Government continues funding ideological LGBTQ and Abortion pet projects

The Canadian government has spent at least $5,321,040,714 ** on all things LGBTQ and or reproductive rights funding for as long as these grants have been recorded back to 2007. You can see the progression of the funding and how the number of grants increases every year. From 2007-2014 there are only three pages of data. From 2015 to the present there is a whopping 80 pages of data. Note also that there are only two projects identified for 2026 so far (early days).

With budget 2025 this preoccupation with LGBTQ funding and or reproductive rights funding will undoubtedly grow significantly in the coming months. In this budget:

• 'Gender' is mentioned 99 times; '2SLGBTQI+' is mentioned 19 times

• 'Gender-Based Analysis Plus' or 'GBA' is mentioned 23 times

(** NOTE on data: I have excluded any funding amendments so as to not duplicate dollars. This means that amendments that would have increased the funding dollars may be ignored, underestimating actual spending. Also there may be a few line items that may include the word pride and might not be of the LGBTQ pride variety.)

Liberal governments are obsessed with funding gender and abortion initiatives. Not just in Canada but around the world. With a staggering projected deficit this year of over $78 billion do we really need to let Liberal ideological pet causes be funded ad nauseum?

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.

A Christmas message for Justin Trudeau

This letter to Justin Trudeau and Chandra Arya, Patty Hajdu, Rachael Harder was forwarded to me.

December 18, 2017

The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau,
Prime Minister of Canada

Dear Justin,

As Christmas approaches, we are reminded of a young woman 2000 years ago who was about to give birth to her Son. But Mary and Joseph could find no room at the Inn, and so Jesus was born in a lowly stable.

This story touches the hearts of all people of goodwill, regardless of our faith backgrounds, because we intuitively know that a woman carrying an unborn child is in a vulnerable position. A new life is about to be born into the world, and we all want to give her the comfort and support she needs to give her child the best start possible.

I was so impressed when I read an article that appeared in Convivium magazine last year about how you and Sophie were financially supporting the good work of La Maison Bleu, a maternal-child healthcare centre in Quebec. You obviously recognize the importance of supporting pregnant moms in need. Some women have no family to support them through their pregnancies, and so the centres that support women and their babies (materially, emotionally, physically, etc.) address such an important need in our society.

Besides La Maison Bleu, there are many other organizations that support pregnant women in need. They are variously described as Crisis Pregnancy Centres, Pregnancy Care Centres, Birthright, etc. They do not make abortion referrals. Rather, they support women through their pregnancies and will also support women after their abortions.

Given you obviously do support efforts to help pregnant women deliver their children safely, I don’t understand why the Liberal Government (through Minister Patty Hajdu) would disqualify pregnancy care centres (such as the two in MP Rachael Harder’s riding) from the Canada Summer Jobs Program simply because these centres don’t make abortion referrals https://globalnews.ca/news/3914528/canada-summer-jobs-anti-abortion-anti-gay-groups/.

I fully understand that abortion-rights advocate Joyce Arthur has made numerous allegations against pregnancy centres, but such allegations are completely unfounded and have been thoroughly refuted in the document, “Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada Deceitful on Crisis Pregnancy Centres,” available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6MFo3VlR6b2lFbkk/view.

Many young people across various faith traditions do not support abortion. Many would want to help pregnant women in need, but would feel that they could not work at a place that supports abortion. The Liberal Government prides itself on respect for diversity.  Respecting the diversity of opinion on the abortion issue by allowing these young people to benefit from the Summer Jobs Program would show that “respect for diversity” is not just empty Liberal rhetoric, but a value that you and your Cabinet honestly support and are willing to defend.

And what about respecting the diverse views of pregnant women themselves? You cannot deny that there are at least some pregnant women in need of assistance who would want the support of people who share their values on the inherent dignity of all human life. Should we not treat these women with the same respect we treat other women and allow “pro-life” centres to receive government funding as well?

If your answer is that the Canadian Charter forbids the Government from enacting any policy that would protect pregnant women and their unborn children, I can respectfully assure you that you are mistaken. In the Supreme Court Morgentaler decision, all seven Supreme Court Justices agreed that Parliament has a state interest in the protection of the fetus. The Court struck down the specific abortion law that was on the books in 1988, not abortion laws per se and not because it found a Charter right to abortion. The Court made it clear that Parliament could enact legislation that would properly balance the interests of women and unborn children. This is, in fact, acknowledged by legal experts and pro-choice academics (see: http://www.morgentalerdecision.ca/notable-quotes/) --it is not simply “pro-life” or “anti-abortion” rhetoric.

As our Prime Minister, you have the power to ensure that vulnerable pregnant women in Canada will be given the best chance possible to bring their children safely to term. One way of doing this is by not excluding these pregnancy centres from the Canada Summer Jobs Program.

We Canadians are compassionate people. My hope is that our Government’s policies will reflect this and ensure there is always “room at the Inn” for pregnant women in need.

May the Peace and Joy of the Christmas season be with you, Justin, and Sophie, Xavier, Ella-Grace, and Hadrian; and may all that is True and Good guide you and your Ministers in 2018.

Merry Christmas!
Joyeux Noël!

BM

Immature people remove election signs - twice

I have been volunteering for Elizabeth de Viel Castel's campaign the past two weeks for the Stop the new Sex Ed Agenda party.

I put her election sign up on public property on Saturday. Monday morning the sign went missing. Monday afternoon I installed a new sign. This morning the sign was again missing.

The sign is situated right next to a Liberal sign and an NDP sign.

Who removed the signs? I don't know.

You know, this is not how democracy is supposed to work. If you, whoever you are, don't like what we stand for then don't vote for the party. Even better, run yourself. But to steal an election sign during an election is simply wrong, and frankly childish, although I'm pretty sure a child didn't do this.

This is the sign as it was on Sunday.

This is the missing sign Monday.

This is the sign re-installed Monday.

And today the sign is gone again.

The inconsistencies of Justin and Thomas

First we had Justin Trudeau and his own relentless war on science, while saying that a Liberal government would end the war on science. Now we have Thomas Mulcair saying this about his $15 a day daycare:

"Starting a family is not only good for that couple, it's good for the economy."

So if starting a family is good for the couple and the economy, why does Mr. Mulcair support abortion?

Why doesn't he instead help women choose birth over abortion? Why doesn't he instead really help women and outlaw abortion coercion? Why doesn't Thomas Mulcair do something good for women, for families and for the economy?

Imagine if instead of aborting 100,000 Canadians every year, Canadian women gave birth to them? Now that would be growing the economy.

(Note that this study by IMF shows that universal daycare harms children.)