| by Ron Gray|
Let me say at the outset that I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet; but sometimes I can read some of the handwriting on the wall: There may well be a federal election this Spring.
The Liberals’ strategy of hiding in the bushes cannot continue forever. And the most likely strategy of the Ignatieff cabal is to precipitate a defeat under Stephan Dion’s leadership as the first stage in a palace revolt.
Will a Spring election give the Conservatives their majority? Probably not. As the Harper government gains support from disaffected Liberals by avoiding the moral issues, it is at the same time alienating its social conservative base. Many Christians—those who are pro-life and pro-family—will stay home if they think they don’t have an alternative place to park their vote.
For us in the CHP, that means we must build new Electoral District Associations and raise new candidates. Right now, we offer a moral alternative in about one-fifth of Canada’s federal ridings. That must increase—dramatically.
It’s interesting to re-read the words of Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, writing a majority decision about the role of smaller political parties in our democracy: "The ability of a party to make a valuable contribution is not dependent upon its capacity to offer the electorate a genuine “government option”. Political parties have a much greater capacity than any one citizen to participate in debate and they act as a vehicle for the participation of individual citizens in the political life of the country. All political parties are capable of introducing unique interests and concerns into the political discourse and marginal or regional parties tend to raise issues not adopted by national parties."
Even without any elected MPs (yet), the CHP has had an impact on federal politics. And now that the Green Party calls itself “the smallest of the big parties”, the CHP is the biggest of the small parties. And growing!
More important, the CHP is the only federal party that brings these important policy issues into the national dialogue about what kind of nation we’ll leave for our children:
• The sanctity of life: only the CHP proposes adoption instead of abortion, and opposes euthanasia.
• The sanctity of marriage: only the CHP continues to oppose the Liberals’ illegitimate imposition of same-sex “marriage” on an unwilling nation.
• Only the CHP advocates Canada leading a global drive for abolition of slavery by limiting trade with nations that allow the use of slave and exploitative child labour.
• Only the CHP has a plan for defending democracy and the Constitution against judicial activism.
• Only the CHP has a child-care plan focused on strengthening families.
• Only the CHP has a plan for increased productivity through labour peace.
• Only the CHP has proposals for making home ownership accessible to more Canadian families.
• And among federal political parties, only the CHP has spoken against the STD vaccination program that makes guinea pigs of young girls. These are only the highlights of the many policy distinctives that set the CHP apart from the other 15 or so federal political parties. Behind them all is one dramatic difference:
• Only the CHP has shown it believes in the Constitutional statement that
“Canada was founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of
God and the rule of law.” That’s what will carry us forward into this coming year.
And I hope to see you at the CHP convention in Regina in November!
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
| by John Williamson, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation |
Who Pays and who gets to keep the money
It is conceivable a sound argument could be made that bands such as this one need cash to develop economic infrastructure and help its members. And perhaps there is even value in the federal government diverting tax collected on reserves to band governments to establish the important principal that natives ought to pay taxes. But the tax requirements under this agreement are not limited to natives. Instead, federal taxes paid by non-natives living on the Tsawwassen reserve will also go the band government.
Incredibly, these same taxpayers will not be permitted to vote in band elections, which mean they will lose the mechanism to remove lawmakers that waste money. Non-native citizens will suddenly become disenfranchised legal aliens, permitted to stay but without a direct say in the management of their tax dollars. This is hardly an exaggeration – the term our government bureaucrats use in native agreements to describe these non-natives is “non-citizens.” It is a disgrace public servants engage in these linguistic gymnastics to placate the cant of native sovereignty.
Ottawa’s department of Indian affairs and B.C. treaty negotiators also suppose the ability to tax “serves as a means of government accountability.” They skip over the caveat that this statement is only true if citizens have an ability to remove government officials. Without that there is no real accountability – any despot can tax. A government is responsible only when it is answerable to the public.
The Tsawwassen agreement will instill little accountability on the band council. According to The Delta Optimist, the 2006 Census showed of the 674 people living on this reserve 506 were non-natives. The band is already salivating over the fact it will collect $3 from non-voting, non-citizens for every $1 it taxes from people it considers bona fide citizens (i.e. natives). This is not about self-sufficiency but skewering a new cash cow.
Conservative MP John Cummins (Delta-Richmond East) has reviewed the Tsawwassen tax agreements in advance of the treaty vote in Parliament. His findings have generated little interest. This treaty should be unacceptable to anyone committed to democracy, yet the Parliament of Canada is fixated on the Mulroney-Schreiber saga.
Winston Churchill once said democracy is the worse form of government, except for all the others. Does the federal government think he was wrong?
If you are supportive of this commentary, please consider becoming a supporter of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and add your voice to the campaign for lower taxes, less waste and more accountable government. Click here to become a supporter.
For further information contact:
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Listen to the interview here---Audio only--plays instantly
Watch the complete broadcast on video---Takes about 5 minutes to download on High Speed
Ron Gray Legal Defence Fund
Money will be needed for court costs and legal expenses. We’re asking every Canadian who believes in freedom and Biblical morality to help. As in all cases of this nature, taxpayers are forced to fund the case for the complainant but those who wish to defend freedom in Canada must pay their own costs. All donations to Ron’s legal defence fund, of any size, are important.
Ron Gray Legal Defence Fund Please send cheques to:
Please send cheques to:
c/o Ronald McDonald Law Office
406 Stafford Dr
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Does a registered federal political party have a right to promote the policies it has held for 20 years?
Background: the BC Ministry of Education, in cooperation with Attorney General Wally Oppal, made a deal with two homosexual teachers (Corren and Corren), which gave the two men unprecedented influence over the development of new curricula for use in BC schools. The following commentary points out several obvious problem passages for family-values advocates.
The following comments on the proposed Social Justice 12 “Integrated Resource Package” (Curriculum) are merely specific points in regard to this blatant attempt by the BC government to introduce significant philosophical changes to current public school curricula.
These changes lack the warrant of proper public dialogue, and do not conform to the specific wording of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and fail the dictates of common sense.
These changes, initiated by the Corren Settlement Agreement, whereby two citizens have been given disproportionate influence over the curricula of the BC Education system, seem designed primarily to foster change in the sexual attitudes and lifestyle choices of young people.
P. 37 contains an attack on “religion” as a negative influence on public policies and practice; then encourages thinking based on this premise and lays a groundwork for the dismissal of policies “originating” from these beliefs.
P. 38 throws “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into a list of other personal identification characteristics, and suggests that these newly-contrived aspects of personhood might lead to marginalization or oppression, thus eliciting from sincere students a desire to become “agents of change”.
P. 39 injects further “moral impetus” for students to work to create new protected categories, insinuated by the authors, such as “addictions, secular worldviews (merely another form of religion that denies a personal God) and the environment (clearly a call for students to jump on Al Gore’s bandwagon).”
P. 41 clearly places all gender-orientation issues (personal lifestyle choices) in the same category as race and gender in terms of potential discrimination. This is contrary to logic.
The endless appeal to victimhood is not justified by history.
P.42 is full of heavily propagandized language designed to move students towards a worldview different than that of their parents and the historical and cultural roots of our nation. Prostitution (“sex-trade”) and animals are loosely thrown into a discussion purported to be about human rights as protected under Canada’s Charter. The assumption that all lifestyle choices—such as prostitution—are of equal value, and that animals should be protected by the Charter, are imaginative positions inconsistent with logic and history.
The authors go far beyond any legitimate effort to encourage students’ thinking, and here show that their true intent is to tell students HOW and WHAT they should think.
Finally, the invitation for students to write a positive commentary on how the Civil Marriage Act (the 2005 endorsement of same-sex marriage forced upon Canadians by a partially ‘whipped’ vote [Cabinet ministers were not allowed to vote their conscience]) “promotes social justice.” This is clearly not meant to lead to an open-ended discussion of the Act, its pros and cons, but an endorsement of same-sex “marriage”. Note that the invivation is only for positive comments; the possibility that students might be aware of negative social consequences flowing from this Act is excluded. That exclusion typifies the one-sidedness of this IRP.
All the above, which barely scrapes the surface of this terrible piece of work, should be sufficient to send this draft curriculum AND the companion curriculum “Making Space, Giving Voice” the overbroad and under-thought K-12 equivalent, back to the drawing board.
Family-values advocates, who actually represent a large segment of BC’s population, should be involved in the draft FROM the BEGINNING (real input) not merely be given a token opportunity to respond after the damage is done.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
by Colin Mason Population Research Institute
Colin Mason is the Director for Media Production at PRI.
Sign up for the Weekly Briefing Here
The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human
PRI, PO Box 1559, Front Royal, VA 22630 USA Phone: 540-622-5240
Monday, December 03, 2007
A really inconvenient truth: Divorce is not green. Dec. 3, 2007
EAST LANSING, Mich. — The data are in. Divorce is bad for the environment.
A novel study that links divorce with the environment shows a global trend of soaring divorce rates has created more households with fewer people, has taken up more space and has gobbled up more energy and water. The findings of Jianguo “Jack” Liu and Eunice Yu at Michigan State University are published in this week’s online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...Posted on Solarion by RavenII Read the whole article