True Blue Tory Back Stabbing

TRUE BLUE TORY - BACK STABBING
True Blue Tory Back Stabbing

By NEAL E. TRAVEZ / Letter from Ottawa

TRUE BLUE TORIES stab each other in the back ... It is just the way it is ... First, John Diefenbaker by Bob Stanfield via Dalton Camp ... Then, the successor to Stanfield, Joe Clark stabbed himself and let Brian Mulroney go in for the kill ... Later, family friend of Mulroney, Peter Mackay cut out David Orchard to win control of the party ... And finally, Mackay deciding to stay low, let Stephen Harper win now so he could win later ... I mean they are True Blue Tories ... And Back Stabbing is the name of their game ... Without it, replaced with Unity, they would likely be Liberals!


The Right Honourable John George Diefenbaker
Last Great Tory
13th Prime Minister of Canada 1957 - 1963
From the Canadian Bill of Rights July 1 1960

"I am a Canadian,
free to speak without fear,
free to worship in my own way,
free to stand for what I think right,
free to oppose what I believe wrong,
or free to choose those
who shall govern my country.
This heritage of freedom
I pledge to uphold for
myself and all mankind."


Least Great Tories: PMs and MPs (Um-blers)


Bob Stanfield - Fumbler

Joe Clark - Bumbler

Brian Mulroney - Tumbler

Stephen Harper - Humbler

The Short Night of the Long Knives never ends in Toryland


Brian Mulroney vs. Joe Clark: SNLK II (The Return of the Dead Guy)

Peter Mackay vs. David Orchard: SNLK III (The Empire Strikes Back)

Peter Mackay vs. Stephen Harper: SNLK IV (The Alliance Breaks Apart)

The Ontario Alliance Tories: Blues who are actually Reds (Magna-tics)


Belinda Stronach ___________ Mike Harris ___________ Tony Clement
Always Had It ... Didn't Want It _ Never Lost It ... Never Found It _ Really Need It ... Couldn't Get It


Joe Clark __________________________________________________________________ Peter Mackay
Loser Winning .................................................................................................................................................. Winner Losing


Bob Stanfield fumbles the political football in 1974 ___ Stephen Harper fumbles the political football in 2005

Looking Back to September 1988
Commons vote reveals pro-life strength


By Anthony Hawkins ... (Read More Here)
Parliament's rejection of the government's abortion-on-demand motion of July 28 pleased both sides on the controversial issue. But despite the claims of the pro-abortion lobby that the defeat was a victory for them, the facts revealed to Canadians nationwide that pro-life forces had much greater strength than the media had led the public to believe.
The only pro-life amendment put to a vote (introduced by Gus Mitges) was defeated 118-105. But that the vote came that close surprised many, including pro-lifers. Said one clergyman who had not followed the developments closely: "I had no idea that pro-life was that strong."
Neither did the rest of the country. Nor was it a question of voting for a pro-life motion full of escape clauses for the abortionists. The pro-life amendment in question was a strong one, refusing to permit abortion for "health" reasons, and allowing medical intervention only when doctors had ruled that the situation was life-threatening.
This amendment garnered 105 votes in support, despite the NDP's directive to its members to vote in favour of the amendment. None did. Twenty-five voted against. It collected that many votes despite the fact that all 23 women present voted against it, completely unrepresentative of women's opinion across the country.
The Toronto Sun had called the vote on abortion slated for July 28, an "exercise in futility." The Toronto Star headed its July 27 front-page article, "Debate on abortion labelled hypocrisy." But someone with better insight added in smaller type, "Historic vote tomorrow."
On the morning of Thursday, July 28, precisely six months after the Supreme Court judgement of Jan. 28, 1988, the speaker of the House of Commons ruled half a dozen pro-life amendments out of order. They included an amendment to the government's main motion proposed by Campaign Life Coalition and Alliance for Life, and introduced by John Oostrom (P.C. - Willowdale). This amendment would have transformed the government's motion into a pro-life one.
The speaker did allow four pro-abortion motions, which in essence did not differ from the government's motion. Dubbed by the press as "moderate" or "the middle way" between the two extremes of pro- and anti-abortion, the government motion was in reality a call for abortion on demand. It was, however, disguised with "restrictions" in the later stages of pregnancy.
Therefore, the separate vote on the four abortion-on-demand amendments proved very useful. They revealed the true weakness of the pro-abortion faction:
An amendment by Tory MP Mary Collins (Capilano) would have made an early abortion a matter between a woman and her doctor, while one later in the pregnancy would have required only one doctor's opinion that continuation of the pregnancy would endanger her mental and physical health. It was defeated 191-29.
An amendment by Tory MP Kenneth James (Sarnia-Lambton), which would have permitted abortion on demand for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy but would have slightly tightened restrictions on later abortions, was defeated 202-17.
An amendment by Tory MP Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South), which would have defined the early stages of pregnancy as the first 18 weeks, was defeated on a voice vote.
An amendment by Tory MP John Bosley (Don Valley West), which would have simply required that abortions be conducted by qualified medical personnel and would have left the decision to a woman and her doctor, was defeated 198-20.
The final vote on the government motion itself was much less important. It was defeated 174-76. Liberals and NDPers voted against en bloc, not because of matters of conscience but out of partisan party politics. They wanted to embarrass the government.
A number of PC feminists, such as Barbara McDougall and Mary Collins, voted the motion down out of spite. But others also voted in favour of the motion out of party loyalty. At least eight PCers, including Deputy Prime Minister Don Mazankowski, voted in favour of the pro-abortion motion although earlier they had voted for the pro-life amendment.
In the days following the vote, editorial writers and pro-abortion "experts" such as law professor Bernard Dickens, were very annoyed. They uttered solemn warnings that the clock must not be turned back, that the Supreme Court will not allow it and that the country has decided that women must have the right to kill their unborn babies.
But pro-lifers knew better. For the first time in many years the pro-abortion bubble had been pricked and exploded. A Campaign Life Coalition press release hailed the votes on the various resolutions as "an important step forward in the drive for full protection for unborn children." Said the vice president of Campaign Life Coalition Canada, Margaret Purcell, "We applaud the courage of the many PC MPs who voted against their own government's resolution."
A pleased pro-life political strategist with Campaign Life Coalition indicated that for the first time the group now had a publicly confirmed record of where 223 or more MPs stand on the country's most crucial issue, abortion. That information, he said, together with what was known about MPs and candidates already, will help tremendously in guiding pro-lifers how to vote in the next election. "Hard nosed pro-abortionists should be defeated," he stated, "true (but not phoney) pro-life candidates in all parties must be supported; and where there are no pro-life candidates, the Christian Heritage Party or independent pro-life candidates should fill the gap."

Looking back to October 1992
Pro-choice, pro-abortion: is there a difference?


Margaret E. Purcell ... (Read More Here)
"I am not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice."
Politicians are used to saying it. Pro-life activists are weary of hearing it. Less-informed voters are wooed and won over by it. So let's take a closer look at the word "choice."
"Choice" is a subjective noun that requires a verb to complete the sentence. Pro-choice to what? Let's complete the sentence.
We know that when we say "pro-choice," we usually mean that we are in favour of a mother's choice to have an abortion. We also know that every abortion kills a child. Put the two together and we have the completed sentence. "I'm pro-choice to kill a child."
There is, therefore, no difference in spirit or in practice between pro-choice and pro-abortion. For what we are saying when we utter the words "I'm not in favour of abortion myself, but I support the right to choose" is, "I wouldn't have an abortion myself, but I'll do everything I can to help you get one - if that is your choice."
We might as well say, "I would never rob a bank but if you choose to, I'll help you as much as I can. I'll supply the ammunition. I'll even be the look-out."
Assent amounts to implementing an act and giving it social acceptance and respectability. The guilt is equal if not greater.
For example, do we have any documentation whatever that Joseph Stalin, personally and unaided, carried one single prisoner to the concentration camps? Yet who would say he was innocent?
The pro-choice position taken by politicians and political candidates hinges on two things: the emotive human rights argument and the desire to appear reasonable enough to be elected and re-elected.
Let's deal with the first - our inalienable right to choose. The truth is there is no such right, because every right we have is subject to conditions.
Our absolute freedom of speech is restricted by laws that forbid slander and inciting people to riot. Our hard-earned freedom of assembly is restricted by laws forbidding trespass or breaking and entering.
Apart from the most basic human right that transcends all others - the right to life - we have no absolute right to choose. In a society that does not revolve on anarchy but on some degree of reason, one person's rights must end where the next person's begin.
It should be noted here that society has no difficulty in dismissing claims regarding other choices; for example, driving while impaired, lighting up a cigarette anywhere one chooses, peddling cocaine to those who choose to buy it. The right to choose to kill should not be inviolate.
Now for what it is all about - getting elected.
Politicians and political candidates have successfully convinced thousands of voters that there is a difference between being pro-abortion and pro-choice. They have, therefore, been successful in convincing people that their stand is reasonable.
Let the facts speak for themselves. Pro-abortion legislation was supported by politicians calling themselves "not pro-abortion but pro-choice." Such were the case with government bill of 1988, its pro-abortion amendments in 1989, and Bill C-43, which would have written into law the acceptability of abortion just for the asking.
On the other hand, pro-life initiatives introduced by pro-life politicians such as Senator Haidasz, Tom Wappel, Gus Mitges and Don Boudria, were vigorously opposed by so called "pro-choice but not pro-abortion" parliamentarians.
Take our prime minister, Brian Mulroney. He has repeatedly proclaimed that he is pro-life; yet to respect the right to choose, he not only expedited the introduction of Bill C-43 but openly let it be known that any cabinet minister who voted against it would be a cabinet minister no longer.
The leader of the opposition, Jean Chretien, absolves himself by feeding voters the "pluralistic society" line ("I am personally pro-life but cannot impose my views in a pluralistic society"). Yet, under his supervision, his party hierarchy prevented pro-life motions from being discussed at the Policy Convention in Hull last February. Meanwhile, they themselves moved a motion protecting "choice." In other words, the proof is in the pudding.
Those who hold a pro-choice position have the right to be educated. But if they persist in what is, at best, culpable ignorance or deliberate deception, they deserve to be targeted for defeat. Their actions make it clear there is no difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice.
Needless to say, the right to kill is never an option. We are talking about a child, not a choice.

Looking back to May 2005
Mixed bag of Conservative party conservatism


Paul Tuns ... (Read More Here)
In the beginning.
The founding convention of the Conservative Party of Canada marked the beginning of a new phase in the pro-life movement’s - specifically Campaign Life Coalition’s - political efforts on behalf of the unborn. It also most definitely ended another era.
In the years immediately following the 1988 Supreme Court of Canada decision that struck down the old abortion law, there was a great debate in the Canadian Parliament – a debate that led to the passage of the Brian Mulroney-Kim Campbell abortion bill C-43 in the House of Commons and a subsequent defeat in the Senate on a tie vote. While all of this was happening, the Reform party of Preston Manning, with its one seat in the House of Commons, was slowly eating away at the old Progressive Conservative base of support in western Canada and small-town Ontario. Despite his strong Christian beliefs, Manning didn’t want to be known as “pro-life,” nor did he want the Reform party to take a stand on particularly controversial issues (he dubbed them “moral issues”) such as abortion or capital punishment.
In response to the failure of Parliament to pass a new abortion law, and in preparation for an upcoming (1993) election, Manning (assisted by Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan) cleverly instituted three barricades against ever having to take a position on these issues: 1) He committed a future Reform government to holding a referendum on abortion and another on the death penalty. 2) Until such time as there could be referendums on these issues, Reform MPs would be obliged to vote not according to what their informed consciences told them was the right thing to do but, instead, to vote according to the “consensus” of their constituency; and 3) Until such time as a “consensus” could be determined, Reform candidates were obliged to publicly declare their positions on these so-called “moral” issues for the benefit of the voters. This latter proviso would actually have been quite useful if it had been followed, but a quick glance at CLC questionnaires from Reform candidates in 1993 and 1997 reveals that many Reformers dodged the hard questions and merely defaulted to the party’s plan to hold a referendum. This made it very difficult for pro-life voters to determine the true positions of the candidates.
Moreover, when pro-life candidates were being interviewed by the board of directors of local riding associations and did declare their pro-life positions, Manning’s organizers (especially in Ontario) would often use this information to discourage prospective pro-life candidates from seeking the nomination (“You know, if you are elected and we tell you to vote for abortion, you must do so …” and so on.).
After failing to make an Ontario breakthrough in 1997, Manning contrived to rebrand himself, by turning the Reform party into the Canadian Alliance. At the United Alternative convention in the winter of 2000 (at which the CA was founded), the new party wisely jettisoned most of the Reform referendum policy on “moral issues,” but still required MPs to vote according to their constituents’ wishes. In the ensuing leadership race, the party also jettisoned Preston Manning, electing, instead, Stockwell Day, who never abandoned the populist rhetoric of Manning, but did insist that the party’s policy “cannot bind legislators to vote in favour of measures which would abrogate inalienable human rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and property.”
In the ensuing 2000 general election, Day nonetheless got tripped up over the issue of citizen-initiative measures to force referendums on particular issues. Juxtaposed against the Liberal prime minister’s rewriting of history (he insisted that the 1988 Supreme Court of Canada decision decreed a right to abortion) and the supporting role played by the Canadian media in helping to perpetuate the motif that the topic of abortion must never even be discussed in Canadian politics, it is not hard to see how Manning’s morally neutral referendum policy, and Day’s citizen-initiative gambit, were politically irresponsible positions that ultimately cost Reform and the CA many votes from both committed pro-lifers and skeptical pro-abortion voters.
Of course, the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada drifted after the defeat of its pro-abortion bill C-43 and were reduced to two seats in the ensuing 1993 election. It became irrelevant and no one much cared what Jean Charest thought about these issues. Later, his successor, Joe Clark, moved the party to an increasingly socially liberal and extremist position, though there were still several strongly pro-life PC MPs present in the caucus of Canada’s fifth party at the time of its dissolution.
The merger of the PCs and the CA in 2003 gave birth to the new Conservative Party of Canada. When Stephen Harper was elected as its first leader in March 2004, the party had no position on any issue and Harper never articulated a pro-life position. During the June 2004 election campaign, Harper, as leader, reiterated his support for the previous PC tradition of letting MPs vote their consciences on “the abortion issue” and other “moral issues.” He even reiterated his support for the right of CPC MPs to introduce private member’s legislation. For about 11 days in the campaign, Harper stuck to this position and his party soared in public opinion polls. When the Martin Liberals stopped attacking Harper over his abortion non-position, Harper lost his nerve, stopped referring to the “abortion issue” and started using the very misleading and inaccurate expression “a woman’s right to choose.” Harper also promised that, as prime minister, he would not support any new abortion legislation in his first term in office. This was followed by his failure to openly campaign to defend traditional marriage, his bungling of the child pornography issue and the subsequent melting away of CPC support outside of Western Canada.
CPC convention in Montreal
Which brings us to the founding convention of the CPC in Montreal, held March 17-19 of this year. The convention was significant, in that it closed the circle started in Canadian politics a decade-and-a-half earlier with the defeat in Parliament of pro-abortion Bill C-43, the decision of Preston Manning to dodge the abortion issue, the success of the Reform party in displacing much of the Conservative party in the West and of Jean Chretien’s dictatorship in the Liberal party. (Chretien ruthlessly silenced his pro-life MPs, refused to allow open nomination challenges to his MPs and adopted the Nazi-like ‘big lie’ tactic of asserting that the abortion debate was over and there was a Charter-given “right” to abortion in Canada).
In his convention speech on the Friday night, Harper expressed his vision of where the party should head on many important issues: free votes for MPs on “conscience” issues, support for the traditional definition of marriage and a re-commitment that a Harper-led Conservative government would introduce no legislation on the issue of abortion. Conservative delegates followed their leader. Harper received an 84 per cent vote of confidence; the delegates (wisely) voted in favour of affirming the PC tradition of free votes for MPs (and rejecting the Reform/CA tradition of voting with constituents). The delegates voted 75 per cent in favour of supporting the traditional definition of marriage and 54 per cent supported Harper’s position that “ a Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.” This last resolution required the support of the majority of delegates and a majority of provinces. Only Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba rejected the Harper position on abortion, but it is worth noting that a strong pro-life contingent from Ontario helped ensure that 46 per cent of Ontario delegates opposed this pro-abortion position.
In affirming the right of MPs to vote their consciences on so-called “moral” issues, Harper and the CPC delegates displayed greater respect for the role of individual members of Parliament than we saw from either Preston Manning or Jean Chretien. In abandoning the referendum positions of Manning and Day, Harper and the CPC delegates responsibly closed the book on the Reform/CA experiment of fence-sitting, ducking, obfuscation and hide-and-seek on the important issues facing our country. Let the MPs decide. And let the candidates tell us where they stand. No more referendum talk and no more promises to go along with the mob rule of “majority” or consensus opinion. Please.
Harper’s position on abortion, endorsed by a narrow majority of delegates, is the only serious bad news coming out of the convention, but the decision of delegates will be more hurtful to Harper than to anyone else. According to poll after poll taken year after year, the majority of Canadians support some restriction on abortion and some sort of law to fill the current legislative void. Harper’s cowardice to tackle the abortion issue in an honest way will doubtlessly cost him the votes of many hundreds of thousands of pro-life voters, who may now see no difference between him and Liberal leader Paul Martin on this issue.
The political future
Of course, responsible pro-life voters will ignore Martin and Harper’s irresponsible positions on these issues and instead follow the advice of Campaign Life Coalition by voting for local pro-life candidates in their constituencies, regardless of party affiliation. Nonetheless, Harper’s failure to embrace pro-life voters will cost him at the polls, and this represents a missed opportunity for him and for his party.
In narrowly adopting Harper’s previously stated position that his government would not support legislation that restricts abortion, the small majority of delegates have committed themselves to a position that their leader will readily accept as party policy. Pro-lifers are the best losers in Canadian politics – and we are democrats. We accept the party’s decision and we pledge to work harder next time. Two years from now, at the next CPC convention, when the delegates adopt a resolution that commits a CPC government to supporting legislation that recognizes the rights of the unborn, will Harper so readily accept the result? Will the losing side respect the democratic decision, as pro-lifers have this year?
We shall see.

Christian Heritage Party accepts Preston Manning's invitation if
Can Canada Conservatives unite the right?

Ron Gray ... (Read More Here) If the invitation to attend the "Unite the Right" conference, held in Toronto in March, had included the CHP, we would have attended. But, we have one key question to ask: "Will the proposed new coalition be committed to the foundational principles of the Preamble to the Canadian Constitution?" According to the Interpretations Act the preamble must be the regulating principle of any law; everything that is done by that law, and every judgement rendered under it, must be guided by the preamble. With regard to our Constitution, that's a fiction in Canada today. The Preamble to the Canadian Constitution says this nation was established upon principles which recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law. Neither the Government nor the Official Opposition acts as though that were true.
This proposal is not new territory for the CHP: ten years ago my predecessor met Mr. Manning to discuss a possible merger of the two parties. The CHP's sole requirement was a party constitution that would ensure all policies were guided by the spirit of the Preamble to the Canadian Constitution - they would be based upon the Biblical principles on which the nation was established. The Reform leader's answer at the time was "no".
I'm grateful that in recent months, the CHP has been gaining new respect nationally, and new credibility in the national media, by stressing that we seek to broaden the range of options available to Canadians to include a party which fully respects the principles of the Constitution. We don't ask everyone to agree with us; we seek only to ensure the Canadians to whom those principles are important have the option of voting for them. Mr. Manning's proposal, on the other hand, is actually to truncate the range of choices available: to give Canada a two-party system consisting of "Liberals" and "Others". I find that especially fascinating at a time when Dr. James Dobson, one of the most respected evangelicals on the continent, is threatening to break out of the long-established two party system in the United States, and even to throw his support behind a third party, precisely because this kind of "big tent" thinking has frozen people of faith out of the two-party process. It will inevitably have the same effect here.
Rather then boiling Canada down to a two-party system with no room for deeply-held moral convictions, the CHP advocates Proportional Representation, which would respect and make room for such convictions, and would make Parliament much more truly democratic.
In the last Federal election, Reform and the Tories got about the same number of votes; but Reform was awarded three times as many seats. It makes them look larger than they really are. Proportional Representation would always give each party the number of seats it actually earned; it would give all points of view a voice in Parliament; it would eliminate artificial majorities, such as the current government which holds a majority of seats with only 38% of the popular vote; and it would end the mockery of democracy by which we elect a new "dictator" every three to five years; the cabinet would become more responsive to the Commons, and the Commons would be more responsive to the electorate. Parliament would become, once again, a forum for serious discussion and consideration of all views, instead of a theatre for sophomoric hi-junks and posturing, while the cabinet imposes its will regardless of what is said, because the party whips make all the sheep bleat in unison when the vote is called. This attempt to drive all shades of political opinion in to one of two camps is thus actually anti-democratic; its ultimate raison d'etre is "might is right", and we in the CHP reject that.

Christian Heritage Party leader pursues Calgary seat in federal by-election
Ron Gray seeks "unfettered voice for Christian principles in Parliament"

Tim Callaway ... (Read More Here) Ron Gray, national leader of the Christian Heritage Party (CHP), visited Calgary in mid-January to launch his campaign to succeed Preston Manning as Member of Parliament for Calgary Southwest.
"It's normal in Canadian politics for any party leader who does not have a seat in the House of Commons to seek one in the next by-election," Gray told CW. "The only exception to this tradition that I know of was Joe Clark in 1999-2000. He waited so long before contesting a seat in Nova Scotia that the media began to quip, "he can hide, but he can't run."
"Should I win in Calgary Southwest, I will have a home in the riding," says Gray, a 68- year-old resident of Hull, Quebec.
The Christian Heritage Party was founded in 1986, shortly before the Reform Party came on the scene. In the 1988 federal election, the CHP ran candidates in 63 ridings thereby earning official party status. Soon after, an offer by founding president Ed Vanwoudenberg to fold his party into the Reform Party was rejected.
Unite the right
Gray, who became party leader in 1995, made a second attempt to "unite the right" at the United Alternative's Ottawa convention in 2000. His motion asking the UA to commit itself to the two principles in the preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – "the supremacy of God and the rule of Law" – was soundly defeated.
Unprepared for the call for the federal election of November 2000, Gray's party ran only 46 candidates, temporarily losing official party status. Gray reports that since then, membership in the CHP has doubled to around 6,000.
Gray says the most important issue he sees in the upcoming vote is national in scope. "The results of this by-election cannot change the composition of Parliament," he notes, "but the voters of Calgary Southwest have an opportunity to inject a completely new voice into the House of Commons.
"In an era when party discipline in Ottawa is so tight that Christian politicians in the other five parties are not allowed by their caucuses to bring their deepest convictions into the debates–they are told what they will say and when–it's important to have an unfettered voice for Christian principles in Parliament."
Gray underscores the fact that the CHP is Canada's only pro-life political party.
"Our party would not have run promoters of abortion-on-demand as the Canadian Alliance (CA) has done in Victoria and Edmonton, for example. The CHP is truly pro-family–we would not have run candidates who are known as pro-homosexual activists, as the CA did in Montreal."
He points out that the CHP has proposed a "family-friendly tax credit" of $1,000 per month for families with children school age or younger if either parent chooses to stay home and raise them.
Generational benefits
"The benefits of such would be felt for generations, strengthen families and eliminate the spurious 'need' for the Liberals' planned national day-care program that would add $12-15 billion per year to our tax burden," Gray maintains.
"Our plan would open 1.5 to 2 million currently existing jobs, mostly entry-level positions," he adds, "relieving unemployment in the youth sector where it is most severe."
For the past six years, the CHP has advocated a policy to limit Canada's trade with nations that use slave labour or exploitive child labour and/or oppress political and religious minorities (e.g. China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt and Cuba).
"Under our plan," explains Gray, "those who want to import products from such nations would have to obtain from the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service a certificate attesting that the specific goods to be imported are not made using slave or exploitive child labour."
Vote-splitting vetoed
Potentially splitting the small-c conservative vote in Calgary Southwest is of no concern to Gray. "Vote-splitting is a sham and a deception that assumes certain votes are pre-determined," he claims.
"In fact, that's what democracy is about–candidates tell voters what they stand for and the media, if they're doing their job, inform the electorate as fully as possible about the options. The electorate then 'splits the vote' according to its convictions. Strategic voting actually destroys true democracy."

Recorded Votes in the House of Commons Where the Cabinet did not Vote with the Majority (1957 to Date)
This compilation lists recorded votes on all motions where the Prime Minister and Cabinet did not vote with the majority of members of the House of Commons.

Library of Parliament ... (Read More Here) 33rd Parliament (1984.11.05 - 1988.10.01)
2nd Session (1986.09.30 - 1988.10.01)
Gus Mitges (P.C.) Division No. 498
amendment No. 3 on motion to prepare and introduce legislation on abortion negatived (YEAS 105 , NAYS 118)
D. Mazankowski, Deputy Prime Minister, voted "YEA" Journals; July 28, 1988: p. 3300
"Critics complain that the Senate is a weak institution. Sen. Taylor - who was appointed in 1996 and will be forced to retire when he turns 75 next month - responds that it was not until he became a senator that he realized how powerful the Senate truly is. "Too powerful," he says. "It has an absolute veto.", as was proved when Mulroney PC appointed BC Senator Pat Carney's vote killed the Tories' Bill C-43, which would have recriminalized abortion in Canada. Carney wrote, "I sat frozen in my chair, aware from my own experience what immense powers cabinet ministers have to wreak havoc, should they choose to use them." then not only did Carney vote No on Bill C-43, but her vote was the tying vote that killed the bill in 1991. He adds, however, that the Senate's power is paradoxical. If it vetoed more bills, it would be stripped of its powers - or abolished. - What do they do, anyway?

Supreme Court of Canada Life Vigil
When, if ever, is an abortion a moral choice?


Canadian Pro-Life Coalition ... (Read More Here) On that January 28, when the Supreme Court of Canada decided that Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada could not withstand a Charter challenge brought forward by Dr. Morgentaler, pro-life people hold a vigil. The vigil is held to remind the general populace and the politicians that the Supreme Court of Canada, in its 1988 decision, stated that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of the unborn child. It also stated that, in our country, it is up to parliament, and not the courts, to decide when the state’s interest in fetal life begins. Various proposals are made to draft a new abortion law. One submitted by Gus Mitges MP, which would have prevented all abortions, comes closest to passing. In the end no proposal receives majority support.
Following the throwing out of the abortion law in 1988, Canada has been in a state of lawlessness in regard to abortion. In 1989 the government of Brian Mulroney introduced Bill C-43. It would have made abortion a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor. There were several amendments put forward, none of which passed, and the bill was eventually defeated in the Senate in 1991. There was a feeling that Bill C-43 would be virtually useless as far as giving protection to unborn children was concerned. The amendment in the House of Commons that came closest to passing (118 - 105) was one by Dr. Gus Mitges, MP, which would have restricted abortion to saving the life of the mother. The amendment brought forward by BC MP, Mary Collins, that urged the using of a gestational approach similar to that the Canadian Medical Society approved of then, and currently still supports, was roundly defeated by a 191 - 29 vote.
No federal government since has decided to get into legislation regarding abortion and so the unborn have no protection in law at the present time. An unborn child can be killed with impunity right up to birth. One Canadian woman chose to shoot her infant in the head with a pellet gun just two days prior to her expected due date. This state of affairs is unconscionable. After the 1988 ruling, and with no replacement legislation brought in, the number of known unborn children killed by abortion has gone from 72,693 to over 110,520 in 1998, the last year recorded statistics from all provinces and territories is available for. At the present time the medical profession is the gatekeeper for abortion, which of course it would also have been should Bill C-43 been passed into law. Currently, during this time of legal lawlessness, there is a gestational approach used in the practice of induced abortion, something the parliamentarians definitely rejected in the legislative initiative following the Supreme Court 1988 decision.

The History of Abortion Law in Canada (2000 BC to Date)

From Conservation of Human Life to Liberalization of Innocent Death


Campaign Life Coalition ... (Read More Here)
Early Abortion Laws
For thousands of years the killing of unborn children was prohibited in Western society. The laws against abortion go back as far as the Sumerians(2000 BC) and the Code of Hammurabi in 1728 BC. Laws protecting humanlife before birth have been handed down to us from those times until today byboth ecclesiastical and civil courts. In modern times, until 1803, the courts protected the preborn child when it became "animated," that is, when it could be felt moving. In 1803, because of increased medical knowledge of the development of human life in the womb, Great Britain passed Lord Ellenborough's Act. This Act declared abortion to be a crime and a felony at any time after conception. The preamble to the Act makes clear that it was intended to protect the life of the unborn child: ...certain...heinous Offenses, committed with intent to destroy the Livesof His Majesty's Subjects by Poison, or with intent to procure themiscarriage of Women...have been of late frequently committed: but noadequate means have been provided for the Prevention of suchOffenses. Under this 1803 Act, abortions performed before quickening were punishedless severely than those performed after that point. The Offenses Against the Person Act of 1837 dropped the distinction between women "quick" or not "quick" with child because quickening was then understood as "merely a change in position of the uterus, ...not evidence of animate life coming to the foetus which might justify the greater protection provided by the greater punishment." After further reflection, the 1861 Offenses Against the Person Act establisheda uniform maximum penalty of life imprisonment for abortion, whether beforeor after quickening. It also provided that the pregnant woman herself, as wellas the abortionist, could be held guilty of the offence. The British prohibitions were the law in Canada when the Canadian Parliament created its own Criminal Code which came into force in 1893. In 1929 Britain passed the Infant Life Preservation Act which allowed that abortion could be lawful if done in good faith to preserve the life of the mother. The Canadian Criminal Code reflected this change in Section 237, and allowed abortion to preserve the life of the mother. In the late 1950s and early 1960s the media, specifically Chatelaine magazine and the Globe and Mail, with the co-operation of the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Medical Association, called for a more liberalized abortion law. The Harley Committee and the Omnibus Bill In February, 1966, the House of Commons referred the matter of revision of the abortion law to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare under theChairmanship of Dr. Harry Harley (Lib–Halton). The committee held hearingsbeginning October 3, 1967. The Harley Committee presented an interim report to the Government of Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson on December 19, 1967, advising a revision of the abortion law in Canada. Two days later, December 21, 1967, Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced a government bill in the House of Commons, An Act to Amend the Criminal Code. The bill received first reading and became commonly known as the “Omnibus Bill” because it ran to 72 pages and 104 clauses, dealing with many aspects of criminal law, including parole, penitentiaries, combines investigations, customs, tariffs and national defense. It contained proposed changes in politically sensitive areas of criminal law such as abortion, homosexuality, drunk driving and marijuana possession. The Calgary Herald reported at the time that Trudeau felt that, “These amendments would have a better chance of passing if they were included in a bigger, diverse bill with its obvious advantages of psychological inertia” (Dec. 20, 1967). The final report of the Harley Committee was presented in the House of Commons March 13, 1968 and it recommended that an amendment to allow abortion read that abortion could be permitted only if a pregnancy, “will endanger the life or seriously and directly impair the health of the mother…” The committee rejected the notion of abortion for socio-economic reasons (“Morality and Law in Canadian Politics,” Alphonse de Valk, 1974, p.80). Shortly thereafter, the Liberal leadership convention was held, giving Pierre Trudeau leadership of the party. An election was then called for June 1968. The Omnibus Bill died on the Order paper, only to be re-introduced by Justice Minister John Turner on December 19, 1968 as government Bill C-150, the short title of which was, The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968. Changes to the Criminal Code respecting abortion were contained in Clause 18 of the bill. Second reading of the bill began on January 23, 1969 and continued until February 26. The bill was given to the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs on March 4. This committee completed its study March 28, and C-150 was sent back to the House for third and final reading on April 16, 1969. Réal Caouette led the Créditistes in a three week filibuster and abortion was debated from April 25 to May 9. The final vote came May 14, 1969. The bill was passed and Canada now had a law that allowed abortion.Section 251 became the portion of the Criminal Code which dealt with abortion. Abortion remained a crime, but exceptions were permitted if the abortion was performed in an accredited hospital by a licensed physician after a panel of three doctors had certified that the pregnancy threatened the woman’s life or health. No definition of the word “health” was provided. Clause 14 of Bill C-150, in order to create a situation in which abortion could be legal, and to bring the Code into line with the amendments of Clause 18, amended section 195 by adding the underlined words below to subsection 2:(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.The legislation explained: “This amendment, which adds the underlinedwords, would make it clear that subsection (2) of section 195 is applicable only in respect of the death of a child that occurs after the child becomes a human being. Subsection (1) defines when a child becomes a human beingand is not changed.” Section 223. (1) states: A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother whether or not (a) it has breathed, (b) it has an independent circulation, or (c) the naval string is severed. (Later in 1970, section 195 became S. 206 as a result of Criminal Codeamendments. Later still 1985 amendments turned it into S. 223.) Another important change was made in Bill C-150 by Clause 15. The phrase, “in the act of birth” was added to Section 209. Clause 15. Section 209 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefore:209. (1) Every one who causes the death, in the act of birth, of any child thathas not become a human being, in such a manner that, if the child were a human being, he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.This addition would free from culpability someone who performed an abortion. S. 209 later became S. 238 of the Criminal Code. Clauses 14 and 15 were clearly arranged to remove legal protection from the child before birth, so that Clause 18, the abortion amendment, could proceed unhindered. Badgely CommitteeIn 1975 the government appointed a Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law to "conduct a study to determine whether the procedure provided in the Criminal Code for obtaining therapeutic abortions [was] operating equitably across Canada." Known as the Badgely Committee afterits chair Robin Badgely, the committee studied access to abortion in Canada. In its January 1977 report, the Badgely Committee concluded that "the procedures set out for the operation of the Abortion Law are not working equitably across Canada." Mitges Motion On June 2, 1987 the Private Members' Motion of Gus Mitges (PC–Grey-Simcoe), M-37, came to a vote in the House of Commons. The motion asked government to consider amending Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include unborn persons. The vote was made possible by changes to the rules governing Private Members' Business. Items designated by the Private Members' Business Committee to be "votable" were supposed to be debated for five hours,following which would be a vote. Previously, Private Members' Bills designed to gain protection for preborn children had fallen prey to the tactic of "talkingout," so were never voted upon. The Mitges’ Motion provided an opportunityfor pro-life Members of Parliament to speak on the issue of abortion and to vote for complete legal protection of preborn children. During the five hours ofdebate, a majority of speakers defended the rights of the preborn child. The motion was lost by a vote of 62 in favour and 89 against – a difference of only 27 votes. The Morgentaler Decision In January 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada, in the Morgentaler decision, struck down the existing abortion law, Section 251 of the Criminal Code, for procedural reasons related to the “security of person” clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 reads: “Everyone has the right tolife, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereofexcept in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” It was argued that, for a number of reasons, including the delay it would require in procuring an abortion, Section 251 threatened women’s bodily “security.”Unlike the Roe v. Wade decision in the United States, the Supreme Court of Canada did not rule that a woman has a constitutional "right" to abortion. It struck down the existing law for procedural inequities. Only one of the seven judges who The narrow ruling in Morgentaler left the door open for Parliament to amend the offending provisions and enact a new abortion law which protects human life from conception onwards. Haidasz Bill In May of 1988, following the Supreme Court decision leaving Canada without an abortion law, Senator Stanley Haidasz (Lib–Ontario) introduced a bill (S-16) to amend the Criminal Code to give full protection to all unbornchildren. The bill was seconded by Senator John MacDonald (PC–NovaScotia). The bill died with all other legislation at the end of the Parliamentarysession, but Senator Haidasz reintroduced it in the next Parliament (in 1989) as S-7. The bill would have amended section 287 of the Criminal Code to ban abortion in all cases, while permitting the medical treatment necessary toprevent the death of a mother. 1988 Government Motion Left without an abortion law following the Supreme Court decision in Morgentaler, the government introduced a motion which would have allowed for a gestational approach to abortion. That motion and five amendments were defeated by the House of Commons in July, 1988. However, the separate votes on the six abortion law proposals revealed the strength of the pro-life voice in the House. The government motion, and amendments introduced by Mary Collins (PC–Capilano-Howe Sound), Ken James(PC–Sarnia Lambton), Barbara Sparrow (PC–Calgary Southwest), and John Bosley (PC–Don Valley West) were all variations of either the gestational or abortion-on-demand approach to legislation. Only the amendment of Gus Mitges called for legal protection of unborn children from the time of conception. Whereas the government motion and other amendments were overwhelminglyrejected, the Mitges amendment was narrowly defeated. The vote was 105 to 118; if just 7 MPs had switched their votes, the Mitges amendment would have passed. The Borowski Challenge On March 9, 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the appeal of Joe Borowski who had requested a declaration that unborn children enjoy the right to life guaranteed by Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Borowski was challenging the validity of Section 251 of theCriminal Code which had already been struck down by the Supreme Court in January 1988. Consequently, the judges found that Borowski's challenge raised a "hypothetical point" and refused to make a ruling on the rights of unborn children. The Borowski case had been in the court system for 11 years. In September1978, former Manitoba Highways Minister Joe Borowski brought the claim tothe Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench in Regina arguing that exceptionsallowing abortion in Section 251 of the Criminal Code contradicted the right to life provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights. From the start, the government put various obstacles in Borowski's way. First, it argued that Borowski's action should have been carried in the Federal Court of Canada, rather than in the Saskatchewan Court. Borowski fought right up to the Supreme Court of Canada, which eventually decided that the case could be heard in the Saskatchewan Court. The government's next obstaclewas the argument that Borowski as an individual person did not have any"status" or "standing" in the court and, therefore, could not challenge the abortion law. But with a 7-2 majority, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Borowski eligible to represent the unborn.In May 1983, the Borowski trial in defence of the unborn child opened inRegina. Counsel for Borowski claimed that the rights of the unborn - despitenot being mentioned specifically by name - are in the Charter already. The Criminal Code section permitting abortions denied these rights in at least four significant areas, he said. He cited Section 7 stipulating that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person and the right not to be deprivedthereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."For six weeks internationally known medical personnel, led by Sir William Liley of New Zealand and Professor Jerome Lejeune of France, testified to the nature of the preborn child. The scientific evidence presented at the trial was uncontested, and demonstrated beyond a doubt that the preborn child is a human being deserving of the full protection of the law.The case was dismissed by the Saskatchewan lower court and was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. After several delays, and an attempt by the Federal Government to have the case dismissed before the hearing, the Borowski case was heard by the Supreme Court in October 1988. As the Morgentaler decision striking down the Criminal Code provisionsrelating to abortion had been rendered ten months earlier, there was nolonger an abortion law in Canada at the time of the hearing. This posed a problem for the Supreme Court Justices. Although they allowed the hearing to proceed, they indicated that they felt that the case could well be moot. In the ensuing decision, in March 1989, the Justices did not assess thescientific and medical evidence on the nature of the preborn child presented in the original trial. Their decision to reject the appeal was based solely on the mootness of the case following their January 1988 ruling striking down Section 251 of the Criminal Code. While the judgement in Morgentaler addressed the question of a woman's right to "security of person," no judgement has ever been rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on the Constitutional rights of the pre-born child. Daigle Case In July 1989, the Quebec Court of Appeal, in a 3-2 decision, upheld apermanent injunction requested by Jean-Guy Tremblay, preventing his fiancée Chantal Daigle from aborting their 20 week preborn child. Three judges turned down Daigle's appeal, supporting the Superior Court ruling that the "unborn foetus" has rights.Mr. Justice Yves Bernier wrote: The child that has been conceived but not born is a reality that must betaken into account...It is not an inanimate object, nor the property ofanyone, but a living human entity distinct from the mother...and has theright to life and protection from those who conceived it. Justice Bernier also recognized the rights of the father: It is just as much his child as it is the mother's, not more, not less. The Appeal Court Ruling was binding on all Quebec judges and could only beappealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was done by c Daigle's lawyer, Daniel Bedard, on her behalf on July 27, 1989. The Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Quebec Superior Court ruling,decreeing that Tremblay's case was groundless. All nine judges ruled that a father has no right to prevent a mother killing their unborn child by abortion. They also decided that neither the Quebec Charter, nor the Quebec Civil Code provide legal protection for preborn children. Daigle had travelled to the United States to have an abortion a week before the Supreme Court ruled onher appeal on August 8, 1989. On November 16, 1989 the Supreme Court rendered reasons for its August 8 decision in the case of Guy Tremblay v. Chantal Daigle, stating that "the task of properly classifying a foetus in law and in science are different pursuits"and that recognizing the preborn child as a human being in law is a"normative task...more appropriately left to the legislature."Government Bill C-43 In November 1989 the federal government introduced new abortion legislation to fill the void left by the Supreme Court's decision in Morgentaler. The Justice Communiqué of November 3, 1989 stated: The Honourable Doug Lewis, Minister of Justice and Attorney Generalof Canada, today introduced in the House of Commons an Actrespecting abortion. The bill fulfils the Government's commitment toCanadians to bring forward new abortion legislation compatible with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Morgentaler case. "The bill introduced today establishes that the question of abortion is a medical decision to be made between a woman and her doctor, basedon health grounds," said Mr. Lewis. "The new legislation on abortion is a reasonable solution to a very difficult problem for all Canadians. Itbalances the rights of the woman with society's interest in the protectionof the foetus."The legislation underlines the fact that abortion is a medical act to be performed by a qualified medical practitioner. The foetus is protected since the decision must be made for health reasons. "Health" is defined as including physical, mental and psychological health. The new law comes under the Criminal Code because it is only through the Criminal law power that parliament can regulate abortion on a national basis. While the bill does not specifically refer to other indications for having an abortion, such as eugenics, rape, incest and socio-economic welfare, these matters could be considered in relation to a determination of a woman's "health" if they adversely affected and thereby were likely to threaten her health. Although abortion was re-introduced into the Criminal Code, the restrictions imposed were meaningless. Abortion became solely a matter between a woman and her doctor and could be performed for the vaguest of reasons, throughout all nine months of pregnancy. Only one doctor was needed to approve the abortion and that doctor could be the abortionist. The language of the proposed legislation inferred that non-medical practitioners might be allowed to perform abortions "under the direction of amedical practitioner," since the bill did not specify that abortions were only tobe performed by a physician. Bill C-43 passed in the House of Commons on May 29, 1990 by a slim marginof nine votes, but it was defeated by a tie vote in the Senate on January 31, 1991. Supreme Court Decision in Sullivan/Lemay v. the Queen In May, 1985, Mary Charlotte Sullivan and Gloria Jean Lemay were charged with criminal negligence causing death to the child of Jewel Voth, and with a second charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm to Jewel Voth, which was later dismissed on a technicality. The charges were laid after Sullivan and Lemay, acting as midwives, attempted to assist Jewel Voth in giving birth. According to the Court, Voth was in labour for 15 hours. The Court stated: After five hours of second stage labour the child's head emerged andno further contractions occurred. Sullivan and Lemay attempted tostimulate further contractions but were unsuccessful. Approximately twenty minutes later, Emergency Services were called and the mother was transported to hospital. Within two minutes of arrival, an intern delivered the baby using..."a basic delivery technique." The child was born dead due to asphyxiation during the long birth process. The Supreme Court brought down their ruling on March 21, 1991, acquitting Sullivan and Lemay on the first charge of causing the death of a child. The charge had been laid under Section 203 of the Criminal Code which states: Every one who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life. Chief Justice Latimer stated that, "The child of Jewel Voth was not a 'person' within the meaning... of the [Criminal] Code." Canada's Criminal Code Section 223 requires that a child becomes a human being only after "proceeding completely, in a living state from the mother's womb." The Drummond Case In 1996, Ontario woman Brenda Drummond tried to kill her unborn child by shooting it in the head with a pellet gun. She was charged with attempted murder but the case never went to trial because the judge hearing preliminary arguments did not accept those of the Crown Attorney, that is, that the unborn child does have legal rights even if it is argued that it is not a human being. Crown Attorney John Waugh conceded in his argument that the unborn child is not legally a human being, but he cited several sections of the Criminal Code which he argued grant protection to a foetus. Section 242, for example, makes it a crime for a pregnant woman intentionally not to seek "reasonable assistance" at the time of delivery if the baby dies. Section 223 states that a person has committed homicide if a baby is born alive, but subsequently dies due to injuries suffered while in the womb. Despite Mr. Waugh's argument, the judge ruled against him. The Defense Attorney, Lawrence Greenspon, even argued that the child would have to have died for Section 223 to be relevant. Ontario Court Judge Inger Hansen threw out the charge of attempted murder, insisting that she had no choice because in case law a child does not become a person with the rights of a human being until it has completely emerged from its mother. Instead, she found Brenda Drummond guilty of not providing the necessities of life to a baby and gave her a suspended sentence and 30months' probation. She said that a new law would have to be written to provide protection to unborn children in such instances and that such a responsibility belongs to Parliament, repeating what the courts have said in abortion-related cases since the 1988 Morgentaler decision threw out the 1969 abortion law. To date, the federal government has not accepted this challenge or responsibility. This case received a great deal of coverage, much of it reflecting the surprise and shock many Canadians felt when they discovered that such actions are permissible since Canadian law provides no protection for the unborn child. Many Canadians had no idea that such behaviour was legal. The Manitoba “Glue-Sniffing” Case Winnipeg Child and Family Services made application to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba in August, 1996 to have a 22 year-old pregnant woman placed in custody until the birth of her child. She had a long history of solvent abuse (glue-sniffing), suicide attempts, and an unstable lifestyle. She had given birth previously to three children, two of whom suffered obvious effects of the mother’s sniffing habits, and all of whom were put under permanent guardianship of the Winnipeg Social Services. She herself was described at trial as suffering from “solvent abuse with cerebellar disease and cognitive impairment”. She had chronic suicidal ideation and cerebellar degeneration. The severe effects of solvents upon unborn children were described by other witnesses to include, “central nervous system dysfunction, developmental delay, attention deficit disorder, and growth deficiency”. The Court under Mr. Justice Perry Schulman complied and on August 13th granted custody of the mother to Child and Family Services and directed that she be treated and detained until the birth of her fourth child, due in December. This order was set aside on appeal and on June 18, 1997 the case was heard in the Supreme Court of Canada. By that time, the mother had accepted treatment voluntarily, given birth in December 1996 to a healthy baby boy and was pregnant for a fifth time. Subsequently, this fifth, apparently healthy child was born. The case had gone beyond the care of a glue-sniffing mother and become crucial to the argument for fetal rights. The Supreme Court Judgment, released October 31, 1997 dismissed the appeal. Seven judges ruled that, “The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights. ... the only right recognized is that of the born person.” Two judges, Sopinka and Major, in dissent said, “The ‘born alive’ rule is a legal anachronism and should be set aside.” They continued, “This common-law rule which requires a foetus to be born alive before any legal rights of personhood can accrue, is an evidentiary presumption rooted in rudimentary medical knowledge not a substantial rule of law.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in its judgment, reinforced the notion of the Manitoba Court of Appeal which had found the task of formulating, or altering law to cover situations such as this to be, “more appropriate for the legislature than the courts.” In the Supreme Court decision the judges stated, “If anything is to be done, the legislature is in a much better position to weigh the competing interests and arrive at a solution that is principled and minimally intrusive to pregnant women.” Other Court Cases Another case worked its way through the Canadian court system from 1996 to July 1999. The case was a lawsuit brought against a mother, Cynthia Dobson, on behalf of her five-year-old son due to a traffic accident that left the unborn boy with injuries causing cerebral palsy. It addressed the responsibilities of a pregnant women as a driver and the duty of care she owes to anyone who might suffer an injury as a result of her negligent driving. The lawsuit was brought by the boy’s grandfather on his behalf for the purpose of winning insurance money to help pay for the expensive care the boy required. The Supreme Court ruled against the boy, arguing that he had no legal status prior to birth. With this decision, the court concurred with its earlier ruling in the 1997 Winnipeg glue sniffing case, stating that it would be wrong to impose “a duty of care upon a pregnant woman towards her foetus.” Lower courts in New Brunswick had ruled in favour of the boy. Critics charged that, with its decision, the court considered exclusively the liberty rights of women, giving no consideration to the growing scientific evidence regarding the humanity of the foetus. Justice Peter Cory, who wrote the majority decision, did say that a child has the right to sue third parties for injuries suffered in the womb. This right is traced back to a 1933 Supreme Court decision. The idea of “wrongful birth” has also been raised in Canadian courts by way of a few fairly recent cases. In such cases, parents sue physicians for failing to diagnose defects in their unborn children. The parents argue that they would have procured an abortion if they had been aware of the defects, arguing that they are now stuck with the added cost and emotional burdens of raising a disabled child. Wrongful birth “has been recognized as a viable cause of action by a 1997 Supreme Court of Canada case, Arndt v. Smith, noted Michael Fitz-James, a Toronto-based lawyer and editor of Canadian Lawyer magazine (“Wrongful birth case instructive for us all,” Medical Post, Feb. 2, 1999). In that case, a baby was born with congenital disabilities which were traced to the mother’s bout of chicken pox while she was pregnant. Her doctor failed to warn her about a risk of birth defects thus preventing her from making an informed decision about whether or not to seek an abortion. She sued and “met with mixed success as she advanced through the various levels of B.C. courts, until finally, at the Supreme Court, she had the new tort recognized in principle, although her case was tossed out over causation issues,” wrote Mr. Fitz-James. “The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that, in claims for wrongful birth brought by parents, the court must decide whether a reasonable mother in the circumstances of the plaintiff would have undergone a therapeutic abortion,” wrote lawyer Sheena MacAskill in 1998 (“It Could Happen to You: Wrongful birth,” Medical Post, Dec. 15, 1998). “In other words, there is no uniform or standard to be applied in all cases.” Ms. MacAskill is a partner at the Toronto law firm, McCarthy, Tetrault and has successfully acted in wrongful birth, wrongful life and wrongful conception cases. A “wrongful life” claim alleges that a doctor owed a duty of care to an unborn baby which he breached by failing to give the child’s parents the opportunity to solicit an abortion. “Canadian courts have rejected claims for ‘wrongful life’out of hand as disclosing no actionable legal right,” says Ms. MacAskill. ATTEMPTS AT INTRODUCING ABORTION-RELATED LEGISLATION Bill C-43 was the last attempt by a federal government in Canada to introduce legislation to curb abortion. Ever since abortion was legalized in 1969,Members of Parliament from both the governing and the opposition parties as well as some Senators have introduced Private Members’ Bills and Motions to strict and recriminalize the procedure. Several had been introduced and were waiting to be picked for debate even while Bill C-43 was making its way through the House of Commons and the Senate. In most cases these initiatives were never debated. Those which have been drawn for debate were never declared votable, but they did provide opportunities to keep the issue alive and before Parliament. In 1989, along with the aforementioned Bill S-7 introduced in the Senate by Senator Haidasz, five pieces of legislation were introduced in the House of Commons to curb abortion. Don Boudria (Lib–Glengarry-Prescott-Russell) introduced two Private Members’ Bills, C-268 and C-277. Bill C-268 tackled the issue of abortion funding by amending the Canada Health Act. It would have enabled the federal government to penalize any province which paid for abortions that were not deemed necessary for preserving the life of the mother. Bill C-277 would have amended section 293 of the Criminal Code and repealed sections 223, 238 and 287 to ban abortion in all cases, “except where that is necessary to save the mother’s life.” Ralph Ferguson (Lib–Lambton Middlesex) introduced Bill C-266, which would have defined a “foetus” as a “person,” prohibiting the destruction of these unborn children. It provided for a couple of exceptions, including when the abortion was “medically authorized to save the life of the pregnant woman.” John Nunziata (Lib–York South Weston) introduced Bill C-261, which would have amended section 287 of the Criminal Code to ban abortion in all cases, while permitting medical treatment necessary to prevent the death of another. Tom Wappel (Lib–Scarborough West) introduced Bill C-275 to redefine “human being” to include an “embryo” and a “foetus,” there by extending the prohibition against killing a human being to include the killing of fetuses and embryos. Later in 1991, with the beginning of a new session of Parliament, Mr. Wappel reintroduced his bill as C-214. Mr. Boudria reintroduced Bill C-277, which would ban abortion in all cases, except to save the life of the mother, as C-221, and Bill C-268, which would stop the federal funding of abortion, as C-222. At this time he introduced a new bill, C-220, to protect the conscience rights of health care workers being pressured into taking part in abortion procedures. Mr. Ferguson reintroduced his bill, which redefined a “foetus” as a “person,” to grant it most of the same legal protections from harm, as C-302. Following the 1993 Federal Election The first abortion-related initiative to be introduced after the 1993 election was Motion-91. Garry Breitkreuz (Ref–Yorkton-Melville) introduced the motion, which called on the government to hold a referendum during the subsequent election asking Canadians if they wanted the government to continue funding abortion. Later, in February 1996, Tom Wappel reintroduced his bill to redefine “human being” to include an “embryo” and a “foetus” as C-208. In March of that year, M-91 became the first abortion-related initiative to bedrawn for debate in the House of Commons since the debate over Bill C-43 in1989. The motion was declared non-votable by the Committee on Procedura land House Affairs and was debated for one hour on May 27, 1996. The government opposed the motion, arguing that decisions about what procedures are funded by the government under the Canada Health Act are up to the provinces. Mr. Breitkreuz noted that the federal government, through the Canada Health Act, had already chosen to control the purse strings of health care and therefore had a mechanism by which to influence the funding of abortion in the provinces. Following the 1997 Federal Election On November 20, 1997, Mr. Breitkreuz re-introduced his abortion defunding referendum motion, this time as M-268. On December 2, 1998, Maurice Vellacott (Ref–Wanuskewin) introduced Bill C-461. This “conscience” legislation was designed to “ensure that health care providers working in medical facilities of various kinds will never be forced to participate against their will in procedures such as abortions or acts of euthanasia. The bill itself does not proscribe abortion or euthanasia but makes it illegal to force another person to participate in an abortion procedure or an act of euthanasia.” In the next session of Parliament, on October 14, 1999, he reintroduced the bill as C-207. It was drawn for debate and came to the floor of the House of Commons on November 18, 1999. Since it wasn’t declared votable, it received the one hour of debate afforded to non-votable Private Members’ Business. Yvon Charbonneau, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, spoke to the Bill on behalf of the government. He essentially dismissed it as raising an issue properly dealt with at the provincial level. This was because the issue is related to health issues. The bill, however, proposed penalties that would be governed by the Criminal Code, which places it in federal jurisdiction. Some people have asked why other mechanisms can’t be used to protect health care workers from discrimination. To this point no consensus has been achieved, however, on the effectiveness of other measures, particularly since, if they too fell within provincial jurisdiction, they would not be applied consistently throughout the country. Mr. Vellacott introduced a new bill with the same wording after it had been debated in the House, this time as C-422.On June 2 1999, Jim Pankiw (Ref–Saskatoon-Humbolt) introduced Bill C-515. This was legislation designed to repeal the government funding of abortion. Similar to Mr. Breitkreuz’s motion, the Bill stipulated that a referendum be held in conjunction with the next federal election, asking Canadians whether or not they wanted tax dollars to fund abortion. If a majority of Canadians said, “no,”the federal government would be obligated to penalize provinces thatcontinued to pay for abortion by withholding a portion of the funds transferred to the provinces to help pay for social programming. The specific referendum question would be: “Do you agree that section 13 of the Canada Health Act should be amended to provide that full cash contributions shall be paid only to provinces that do not provide funding or hospital facilities or services formedically unnecessary abortions?” Mr. Pankiw reintroduced his bill in the next session of Parliament as C-440. On December 15, 1999. Garry Breitkreuz introduced a motion, M-360, urgingthe government to bring in legislation that would redefine “human being” to include “a human foetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, and making any and all consequential amendments required.” Following the 2001 Federal Election On February 2, 2001, Mr. Breitkreuz, now a Canadian Alliance MP, reintroduced his motion on redefining a human being as M-228. The motion was debated for one hour on March 22. It had not been declared votable sono vote took place to advance the motion to another stage of debate or action in Parliament. On February 7, Maurice Vellacott, now a Canadian Alliance MP, reintroducedhis conscience legislation for health care workers as C-246. Jim Pankiw, now a Canadian Alliance MP, has indicated to the House of Commons his intention to reintroduce his abortion defunding referendum bill, but it has yet to be given a number and introduced. Senator Stanley Haidasz In February 1998 Senator Stanley Haidasz (Lib–Ontario) petitioned Parliament, by way of a motion introduced in the Senate, to set up a Special Joint Committee on the Unborn (“Joint” means that it would be made up of both Senators and Members of Parliament.) The purpose of this committee was to be “to examine and report upon the feasibility of legislating in the area of fetal rights in order to provide some protection to the unborn child.” Prior to that, in November 1997, Senator Haidasz introduced Bill S-7, “conscience” legislation “to prohibit coercion in medical procedures that offend a person’s religion or belief that human life is inviolable.” He said that this was in response to petitions over several years from over 8,000 health careworkers and hundreds of physicians. The Senate went through the formality of passing it through 2ndreading so as to bring it to the committee stage of debate. (Senator Haidasz spoke to the bill at 2ndreading.) It was sent to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Senator was called before the committee to speak to the bill on March 3, 1998, just one day before he went into retirement. It is commonly believed that the expeditious treatment of the bill did not reflect the priority of the abortion issue among Senators, but rather was an expression of respect for Senator Haidasz and his desire to speak to the billprior to his retirement. Following the Senator’s retirement, the bill was put farenough down on the committee’s list of priorities to keep it from further debate prior to the end of that session of Parliament. Senator Raymond PerraultIn November 1999, Senator Raymond Perrault (LIB–British Columbia) re-introduced Senator Haidasz’s conscience legislation as S-11. It received some debate at 2nd reading stage, but it did not proceed further than that. Senator Perrault now has also retired.

Belindamania ... Stronach's Third Reich of Social Liberalism


Go Back Home