Well, the big news from Parliament Hill this month is that if you are a single-income family, the Liberal Party does not want your vote. The government began the month of March with a one-two punch to all stay-at-home mums – and all Canadian families which aspire to be “wealthy” enough to be able to make the choice to be single-income families.According to the best available studies, the number of Canadian families which would like to be classified as single-income is probably upwards of 70 per cent. Certainly, data reveals that over 70 per cent of women with pre-school children who are currently in the work force would prefer to be home raising their children themselves.
When I was working for former Reform MP and family critic Sharon Hayes, one of the most important documents in our possession was a copy of a letter sent to us by a Canadian family. It was sent to the family by the finance minister in response to an inquiry they made about government tax policy. In the letter, the minister stated that treating women equitably regardless of the “vocation” they chose would be a disincentive to women entering the work force.
This idea reappeared in a March 3 Canadian Press article during the furor in the House of Commons over tax discrimination. CP was writing about the report submitted by Canada to the United Nations in defence of current tax discrimination policies. (Calgary homemaker Beverly Smith is challenging those policies at the UN.) According to CP, the report states that, “New policies helping stay-at-home parents would reduce the incentive for paid work.” Militant feminists control the Liberal Party and they don’t like it when women choose to remain at home to raise their own children (and, increasingly, to educate them at home as well).
On a happier note, we have word that Maurice Vellacott’s campaign to get 100 or more MPs to sign onto his conscience clause legislation is going well. By the time you read this, he should be more than half-way there. But we mustn’t take anything for granted until we are holding the victory in our hands. If you haven’t called, faxed, written or e-mailed your MPs to ask them to sign on to this bill, then do so today, or at least this week.
Remember the reason for having them sign on to the bill (they actually have to place their signature on the paper Mr. Vellacott is using to record their support, by the way) is to get it automatically placed on the House of Commons schedule for debate. This is a new development in the way private members’ business works, so your MPs may still be unfamiliar with it. Even so, if they sound supportive of the bill, forward their names to Campaign Life Coalition’s public affairs office in Ottawa and CLC will advise Mr. Vellacott. You can reach the public affairs office at (613) 729-0379.
The federal government is going to be involved in three extremely important activities this year that could be crucial to solidifying some of their worst policy areas.
Firstly, the government has said it intends to review the way Canada deals with hate crimes. This could lead to the further criminalization of “hate” – a very dangerous prospect, since pro-life and pro-family views are being called inherently hateful, as are many other ideas that challenge politically correct dogma.
Secondly, the minister of justice has announced that the government intends to launch the first complete review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This will be another opportunity to entrench protection for people on the basis of the categories by which they have been pigeon-holed by politically correct forces (this, of course, includes “sexual orientation”).
The third upcoming event we should be trying to influence is the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice. Since January, at least, it has been rumoured Justice Peter Cory will step down in June. A number of replacements are being suggested, none of whom gets me very excited.
Ontario Court of Appeal Judge Rosalie Abella is one. She ruled in favour of lowering the age of consent for homosexual acts. She also authored last year’s Rosenberg ruling, which changed the definition of “spouse” to include same-sex partners in pension benefits.