The Opposition Site to the Ontario PC Party site @ www.ontariopc.on.ca 2 stop Red John Tory's Ont. PCs

Could a Tory or Conservative hate democratic reform but love social and fiscal conservatism?

Could a Tory or Conservative hate social conservatism but love fiscal conservatism?

Could a Tory or Conservative hate fiscal conservatism but love undemocratic liberalism?

What happens if your Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leader hates democratic reform?

What happens if your Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leader hates social conservatism?

What happens if your Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leader hates fiscal conservatism?

Would that Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leader still be your True Blue Tory leader?

Red John Tory is that Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leader!

And you are that True Blue Tory member, supporter or voter!

Read on to know more about what you can do now!

DARTH TORY

"The entire city needs to be gay positive and that starts with City Hall. All Torontonians, the gay community and visible minorities included, simply must be treated with equality and respect. City services, how the city contracts business and city employment all must reflect this policy and the mayor has to play a strong leadership role to ensure that happens. I will take action to make sure the concerns of the LGBTTQQ community in Toronto are heard and that the community is treated with equality and respect. I support same sex marriage because I believe in equality. If same sex couples are treated the same way as heterosexual couples under the Income Tax Act, they should be treated that way under the law. That being said, I believe that different religious groups have the right to decide what constitutes a marriage in their places of worship." - (Red) John (Pink) Tory, according to the Gay Guide of Toronto, Equal Marriage For Same-Sex Couples and the Fraternity (who are coincidently celebrating 25 years of Toronto Parade for Gay Pride in 2005 where we hope to see again John Tory)

Does this comment above by the Ontario PC Party leader, and the actions in these newstories below about the Ontario PC Party caucus, push smalltown, everyday conservative values forward or backwards?
If you believe the latter, click on each of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party MPPs, including their leader John Tory, shown here for their contact information so you can show them your displeasure with their comments and actions in the Ontario Legislature at Queen's Park by phone, fax or email!

Leader
Ontario Progressive Conservative Party
and its "Caveman Caucus" at "Queen's Park"

TORONTO, Oct 28 (LSN.ca) - The Ontario government passed its legislation giving practicing homosexuals the same rights as common-law spouses yesterday after ramming it through the legislature only two days after it was introduced. Pro-family groups across the country reacted with horror as "the Tories completely sold out social conservatives," to cite Peter Stock of the Canadian Family Action Coalition. Not only was public debate avoided by the hastened passage of the bill, but accountability to the Ontario public was abandoned when this revolutionary law was passed without a recorded vote.
THE EFFECTS OF THE LAW
The stunning swiftness of the passage of the legislation is augmented by the seriousness of the issues involved. Although much more careful analyses are required to bring to light the new law's full implications, Gwen Landolt of Real Women Canada, told LifeSite that it affords practicing homosexuals full adoption rights. Stock told LifeSite: "I can't think of anything more anti-family" than "purposefully depriving the weakest members of society of a father or a mother."
Furthermore, Landolt points out that religious organizations, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim would be forced by the legislation to provide benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees. Statutes in the Ontario Human Rights Code already forbid discrimination in hiring practices against practicing homosexuals unless they are in "bona fide" positions (i.e. teachers, but not support staff).
PUBLIC INPUT AVOIDED
The fact that the bill went through first reading one day and second and third reading two days later left no opportunity for public reaction or debate on the issue. In fact, major pro-family groups were caught off-guard when LifeSite called for comments, not realizing that the legislation had already been passed. Moreover, the actual bill was not released to the public until the very day of its passage despite numerous requests. Landolt, a lawyer, told LifeSite that due to the length of the bill it would take at least a week of full time work to sort out all the legislation's ramifications. Considering the delayed access to the legislation and the extraordinarily fast passage, Landolt commented that "this was a revolution without public debate or public knowledge."
Even one of the Tory MPP's admitted to LifeSite that he "never anticipated that it would pass that fast." Wayne Wettlaufer (PC, Kitchener-Centre) told LifeSite that he was not in the Legislature at the time of the debate and mentioned that many other MPP's were not present at the late night session since no one suspected the legislation would be passed without debate.
Dr. Janet Buckingham of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) told LifeSite that "it is extremely discouraging since the people of Ontario wanted to have a say in this issue." Stock accused the Ontario Legislators of "cowardice." Steve Jalsevac of Campaign Life Coalition stated "Ontarians have got to be wondering why we bother voting for our own MPP in Ontario since the Harris inner Cabinet dictatorship sets the entire agenda and expects the caucus to always meekly follow or stay out of the way."
LEGISLATION 'WENT FURTHER THAN NECESSARY'
Dr. Buckingham, general legal counsel for the EFC told LifeSite that the Ontario legislation went "farther than what was necessary by quite a bit." She explained that the M v H ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada required that homosexual couples be granted support after breakdown of relationships. Jim Sclater of Focus on the Family Canada noted also that the "government had other alternatives open to them and suggested to them." Landolt told LifeSite that the Tories had at least three options they could have implemented that were less offensive to pro-family groups.
1. The Tories could have allowed the Supreme Court's ruling to take effect on May 20 which would have meant that the Family Law Act would apply only to married couples and common-law couples would have to apply for benefits. 2. They could have established a domestic partnership where all dependent couples living together could apply to be recognized for benefits. 3. All economically dependent couples living together could have been asked to make a claim for benefits in the courts.
A fourth option could have been to maintain the current law by using the 'notwithstanding clause". Wettlaufer, however, told LifeSite that "Premier Mike Harris does not believe the clause should be in the constitution and will not use it under any circumstances." Constitutional experts note that the rule of law exists in democratic countries to keep legislators accountable to an objective standard rather than running the country on the basis of their own whims. Regardless of the Premier's personal views, the notwithstanding clause is in the Constitution was placed there for consideration in situations such as this.
Revealingly, not only pro-family forces are contending that the law went further than necessary. As LifeSite reported yesterday, Kyle Rae, a homosexual activist leader in Toronto and a Toronto city councillor, said in the Globe and Mail: "This is tremendously important legislation - very exciting. The Ontario government went further than it had to go."
DECEPTION AND BETRAYAL
Pro-family groups feel a strong sense of betrayal from Ontario's so-called conservative government. The deception used by the government compounds the anger. As if it was a significant point, the Attorney General notes that, "the rights and obligations that are unique to married couples are not being extended to same sex partners." Lawyers contacted by LifeSite indicate that the only rights withheld from common-law couples as opposed to married couples deal with the separation of property at death or breakup, and such concerns which are relatively minor compared to adoption rights. Commenting on the bill, Stock said "a spouse in everything but name is a spouse just the same."
He added that it is "clear [that] the PC's can't represent social conservatives any more." He predicted a coming together of disaffected pro-family politicians from all parties to provide a viable social conservative alternative

JUST CLICK HERE

Ontario Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill - All Party Collusion to Avoid Accountability Succeeds
Thursday February 24, 2005
FULL STORY HERE

TORONTO, February 24, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – At Approximately 5 p.m. today the Ontario Legislature passed, by voice vote only, Bill 171, which further enshrines same-sex marriage in Ontario law. Premier Dalton McGuinty proposed the move to change 73 provincial statutes, to introduce gender-neutral language that otherwise refers to wives and husbands.
Progressive Conservative MPPs Bill Murdoch and Frank Klees spoke against the bill and made strong appeals to other members of the Legislature to join them in standing immediately after the voice vote to request a recorded vote. Legislature rules are that only five members need stand for a recorded vote to be taken.
The voice vote appeared to indicate a significant number of Members opposed the bill. However, only PC MPP Jerry Oellette had the courage to stand with Klees and Murdoch to request that Ontario citizens be allowed to know how their MPP’s voted on the historic bill. Many citizens had called their MPPs insisting that a recorded vote be taken.
No two other members from any of the parties dared to defy the pre-arranged all-party collusion to withhold the individual members’ vote on the bill from the public. The bill was rammed through from introduction to final passage in only three days, with no significant debate and no opportunity for public input.
NDP MPP Peter Kormos and the NDP caucus had been expected to also stand on principle in favour of the recorded vote. Kormos was mysteriously absent at the crucial time. PC MPP Jim Flaherty had given notice before the crucial vote that he could not be present because of a previously arranged appointment. Flaherty stood up with Klees and Ouelette the previous day to call for a recorded vote on the second reading vote.
Of special note, Frank Klees made an admission that his party’s actions, when he was party whip during the similarly undemocratic October, 1999 passage of his party's Bill C-5, were wrong. In response to Legislature comments that his party followed the same process in ramming through C-5 (omnibus bill which gave homosexuals the same rights as common-law spouses) Klees responded, with a candor highly unusual in today’s political culture, “it was wrong then and it is wrong now”.
Only 27 of the 71 Members of the governing Liberal Party were present for the vote.

“Democracy is dead in Ontario”
Bill 171 - a tale of political scheming and cowardice
Friday March 4, 2005
FULL STORY HERE

TORONTO, March 4, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Last week’s brutally rushed passage of same-sex marriage legislation in the Ontario legislature is still causing observers of the undemocratic fiasco to shake their heads.
A usually reliable source reported the Ontario Liberals pushed through their same-sex marriage bill in response to a deal with the federal Liberals who needed the Ontario same-sex entrenchment to help their faltering Bill C-38. In exchange for the deed, the source reports, the Ontario Liberals received promises of billions from the feds.
The Toronto Sun’s Christina Blizzard, who is pro-gay marriage rights, wrote in her March 4th column, “What I find truly disgraceful is the weasely way the vote to amend provincial statutes to fit with new federal same-sex marriage legislation happened”. A Feb. 28 Ottawa Citizen editorial stated “All but three of Ontario’s MPP’s acted in a cowardly fashion on Thursday, by not requesting a recorded vote” on the bill.
And so it was that the leaderships of all three parties conspired to ram the bill through in three days (actually two plus the introduction only on day one), without a recorded vote and without either the public or MPPs being given reasonable opportunity to address the dramatic changes to marriage that would result. Party leaders brow-beat their Members to go along with the scheme.
LifeSiteNews.com was told by a Liberal MPP that his party put a three line whip on the vote. That is, they gave it the category of a confidence vote so that any caucus members who spoke or voted against it would either risk being booted out of the party or suffer some other severe measure.
The Liberals and their NDP and PC co-conspirators repeatedly downplayed the vote to the public as just a “housekeeping matter” to bring Ontario laws in line with court decisions. However, columnists and others called that ruse. No government puts a three line whip on the voting and conscience freedom of its members over a mere “housekeeping” matter. As well, the intense resistance to a recorded vote betrayed that this was far more that a routine item. The conspirators knew the bill was serious stuff and didn’t want the public or MPP’s principles getting in the way.
No Liberals spoke against the bill although it is known many were troubled by it, especially given the growing furor against Bill C-38. The voice vote was a lot closer than everyone has let on. Liberals Sergio Marchi and Tony Ruprecht and likely quite a few others were prepared to oppose the bill if it came down to a recorded vote. Liberal whips weren’t successful and a party source reported deputy whip Lorenzo Berardinetti refused the task because of conscientious objection to the bill. Only a few Liberals spoke in favour and only 27 out of 71 Liberals were present for the vote - a dismal percentage for a three line whip vote.
After the vote, one Liberal MPP told LifeSiteNews.com, “party discipline is ruthless” at Queen’s Park. PC MPPs have for years complained of the same thing, especially when bills on moral issues were at stake. Fear and trembling and lack of courage is a much bigger factor at Queen’s Park than in Ottawa, as bad as it also is in the federal parliament.
Another Liberal MPP told LifeSiteNews.com he was astonished about the “large number of homosexuals that work in Queen’s Park” and said “they take these things (Bill 171) very seriously”. Not coincidentally, perhaps, is the fact that the centre of Canada's largest gay community is located only a few blocks away from the Ontario Legislature and the numerous government buildings near it.
During his 50 minute speech in the Legislature on Feb 24, Progressive Conservative MPP Bill Murdoch stated, “if you put this vote through without us having a recorded vote, then as far as I'm concerned, democracy is dead in Ontario”. Both Murdoch and Fellow MPP Frank Klees made impassioned pleas for other MPPs to stand with them and call for a recorded vote. Incredibly, Klees was heckled by his own party whip, MPP John Baird (Nepean-Carleton), who spoke in favour of the bill. PC party leader John Tory, not yet elected to a seat, was firmly behind the collusion strategy to ram through Bill 171.
NDP house leader Peter Kormos tried to rally his same-sex supporting caucus to join the call for a recorded vote in the interests of democracy. In the end, they turned him down and Kormos slid away and didn’t stand with the three principled Tory MPPs.
During the end of the third reading debate Klees and Murdoch’s speeches were more than about opposition to the bill and a call for a recorded vote. LifeSiteNews.com was told they were filibustering in order to buy time for caucus colleague Jim Flaherty to get back to the house from a meeting outside the Legislature. Flaherty and Garfield Dunlop were supposed to stand with fellow opponents to the legislation, Klees, Ouelette and Murdoch, to make up the five required for the recorded vote. Unfortunately, the vote was called sooner than expected. Flaherty therefore missed it and Duncan decided to leave the other three to hang.
Murdoch’s speech was perhaps one of the frankest and most courageous in decades about the sad state of democracy at Queen’s Park. He stated, “Will we see that members have true democracy in this House, or do we make deals in this House and we don't have true democracy any more?” He continued, “it's my right to come here and debate. I know there are some people in our party and some in the other two parties who don't want that to happen. They don't want us to stand up here and debate this. They've put pressure on some of our guys and said, ‘Oh, you can't do that.’”
Commenting about the second reading vote cowardice Murdoch said, “there were three people who stood up to want democracy -- only three people. How many are there here -- 103? So 100 people in this House yesterday on second reading didn't care about democracy -- didn't care. You'd think there would be a few Liberals who want some democracy, wouldn't you? You would think there would be at least one Liberal. You got elected to come here to vote. You didn't get elected to come here to be told what to do. That's what's happening to you. It happens here all the time. Don't feel bad. The other governments weren't any better.”.
During his turn, PC MPP Frank Klees said, “What are we hiding? What is the problem? Why, if they consider themselves so committed to this bill, will people not stand in their place and simply identify their vote in Hansard for everyone to see? People at home and people in the galleries must be asking themselves, "What is going on in this place?" What is wrong with this bill that you're not prepared to identify with it? What are we afraid of?”
Yes, indeed, what is it about these bills imposing more acceptance of homosexuality that they always seem to be accompanies by secret deals, silencing elected members, demagoguery and other abuses of democratic process?

JUST CLICK HERE

Ontario Changes 73 Laws To Reflect Gay Marriage
by Keith Leslie, Canadian Press
Posted: February 25, 2005 2:03 pm. ET
FULL STORY HERE

(Toronto, Ontario) Ontario's Liberal government was spared a potentially embarrassing recorded vote Thursday as the legislature passed a bill changing the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex marriage.
A handful of Conservatives who opposed the legislation wanted a recorded vote so that Liberals who voted against their government's bill would be listed in the official record.
Ontario isn't the first province to catch up with the court rulings on gay marriages.
Quebec and British Columbia have similar legislation, but B.C does not have an overall law that tries to incorporate same-sex relationships into all its statutes. Instead, B.C. laws are updated one at a time, and new laws and amendments ensure that same-sex issues are covered.
``If you put this vote through, without us having a recorded vote, then as far as I'm concerned, democracy is dead in Ontario,'' said Conservative Bill Murdoch during the debate.
But the legislation was approved with a simple voice vote, which means the record will state only that ``the bill passed,'' but won't record who voted for or against it, or who was not present.
Liberal House leader Dwight Duncan dismissed Murdoch's criticism of the government's handling of the bill, which Duncan called simple housekeeping to bring Ontario's laws in line with recent court decisions on same-sex marriages.
``I listened with some humor to Mr. Murdoch talking about democracy,'' said Duncan, who denied the government wanted to avoid the recorded vote, even though only 27 of 72 Liberals bothered to show up.
``This is a government bill, we all said yes on our side, and it passed,'' said Duncan.
Ontario's new Conservative leader John Tory, who supports same-sex marriage, was also spared the embarrassment of seeing the majority of his caucus on the record as rejecting the bill.
``There was never a formal deal'' not to hold a recorded vote, said Conservative whip John Baird.
``There sort of was discussions on how we would deal with what is both a controversial but housekeeping measure.''
Several Conservatives spoke against the legislation, which amends Ontario laws that have terms like spouse, marriage, husband and wife, with most Tories insisting it's Ottawa's job, not the province's, to define marriage.
``Even those in this House who agree with that (new) definition also agree that it is the federal Parliament that has jurisdiction over the definition of marriage,'' Oak Ridges Conservative Frank Klees told the legislature.
``I believe in the traditional definition of marriage as being the indivisible union between one man and one woman,'' said Conservative John Yakabuski. ``To the exclusion of all others.''
NDP house leader Peter Kormos said he was disappointed his caucus wouldn't support his call for a recorded vote on changing the definition of marriage. But Kormos said the majority of his NDP colleagues felt they should only ask for recorded votes on bills they oppose, and all the New Democrats supported this bill.
``I was unable to maintain the support of my caucus to force a recorded vote,'' said Kormos. ``I regret that.''
No Liberals spoke against the bill in the legislature, but at least one government member told his local newspaper he was opposed to changing the definition of marriage.
Niagara Falls Liberal backbencher Kim Craitor told the Welland Tribune he would vote against the bill because his constituents also oppose it. ``That's who I am accountable to,'' said Craitor.
But Craitor failed to show up for the vote.
Kormos said he wanted the recorded vote to embarrass government members like Craitor ``who wanted to be Liberals at Queen's Park, but Tories when they went back to their ridings.''
The Speaker of the legislature determined the bill passed based on the volume of the `Ayes' and `Nays' yelled by the members late Thursday afternoon.
©Canadian Press 2005

The day democracy died in Ontario
Bill 171 proved to be a tale of political scheming, as ‘spouse’ was redefined in provincial laws
Analysis by Steve Jalsevac
Special to The Interim
Apr 2005
FULL STORY HERE

Last months’s brutally rushed passage of same-sex marriage legislation in the Ontario legislature is still causing observers of the undemocratic fiasco to shake their heads.
A usually reliable source reported the Ontario Liberals pushed through their same-sex marriage bill in response to a deal with the federal Liberals who needed the Ontario same-sex entrenchment to help their faltering Bill C-38. In exchange for the deed, the source reports, the Ontario Liberals received promises of billions from the feds.
The Toronto Sun’s Christina Blizzard, who is pro-gay marriage rights, wrote in her March 4th column, “What I find truly disgraceful is the weasely way the vote to amend provincial statutes to fit with new federal same-sex marriage legislation happened”. A Feb. 28 Ottawa Citizen editorial stated “All but three of Ontario’s MPP’s acted in a cowardly fashion on Thursday, by not requesting a recorded vote” on the bill.
And so it was that the leaderships of all three parties conspired to ram the bill through in three days (actually two plus the introduction only on day one), without a recorded vote and without either the public or MPPs being given reasonable opportunity to address the dramatic changes to marriage that would result. Party leaders brow-beat their Members to go along with the scheme.
LifeSiteNews.com was told by a Liberal MPP that his party put a three line whip on the vote. That is, they gave it the category of a confidence vote so that any caucus members who spoke or voted against it would either risk being booted out of the party or suffer some other severe measure.
The Liberals and their NDP and PC co-conspirators repeatedly downplayed the vote to the public as just a “housekeeping matter” to bring Ontario laws in line with court decisions. However, columnists and others called that ruse. No government puts a three line whip on the voting and conscience freedom of its members over a mere “housekeeping” matter. As well, the intense resistance to a recorded vote betrayed that this was far more that a routine item. The conspirators knew the bill was serious stuff and didn’t want the public or MPP’s principles getting in the way.
No Liberals spoke against the bill although it is known many were troubled by it, especially given the growing furor against Bill C-38. The voice vote was a lot closer than everyone has let on. Liberals Sergio Marchi and Tony Ruprecht and likely quite a few others were prepared to oppose the bill if it came down to a recorded vote. Liberal whips weren’t successful and a party source reported deputy whip Lorenzo Berardinetti refused the task because of conscientious objection to the bill. Only a few Liberals spoke in favour and only 27 out of 71 Liberals were present for the vote - a dismal percentage for a three line whip vote.
After the vote, one Liberal MPP told LifeSiteNews.com, “party discipline is ruthless” at Queen’s Park. PC MPPs have for years complained of the same thing, especially when bills on moral issues were at stake. Fear and trembling and lack of courage is a much bigger factor at Queen’s Park than in Ottawa, as bad as it also is in the federal parliament.
Another Liberal MPP told LifeSiteNews.com he was astonished about the “large number of homosexuals that work in Queen’s Park” and said “they take these things (Bill 171) very seriously”. Not coincidentally, perhaps, is the fact that the centre of Canada’s largest gay community is located only a few blocks away from the Ontario Legislature and the numerous government buildings near it.
During his 50 minute speech in the Legislature on Feb 24, Progressive Conservative MPP Bill Murdoch stated, “if you put this vote through without us having a recorded vote, then as far as I’m concerned, democracy is dead in Ontario”. Both Murdoch and Fellow MPP Frank Klees made impassioned pleas for other MPPs to stand with them and call for a recorded vote. Incredibly, Klees was heckled by his own party whip, MPP John Baird (Nepean-Carleton), who spoke in favour of the bill. PC party leader John Tory, not yet elected to a seat, was firmly behind the collusion strategy to ram through Bill 171.
NDP house leader Peter Kormos tried to rally his same-sex supporting caucus to join the call for a recorded vote in the interests of democracy. In the end, they turned him down and Kormos slid away and didn’t stand with the three principled Tory MPPs.
During the end of the third reading debate Klees and Murdoch’s speeches were more than about opposition to the bill and a call for a recorded vote. LifeSiteNews.com was told they were filibustering in order to buy time for caucus colleague Jim Flaherty to get back to the house from a meeting outside the Legislature. Flaherty and Garfield Dunlop were supposed to stand with fellow opponents to the legislation, Klees, Ouelette and Murdoch, to make up the five required for the recorded vote. Unfortunately, the vote was called sooner than expected. Flaherty therefore missed it and Duncan decided to leave the other three to hang.
Murdoch’s speech was perhaps one of the frankest and most courageous in decades about the sad state of democracy at Queen’s Park. He stated, “Will we see that members have true democracy in this House, or do we make deals in this House and we don’t have true democracy any more?” He continued, “it’s my right to come here and debate. I know there are some people in our party and some in the other two parties who don’t want that to happen. They don’t want us to stand up here and debate this. They’ve put pressure on some of our guys and said, ‘Oh, you can’t do that.’”
Commenting about the second reading vote cowardice Murdoch said, “there were three people who stood up to want democracy – only three people. How many are there here – 103? So 100 people in this House yesterday on second reading didn’t care about democracy – didn’t care. You’d think there would be a few Liberals who want some democracy, wouldn’t you? You would think there would be at least one Liberal. You got elected to come here to vote. You didn’t get elected to come here to be told what to do. That’s what’s happening to you. It happens here all the time. Don’t feel bad. The other governments weren’t any better.”.
During his turn, PC MPP Frank Klees said, “What are we hiding? What is the problem? Why, if they consider themselves so committed to this bill, will people not stand in their place and simply identify their vote in Hansard for everyone to see? People at home and people in the galleries must be asking themselves, “What is going on in this place?” What is wrong with this bill that you’re not prepared to identify with it? What are we afraid of?”
Yes, indeed, what is it about these bills imposing more acceptance of homosexuality that they always seem to be accompanies by secret deals, silencing elected members, demagoguery and other abuses of democratic process?
Steve Jalsevac is director of LifeSiteNews.com

JUST CLICK HERE

Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Conservative MPP Bill Murdoch's Rant in the House they don't want you ever to hear in your lifetime in Ontario
Thu 24 Feb 2005 - Jeu 24 fév 2005
FULL STORY HERE

Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Conservative MPP Bill Murdoch's Rant in the House they don't want you ever to hear in your lifetime in Ontario.
The Tory Member from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound's red-headed rant in the Legislative Assembly included such classic attacks as:
- "Yes, that's what I said. So there were 100 people in this House who didn't care about democracy."
- "That's nice. George tells me that the Premier is there tonight. That's nice, George. But do you not think it's probably important to vote on this? I'm sure you think this is an important bill."
- "Now he's saying that's all we've got. That's because you won't give us the freedom of a vote. Mr. Speaker, there you have the Minister of Health: He doesn't believe in democracy. I always thought he did. I thought the Minister of Health was trying to help out people with health problems. But now he's telling us he doesn't believe in that; he doesn't believe in having recorded votes."
- "Oh, I'm sure. You look at everybody else's dirty laundry; you might as well be looking at mine, guys over there. You might as well. I'm sure that's what you've been doing every day. I knew you Liberals were up to something over there. You're looking at everybody's dirty laundry again. Way to go, George. You're just right in top form tonight, George. All we're asking over here is a chance to have a free, recorded vote, and then you get into the dirty laundry and everything else."
- "Oh, now George is going to tell us he's not here when he doesn't want to be. I don't know about that guy. Every time you try to be nice to him, he gets mad."

Key John Tory strategist during Mayorial Race proves Liberal Pink-Red Tory Takeover Link
11.11.03
FULL STORY HERE

Warren Kinsella, a key strategist for John Tory during the Toronto Mayorial Race 2003 admits there was a coalition between the PC-Liberals to fight the NDP-Liberals.
Looking past John's "Plan to Restore Trust in Government", one sees Tory's plan all along was to bring the Tories back to the days of Bill Davis:
"Well, that didn't take long.
No sooner had David Miller won the mayoralty - due entirely to (a) John Nunziata's slime campaign and (b) the historic collapse of Barbara Hall's support - and Miller gave a graceless, cheap victory speech. It had all the hallmarks of vintage NDP, ie. an absolute certainty that everyone else is not just wrong, they're evil in their essence.
As I said to Liberal pals at the John Tory party (and it was a hell of a party): “They've just elected the leader of the opposition. The NDP is going to use City Hall as a base of operations to pick off Liberal MPPs and MPs. And he's going to be at war with business and police in no time.”
And, oh yes, your taxes are going up. And crime is going to get worse.
Apart from that, it is going to be just ducky."
But why then in the CBC's Tory, Tory, Tory does McGuinty use Kinsella to attack John Tory IV, the Caveman Caucus and his Richy Rich Rogers Cable/Family Compact connections - perhaps because the Harris/Clement/Long/Watts/Marsland/Stronach alliance from Ontario of Magna fame was too blue, so blue they helped create the Conservative Party of Canada through the Mulroney/Mackay connection from the Atlantic of Airbus fame, as Mulroney the Godfather alludes to, when it was obvious Eves would lose Ontario - which then opened the way for Warren to help keep it blue by backing Harper in Ottawa and attacking Tory in Toronto but that still doesn't explain whether Peter and Belinda are still wagging and shagging the dogs tail behind the Member's backroom doors of the House of Commons?

Canada National Broadcaster Reports One Million at Gay Pride - Ten Times Actual Size
June 28, 2005
FULL STORY HERE

Organizers for the annual March for Life both in Ottawa and in Washington are accustomed to having the mainstream news media drastically under-report the size of the crowds. What seems to be a policy of media-mandated expansion or deflation of crowd size appears to be directly proportional to the event's rating on the political correctness scale: the more liberal the cause; the higher the crowd estimate. Among the most enthusiastic media exaggerators is the publicly funded Canadian national broadcaster, the CBC.
This weekend the annual "Gay Pride" parade was staged, with all the now-standard features including fully naked men, men dressed up in gear typical of sadomasochistic fetishists, and simulated sex acts in public. This annual celebration of sexual deviance has indeed been growing in popularity since its inception 25 years ago, but, perhaps in honour of the 25th anniversary or the impending same-sex marriage legislation predicted to pass in the next few days, the CBC has outstripped its usual enthusiasm over the homosexual agenda. In two early reports, on radio and television, Canada's national broadcaster reported that a million people had attended the event.
Campaign Life Coalition's Aidan Reid told LifeSiteNews.com he saw the CBC report on the evening news Sunday night. "When I saw they had reported the crowd at nearly ten times the actual number, it reinforced my belief that the CBC is not interested in reporting truthfully, but rather is simply a puppet of the radical homosexual lobby," said Reid.
It is not only the March for Life that gets the treatment. In April, when 20,000 people attended a rally in support of the traditional definition of marriage the Canadian media reported 4000. The phenomenon is not limited to Canadian socialist broadcasters, however. In Spain the weekend before last, approximately a million pro-marriage and family demonstrators chanted, "Later they will say, that we were only five or six," as they marched in the streets of Madrid. Sure enough, media there reported the 1.5 million-size crowd at about 166,000.
Sober heads have prevailed in Toronto, however, and now most news outlets seem to have agreed on the much more modest and believable estimate of 125,000 for the event.

Activists warn churches on tax status
June 22, 2005
FULL STORY HERE

Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status, a leading gay-rights activist warned recently.
"If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter," said Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 married Joe Varnell in one of Canada's first gay weddings.
Liberal backbenchers have been pressuring Paul Martin to amend the controversial gay-marriage bill to protect the tax status of churches that refuse to perform such marriages. But even an amendment won't stop Bourassa from pursuing the issue.
"We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry," he said. "We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry."
Under current rules, donations to religious groups are tax-privileged as long as the church refrains from partisan political activity.
"They can't connect their views with any political candidate," said Peter Broder, the director of regulatory affairs at Imagine Canada, an umbrella organization for charities and non-profit groups.
For Bourassa and Joe Varnell, who run the website www.equalmarriage.ca, the distinction between advocacy and partisan politics is artificial.
"Our website is completely self-funded," Bourassa said. "We are not a charity, because fighting for our Charter of Rights is considered by the government to be advocacy. What is the difference between fighting for equality and fighting against equality? There's none."
The role of the Catholic Church in public debate is both legitimate and legal, according to Bede Hubbard, the associate secretary general of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"Right from the very beginning, the representatives of the government have called on Canadians to express their opinions," he said. "And certainly Canadian churches are among Canadian citizens."
Even if the churches are in compliance with tax laws -- with or without an amendment to the marriage bill -- they could still be subject to a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But this is unlikely to succeed, Broder said.
"It's hard to see how that would happen," he said. "For example, I'm not aware of any religious group having been challenged on their refusal to marry divorced people."
Churches rely heavily on their charitable status to encourage more frequent and more generous donations, according to Janet Epp Buckingham, the director of law and public policy for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.
"The loss the charitable tax status would really affect the ability of these ministries to carry out their functions," she said. "That includes a lot of things that are beneficial to society, like homeless ministries, outreach to the poor, and international development."
As a result, the Evangelical Fellowship favours an amendment to the bill guaranteeing that charitable status will not be challenged -- even though they oppose the bill as a whole.
Bonnie Greene, a retired United Church official who specialized in tax issues, said that the charitable status of churches is not under any immediate threat. However, the regulations governing charities are greatly in need of updating.
"In Canadian law, the definition of charitable activity is over 400 years old, based on a legal case in England," Greene said. "This is not good for democracy in Canada."
Currently, groups promoting human rights, the environment and peace are not considered charities. The rules should be changed to reflect the needs of civil society -- needs that were not present 400 years ago, Greene said.
Any new rules will need to keep faith and politics separate to satisfy Bourassa, who is himself a member of Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto.
"During the last election, my church removed all linkages to political non-charitable groups that were fighting for same-sex marriage from their website because of the political implications and the tax implications," Bourassa said.
And he intends to make other churches follow the same path. "Political activities are not charitable activities," he said.
© CanWest News Service 2005

O'Brien quits Liberals over gay marriage bill; threatens to topple minority
Mon Jun 6
FULL STORY HERE

An outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage quit the federal Liberals to sit as an Independent MP Monday, providing sudden leverage to MPs within government ranks who oppose the controversial legislation.
Pat O'Brien hinted he may be prepared to topple Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority over the issue, and before the day was over another Liberal claimed "two or three" of his colleagues could follow suit.
The Liberals squeaked through a budget vote last month by a historically narrow margin - the single, tie-breaking vote of the Speaker the only thing between Canadians and a federal election.
Since then, the Liberals gained another seat in a byelection and talk of a spring or summer election evaporated.
O'Brien's move puts the minority back in peril.
The veteran MP from London, Ont., told a news conference he'll employ "every opportunity I have to use - bar none - in order to defeat this legislation."
While the same-sex marriage bill is not considered a matter of confidence that could bring down the government, O'Brien said his tactics could include voting against the Liberals on next week's critical budget legislation.
"That's not my goal in life, to defeat this government," said O'Brien.
"My goal is to defeat Bill C-38. But I won't rule out any democratic means to do that."
Jim Karygiannis, another Liberal opposed to gay marriage, later said he's spoken to two or three colleagues who are also considering using the budget confidence vote to kill the marriage legislation - and the government.
"Some of them are very serious," said Karygiannis, adding he's begged them not employ such a scorched-earth tactic.
And another Liberal opponent of the bill, John McKay, didn't rule out more MPs quitting to sit as Independents.
"There may be. You're going to have to make 34 phone calls to find out," said McKay.
Thirty-four Liberals voted against Bill C-38 earlier this spring, but the combined weight of the Bloc Quebecois, NDP and a majority of Liberals easily kept it alive.
Only the Conservatives are almost uniformly opposed.
O'Brien had threatened to quit the Liberals six weeks ago, but was convinced to stay on when Martin promised him the same-sex bill would get "full, fair and meaningful hearings."
O'Brien said that prime ministerial pledge is not being honoured: "The truth is not what you say, the truth is what you do."
Martin said last week he wants final passage of the legislation before the Commons recesses for the summer later this month. A committee vote to ensure that timetable prompted O'Brien's resignation.
The prime minister responded Monday by noting the commons committee was to hear some 60 witnesses in total.
"This is an issue that has to be dealt with thoroughly and there has to be a full debate - as there has been, in fact, over the last couple of years," said Martin.
Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said that given O'Brien's fundamental opposition to the bill, nothing the committee could do would satisfy him.
And if the Liberals are concerned about their minority survival, they weren't showing it Monday.
House leader Tony Valeri almost dared O'Brien to vote against the government.
"I don't see any difference between what he is able to do as an Independent on C-38 and what he has been able to do as a caucus member," said Valeri.
Senior Liberals privately questioned Karygiannis' story that Liberal dissidents might also vote against the budget.
And even Conservatives, who last month appeared determined to bring a non-confidence motion and trigger an election, reacted with skepticism and caution.
B.C. MP Randy White said there's "zero chance" of an election campaign starting this month.
His Conservative colleague Gary Lunn was less emphatic, given the shifting allegiances of what are now four Independent MPs in a deadlocked Commons.
"There are some different dynamics at play, for sure," said Lunn.
"We've got to make sure (the government) doesn't fall by accident."

Comuzzi quits cabinet over same-sex bill
Tue, 28 Jun 2005
FULL STORY HERE

Minister of State Joe Comuzzi, a vocal opponent of his government's same-sex marriage bill, resigned from the Liberal cabinet early Tuesday afternoon to free himself to vote against passage of the bill later in the day.
The junior minister, who had been responsible for federal economic development in northern Ontario since 2003, informed Prime Minister Paul Martin of his decision in what was described as an amicable conversation Tuesday morning.
The same-sex marriage bill is scheduled for a vote at around 8:30 p.m. EDT Tuesday.
Martin has said the vote on same-sex would be a free vote for backbench Liberals, but cabinet ministers are under orders to vote in favour of the bill.
Comuzzi, 72, who represents the Ontario riding of Thunder Bay-Superior North, had abstained from voting on the bill at the second reading stage.
For months, he had agonized openly about what to do. He finally said on Tuesday that he cannot vote against the wishes of his constituents, who he says, overwhelmingly oppose the idea of the federal government sanctioning marriages of homosexuals. He said he apologizes to those who will be unhappy about losing a cabinet minister in northern Ontario.
He also said he pledged during last year's election campaign to uphold a traditional definition of marriage.
"Whenever I strayed off course for some reason or other, I'd always come back to that election commitment I made at so many events," he told reporters on Parliament Hill.
"I had to come back and honour it."
Martin issued a statement saying he regrets Comuzzi's decision to leave the cabinet but understands and accepts it. He said he is delighted the MP plans to remain in Parliament as a Liberal and run for re-election.
Agriculture Minister Andy Mitchell will take on Comuzzi's cabinet duties.
Another Liberal cabinet minister who has said he is opposed to same-sex marriage, Natural Resources Minister John Efford from Newfoundland, was absent for the second reading vote.
There has been no final word on how Efford plans to vote on the bill Tuesday night but no indication he plans to leave cabinet.
CBC News

No free vote on same-sex marriage for NDP
Fri, 05 Sep 2003
FULL STORY HERE

The leader of the federal New Democrats says his MPs won't be allowed a free vote on same-sex marriage.
The New Democrats wrapped up their caucus retreat on Vancouver Island on Thursday, with at least one MP opposed to the party policy on gay marriage.
Manitoba MP Bev Desjarlais says there's a lot of opposition to gay marriage in her riding of Churchill. And she herself isn't comfortable with the idea of allowing gays and lesbians to get married.
"This hasn't been an overnight decision for me," said Desjarlais. "It's something that I've thought about for a long period of time, that I've talked to people with even before I was a member of parliament."
NDP Leader Jack Layton says he's trying to persuade Desjarlais to fall in line, but NDP MPs won't have a choice on how to vote.
"We have a party policy and it is to support this legislation and that's the way it's going to be," said Layton.
Desjarlais's opinions have put her at odds with her caucus colleagues. Supporters of same-sex marriage, such as B.C. New Democrat Svend Robinson, say there is no room for dissent within caucus on this issue.
"Jack Layton, as the leader, has been crystal clear on this. We're not talking about a free vote on this issue. It's an issue of fundamental equality," said Robinson.
Desjarlais says she won't be forced to vote in favour of something she doesn't believe in.
"Discipline within caucus is a far lesser worry for me than my living with myself over something I believe quite strongly about," said Desjarlais.
CBC News Online

MP threatened by NDP Layton for voting conscience
Tuesday, 28 June 2005
FULL STORY HERE

The minority Liberal government's same-sex marriage bill is expected to pass final reading Tuesday when MPs put the controversial legislation to a vote in the House of Commons.
By Tuesday morning, MPs had entered into the final stages of debate on Bill C-38, with Conservative members continuing with their opposition to the legislation despite the widespread expectation that the bill will pass with the support of most Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois members.
The House is expected to adjourn immediately after the Tuesday ballot.
The vote comes on the heels of a motion Monday by the Liberals to limit debate on the legislation to about eight hours.
In total, 24 Liberals broke ranks with the goverment on the second-reading vote Monday. Junior minister Joe Comuzzi, responsible for economic development in Northern Ontario, abstained, defying a party order that all ministers support the bill. Five Bloc MPs and one NDP, Bev Desjarlais, also joined most Conservatives in opposing the legislation.
Ms. Desjarlais had been threatened with expulsion from the NDP caucus if she opposed the bill.
NDP spokesman Ian Capstick said NDP Leader Jack Layton was meeting caucus executives to decide what consequences would flow from Ms. Desjarlais's decision to vote against the party's position on the issue.
"Those discussions are ongoing over the course of the day, and we expect to have some sort of announcement in the future, but not today," he said.
He could not say whether Ms. Desjarlais - who was applauded for her vote by members of the Conservative party during Monday's sitting - would be in the House for Tuesday's vote or whether her position on the issue would change.
"Mr. Layton has long said he does not want any of our caucus to vote against the equal marriage bill and that stands and we would hope that Ms. Desjarlais would expect the whip," Mr. Capstick said.
Canada is poised to join Belgium and the Netherlands as the only countries in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. The Dutch passed same-sex marriage legislation in 2001 and the Belgians followed with a similar law in 2003.
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, whose members joined with the Bloc to vote against a Liberal-NDP budget amendment, has said the passage of Bill C-38 will lack legitimacy with most Canadians because of the Bloc's support of the legislation.
The comments sparked expressions of rage from the country's other political parties and drew charges that the comments marginalized Quebec MPs.
Speaking with CBC Newsworld, Conservative Justice critic Vic Toews suggested that "significant disputes" would linger in some regions of the country even after the legislation passes.
Particularly, he said, church leaders who refuse to conduct same-sex marriages may find themselves the subject of legal challenges.
"What the bill essentially does is ghettoize churches," Mr. Toews said.
"You're safe in terms of freedom of religion within the four corners of the church, but once it comes in to the public square, I think we will see activists taking church leaders and others who have a concern about this issue before human-rights tribunals."

Rebel NDP MP loses nomination battle
Monday, October 17, 2005
FULL STORY HERE

Bev Desjarlais, the NDP MP who broke ranks with her party to oppose same sex marriage, has lost a battle for the NDP nomination in her northern Manitoba riding.
Ms. Desjarlais was defeated by Niki Ashton, the daughter of Steve Ashton, the Manitoba cabinet minister who represents the Churchill riding provincially.
It was not immediately clear last night whether Ms. Desjarlais would remain in the NDP caucus or join the ranks of Independent MPs.
NDP leader Jack Layton stripped Ms. Desjarlais of all critic duties in June when she voted against Bill C-38, the government bill legalizing same sex marriages.
But NDP insiders insisted yesterday that Ms. Desjarlais' defeat had nothing to do with her June vote. Rather, Mr. Layton has maintained a policy of allowing all sitting MPs to be challenged for their nominations.
“In my opinion, that's a terrific loss for our party,” said NDP MP Peter Stoffer, yesterday, who praised Ms. Desjarlais' work over her eight years as an NDP MP.
Though the news came as a surprise, Mr. Stoffer said he continues to support the party's policy of wide-open nomination races.
Ms. Ashton's victory was announced in an NDP press release yesterday containing a photo of Mr. Layton, but the text made no mention of Ms. Desjarlais.
Party spokesman Brad Lavigne said the five person nomination battle shows more people want to run for the NDP in the next election.
“I believe there are more people stepping forward who want to run on the NDP ticket and that's a good sign,” he said.
Ms. Ashton's biography indicates she speaks eight languages and is currently learning Cree. She has a degree from Li Po Chun United World College in Hong Kong and another from the University of Manitoba. She is currently studying labour rights and free trade agreements in Thompson.

Defiant MP loses NDP nomination
Tue, October 18, 2005
FULL STORY HERE

OTTAWA -- A rebel New Democrat who defied her leader's order to support same-sex marriage has lost her bid to seek re-election under the NDP banner.
Bev Dejarlais, a long-time MP representing rural Manitoba, was defeated in her nomination battle by Niki Ashton, the daughter of provincial cabinet minister Steve Ashton. Ashton grabbed the upset victory on the first ballot yesterday.
Dejarlais is expected to leave the NDP caucus to sit and seek election as an independent. The move leaves the NDP with 18 seats at a critical time in the minority Parliament.
Brad Lavigne, a spokesman for the federal NDP, would not comment on the impact of Dejarlais's departure on the party. But Lavigne remained hopeful the NDP would keep the seat in the next election.
"We're very confident we're going to do very well in a lot of ridings across Canada. Churchill will be one of them," he said.
NDP Leader Jack Layton also would not comment on the development last night, but his spokesman said he did not wade into the local race. "The leader's office does not get involved in the local democracy of the party," said Karl Belanger.
An NDP insider said caucus members were upset by the loss of Dejarlais, a well-liked, hard-working MP.
Born and raised in Thompson, Man., Ashton speaks eight languages and is learning Cree. She holds an advanced degree in global political economics, studied abroad and is currently doing research on free trade agreements in the Americas.

Churchill MP quits NDP caucus after nomination loss
Tues, Oct. 18
FULL STORY HERE

A Manitoba MP says her stand against same-sex marriage has cost her the NDP nomination in the next federal election.
Bev Desjarlais, who has been the MP for Churchill since 1997, was the only NDP member to vote against the same-sex marriage bill earlier this year. Desjarlais lost all her NDP critic's duties after her vote opposing Bill C-38. She told CBC News she expected her nomination to be challenged, and she plans to sit as an Independent.
"It's cost me in the sense of there was a challenge and I lost the nomination. It hasn't cost me in the sense of feeling comfortable in where I am on making a conscience decision," she told CBC News.
"Hopefully the people in the Churchill riding will recognize that they have an MP who will stick to her word, will do the job and will be honest and upfront. That's what I've offered for almost nine years now, and hope to continue offering after the next federal election."
Desjarlais says she could be sitting as an Independent as soon as Tuesday, and she plans to run as an Independent in the next federal election. She's not making any promises about how she'll conduct herself in the House of Commons.
"It will certainly be my intention to vote on each issue as it comes up," she said. "And if it's areas where I believe in what's before the House and know that that's what the riding wants me to do, that's what I'll be doing."
With the loss of Desjarlais, the NDP's number in the House of Commons will drop to 18 at a time when the party is trying to squeeze more concessions out of the Liberals in exchange for supporting Paul Martin's minority government.
If Desjarlais is able to switch her status as of Tuesday, the Liberals will have 133 seats compared to 98 for the Conservatives, 54 for the Bloc Québécois and 18 for the NDP. Three other Independents also sit in the House.
MLA's daughter to represent NDP in next election
Niki Ashton, 23, won the NDP nomination in the Churchill riding, coming out ahead of Desjarlais and two other candidates. Ashton says she doesn't believe Desjarlais' stance on same-sex marriage is totally responsible for her loss in the nomination vote.
"It wasn't a matter of running against any particular person. It was more a matter of putting ahead a forward agenda for the North for the Churchill riding, an agenda that basically asks for national attention on issues of importance to northerners, issues such as the third-world living conditions that many of our communities face, [such as] appalling health issues," she said.
Ashton, who was born and raised in Thompson, says politics are her passion. It must run in the family: her father is Manitoba NDP cabinet minister Steve Ashton.

MP quits NDP; changes odds for minority govt
Tue Oct 18
FULL STORY HERE

TORONTO (Reuters) - A member of Canada's small left-wing New Democratic Party will sit as an independent from this week, casting a new element of doubt on the minority Liberal government's grip on power.
Manitoba Member of Parliament Bev Desjarlais told CBC radio she was quitting the NDP after losing her battle to remain a candidate for the party at the next federal election.
"I've made a decision to sit as an Independent and to run as an independent in the next federal election," she said.
Prime Minister Paul Martin has promised to hold an election next spring, after the release of the second of two reports that examined a government cash-for-favors scandal that tarnished the Liberals' reputation and eroded their support.
The Liberals clung to power last year only with the help of the NDP and a couple of independent MPs, and Desjarlais made clear she would vote on each issue as it came up, rather than toeing an NDP line.
NDP leader Jack Layton has warned that the government cannot assume that his party will support them in the current parliamentary session. He wants the government to introduce new curbs on private health care.
The Liberals have 133 seats in the 308 seat House of Commons, according to Parliament's Web site, while the NDP will have 18 after Desjarlais quits the party. There will be four independents.

'Long battle' over, Canada legalizes same-sex marriage
Wed, June 29, 2005
FULL STORY HERE

Canada made history last night, becoming the third country in the world to legalize marriage for same-sex couples.
Cheers erupted in the packed public gallery of the House of Commons as MPs voted 158-133 in favour of revamping the traditional definition of marriage.
The landmark vote capped off a raucous Parliamentary session and years of emotional debate that pitted gays and lesbians against social conservatives and religious groups. Canada will join Belgium and the Netherlands in recognizing same-sex marriage.
Prime Minister Paul Martin said the issue is fundamentally about upholding Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
"We are a nation of minorities, and in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry pick rights. A right is a right," he said.
Alex Munter, national co-ordinator for Canadians for Equal Marriage, toasted the victory after what he called a "long and arduous" battle.
"This is a proud and exciting day to be a Canadian," he said. "Just days before the Canada Day holiday, we are affirming once again our world-wide reputation as a country that is open, inclusive and welcoming."
Future generations will look back at the pivotal point in history and see that denying gays "full citizenship" is akin to denying women or aboriginals the vote.
"We will be proud, as Canadians, that we rejected rejection, that we ended exclusion, that we said to gay and lesbian people: there are no second-class Canadians," Munter said.
But Conservative Leader Stephen Harper warned the battle is not yet over, insisting Canadians won't accept as "final word" a result which came from the Liberal government teaming up with the separatist Bloc Quebecois to close off debate.
"I don't think most Canadians are going to see that as a legitimate way to settle this debate, and so I think it will be an issue to some Canadians in the next election, and there will be a chance to revisit this in a future Parliament."
Just hours before the historic vote, Minister of State Joe Comuzzi quit cabinet so he could vote against the government's bill. He was among 32 Liberals who voted against the government.
NDP MP Bev Desjarlais was booted to the back row and stripped of her critic's duties as punishment for violating orders from Leader Jack Layton to support the bill.
"I understand it's party policy and recognized there would be discipline, and I can live with that," she said.
A jubilant Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said the vote was another step on the journey that began in 1982.
"I feel very good about it," he said. "As the Minister of Justice I have a responsibility to protect the Charter of Rights of Freedoms on behalf of all Canadians."
Here in Winnipeg, advocate Chris Vogel said he wasn't exactly surprised by the results of the vote.
"It makes no difference in Manitoba, or in the 80% or 90% of the country where gay marriage has been legal for some time already," Vogel said. "Canada has a reputation for being decent and fair and progressive, and this reinforces that into our treatment of gays and lesbians."
Winnipegger Marcia Henson, who's marrying her longtime girlfriend this summer, said she's thrilled with the news.
"Everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, deserves the same rights," said Henson. "Although I am hoping people out there are strong enough in their own beliefs and love that they weren't just sitting around waiting for the government to OK this."
As for Harper's promise to bring the issue back to another vote, Vogel said simply, "He's lying -- again."
Vogel said Manitoba's Tory opposition party said the same thing in 1987, when they promised to repeal an NDP amendment to the Human Rights Code protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"Within months, they were in office, and they didn't repeal anything," Vogel said. "Canadians will get used to this, just as they've gotten used to all sorts of things Stephen Harper has opposed in the past."

Former Liberal MP O’Brien Urges Church to Fight Liberal Ideology, Gay “Marriage”, “The hottest place in hell is reserved for the lukewarm.”
Wednesday June 22, 2005
FULL STORY HERE

Former Liberal MP turned Independent over the Liberal government’s push for legalization of same-sex “marriage,” Pat O’Brien, urged church leaders to fight what he predicted were the next looming political battles: euthanasia, polygamy and threats to religious freedom.
“We've got to get organized sooner because there are more issues coming,” O’Brien warned a group of about 80 church leaders at a breakfast meeting Tuesday, according to a London Free Press report. “Polygamy, euthanasia and religious freedom. They are the next issues. Please stay involved . . . write some cheques, volunteer, get involved.”
O’Brien said that same-sex “marriage” proponents “had the field all to themselves” because church and conservative groups who oppose the idea were slow to react. “You have a responsibility to participate in the national debate . . . if you have religious values you have to get engaged in the public forum.”
“You can't be below the radar . . . you have to go public,” he emphasized, adding that to be active publicly will invite criticism. “Don’t let it bother you,” O’Brien said, describing how he has been branded a bigot and homophobe. “Don't get discouraged, don't withdraw,” O’Brien said. “The hottest place in hell is reserved for the lukewarm.” He said 90 percent of his constituents oppose same-sex “marriage.”
When asked by LifeSiteNews.com Wednesday about why he thinks the conservative majority is losing the same-sex “marriage” battle, O’Brien responded that there were two main reasons in his view. “A drift towards moral relativism, under the guise of human rights and a misunderstanding of what human rights are,” as interpreted by activist courts was a primary factor, he argued.
He said another important issue was the failure of people of faith to mobilize to oppose same-sex “marriage.” There is a “ridiculous notion” out there, he said, “of the separation of church and state. Religious leaders and people of values have not only the right but the responsibility to be involved in the debate on same-sex ‘marriage,’ euthanasia,” and other family and life issues.
O’Brien said that the Liberals were “determined” to extend parliament into the summer to ensure Bill C-38 is “rammed through.” He said he wouldn’t be surprised if the bill passed by next week.
O’Brien, Liberal MP for London-Fanshawe since 1993, said he is taking the summer to decide if he will run for politics again. “I'm not sure I will be in the next campaign. I will take the summer and reflect on that.” O’Brien and his wife Evelyn celebrated their 35th wedding anniversary Monday.

The Broken Windows Theory of Marriage, With gay marriage a reality, why shouldn't other marriage-minded entities in Canada, however outlandish in concept today, take heart from that rush to judgment?
June 29, 2005
FULL STORY HERE

Eighteen months ago I wanted to write a column about the creeping respectability of polygamy, but my then-editor considered the topic too far-out. And lo, look what is making headlines today.
Continuing vandalism will see marriage abolished altogether
Andrew Coyne, George Jonas and the Post editorial board dismiss "slippery slope" worries about polygamy gaining recognition. Jonas says polygamy may not be unnatural or even un-Christian but "it's certainly un-Canadian." In 1999 when a Reform Party bill designating marriage as "the union of one man and one woman" passed the Commons by a thundering 216-55, gay marriage was also "un-Canadian," yet a scant five years later, gay marriage is a reality. Why shouldn't other marriage-minded entities in Canada, however outlandish in concept today, take heart from that rush to judgment?
Coyne says that polygamists could already have petitioned to challenge Canada's ban, but haven't, and the editorial board agrees, adding, "that's not going to change regardless of how the gay marriage vote plays out."
Polygamists have not challenged the ban for the same reason people walk by an apparently abandoned car for days on end—until someone breaks one of its windows. The car is then vandalized and stripped within hours. Gay marriage is that broken window. Continuing vandalism will see marriage abolished altogether, exactly what radical gays, feminists and family law theorists wanted in the first place, and the reason why feminists disparage heterosexual, but support gay, marriage.
Whether entered into for love, status, money, security or family alliance, monogamous marriage between one man and one woman has proved the best institution humans have devised for furthering the human race, while advancing social stability, dignity for women and the protection of children. Its proven legitimacy arises from its enduring public achievements, not the motives people have for entering into it.
The propaganda campaign on behalf of gay marriage ignores this important fact, instead focusing attention on the boundary-blurring monogamous romantic love many gay couples enjoy. Decades ago, when marriage's many other functions were tacitly understood, this tactic would not have worked. But our liberal, sex-obsessed era privileges erotic attachment over all other motives for marriage.
Gay marriage activists who break metaphorical car windows have no moral advantage over polygamists who slash metaphorical tires. If gender is irrelevant to marriage, why not numbers? The legal director of the Utah branch of the American Civil Liberties Union says, "Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives."
Polygamist Muslims are already enjoying special dispensations in Ireland and the U.K. that are not (yet) available here. If some Canadian Muslims want official status for a traditional cultural norm, are they "un-Canadian," as Jonas believes? Conservatives think so, but thanks to Canada's self-defeating official commitment to multiculturalism, culturally based polygamy has—in theory—a strong case for parity with sexual orientation rights.
My guess is that polygamist Muslims and Christian sects won't be successful if they plead the Charter. Our activist judges will overcome their knee-jerk sympathy for minority cultural interests, not through logic or Charter-based reasoning, but simply because they perceive polygamy to be a practice demeaning to women, whose interests generally trump other group claims in judges' eyes.
In 1997, the Law Commission of Canada published a report, Beyond Conjugality. One of its recommendations was to establish a legal structure validating interdependent personal relationships: sexual partnerships, friends, siblings, etc. In a footnote the report's authors stated that they saw no reason in principle to limit registered partnerships to two people (my emphasis). In a 2003 Weekly Standard article, Stanley Kurtz called the commission's report "the first real triumph of the family law radicals." These words may yet prove prescient.
Triumvirate parenting is polygamy from a child's point of view.
Indeed, a nascent form of polygamy already enjoys judicial encouragement. Not long ago, a triple-parenting case in Quebec involving a lesbian couple and a sperm donor would have ended in legal parental status for all three people, but for the willing judge's regret that he lacked jurisdiction. Triumvirate parenting is polygamy from a child's point of view—children with three equal-status parents don't know or care who sleeps with whom—and it is bound to become a legitimate contingency to gay marriage. More smashed windows.
Gay rights advocates appropriated the false analogy of racial miscegenation laws to advance their own agenda of a bogus "equality." It shouldn't surprise them if polygamists, with parallel chutzpah regarding gay marriage, take up the same Rights baton to batter into useless scrap metal what once was the elegantly efficient engine empowering a healthy and stable society: marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
Barbara Kay is a columnist for the National Post.

How can media that don’t recognize lies bring us truth?
June 29, 2005
FULL STORY HERE

Recently, I had a chance to speak to the Prime Minister about two of the critical issues facing the country—until the complaisant host of the radio call-in program cut me off.
The concerns I raised for the PM were:
1—I asked him to comment on reports in La Presse the week before, stating that Mr. Martin had given former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien a written promise to support his attack on the credibility of Judge Gomery, after the report comes out.
He flatly denied the existence of such a letter. That’s remotely possible, but highly improbable, since he’s taken no action against La Presse.
2—I pointed out that the money stolen from taxpayers in the Liberal Party’s Adscam scandal—or at least, what we know about so far—amounts to about $40 for every family in the nation; but the money taken from the taxpayers to bribe Jack Layton into propping up his government is much more—about $500 per family.
The Prime Minister claimed that the “supplementary budget” bill—C-48, which all of Ottawa now calls “the NDP budget”—was for items that were actually part of the Liberal Government’s plans all along.
At that obvious lie, I exploded: “Oh, come on! If it was part of your Government’s plan all along, why wasn’t it in the main budget? Why are there two budget bills before the House now?”
At that point, host Bill Good cut me off, while the PM continued his prevarications.
The obvious falsehood stood out like Pinnochio’s nose—but was allowed to go unchallenged.
He also claimed—and he actually managed to sound like he believed it—that the instant promotion of Belinda Stronach into the Cabinet was because of “her demonstrated expertise and business experience”—not to purchase her vote!
This kind of bare-faced dishonesty isn’t limited to the Prime Minister; it runs right through most of the Cabinet. For example, Revenue Minister John McCallum, in defending Bill C-38, delivered these whoppers:
• He tried to compare the alleged “right” of homosexuals to marry with the rights of women to vote.
But while every citizen has the right to vote, there is no universal “right” to marry; many groups cannot marry, including those who are already married, those who are close blood relatives, those who are under age— and those who are the same gender.
• He asked, “Will gay marriage in any way devalue my own marriage or that of my wife?” and answered himself: “No.”
Of course not! But same-sex ‘marriage’ will profoundly affect the social climate in which our children and grandchildren grow up. If the Government legalizes sexual perversion, it will strengthen the already common practice of schools teaching our children that sexual practices which will shorten their life expectancy are “OK”.
When some of those children experiment with sexual perversion, and become addicted, politicians like Mr. Martin, Mr. McCallum—and Mr. Harper—will share the guilt of sentencing them to a premature death!
• Mr. McCallum asked, “Will churches or other religious institutions be forced to perform gay marriages?” and answered himself: “No,” claiming that “the Supreme Court has been crystal clear on this point.”
That is a bare-faced lie. The Supreme Court has said no such thing; in fact, the Federal Government cannot make legislation to protect churches and clergy, for the solemnization of marriages is provincial jurisdiction, and any Federal Government “guarantees” are ultra vires and have no authority.
• He asked: “Will this legislation harm the children of two fathers or two mothers?” and answered himself: “No”—claiming that because same-sex adoption already exists, it is not relevant to the debate.
But he deliberately overlooked the growing body of evidence that, on average, children raised in same-sex households have significantly diminished academic and social performance in school, drop out earlier and more often, have higher rates of involvement with the law, higher rates of alcohol and other substance abuse, higher rates of premature sexual activity (with attendant teen pregnancy, abortion and venereal disease), and are more likely to become homosexual.
He ignored the fact that the safest place for children is in married homes with a mother and a father, because the rates of domestic violence are higher in unmarried cohabiting households, and highest of all in same-sex households—a fact that homosexual authors David Island and Patrick Letellier, in their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, call “the dirty little secret of the ‘gay rights’ movement.”
Both the PM and his Revenue Minister—indeed, the majority of the Liberal Cabinet—deliberately overlook the fact that only six years ago they voted to preserve the definition of “marriage” as “one man and one woman.”
The Prime Minister alleges that he is somehow compelled to legislate immorality because—he says, falsely—“it’s in the Charter.”
But it’s not in the Charter; Parliament deliberately left “sexual orientation” out of the Charter by a vote of 22-2. The Supreme Court unconstitutionally inserted the offending phrase in 1995, thus violating the separation of powers of government—and no party now sitting in Parliament has had the courage to do anything about it.
Liberal spokesmen consistently confuse individual rights with group rights; they apparently don’t even understand the definition of “rights” in this context, and they apparently think that the government and the courts are the source of our rights. They equate the natural with the unnatural, perverse sex with normal marital relations, same-sex parents with opposite-sex parents, and high-risk unhealthy behaviour with normal, healthy monogamous love.
Who can trust such people? They obviously are distant strangers to the truth; and the mainstream media are no better, because they have also suppressed most of the important facts in a public policy debate that divides the nation bitterly, and will—if the odious C-38 passes, God forbid—change Canada into a cesspool of immorality.

Conservative, Liberal and NDP Youth from Ontario Congratulate Parliament for Defeating Harper Amendments to Bill C-38
April 14, 2005
FULL STORY HERE

Andrew Teliszewsky, President of the Ontario Young Liberals comments on young Canadians from all parties standing up to Stephen Harper.
The leaders of the Ontario PC Youth Association, the Ontario Young Liberals and the Ontario New Democratic Youth banded together on Tuesday, April 12, 2005, in a rare show of cross-party unity to congratulate Parliament for defeating Stephen Harper’s motion to kill the government’s Same-Sex Marriage Bill.
Andrew Teliszewsky, President of the Ontario Young Liberals, said “The Ontario Young Liberals have long believed that same-sex marriage is an issue of basic human rights. With over 3000 registered same-sex marriages in Ontario presently, we feel that any attempt to nullify those existing marriages is a heartless attack on same-sex couples and their families,” Teliszewsky added.
Heather Milne, Co-Chair of the Ontario New Democratic Youth, said “ONDY has supported same sex marriage as an issue of equality, justice and respect for gays and lesbians since 1991. We’re completely in support of Bill C-38. It’s a question not just of rights, but of dignity.”
Mike Wilson, the President of the Ontario PC Youth Association hopes that Mr. Harper will not take any action to further delay passage of the Bill. “The federal Conservatives should urge the government to deal with Bill C-38 quickly so that we can move on to other issues,” said Mr. Wilson. “Whatever their opinion, everyone has made up their minds when it comes to same-sex marriage. The Environics poll released today indicates that even 70% of Conservatives believe there has been enough discussion on this issue. It’s time to move this issue to a vote.”

JUST CLICK HERE

It's party and parcel of the job: Springtime shindigs are heavy on the ooh-la-la
National Post
Tue 07 Jun 2005
Page: AL3
Section: Arts & Life
Byline: Shinan Govani
Column: Scene Source: National Post
FULL STORY HERE

The spring social agenda moves right along. So many circles on my calendar, it's like Brian Orser moved into my daytimer. So many parties to attend, I've begun to forget what the five things are that I've discussed with the same 10 people I've seen at the past 12 parties.
Ah, parties. Parties disguised as parties when really they're just a baroque form of politics. I dunno why politicians study the polls. They should just go to more parties. It's all here: socialite one-upmanship, people as product placement, mirage pools of hype. Some scenes from the trenches:
1. At the arty ooh-la-la Power Ball last week (which had the wind knocked out of its sails last year but seemed this year to make a comeback; at least it didn't run out of drinks!), the provincial Conservative leader, John Tory, was attracting attention. There, he gladly mixed glad-handing with eyeliner. He sat for a makeup session with one of the Stila technicians at the ball doing faces for free. In the process, he may have even gained a few admirers. "Courting the metrosexual vote, are we?" I teased Tory when I saw him with his Tammy Faye face deco. Pointing to some young lads, he said, "These boys are Liberals, but they told me that if I was cool enough to wear makeup, they'd consider me."

JUST CLICK HERE

It's reading hate mail time!
In what is the first unedited, and will likely not be the last, piece of hate mail I read to and share with you today, the pro-Tory writer "True Blue" asks:
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:35:54 -0700 (CDT)
From: " True Blue Tory " < truebluetory@siliconvalleyrlc.every1.net >
CC: TrueBlueTory@canada.com
To: n_e_travez@yahoo.ca
Subject: You must have "big balls" to go up against the Big Blue Machine, buddy
I have already passed along, bookmarked and commented on this site:
http://www.pcpages.com/redjohntory/
My POV here: "Big balls, my friend, big balls!"
TBT
PS ~ If, and it's a rather big if, John Tory calls you personally to dispute the claims made on that website, can you prove that John is not a democratic reformer, fiscal conservative and is a social liberal, because if you can't, you are a loser and Tory is a lawyer, equate that then figure it out!

Me: How is this for proof against your political conspiracy! John Tory, your Progressive Conservative leader, is not a democratic reformer, fiscal conservative and is a social liberal. But, I will go one further, he is turncoat to his cause even as he sits in the middle of a Orange Tory riding he will soon leave for Pink Tory country!
There are way more articles out there than even I can find on how he hates democratic reform, fiscal conservatives but just loves social liberals more than a true blue Tory or Conservative really should so I don't think I will have a hard time proving that in provincial court, do you?.
Neal
And, yes we do read all emails, friendly love or unfriendly hate out loud!
And, also, be sure to say hi to John and the other Ontario Tory party executives at the Gay Pride Parade Gala for me tonight at the Sutton Place Hotel!!!

John Tory named leader of Ontario Tories; REAL women dissent
Date: Oct 10, '04
Publication: Catholic New Times
FULL STORY HERE

Former principal secretary for ex-Premier Bill Davis and Chief Executive of Rogers Cable John Tory was elected Sept. 18, leader of the Ontario Conservative Party.
REALWomen, a longtime socially conservative lobby group distanced themselves from Tory. A press release states:
"John Tory has made a mistake. He has thrown his support behind homosexual activists and their cause of same-sex marriage."
"This issue is the mark on which social conservatives draw the line. As a result, Mr. Tory will not have the support of social conservatives, the bedrock of the party. Social conservatives will treat him with disdain and distrust as they did his predecessor, Ernie Eves, unless he adjusts his position on the issue. Will they contribute money to bring down the party's debt of $8.5 million? Mr. Tory will have to rely on his homosexual supporters to assist him. The latter, according to Statistics Canada in a report released in 2003, in its first survey to include a question on sexual orientation, found that there was a total of 316,800 homosexuals in Canada, or approximately 1% of the population. In Ontario, according to this Stats Canada report, homosexuals/ lesbians total 107,200 individuals.
By throwing his lot in with the homosexual activists to the detriment of society and the social conservatives within his party, Mr. Tory has detrimentally affected his electoral chances. He has split his party over the homosexual issue. His party will not rally behind him unless there is a significant change in this stance."
COPYRIGHT 2004 Catholic New Times, Inc., COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

ALSO NOTE: Any statement made here on this site is a fact, unless expressed openly as an opinion of mine, and last time I checked we still had a Freedom of Speech in the Charter your True Pink/Red Tories attacked so fire or sue at will because I know my rights and freedoms in Canada unless John and his Tories are going to take them away too!

What do you think of Red John Tory and his Ontario Progressive Conservative Tory Party?

Write us your comments, questions or thoughts on John, his Tories or the United Alternative against John Tory!

Your Full Name:
Your Home Riding:
Your Phone Number:
Your Fax Number:
Your Email Address:
Your Blog Address:
Comments, Questions or Thoughts:

Is the United Alternative within the

Representative Party of Ontario?

United Alternative Update:
(Irregular Guest Commentary by Paul M. Ellis, Moderator, Reform Ontario Listserv) "The united right in Ontario is divided between the fringe Green, Family Coalition, Freedom, Libertarian and Confederation of Regions provincial political parties while the Communist, New Democrat and Liberal parties remain working together separately and are as far apart as possible. The Green Party has picked up much of the 'crunchy-con' or 'enviro-con' vote from the Tories, while the Family Coalition and Freedom parties are also respectfully after only the single-issue 'so-con' and 'fis-con' vote within the PCs. Libertarian and Confederation of Regions parties remain finding their bearings as the other Small Three try to move forward but as the GPO, FCP and FP have all rejected a Unity Party of Ontario idea, that would have been led by Jim Flaherty as leader and run by Common Sense Reolution as policy, chances are the right will remain split for 2007. The Reform Party of Ontario has been blocked as a brand by the Ontario Tories but a group of Northern and Rural Ontario progressives have decided to use the name Representative Party of Ontario as a Reform-like provincial political party. As it has already shown promise, by running its interim leader against John Tory in the Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey St. Patrick's By-Election, I feel the Representative Party of Ontario has a chance to start make a difference in Reforming Ontario today for tomorrow so I encourage those interested in that to click on the party banner here to take you to their website. However, with no real or true commitment to a United Right Unity Party plan with a Jim Flaherty-like leader or a Common Sense Revolution-like policy, there maybe a need to create an Ontario Reformed Conservative Party or, for short, an Ontario Alliance. Without an Ontario Alliance, the Big Three (Ontario LP, PCP and NDP) will run the Province of Ontario down without thinking twice. If you are interested, please make sure to email Neal on the form here. Thanks and keep on Reforming, Ontario!."

Speak out early and speak out often at these top ten political forums
Must read boards on each and every political move in Ontario and Canada so bookmark them all now
1.Frank Mag, 2.Politics Canada, 3.Maple Leaf Web, 4.True Patriot, 5.Queen's Park Bench, 6.Bourque, 7.Free Dominion, 8.Babble, 9.Liberals Underground and 10.Liberal Party Forums

DISCLAIMER:
Opinions posted here on the "A United Ontario Alliance Alternative against Red John Tory, the Tories and their Ontario Progressive Conservative Party" website are those of the owner Neal E. Travez at n_e_travez@yahoo.ca of Eglinton-Lawrence and are not necessarily the opinion of the provincial political parties, posters or other operators mentioned on this website. The "A United Ontario Alliance Alternative against Red John Tory, the Tories and their Ontario Progressive Conservative Party" website does not advocate violence, hate speech or an overthrow of a government led by Red John Tory, the Tories and their Ontario Progressive Conservative Party but definitely advocate a United Ontario Alliance Alternative. One citizens opinion. Thank you.

From CLGRO to Mollywood: Way 2 go, girlfriends, 30 years old and not a grey :1975-2005!

Genesis 9:11-13

CHECK OUT MY Neal E. Travez's Personal Canada Canadian Ontario Ontarian Conservative Family Traditional Democratic Reform Social Fiscal Alliance Marriage Confederation Freedom Coalition Heritage Progressive Life Republican Political Moral Majority Website FOR EACH AND EVERY Canadian Conservative Coalition MPs and MPPs Endorsements FOR THE NEXT FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL ELECTION!!!
OR the True Blue Tory Back Stabbing SITE!

Did the voters of the Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey riding honestly vote for this on St. Patrick's Day 2005?

Geremy Vincent kisses John Tory, Ontario Opposition leader, at the 25th annual Pride Awards at the Sutton Place Hotel, 7:20 p.m.

If they knew Pink-Red John Tory's Tories were more Progressive and less Conservative, wouldn't they think twice!

---

Go Back Home

Sponsored LinksYour Ad Here

---