Mr. Speaker, women's rights should not be open for debate, yet members of the government seem to think they are. The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly ruled that access to abortion is a fundamental right."

Actually...the Supreme Court ruled no such thing. The Morgentaler decision never stated that abortion was a fundamental right at all. And they most assuredly didn't say it was a constitutional right.

Then Ms. Boivin said:

"Either the Prime Minister has lost control of his caucus or his government's new policy is to outlaw abortion and turn back the clock on women's rights. Which is it?"

Well...it's neither. I think we all know that Mr. Harper never loses control of his caucus. Come on, you know that. And outlaw abortion? For someone like Mr. Harper, who categorically refuses to even think about abortion, never mind discuss it, it would be kind of difficult to outlaw it, don't you think?

Then this:

"Mr. Speaker, I have the impression today that we have literally gone back 20 years to a time when another Conservative government wanted to again criminalize abortion. This is not the first time that a member of the Conservative caucus has attempted to attack women's rights. This is becoming routine. Will the Prime Minister put an end to these attempts and guarantee, once and for all, women's right to choose?"

I thought we covered this Francoise. How can the Prime Minister guarantee a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child, when no such constitutional right exists?

Then on Oct. 3 Ms .Boivin tried again:

"Mr. Speaker, last week, a Conservative member of Parliament said that his government was in the process of successfully modifying its approach to the abortion issue. On Friday, another Conservative MP said exactly the same thing. Is this government changing women's rights against their will or is the Prime Minister unable to control his caucus?"

Hmmm...I'm a woman. And last time I checked, nobody's changing my rights, either against my will or with my will.

And what about Mr. Harper losing control of his caucus? Well Francoise, like I said before, that's sort of impossible. Mr. Harper wouldn't know how to lose control of his caucus.

Mr. Harper to caucus:

"Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"you're the boss."

Mr. Harper:

I can't hear you! Who’s the boss?"

Caucus:

"YOU'RE THE BOSS!!"

Mr. Harper:

"That's better."

Ms. Françoise Boivin (Gatineau, NDP):

"Three Conservative MPs are trying in a roundabout way to reopen the debate on abortion. In Canada, abortion has been legal for decades. Clearly, some Conservative MPs do not accept that, even though a majority of Canadians do."

Well, you have that, um, wrong again. The majority of Canadians, unlike you Francoise, are not afraid of having an abortion debate." In fact 52% of Canadians said we should not be afraid of an open debate on abortion.

And did you know Francoise, that a majority of Canadians (61%) oppose government funding of all abortions? And that 72% of Canadians want legal protections for the unborn according to a recent Environics poll?

I bet you didn't know that either, did you? I was afraid of that.

And last but not least:

"Can the Prime Minister assure us that he will not allow a private member's bill on abortion to be introduced?"

Oh dear, now I'm really confused. Is it possible that a member of Parliament does not know the definition of a Private Member's Bill? Well just in case, I'll help you out...thanks to...well...to Parliament...you know....that place where you work?

"Public bills initiated by a Minister are referred to as "government bills", while those initiated by private Members are called "private Members' bills".

In other words, a private member's bill is for a member to introduce and not for a government to introduce. So Mr. Harper would have absolutely no say in allowing a private member's bill to be introduced or not. Understood?

So I'm just wondering Francoise, have you considered going back to school?

Is there a beam in your eye?

Open letter to Canadian Members of Parliament

Dear political leaders,

Next week you go will back to work. You will lead. But before you can lead, you must see. And before you can see, you must ask yourself the following question: Is there a beam in your eye? The beam of prejudice. Against the unborn.

May I suggest you set aside 25 minutes and listen to Father Frank Pavone's recent sermon on leadership? It's well worth the listen.

Fr. Pavone's sermon is based on Luke 6:39-42. Don't worry if you aren't a Christian, that's okay. Jesus is pretty easy to understand:

JESUS TOLD HIS DISCIPLES A PARABLE: Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit? No disciple is superior to the teacher; but when fully trained, every disciple will be like his teacher. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,' when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother's eye.

Fr. Pavone starts his story by telling us about a particular leader, Saint Peter Claver, a Jesuit priest.

Fr. Claver ministered to the slaves as they arrived in the slave ships in Cartagena, Colombia during the slave trade. Fr. Pavone tells us that some people criticized Father Claver and what he was doing. They said to him:

"they are just slaves, why are you getting so worked up about slaves?"

Fr. Pavone answers the question:

"...leadership means you must take the beam out of your eye first before you can see. The blind can't lead the blind. See first, then lead. We have beams in our eyes. We have to take them out. One of those beams is the beam of racial hatred. Racial hatred is just one category of hatred in general...we judge entire groups of people...we put them lower than other groups of people. This is a persistent mistake in human history and in the human heart."

So why are people so blind to it--that beam in their eye called prejudice? Because:

"It's so powerful, it's so subtle, it's so persistent, we are blinded by it. We try to be politically correct: Some will pride themselves and say oh yea, we got to be against racism...I hate racism, we got to eradicate it... and meanwhile they think about the unborn children and they say--oh it's only a fetus..."

This is what Fr. Pavone thinks about these politically correct people:

"You hypocrite...can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit? Equality! Social justice! Freedom for all! Legal abortion! You hypocrite. You blind guide. You fool. How and why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, and do not perceive the wooden beam in your own? Prejudice."

Are we hypocrites? Is Father Pavone right? Do we say we stand for equal rights for all--except the unborn? Are we leaders? How big is that beam in our eye? Can we lead with the beam intact?

I really hope you listen to it. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney