As you are well aware, Federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler announced he will introduce in early February the Liberal government's bill to change the definition of marriage to one that would include same-sex couples, and said it should pass before the House rises in June. He indicated that even if Parliament did not pass it, the courts would probably continue their assault on marriage and force Canada to accept same-sex "marriage" regardless of what the people (through their elected representatives) say or do. Well, he didn't put it quite that way. What he did say was that if Parliament failed to pass his bill redefining marriage, "the likelihood is that the constitutional development will continue in the other provinces, and we will likely see this issue being arrived at one by one in the courts." He didn't seem to have a problem with that.

CLC wrote a letter to the Justice Minister explaining the problem with relying on the courts to decide such issues. In short, the deck is stacked against any kind of fair hearing. We wrote, "Canadian law schools have been dominated by ideological liberals for years and abetted by government elites in this. Unknown to the public, government elites have also deliberately arranged the selection and appointment of many judges with leftist ideological leanings. Finally, millions of tax dollars from the Court Challenges Program have been cunningly given by the federal government to social radicals to obtain judgments from the judges appointed by the government to force that same government to make unpopular changes to laws that would likely not pass through the democratic process." Is it any wonder that Cotler can speak with such certainty about what the courts will do if Parliament doesn't pass the government's assault on marriage?

All that talk about the democracy deficit by Paul Martin when he was a candidate for the Liberal leadership was just that - talk. Prime Minister Paul Martin has reiterated that he will not reconsider a decision to force his cabinet to vote in favour of legislation to redefine marriage. Despite promises made during his Liberal leadership campaign that he would allow more free votes for MPs, Martin spokesman Amy Butcher told Sun Media that Liberal cabinet ministers must vote for the bill, even if it violates their faith and conscience.

Sadly, while the Prime Minister originally vowed a free vote on the marriage bill, it was disclosed in late 2004 that there will be no free vote for the nearly 40 of just over 308 members of Parliament. Those 40 MPs are the members of his Cabinet and the parliamentary secretary for the justice minister. The PMO has informed them that they must vote in favor of the homosexual "marriage" legislation or face loss of Cabinet post, special parliamentary privileges or other arbitrary penalties. It is appalling that a man who promised a new openness in the House of Commons is behaving in the same dictatorial fashion we had come to expect from previous Liberal leaders. This is exactly the kind of political strong-arming that Jean Chretien practiced during his decade-long rule. Among those who have noticed this is Liberal MP David Kilgour, who told the Edmonton Sun: "I think it's deeply unfair to bludgeon your ministers ... into voting with the prime minister on the issue."

Indeed, Martin cannot escape the controversy he has initiated on this issue. On the prime minister's recent visit to south Asia, he was taken to task by Sikh religious leaders and Sri Lankan Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for Ottawa's plan to re-define marriage. They called on the six Sikh MPs sitting in Parliament to continue to support traditional marriage.

The up-side of all this is that it proves that the fight has just begun. Martin's broken promise on the free vote demonstrates weakness on the prime minister's part and proves his government is seriously worried about losing the gay "marriage" vote. Obviously the Liberal numbers are showing the possibility of losing the vote. That is why Campaign Life Coalition has been teleconferencing with CLC National Board members, provincial presidents and local leaders, as well as with the leaders of other national and local life, family and religious organizations to work out common strategies. There has been an unprecedented level of cooperation among the groups as we face this grave assault on marriage and family life.

We challenge all MPs, including the Liberal cabinet members, to vote to defend marriage. We urge the cabinet to courageously resist Martin's unjust restraining of their duty to serve the good of the nation as elected representatives of the people. We insist that MPs stand and be counted and stress that even MPs who absent themselves from the vote or abstain from voting will be held accountable at the polls next time.

For months, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Catholic lay groups and numerous pastors and priests, have been speaking against the courts' and the government's assault on marriage, but until recently we had heard little from the nation's Catholic bishops. Considering that roughly 40% of Canada is Catholic, including a good many members of the government (such as the prime minister), many Catholics and non-Catholics alike have been pleading for stronger leadership from these ecclesiastical heads. We are extremely pleased that Catholic bishops such as Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec City, the Primate of Canada, have spoken out forcefully on this issue.

Cardinal Ambrozic of Toronto released an open letter to the prime minister urging the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause so that the issue could be discussed and down-sides carefully considered about altering a millennia old institution. Bishop Henry of Calgary said that the government's proposed redefinition would weaken marriage (for which he was roundly criticized as a bigot by the Globe and Mail). Other bishops, too, have released pastoral letters upholding the sanctity of marriage.We hope that priests pass their messages to their parishes; marriage and family desperately need defending and the sleeping giant of faithful Christians is being awakened to this reality. If the U.S. election taught us anything it is that Christians ("values voters") can affect a major change in the political sphere when their faith informs their voting and civic behaviour.

The government's bill is far from a done deal. Campaign Life Coalition has joined numerous other groups in developing strategies and distributing materials to defeat the bill. We are currently mailing out hundreds of thousands of the cards with more orders coming in daily. Many MPs who are not cabinet ministers or parliamentary secretaries, but are nonetheless still being pressured to vote with the government, are feeling equally intense pressure from their constituents.

Voters can make it clear to their elected representative that in the next election they will work against any MP who supports the government's assault on marriage. Any punishment that the Liberal government can hand out to their caucus members will not be as significant as their defeat in the next election, which is a very real possibility for those MPs, of any party, who fail to stand up for real marriage. Their names will be forever recorded, whether they vote or stay away from the vote, as having betrayed the people of Canada by undermining the nation's basic social foundation of marriage and family life.

It should also be noted that Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, who in the days after the December 9 Supreme Court ruling on the issue, promised to act quickly and indicated that a vote on the bill could come as early as January, is now saying that it will be introduced soon but that a vote might not come until June. The fact that the government has quietly backed away from the Justice Minister's announced intention to call for a January vote on the bill is another sign that should encourage us. Pro-family Canadians must work overtime to convince our Members of Parliament, including all Cabinet members, to vote against the government's proposed legislation. Together, we can defeat this attack on marriage and the family - something the government seems keenly aware of.

We must all get involved and ask others to join us. You can be sure that those who favour homosexual "marriage" are doing at least that. The Ottawa homosexualist newspaper Capital Xtra recently said, "It's still very close in Parliament and we don't know whether it would pass or not at this point. There is a lot of work to do, a lot of new MPs who need to be educated and probably persuaded. We've got to work hard to line up the votes - they aren't there yet." We also have much work to do. We can win this fight. We must win this fight. Get involved now. We can help you do that, but we can't do it without you.

Here is the only strategy which will work, but it all depends on you. The only real and consistent pressure which can be brought to bear on an MP is at the ballot box. Rallies and speeches on Parliament Hill are effective in bringing an educational message to Ottawa, but the urgency of any issue must be brought closer to home.

The most effective way to lobby your MPs is by visiting them in their constituency offices with one or two other knowledgeable voters after you've received an appointment. Always be respectful especially when the MP doesn't agree with your position. But make it perfectly clear that you will vote and work against them in the next election. (This is especially helpful if they are already aware that you've supported them in the past.)

• Next to a visit, which might be difficult to arrange, individual letters to the MPs at their constituency offices are very effective. Keep the letter brief, respectful and to the point. We suggest you ask your MP to oppose the upcoming bill and that his/her response to the bill will be a major consideration to your vote in the next election. Also, ask the MP to respond by telling you how he will act on the bill. Faxes to the riding office are almost as effective as letters. Emails are the least effective but still useful.
  
  
• Telephone the riding office (if you cannot locate the phone number call information or call us for assistance). If you would prefer not to speak to anyone you may wish to call after hours and leave a recorded message such as " I'm (your name), a voter in this riding, and I want you to support marriage and vote against any attempt to change the definition of marriage. Thank you." These are always noted and reported to the MP.
  
  
• The post card campaign we have initiated is directed at individual MPs and not to the Prime Minister. These postcards may be mailed, postage free to the MP's Ottawa office. Previously, the pro-life movement in Canada sent over 1,000,000 signatures in a petition to the late PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1975. They were ignored. We attempted this tactic again in 1985 when the pro-life movement sent over 1,000,000 post cards to PM Brian Mulroney. Again they were ignored. This time, CLC's postcard campaign is aimed at individual MPs who can be held accountable for their actions. The late, great Mother Teresa said, " If you want to change the world, first change your hearts so that you do what God wants you to do and then deal with the what's at your feet." This issue is at your feet. We must act immediately.

Toronto Conservative delegates support abortion

About 250 delegates from 32 Greater Toronto Progressive Conservative ridings (which includes Toronto, Pickering, Mississauga, Barrie, Bramalea and Brampton) met in December to adopt resolutions to put forward for consideration at the Party's National Convention in March. Two of key concern for pro-life and pro-family Conservative supporters were the regional meeting's decision to endorse the notion that "a woman has the right to make choices about her own reproduction," and another motion undermining the defense of marriage. The "right to make choices about her own reproduction" would represent official support for abortion on demand.

The only paper to report on the meeting convened by Bret Snider, president of the Toronto area riding president's council, was the Toronto Star, which quoted the Red Tory's description of the meeting's overall message as "one of moderation. ... It was one of tolerance." Snider admitted that the measures were "hotly" debated. Indeed, they passed narrowly, obviously a sign that there is no consensus to adopt a socially liberal platform. This is also the work of backroom strategists and long-time party activists, not the grassroots. Furthermore, as The Interim notes in the February issue, it is far from clear whether the Conservative Party allows for regional meetings to pass such resolutions to bring to the national meeting.

Red Tories want to takeover party

What is clear is that the Red Tories (the left flank of the old federal Progressive Conservative Party) are determined to regain control of a national party. For the past few years, the Canadian Alliance and then the Conservative Party of Canada have walked a tightrope of a poor and ineffective compromise on abortion (ducking the issue and relying on free votes or referenda). But it never went so far as to codify a pro-abortion position. For that matter, neither have the Liberals, despite the vehement pro-abortion positions of its recent leaders. CLC National President Jim Hughes told LifeSiteNews.com that he was concerned about the other resolutions put forward which undercut social conservative and democratic priorities. He said "The grassroots of the party should be very careful because it sounds like the Red Tories are attempting to regain the upper hand."

Toronto delegates also oppose protecting marriage

In another resolution which passed, the riding representatives would have the party disavow use of the notwithstanding clause against a Supreme Court decision to force homosexual "marriage." It is both disturbing and odd that the "Conservatives" are emulating the Liberal government's fanatical opposition to use of the Charter's legitimate notwithstanding clause. It is disturbing because it signals the party would be willing to surrender parliamentary authority to the unelected and unaccountable Supreme Court. It is odd because the Conservatives are the only party in Parliament that is even marginally opposed to an extreme socially liberal agenda (notwithstanding numerous Liberal MPs whom Paul Martin has sought to isolate or marginalize and whom the media largely ignores). One would think that the Conservatives would seek to differentiate themselves from the governing party instead of mimicking it.

Why are Red Tories afraid of democracy?

Lastly, we are saddened to see the Toronto ridings attack the respect for democracy that was the hallmark of the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties. The Toronto meeting passed a resolution that seeks to limit free votes for Conservative MPs in Parliament. The resolution going forward to the national convention states that no Conservative MP "will vote in Parliament, nor vote to put any procedure in place (including a referendum) to amend, overturn or limit any existing Charter right or freedom" unless both the specific amendment or limitation were included in the party's platform. It appears that the social liberals within the party are seriously concerned about open debate and free votes. Is that because they know that two-thirds of Canadians and most Conservative MPs (along with a sizable contingent of the Liberal caucus) oppose the status quo of unfettered abortion on demand?

What can we do?

So how are we to react? Grassroots members of the party must wake up to what is going on and get heavily involved in order to maintain a Conservative party that gives voice to their concerns. We are hearing from numerous ridings outside the Greater Toronto Area that pro-life and pro-family delegates and ideas are widely supported. We can see from the Toronto meeting that the Red Tories are working very hard to play a major role at the March policy convention and pass resolutions which would impose socially liberal policies on the party. However, this fight on the floor of the convention can be won given that many traditional values grassroots members will be delegates to the conventions.

CLC supporters will be at both the Conservative and Liberal conventions in March, working with like-minded Canadians in each party. However, because of the much less democratic nature of the Liberal Party, it is more difficult for grassroots party members to influence party policy during its biennial convention. Nonetheless, we will be there and pro-life and pro-family Liberals can still make a difference. If you are planning to attend either conference, let us know well before hand.

On December 22, Court of Queen's Bench Judge Jeffrey Oliphant arbitrarily interpreted the always useful Charter of Rights as mandating that the province of Manitoba must publicly fund abortions at private abortion facilities. Judge Oliphant ruled that the province violated the constitutional rights of two women who paid for their own abortions at a private center rather than opting for publicly-funded abortions at a hospital. The province is considering an appeal of the decision. Manitoba is one of just three provinces - the other two being New Brunswick and Nova Scotia - which does not fully fund abortions done at private abortion mills. Last year, Henry Morgentaler sold his infamous Winnipeg abortuary to a group of women who re-named it the Jane clinic and vowed to turn it into a non-profit abortion facility, although they continued where Morgentaler left off, clamouring for provincial funding for their outfit.

The overnight ratings for Choice, a CTV-produced "documentary" on abortionist Henry Morgentaler must have been a disappointment for abortion advocates. It finished far behind the ratings of re-runs of crime dramas shown on other networks at the same time. The Globe and Mail (which, like CTV, is owned by Bell Globemedia) reported in December that few young women even know who Morgentaler is. Although Canadians are not interested in this abortionist, he is a media darling and the press reviews appearing before the show aired were aglow with praise for his "contribution" to Canada. Canadians, on the other hand, don't seem to care. Perhaps it wasn't the wisest move to celebrate the "accomplishment" of a man who repeatedly broke the law in setting up for-profit private abortuaries, a man who has exploited the fears and anxieties of pregnant women and a man who has killed tens of thousands of unborn children. While Choice shone some light on Morgentaler's seamy side (he is shown to be a notorious womanizer), it failed to delve deeply into the abortion issue and Morgentaler's "contribution" to Canada, despite CTV's high-sounding defense that it produced the show to explore precisely these issues.

The Alumnae Association at Loretto Abbey School, a prestigious Toronto Catholic high school for girls whose website claims that the students come to know the mind of Christ in religion class, invited Jean Augustine, a militantly pro-abortion, "Catholic" Liberal MP to be the keynote speaker at their awards event on January 21st. Jean Augustine, MP for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and a former Toronto Catholic school principal, is a supporter of abortion, third-world population control, contraception, and homosexual marriage. In 1993, Jean Chretien parachuted her into the Toronto riding as his chosen candidate in order to defeat a pro-life candidate.

Augustine is the Founding Chair of the Canadian Association of Parliamentarians on Population & Development, a group of legislators in support of the population control initiatives at the United Nations including China's brutally coercive one-child policy. So we have one question for Loretto Abbey: how did the alumnae members "come to know the mind of Christ" when Jean Augustine talked to them? Or doesn't it matter what is said and done in opposition of Catholic teaching when it takes place outside their religion classes?

Last Fall, the CBC ran a series on the Greatest Canadian picked from nominees voted upon by Canadians on the broadcaster's website. The CBC then took the top 10 nominees, ran promotional shows on each and invited viewers to vote for the Greatest Canadian. Among the ten was Pierre Trudeau, the father of Canada's permissive abortion law and the Charter of Rights, and David Suzuki, whose radical environmentalism holds human life in disdain as a blight on the planet. But the winner was Tommy Douglas, the former premier of Saskatchewan and father of universal healthcare in Canada. But Douglas was also a supporter of eugenics, a fact that his supporters conveniently ignored. Douglas wrote his masters thesis on eugenics as a necessary component of creating a "just" society.

A MuchMusic host who was Douglas' on-air advocate during the voting waved his health card in the air and said that without Douglas, "you remove the caring, sharing legacy of everything we value." Producer Mark Starowicz later said that he didn't care who won but that it was important that Canadians engaged on the issues that they value. Is eugenics part of Canada's caring and sharing legacy? Do Canadians really value eugenics? Or don't we care, or worse, not know about the darkside of this prominent Canadian figure.

Yours for life
Jim Hughes
National President

Please donate