|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT CUTS LEFT-WING AGENCIES
On September 25, 2006, the federal Conservative
government announced a $2 billion cut in government spending
over a two-year period. The monies saved from these programs
are to go towards reducing the nation's debt, currently at
$481.5 billion. This debt was largely built up by the previous
Liberal governments.
Three particularly objectionable programs
were affected by these budget cuts. They were the Status of
Women, the Court Challenges Program and the Law Commission.
These three agencies were all the inspiration of former Prime
Minister Trudeau, and were designed to ensure that Canada
would continue on its left wing trajectory long after Mr.
Trudeau and his colleagues left the political scene.
1. Status of Women (SOW)
Change in Criteria for Funding
The Status of Women with an annual budget
of $23 million, lost $5 million by budget cuts. This reduction
was to be applied to the administrative side of the programme,
but the $10.8 million in its appropriation allotted for grants
to women's groups across the country was left in place and
not affected by the cuts. As a result, feminist groups gave
a huge sigh of relief, believing they had missed the bullet
and would be able to continue on undisturbed with their abuse
of the taxpayers' money to promote feminism across the country.
They were wrong. They did not realize that the day following
the announcement of the budget cuts, the Conservative government
had changed the criteria for groups eligible to receive these
grants. Under the new criteria, lobby or advocacy groups were
no longer to be funded and money for "research"
(inevitably feminist research) would no longer be funded.
Further, funding for so called "capacity" building,
i.e. the promotion or publicity for special interest groups
to increase their membership and influence, were also prohibited
under the new funding criteria. Instead, funding was restricted
to organizations that provided actual services to women within
their communities and which could show measurable results
for their activities. That is, groups that directly assist
women, such as assisting seniors, or increasing women in upper
management roles in Canadian businesses or integrating immigrant
women into Canadian society or reducing violence against women,
would be funded. It is significant, however, that Statistics
Canada released a report in early October, 2006 on a study
it carried out in 2004, which showed that 7% of women and
6% of men were victims of spousal violence at least once during
the previous five years. More women were beaten (i.e. 14%
: 124,000) compared to 8% of men. These latter figures, however,
means that 44,000 Canadian men received beatings by their
female partners during the relevant five year period but that
this considerable violence against men is not addressed by
any SOW grants.
Change in Objectives
The objective of the Status of Women now is
to support women in their economic, social, and cultural life,
but conspicuously deleted from the previous criteria was the
objective of achieving so-called "equality" for
women which had been one of the prominent goals of the programme
since its inception back in 1973. The Minister for the Status
of Women, Bev Oda, explained, however, that since women already
had equality under the Charter of Rights, it was no longer
necessary to fund special programmes that promote "equality"
for women. It is noted by the way, that the criteria on "equality"
was used by SOW as a method of excluding organizations, such
as REAL Women, from funding because we didn't support the
feminist definition of "equality".
Feminist Fury
The feminists were enraged when they finally
learned of the changes in the criteria for funding about a
week after its implementation. During debate on the cuts to
the Status of Women REAL Woman was viciously attacked by the
raging feminists MPs including Liberal MP Judy Sgro, chairperson
of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The attacks
were so relentless that the Conservative MP Mark Warawa (Langley,
BC) felt compelled to come to our defence reminding the feminists:
… when we have the chairperson of
a committee publicly ridiculing a delegation that is about
to come, like REAL Women, I have real concerns that democracy
may be under attack. We hear rhetoric now and heckling.
Is that a good approach for a delegation coming? ...
The Liberal critic for Women's Issues, Belinda
Stronach (Newmarket - Aurora), was particularly incensed that
the Conservatives may have actually consulted with REAL Women
of Canada about the funding issue. In her limited mind, this
was an unspeakable crime. On September 26, 2006 during Question
Period, Ms Stronach rose up to state:
The Prime Minster's Chief of Staff, Ian
Brodie, has said that the organization, REAL Women, raises
interesting points that warrant close inspection. This is
a group that is anti-choice, anti-gay, does not support
equality for women and wants to obliterate the Department
on the Status of Women. This group's website even has links
to sites that suggest that day cares do not care and homosexuality
is a psychological disorder.
With budget cuts on the horizon, whom
is the minister listening to, Ian Brodie, the right-wing
organization, REAL Women, or will she stand up and defend
the rights of Canadian women?
On October 5th, Minister Bev Oda met with
the House of Commons Standing Committed on the Status of Women
and Ms Stronach took this opportunity to attack REAL Women
once again. She stated:
I'd like to know who [sic] the minister
consulted with, because once upon a time, back in May, this
minister stood for equality for women and backed equality
for women, and in fact said it needs more work. So after
pressure from the Prime Minister to meet with REAL Women,
this has changed. Why? What's happened? I'd like to know,
will this minister, after listening to other women's groups
across the country, listening to this committee, have the
guts to go to the Prime Minister to fight for the 25% increase,
minimum, for this department?
Ms Stronach continued on:
I am not very satisfied with this answer
because let's go back to May 19. It was this committee,
not previous governments, that recommended the increase
to the budget and now we see a decrease after, and is it
after pressure from other organizations like REAL Women,
because you were for equal rights for women and you said
you'd back that. You said it needed more work.
Then that organization put pressure on
the Prime Minister. You met with that organization and suddenly
we see a change in the funding criteria.
Ms Stronach's Obsession With REAL Women
Ms Stronach seems to be obsessed with REAL
Women, which has dared to defy her with our independent views.
Ms Stronach has a superficial understanding of the issues
of abortion, child care, marriage, equality etc. which is
apparent by her arguments which amount to trendy clichés.
REAL Women, at least, approaches these issues with thoughtful,
well-reasoned arguments. When asked by the media about her
latest love affair, Ms Stronach famously replied (Globe and
Mail, October 7, 2006) that she didn't sit at home on Friday
nights knitting! Indeed not. Her lifestyle of designer clothes,
a personal trainer, a regular turnover of lovers and celebrity
partying does not leave much time for knitting or any other
home based pursuits! Ms Stronach obviously finds it difficult
to believe and definitely cannot relate, to those many, many
women in Canada who quite happily look after their own children,
love their husbands, and are content to stay home Friday night,
doing whatever! Ms Stronach would be further shocked to learn
that such women are intelligent, capable, and not too impressed
by empty clichés and a libertine lifestyle. It must
be said , however, that independent thought and in-depth analysis
are not and have never been Ms Stronach's strong point.
We hope the budget cuts and changes in criteria
for the Status of Women are just the beginning of the end
of the Status of Women and that the budget in the February,
2007 will bring us even more good news about the fate of the
Status of Women.
2. Court Challenges Program (CCP)
The Court Challenges Program (CCP) was initially
established in 1978 to fund individuals and groups to bring
test cases to the courts on language rights.
In 1985, the federal government expanded the
program to include the financing of equality rights issues.
The CCP was supposed to help "disadvantaged" groups
and individuals to bring the court challenges under the Charter
of Rights. In pursuit of this, over the years, millions of
dollars have been transferred to the CCP from the federal
Heritage Department to cover the cost of these challenges.
Unfortunately, it was not the so-called "disadvantaged"
groups, which reaped most of the benefits from this program,
but rather an interlocking assortment of homosexual and feminist
groups, who had privileged and private access to this CCP
fund. The chair of the "equality" panel, for many
years, was the well-known lesbian Shelagh Day, former vice
president of NAC (National Action Committee on the Status
of Women) and one of the founders of the legal arm of the
feminist movement, LEAF (Women's Legal Education Action Fund).
Representatives of LEAF currently sit on both the Advisory
Board and on the Board of Directors of the CCP. Ms Day was
replaced as chair of the Equality panel by another member
of LEAF. Guess which organization is the recipient of many
of the grants from the CCP?
REAL Women's Applications for Funding Rejected
REAL Women applied to the CCP on three occasions
to request assistance in our court interventions, only to
be rejected each time. Yet, LEAF and the homosexual organization
EGALE that opposed us in many of these court cases were funded
by the CCP. Another so-called "disadvantaged" group
that received funding from the CCP was the wealthy (by way
of compulsory union dues) Canadian Union of Public Employees
(CUPE). The latter received funding from CCP to oppose REAL
Women in the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Rosenberg case,
which granted marriage benefits to same-sex couples, thanks
to the decision of trendy Madame Justice Rosalie Abella, who,
presently sits on the Supreme Court of Canada. CUPE also intervened
against REAL Women's affiliate Alberta Federation of Women
United for Families (AFWUF) in the Vriend homosexual case,
in which the Supreme Court of Canada forced the province of
Alberta to provide protection for sexual orientation in its
human rights legislation. CUPE, by the way, is now funding
a campaign to "save" the CCP and has set up a website
to further this campaign. According to the website, the Court
Challenges Programme's reinstatement is supported by left-wing
organizations in Canada especially feminists and homosexual
ones.
EGALE is Distraught
The homosexual organization EGALE is apparently
distraught over the closing down of CCP. In an article in
the homosexual newspaper Capital Xtra (October 19, 2006) on
the CPP, it stated as follows:
No group has benefited more from Court
Challenges funding than the queer community. Thanks to clever
interventions from groups like Egale Canada we have achieved
equal relationship recognition, and with the Charter of
Rights as a backbone, we've fought homophobia and discrimination
in classrooms and workplaces. Now the program is gone.
In another article published in the same issue,
it stated:
Money from the Court Challenges Program
helped Egale win equal marriage rights through the courts
in BC, Ontario, and Quebec. When government sent questions
to the Supreme Court in 2004, Egale was there to help make
the legal case that gays and lesbian marriage was a charter
issue - with the help of the Court Challenges Program money.
'This will have a devastating effect on
our ability to pursue legal cases' says Gilles Marchildon,
executive director of Egale.
Summary of CCP
The CCP rarely advanced the rights of minorities:
With very few exceptions, it has been used to subvert the
democratic process and advance the cause of left-wing special
interest groups to change the social values of this country
by judicial fiat. The CCP funding allowed the courts rather
than Parliament to decide controversial social issues. Parliament,
at least, hears both sides of an issue, makes compromises,
and has access to extensive research, as well as to the social
facts involved in an issue. The courts hear, on the other
hand, only the arguments of those who can afford to appear
before it. Thus the CCP funding has allowed only one side
to be heard since those holding other views usually do not
have the deep pockets to appear before the court. The final
insult to the taxpayer about the CCP, is that although it
is completely funded by the taxpayer, it is not answerable
to Parliament, nor is it subject to the Access to Information
Act and as a result, could do whatever it liked with the
taxpayer's money without fear of any interference with its
decisions.
Finally, recipients of the CCP grants had
its representatives sitting on the CCP Board of Directors
and its Advisory Committee, which enabled it to make grants
to their own organizations. The CCP was profoundly undemocratic
and an insult to the taxpayers. The disbanding of the CCP
was long overdue.
3. The Law Commission
The Law Commission is no more acceptable than
the CCP. It was established in 1971 by the Trudeau government
supposedly to review federal laws and make recommendations
for their modernization. Its recommendations were never rooted
in legal principle, but reflected only the ideological views
of the appointed commissioners and was used as a method of
providing a platform for the liberalization of the laws. The
Commission reported to the Minister of Justice, not Parliament,
and even though its recommendations were non-binding, the
Commission's recommendations were avidly quoted by the Supreme
Court of Canada to support changes in the laws. Over the years,
the Law Commission has recommended abortion on demand, fetal
experimentation, decriminalization of prostitution, elimination
of incest and bestiality as crimes among other provocative
recommendations.
An example of the politically correct trendy
mindset of the Law Commission was apparent a number of years
ago, when REAL Women was invited to a consultation organized
by the Law Commission to discuss women and criminal law. REAL
Women's Gwen Landolt was the only non-feminist lawyer present
among the fifteen or twenty female lawyers invited to the
consultation. The Commission took it for granted that feminists
were the only acceptable representatives of all Canadian women
- and REAL Women's invitation was merely a token for the "others".
At that meeting by the way, the issue of removing
bestiality (sex with animals) was discussed. When Gwen inquired
why this change was indicated, the Chairman of the Commission
told her that bestiality need no longer be a criminal offence
because animals were now sufficiently protected under provincial
legislation!
Although Gwen was greatly outnumbered at that
meeting, she never allowed the feminist lawyers to get away
with any of their nonsensical arguments. Consequently, it's
not surprising that REAL Women was never asked to attend another
of the agency's so called "consultations"!
The Law Commission and Same Sex Marriage
The most recent example of the failings of
the Law Commission was its report "Beyond Conjugality"
released in 2001. This report not only recommended that same-sex
marriage be legalized but also recommended that marriage be
eliminated altogether. The report listed in the acknowledgements
the names of those on the study panels and the background
researchers who had prepared the report. These individuals
were almost solely homosexual or lesbian activists, as were
the drafters of the final report. Hardly an objective analysis.
This lack of objectivity of the Commission
on the same sex marriage issue was exemplified by the fact
that its Chairperson, Nathalie DesRosiers, held a press conference
on January 30, 2001 jointly with Rev. Brent Hawkes of Toronto's
homosexual church the Metropolitan Community Church to announce
its report in support of same sex marriage.
Obviously, the elimination of the Law Commission
and the Court Challenges Program was long overdue and their
elimination will contribute to a more balanced and objective
public dialogue in Canada - something that Prime Minister
Trudeau and his left-wing colleagues had tried to prevent.
Please write to Prime Minister Harper, and
your MP letting them know you heartily agree with these budget
cuts. Certainly, the media is doing everything possible to
undermine the conservatives in this regard.
The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Fax: (613) 941-6900
Your MP
c/o House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
