No results were found.
An error occurred while attempting to retrieve data. Please try again.
Please select the option to share your location in order to use the Detect My Location feature.
We were unable to detect your location. Please enter your postal code instead.
Postal code and geolocation data may not always be accurate. Please check to ensure that the electoral districts displayed below are correct.

blog posts

In a landmark decision already twenty-seven years old today, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canada’s then-existing abortion regulations were unconstitutional. While many Canadians grieve the subsequent loss of a full quarter of their generation through abortion, others celebrate this day with exuberance, calling Canadians to protect their unfettered access to abortion at any stage of the pregnancy. But in striking down the abortion law in 1988, did the Court recognize a constitutional right to abortion? Did they settle the issue once and for all? And if so, why do anti-abortion zealots continue to push for laws that restrict a woman’s right to choose? The answers to these questions may be unwelcome by some but the facts surrounding what has become known as the Morgentaler Decision are far different than what some Canadians choose to believe.  Even the leader of the Liberal Party, the man who aspires to become the Prime Minister of Canada, is guilty of misinterpreting the law when he attempts to defend his decision to bind the consciences of Liberal members. So then, what did the Court really say? Abortion defenders enjoy referencing Justice Bertha Wilson - the first woman appointed to Canada’s Supreme Court. Unfortunately they all too often choose selective quotes that completely misrepresent what Justice Wilson wrote. It should be noted that Justice Wilson’s opinion was not shared with the other six judges – she wrote alone – and the other judges were all more “conservative” in their three written opinions; they contemplated an even more restrictive regime than Wilson.

Was D-Day a failure because it didn’t start with Churchill and Roosevelt walking into Berlin? Of course not, as no one would rightly argue that D-Day was not a success simply because it didn’t end Hitler’s rule. As we commemorate Veteran’s Week and take part in Remembrance Day events this week, we do well to reflect, not only on the sacrifices of Canadian men and women, but also the level of ingenuity and the prowess with which our Canadian military approached each and every battle they were involved in. “Operation Overlord” as the D-Day battle was known, involved 14,000 young Canadians storming Juno Beach on June 6, 1944. Their courage, determination and self-sacrifice were the reasons for the success. The fighting they endured was fierce and frightening. The price they paid was high - the battles for the beachhead cost 340 Canadian lives and another 574 wounded. John Keegan, eminent British historian who wrote Six Armies in Normandy, stated the following concerning the Canadian 3rd Division on D-Day: “At the end of the day, its forward elements stood deeper into France than those of any other division. The opposition the Canadians faced was stronger than that of any other beach save Omaha. That was an accomplishment in which the whole nation could take considerable pride.” When you are victorious after a battle within the battle it gives cause for celebration!

As of January 1, 2012 the Ontario government has been hiding all records relating to the provision of abortion services. Abortion is fully funded by tax-payers and the residents of Ontario have a right to know how much money is being spent on abortion, how...

This column was published in the National Post on June 13, 2013 This summer, if one anti-abortion group has its way, nearly a quarter of a million Canadian mailboxes soon will be stuffed with a graphic photograph of an aborted fetus juxtaposed with the smiling face of the local Member of Parliament. The Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) has initiated what they call “Face the Children,” a project in which 250,000 postcards will be delivered into five key constituencies. They are targeting the ridings represented by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Calgary MP Michelle Rempel (an up-and-coming Conservative MP said to be in line for a cabinet position) and southern Ontario MPs Bal Gosal, Parm Gill and Rick Dykstra. The CCBR is concerned that these MPs (among others) have refused to protect pre-born children at any stage of pregnancy. “[Harper’s] position to defeat any abortion-related legislation and to shut down debate in Parliament is so extreme that it means he is unwilling to ban abortion [even] in the third trimester — pitting our prime minister against a majority of Canadians,” says Stephanie Gray, CCBR’s Executive Director. It is one more indication that many Canadians reject the Canadian legal status quo on pre-born vulnerability, i.e. abortion on demand with no restrictions.

Joyce Arthur, the Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, gave us another indication that we are winning. Our efforts to shift the Overton Window in favour of legal protection for pre-born humans are paying off. In a lengthy diatribe Arthur laments the manner in which the abortion rabble is being treated by the press. She criticizes the mainstream media for their coverage of the death of Dr. Henry Morgentaler as being too “balanced.” In her opinion it gives too much credibility to today’s young, energetic and smart pro-life movement. Interspersed throughout her rant Arthur says things like, “Apparently, the media thinks that [the anti-choice] view has some kind of legitimacy and must be presented against the pro-choice view in the name of ‘balance’,” and, “The mainstream media continues to give space to these fanatics.” Later on in her lament she outs Jonathan Kay of the National Post by referring to one of his articles as “repellant libel” filled with “hateful comments.”

By Stephanie Gray (republished with permission) On the back of yet another tragic case of human pain and suffering, some abortion advocates try to push through their agenda of widespread access to killing the littlest amongst us.  The recent health problems of a pregnant woman and her pre-born child in El Salvador have been drawing worldwide attention—and some abortion advocates are riding on that attention to legalize something both unethical and unnecessary. Just like with the recent controversial pregnancy cases in Ireland and the Dominican Republic, in El Salvador, legalized abortion wasn’t, and isn’t, the answer either. In this most recent case, a 22-year-old woman identified only as Beatriz, was pregnant with a baby girl who had anencephaly.  Contrary to some reports which said the baby was “born without a brain,” the little girl did have a brain, albeit a damaged one (she had only a brain stem).  She lived for five hours after her recent birth by cesarean section which is proof that she had a damaged, not nonexistent, brain (otherwise she wouldn’t have lived for the brief time she did). The controversy surrounding Beatriz’s pregnancy should in no way have revolved around her baby girl’s likelihood of death post-birth, for surely those who will live longer don’t have a right to kill those who will live shorter.  Surely when one has only a brief time left with loved ones nearing death, one would maximize the little time that’s left, not minimize it.  Surely if grief would be borne at the child’s death post-birth after a full gestation of pregnancy, grief would be borne at the child’s death unnaturally through abortion earlier in pregnancy.  But there is a great difference between grief resulting from a loved one dying naturally, and grief resulting from a “loved” one being forcibly killed.  If we believe in fundamental human rights, then being “damaged” or “disabled” doesn’t nullify those basic rights. So what was the problem?  The fragile health of the mother, Beatriz.  Reports say she suffers from lupus and kidney failure.  As a result, abortion advocates were clamoring for Beatriz’s “right” to an abortion.  But abortion is not the response in this tragic scenario.  First, as The Edmonton Journal reported, “A majority of judges on the high court rejected the appeal by Beatriz's lawyers, saying physical and psychological exams by the government-run Institute of Legal Medicine found that her diseases were under control and that she could continue the pregnancy.” 

Join us in building support for these initiatives: