Ottawa-Vanier - send a message to Patrick Brown

We social conservatives are a naive bunch.

First there was Stephen Harper. We thought he was pro-life. So we voted for him. Then he became leader of the party and he did nothing. And we said, well wait until he gets elected as prime minister. And he did with a minority government and he did nothing. And we said, well wait until he gets a majority. Then he got a second larger minority government and he did nothing. Then we said, well let's wait until he gets a majority. And he did. And he did nothing.

Suckers.

Next we had Patrick Brown who we thought was a social conservative. So we voted for him. He was against the sex education curriculum and abortion. Then he got elected. And now he's "changed his mind".

Suckers.

Notice the pattern here? Politicians who get elected because they court social conservatives, and we vote for them. Then once they get elected they turn their backs on us. I guess they think we are really stupid and that well, "hey if they don't vote for me who else will they vote for, the Liberals haha?" So we don't know what to do and we vote for them.

Suckers.

Well not this time.

In Ottawa Vanier we will be voting for a new MPP after Madeleine Meilleur decided to leave. I was going to vote for Andre Marin. In fact I have his sign in front of my house. After all, who else could I vote for--the Liberal candidate and get another Madeleine Meilleur who had no idea why her government decided to hide abortion information and probably still doesn't? I don't think so.

So I decided to vote for Elizabeth de Viel Castel, an actual social conservative who is against Kathleen Wynne's sex ed curriculum and abortion.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Let's not get fooled again.

How can Justin Trudeau present himself as being Catholic?

From SHEILA GUNN REID at Rebel Media:

"I'm pro-life. I believe that a unique and precious human life exists at conception. 

I say I believe it but what I mean is that I know it to be true, ethically, medically and spiritually. 

"We never really knew how Stephen Harper felt on the subject personally. He never proclaimed anything the way I just did. But as a man of principle, he realized that abortion is a matter of conscience. Stephen Harper understood that for many people, people like me, being pro-life is a matter of our very salvation. Asking us to be pro-choice is like asking us to literally sell our soul. So when the issue of opening up a debate about when life begins arose, Stephen Harper did not whip the vote. How could he ask anyone to put their soul on the line for the party? 

But that’s what Justin Trudeau is doing. He insisted all of his MPs be pro-choice. 

Trudeau made being pro-choice a condition for being given the green light to run as a Liberal party candidate. He really did. I'm not a theologian but I am a lifelong Catholic. 

Trudeau's position is a strange one for a man who presents himself as publicly Catholic and moreover it's totalitarian. How could anyone demand that a person of faith choose the Liberal party over their own moral convictions?"

A just society must protect the right to life for all humans

Fr. Yves included this in his homily today, regarding voting tomorrow:

"We must be informed by our Christian faith...respect for life and human dignity from conception to natural death. Any candidate or party that opposes that fundamental right cannot serve us to build a truly just society. It's the first of rights, the right to life of the unborn in the womb. If that right is opposed, it is violated, and we cannot build a just society."

Canada's shame: Leaders refuse to protect pre-born children

Mike Schouten in today's National Post:

"Justin Trudeau’s attempt to play wedge politics with the abortion issue fell flat at last week’s French language debate. This must have been disappointing for him as his position has been clear for some time: he supports every form of abortion — including for the sole purpose of terminating the lives of girl babies simply because they are female — at every stage of pregnancy. He even issued an edict stating that anyone who questioned the status quo was not welcome in the Liberal party. 

The de facto position of Thomas Mulcair and Stephen Harper is, in principle, no different. When questioned directly by Trudeau last Friday, Harper said the same as he has been saying for years, “My position for 10 years has been I don’t intend to re-open this debate...”

...In effect Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau all support sex-selective abortion. They care less about the fact that girls are targeted for abortion much more frequently than boys. Their refusal to act is a sign that they endorse this misogynistic practice in Canada. 

All three leaders also support late-term abortion. They show no regard for the reality that every year thousands of babies lose their lives by being aborted in the latter stages of pregnancy, after the stage when children of the same age are born, survive outside of the womb, and live productive lives as Canadian citizens..."

Mauril Belanger - assisted suicide and applause

There was another thing that came out of last night's debate. Mauril Belanger said:

"I have always voted for assisted suicide, never euthanasia. I will never support that."

What was depressing, was the big round of applause Belanger got for his support for assisted suicide.

We used to say it was tragic when someone committed suicide. Now we clap our hands.

Ottawa-Vanier - splitting the left vote

Interesting debate last night at Colonel By high school for Ottawa-Vanier candidates. I thought all the candidates did fairly well. Not too sure though about the Marxist-Leninist candidate, couldn't quite understand him and his thoughts weren't overly coherent.

There were a lot of the left leaning persuasion persons in the room and they seemed to applaud a lot for the NDP, Liberals, and Green parties. But it definitely wasn't a crowning of Belanger as I had feared.

There was some disruptive laughing/snickering/rudeness going on when Conservative David Piccini was speaking about how his party is allowed to vote with their conscience. I know that Harper controls his MPs pretty tightly, but really? Isn't it both the Liberals and NDP who don't even allow people into their party who are pro-life (and so never even get to vote their conscience) and NOT the Conservatives?

My take away from the debate is that I found the NDP and Green candidates were both quite strong, especially the NDP's Emilie Taman. Hopefully this will translate into taking away votes from Liberal Mauril Belanger who is well past his best before date.

Confessions of a pro-life bigot

Today I learned that I am a bigot. HJHORNBECK says so, because I am pro-life. So it must be true:

"When you tolerate bigots, they find safe harbour with you. And if the Conservatives regain power, Harper will find it harder to keep them under control…"

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, a bigot is

"a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)".

I must admit I'm confused though. Because if I am a bigot, what does that make Justin Trudeau, who refuses to accept pro-life people as members of his Liberal party?

Oh well. No matter.

So today this bigot, and her bigoted sister Maureen, went out to deliver flyer's in our riding of Ottawa-Vanier. Liberal Mauril Belanger has held this riding for 20 years. Time for a change I say. We're tired of having an MP who is pro-choice and whose party refuses to accept pro-life people as members of said Liberal party.

We've now delivered about 300 flyer's. We will continue to deliver flyer's until election day. Bigots that we are.

Ottawa Vanier - time to kick Mauril out

John Robson is voting Libertarian. I think I am leaning this way myself.

Yesterday on CFRA when Lowell Green had his Sephen Harper love-fest going on. He kept saying there were only three parties to vote for, Conservative, Liberal, and NDP. Good grief. What about Christian Heritage (which is who I would vote for if there was a candidate in my riding) or Libertarian? 

I contacted my Conservative candidate David Piccini to ask him his stand on abortion. Three times. No response. 

A friend said she had talked to him and that he is pro-life. If someone can't tell me what they believe in when I ask them, then I can't assume they really are pro-life, and if they are they better say something.

Here is what Coreen Corcoran, my Libertarian candidate, said when I asked her about her stand on abortion and euthanasia:

"The abortion debate, if reopened, will be long and difficult. I personally feel that where we need to start is with the fact that Canada does not have a law on the books making live birth abortions illegal. By the way, I was pleasantly surprised to see your name on an article from the National Post that I have referred to many times. I've heard arguments that this is rare and only done under very specific circumstances, but it is available nonetheless. As a Libertarian, the rights of the individual come first, and it would be pretty difficult to disagree that a full-term baby is not an individual. I also think science is going to be on the side of stricter laws at some point because we have technology available today that allows us to save premature babies born earlier and earlier. We seem to trumpet those success stories when the baby is wanted, but don't hear about it when the baby's life is terminated. 

In terms of when I think life begins, I don't have as solid an answer for you. Abortion should not be a form of birth control. With the availability of birth control and the openness about sex and sex education now, there really should be very few unplanned pregnancies anymore. I am not entirely against first trimester abortions. Women will still find a way to get them even if they are illegal, at the very least they need to be done in a safe environment. They should also only be done in rare cases.

On the topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide, I don't have a firm opinion at this time. I know all lives are important, but quality of life is important too. I have not done the research to understand how other countries have adopted it so I don't feel that I have enough evidence to give an educated opinion. But you have given me something to work on."

Of course Mauril Belanger is "pro-choice" following his pro-abortion leader Justin Trudeau.
(I wonder if the good people of Ottawa-Vanier realize just how "pro-choice" he is? If I have time I hope to drop off a flyer into all the mailboxes of people with Mauril lawn signs to educate them. And for crying out loud, the man's been in power for 20 years. Maybe a change is due folks?)

And well I didn't even ask the NDP, since their party is pro-abortion as well. 

Ms. Corcoran seems to be the most pro-life of all the candidates, so at this point she has my vote.

These people are not honourable

John Robson can't vote Conservative and neither can I.

"...Harper wrote his 1991 master’s thesis on “public choice” theory that, as his abstract put it, “policymakers are motivated by political goals, in particular electoral goals, rather than the social optima assumed by traditional macroeconomic policy prescriptions.” As a Reform MP and National Citizens’ Coalition president, he understood this to be a warning. Now he treats it as an operating manual. 

Power has corrupted him and his party. I wrote nearly two years ago that Harper is unfit for office because he lied to Parliament over the Wright-Duffy affair, insolently telling incompatible tales five days apart in October 2013, and lying about having contradicted himself. 

Instead of recoiling from this cynical deceit, his party enthusiastically embraced it. If they think him worthy of public trust, they aren’t either. 

It doesn’t matter where you look. The Tories talk tough in foreign affairs and praise the military. But they gut defence to fund cynical handouts. They rope in the rubes by feigning concern about traditional marriage, abortion and God. But they do nothing. Indeed, when Health Canada approved the abortion drug RU-486, this administration, which takes credit for every sparrow that takes wing in Canada, suddenly hid under the bed. 

Justice Minister Peter MacKay told reporters to talk to Health Minister Rona Ambrose. Ambrose passed the buck to Health Canada. Jason Kenney said nothing. (MP David Anderson condemned the decision but declined to be interviewed.) 

These people are not honourable. Indeed, they laugh at honour. They cherish the low blow, the devious tactic, the unprincipled bribe, in a relentless, sneering, partisan tone. People I know and like retweet Pierre Poilievre with vicious glee. I weep for them and my country..."

I'm hoping for a Christian Heritage candidate in my riding. Because also like Robson, I also can't vote Liberal and I can't vote NDP.

CHP Leader Calls on Harper to Protect Children From Radical Bureaucrats

Thu, July 30, 2015   |   Author: Rod Taylor   |     

Responding to yesterday’s announcement that Health Canada has approved the controversial abortifacient drug RU-486 (mifepristone), Christian Heritage Party leader, Rod Taylor, says it’s time for Prime Minister Harper and Health Minister Rona Ambrose to rein in bureaucrats who are implementing a radical social agenda with the apparent consent or approval of the government.

“This is just the latest breach of public trust that puts children at risk”, said Taylor, “in this case, pre-born infants, who are already under siege in Canada where there is no law to protect them right up to the moment of birth. The PM and the Health Minister surely knew this announcement was coming and if not they should have known. The debate over RU-486, which not only kills tiny babies but carries significant health risks for the unsuspecting women who use it, has been raging long and loud. For Health Canada to make this announcement on the eve of a federal election must be seen as a calculated move by this government to cater to the poor-choice lobby in hopes of retaining their collapsing grip on power. It won’t work of course; it never does. Those who compromise principles for power and sacrifice lives for personal advantage will find no respect, even from those they seek to please.”

The CHP leader said the Health Minister and the PM “certainly have a duty to protect children—born and pre-born—from anything which puts their lives and health at risk”. He expressed agreement with Mike Schouten, Director of WeNeedALaw, that the Health Minister should immediately issue an Interim Order suspending the decision of Health Canada. Taylor said that pro-lifers must hold the government to account if it will not act:

“The Minister cannot hide behind an arms-length approach. She has a solemn responsibility to protect children. The fact that 14 women have died in the US as a result of using RU-486 gives even more reason for Canadians to be alarmed and incensed that a government department designed to promote health should instead be used to implement death. Pregnancy is not a disease and RU-486 is not a cure. It is another money-grab by Big Pharma at the expense of innocent and trusting Canadians. We ask the PM and the Health Minister to act responsibly and prevent the tragic loss of life that will surely result from the public distribution of RU-486 in Canada”.

Taylor also called on incumbent Conservative MPs and aspiring Conservative candidates to use their influence—publicly and privately—to have Health Canada’s RU-486 approval put on hold. “Now is no time to remain silent”, he said. “Across the country, government ministers and MPs are busy making very showy displays of handing out taxpayer money to a variety of causes and projects in hopes of generating voter support at the polls. For government MPs and Conservative candidates to turn a blind eye to this blatant abuse of power would be shameful. Speak up! Now is the time to take a stand in defence of life and justice!”

The Christian Heritage Party of Canada is the only federal party committed to the “protection of innocent human life from conception until natural death”.

Letter to Justin Trudeau re: Planned Parenthood funding

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

Last week we learned that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is selling aborted baby parts for profit. PPFA is part of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). 

As you know, IPPF received $6 million from Canada for the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health initiative.

In light of the fact that we have a federal election coming up, I have two questions I would like you to answer for me.

Question 1) Back in 2010, then Liberal leader Bob Rae put forward a motion to fund abortion through the Maternal Health initiative:

"That, in the opinion of the House, the government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with the policy of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, and all other G8 governments last year in L’Aquila, Italy; that the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths; and that the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a “global gag rule” that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning."

As you know, 'the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options' in the Liberal's motion includes abortion, and IPPF is one of the major abortion organizations in the world.

Can you please tell me if you still support the $6M Canadians have given to International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) as part of the Muskoka initiative? 

Question 2) As current leader of the Liberal party, I haven't heard you speak out against Planned Parenthood's recent activities in selling aborted baby parts. Your silence on the subject to date, suggests you support these illegal activities of Planned Parenthood? Can you please confirm or deny this at your earliest convenience?

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Letter to Thomas Mulcair re: Planned Parenthood funding

Dear Mr. Mulcair,

In light of the fact that we have a federal election coming up, I have a question I would like you to answer for me.

Last week we learned that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is selling aborted baby parts for profit. PPFA is part of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

As you know, IPPF received $6 million from Canada for the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health initiative.

I understand that if elected you would restore funding for abortion under the Muskoka initiative (or under another similar initiative):

"The NDP would restore funding for abortion and family planning to Canada's keynote development initiative which promotes maternal, newborn and child health."

I haven't heard you speak out against Planned Parenthood's recent activities in selling aborted baby parts. Your silence on the subject to date, suggests you support these illegal activities of Planned Parenthood.

Since Canadians have funded IPPF in the past, and in light of these recent allegations of IPPF's activities, would you continue to support funding to IPPF?

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Letter to Stephen Harper re: Planned Parenthood funding

Dear Mr. Harper,

In light of the fact that we have a federal election coming up, I have a question I would like you to answer for me.

Last week we learned that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is selling aborted baby parts for profit. PPFA is part of International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

As you know, IPPF received $6 million from Canada for the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health initiative.

I haven't heard you speak out against Planned Parenthood's recent activities in selling aborted baby parts. Your silence on the subject to date, suggests you support these illegal activities of Planned Parenthood.

Since the Harper government has funded IPPF in the past, and in light of these recent allegations of IPPF's activities, would you continue to support funding to IPPF?

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Do our leaders still support Planned Parenthood?

By now we've all seen the horrors that await preborn children in Planned Parenthood clinics:
The Center for Medical Progress videos 

And now we see the latest cavalier way PP employees view the aborted bodies of these children. To these employees, these body parts are a profit making venture.

In fact what does Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau say about this practice? Especially since we in Canada paid $6 million dollars to International Planned Parenthood Federation, one would hope they all would speak out in horror? But not a peep out of any of them. Does this mean they condone the practice? Will the next Prime Minister continue to fund IPPF knowing what we know now?

In fact I have written to the three of them. None have responded except the PM's office to tell me my letter had been forwarded to the Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of International Development. So now I've asked Mr. Paradis for a response as well.

Mr. Harper's letter
Mr. Mulcair's letter
Mr. Trudeau's letter

I suggest people email the three leaders and ask them if they condone this practice. And ask them if they still support Planned Parenthood. Emails here:

stephen.harper@parl.gc.ca
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca

Thomas Mulcair as Prime Minister - maybe it's not all bad

So what would happen if Thomas Mulcair becomes Canada's next Prime Minister?

Now there are some definite problems with this. Saving Canada Post's door to door delivery, $15 a day daycare, and a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage, to name just a few big NDP government spending nightmares.

But maybe it's not all bad.

For starters, I, and many other Canadians, are very tired of Mr. Harper and how the party itself has fared under him. Mr. Harper is a control freak. He won't allow discussion on abortion in Parliament. He's completely standoffish, refusing to engage with ordinary people or the media. Maybe he cares about the average Canadian, but if he does, he doesn't show it. It seems to be only about power for power's sake.

As far as Justin Trudeau goes, he scares me to death. Really, would I trust the country to someone who has said and done so many dumb things? Who won't respond to a letter from Canadians signed by 395 people? Who actually thinks a woman has a charter right to abortion; etc, etc.?

On the plus side of the Conservative party, we know that it is the only party of the three main parties, that will allow MPs to have a choice on whether or not they are "pro-choice", never mind the irony of that fact. But that never seemed to actually help them do anything pro-life as long as Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper is leader of the Conservatives.

So what's the not so bad part of Mr. Mulcair as Prime Minister? Because it frees up pro-life Conservative MPs to do something while in opposition. We know that both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair won't even allow pro-life persons to be a candidate in the election. And as long as Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper is leader of the Conservatives and they are in power, no pro-life MP will ever be successful with any pro-life motion or bill brought forward in Parliament anyway.

But if the Conservatives don't get into power then Mr. We-Don't-Talk-About-Abortion-Harper won't be leader anymore. Conservative MPs in opposition, will at least be be free to speak out on abortion. And bring forward pro-life private member's bills or motions.

Who knows how this could turn out? At the very least it will be a very interesting election.

The best man for the job isn't a man

To hang with Justin Trudeau. To hang with Thomas Mulcair. To hang with Stephen Harper.

CARLY FIORINA: "Let's talk about the legislation that is sitting on the Senate floor right now. Let's also talk about Hillary Clinton's position. Let's talk about what extreme is. It is not a life until it leaves the hospital. That is Hillary Clinton's position. It is Hillary Clinton's position that a 13 year old girl needs her mother's permission to go to a tanning salon or a tattoo, but not to get an abortion. 

It is Hillary Clinton's position that women should not be permitted to look at an ultrasound before an abortion and yet people who harvest body parts can use an ultrasound to make sure those body parts are preserved so they can be sold...

My position is very clear, it has been clear and consistent... yes I support exceptions, but the majority of the Americans now believe that abortion for any reason at all to be paid for by tax payers after 5 months in an abomination... this video tape is depraved. "

 I want Carly Fiorina for Prime Minister. This woman is amazing.

ARPA Canada proposes government use "notwithstanding clause" on assisted suicide and euthanasia

For immediate release from the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada July 7, 2015 ARPA CANADA UNVEILS DRAFT LEGISLATION PROHIBITING ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA AND INVOKING THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE

Ottawa - On the heels of the Canadian Medical Association unveiling draft protocols for an assisted suicide regime, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada has published a draft euthanasia law (http://arpacanada.ca/drafteuthanasialaw.pdf) which would uphold Canada’s absolute prohibitions of assisted suicide and euthanasia. ARPA Canada was an intervenor in the Supreme Court case which struck down Canada’s assisted suicide law on February 6, 2015 and gave Parliament just one year to fill the void. The organization also published a policy report for Parliamentarians following the Supreme Court decision. “On numerous occasions, including just five years ago, all of the major parties in Canada’s Parliament have voted to uphold our law against assisted suicide,” said ARPA Canada’s Executive Director Mark Penninga. “Parliament has the constitutional means to pass a new law which continues to prohibit all assisted suicide, and it can do that while taking meaningful steps to promote palliative and end of life care.” The draft bill invokes Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly referred to as the notwithstanding clause. This section gives Parliament the ability to pass legislation notwithstanding a court’s interpretation of section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter. In this case, the draft legislation is cited notwithstanding how the Supreme Court interpreted the “right to life” of section 7 of the Charter to allow state-endorsed killing. “If Parliament refuses to even consider invoking Section 33, Canada’s nine unelected Supreme Court judges have effectively become the supreme lawmakers of Canada,” explained ARPA Canada’s Legal Counsel André Schutten. “The notwithstanding clause was added to the Charter to balance the power of the judicial and legislative branches of civil government. But for the clause to have effect, it must be exercised. It is hard to conceive of a more worthy time to invoke Section 33 than now, when the basic right to life of Canada’s most vulnerable citizens are at risk.” ARPA’s draft law includes a lengthy preamble which provides sixteen reasons why such a strident step is principled, constitutional, and necessary.

- 30 - Interview Requests: Mark Penninga is available throughout the day for phone or email interviews. Contact him directly at 778-210-0376 or Mark@ARPACanada.ca ARPA Canada’s legal counsel André Schutten is available for comment and in studio interviews in Ottawa or via phone/email. To arrange an interview contact Niki Pennings, Administrative Assistant, at 1-866-691-2772, ext. 3 or Niki@ARPACanada.ca

DRAFT

First Session, Forty-second Parliament, 63-64 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016 STATUTES OF CANADA 2016CHAPTER ___ Bill C-_____ An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision inCarter v. Canada (Attorney General)

Preamble Whereas it is Parliament’s duty to protect human life and uphold the inviolable right to life of all human beings; Whereas the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns about the inherent risks that a legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide regime pose to the lives of vulnerable people; Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the devastating social harm caused by the normalization of suicide and the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia; Whereas legalizing physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia would corrupt the practice of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship; Whereas it is of utmost importance, by discouraging suicide, to protect the inherent human dignity and value possessed by each Canadian person by reason of everyone being a member of the human family, regardless of disease, disability or discomfort; Whereas certain judges have failed to appreciate overwhelming social scientific evidence on the inherent harms and unacceptable risks to the lives of vulnerable, disabled, elderly and sick Canadians when euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized; Whereas comprehensive reviews of all other jurisdictions that have legalized assisted suicide and/or euthanasia prove that assisted deaths continue, and even increase, in the face of evidence that legislated safeguards are ignored; Whereas there is no reason to believe that Canada would be any different should euthanasia or assisted suicide be legalized; Whereas legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide will result in a two-tiered justice system, providing robust Criminal Code protections for the lives of able-bodied persons, but weak Criminal Code protections for the lives of people with disabilities and illnesses; Whereas striking down the Criminal Code provision denying the right toconsent to have another end your life, but only limiting that nullification to those who are suffering or disabled, is a shocking and discriminatory value statement about the life and worth of people with severe disabilities, pain or illness; Whereas the Parliament of Canada rejects the proposition that the deaths of some innocent, vulnerable people in a legalized euthanasia regime is an acceptable balance to allow others the freedom to have unhindered assistance in committing suicide at a convenient time and place; Whereas the Parliament of Canada has conducted holistic, in-depth, cross-partisan studies, hearing from all segments of society on the ethical, moral, legal, philosophical and policy implications on the issue of legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia and, having studied the issue more thoroughly than a court can or ever has, concluding that only an absolute prohibition on allowing some people to kill other people, absent self-defence, can adequately and equally protect the lives of all Canadians; Whereas the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Supreme Court of Canada failed to give any meaningful recognition of the votes of Parliament at different times in the last two decades, comprising clear, direct, cross-party votes against the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide; Whereas section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives exclusive authority to Parliament to make laws in relation to the Criminal Law; Whereas that same section of the Constitution precludes judges at any level of court to legislate their social preferences from the bench; And whereas section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides Parliament the constitutional authority to remedy a policy change by the courts, notwithstanding their interpretation of various sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

SHORT TITLE

Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Restoring Full and Equal Protection of Vulnerable Canadian Lives Act.

R.S., c. C-46 CRIMINAL CODE

R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s.14 Charter override R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 224; R.S.C. 1985, c. 27 (1 st Supp.), s.7(3) Charter override 2. Section 14 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following: 14.1 Section 14 operates notwithstanding the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada of provisions of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, (U.K.) 1982 c11. 3. Section 241 of the Act is amended by adding the following: 241.1 Section 241 operates notwithstanding the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada of provisions of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, (U.K.) 1982 c11.

REVIEW AND REPORT

Review Report 4. (1) Within four years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose. (2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within six months after a review is undertaken pursuant to that subsection or within such further time as the House may authorize, submit a report on the review to the Speaker of the House, including a statement of any changes the committee recommends.

COMING INTO FORCE

One day after royal assent 5. The provisions of this Act come into force one day after the day onwhich this Act receives royal assent.

DRAFT

ARPA Canada, P.O. Box 1377 STN B , Ottawa, K1P 5R4 Please click here if you wish to unsubscribe from ARPA Canada media releases.

We need a Law announces election tour

From We need a Law:

"It is our goal that Canada's leaders don't ignore the injustice that is being committed against 100,000 of our pre-born neighbours every year. Lord willing, lifeTOUR will be hosting events in 18 cities from Charlottetown to Vancouver!

Canadians are perhaps, more than ever, fixated on important political issues during an election campaign. The 2015 election gives us a prime opportunity to inject the narrative of pre-born human rights into the issues being discussed by media and the politicians vying for Canadians' votes.

We invite you to check out lifeTOUR.ca and stay tuned for more details as the summer progresses."

March for life Ottawa 2015

Today was the March for Life in Ottawa. According to the Ottawa Citizen, the RCMP said there were 8000 people. The organizers of the March said there was 25,000.

Look for yourself.

The first two pictures below are from the front lawn of Parliament Hill.

The third picture below was taken on Elgin St. at the beginning of the march. You can see the people all the way down the street. I stopped taking pictures at that point, and switched to video. I continued taping for over 30 minutes, and the people just kept on coming. (I hope to be able to post it tomorrow.)

There were definitely a lot more than 8000 people. I think the 25,000 number is more accurate.

This time there was a very small numbers of pro-abortions, who were staked out across from the human rights monument. Less than usual. They yelled at the beginning, but they pretty much stayed quiet after that. Which was surprising. We did see a handful more of noisy pro-aborts along the way. But that was it. Except for the couple of screamers on the Hill. Naked screamers I hear.

EWTN - Standing up for Life in Ottawa

Last night I attended the EWTN taping of the first ever national Pro-life round table event at St. Brigid's Church. The event was excellent.

There were four different panels who spoke on pro-life issues including assisted suicide, conscience rights, political advocacy and what the future holds.

The show will be broadcast sometime in August I think they said.

And today is the annual March for Life in Ottawa. The forecast is perfect, sunny and a high of 20. A perfect day to tell Canada, and especially our politicians, that we want protection for our pre-born children.