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.


For Immediate Release - (click here for a link to document) Surrey, BC - Last week the Privy Council Office released an updated list of the petitions regarding MP Stephen Woodworth's motion as well as's petition calling on Parliament assembled to restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible. The lengthy list received by director, Mike Schouten includes the name of the MP who presented the petition, the date it was presented, and the number of signatories affixed to each petition. "Ever since Mr. Woodworth went public with his motion we've been encouraging Canadians to fill out both of these petitions and we're very excited about the results", said Schouten. In the last session of Parliament on almost 250 occasions, MP's stood up on behalf of their constituents to present petitions in support of Motion 312 and calling Parliament to "restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible". The number of signatories to these petitions totaled nearly 19,000 different names. "That this many signatures have been gathered thus far is a clear indication that Canadians have not accepted the legislative status quo on abortion – they want Parliament to deal with the issue," said Schouten. Each petition presented requires a minimum of twenty-five signatures and undergoes scrutiny by the Privy Council Office prior to being presented in the House of Commons. 

by Jonathon Van Maren (republished with permission) The July 2012 issue of the Reader’s Digest featured an interesting article, especially for someone who spends a substantial amount of time every week debating the concept of “personhood,” and who should be shielded under its protective umbrella. The article, written by Jeff Warren, was entitled “Why Whales Are People Too.” The article argues that since whales are extremely intelligent, have an intricate way of communicating with each other as well as very sophisticated social networks, they should be regarded as “persons.” According to one marine biologist, “We are not saying that dolphins should vote or go to school—obviously this is preposterous. What we are saying is that the rights of a species should be based on their critical needs. In the case of whales, they should have the right not to be killed and tortured and confined, the right to live free in their natural environment. This is very basic stuff.” Interesting statement: “They should have the right not to be killed and tortured and confined, the right to live free in their natural environment. This is very basic stuff.” I think you can see where I’m going with this. I don’t object to the idea of whales being protected by environmental law. Whales at one point were hunted almost into extinction, a shameful abuse of the environment and a callous attitude toward the existence of these grand creatures. However, this story is another sign that the entire idea of “personhood”—which was and should be defined as all human beings—is being mangled into some meaningless term that can be applied to any group of mammals that activists desire, and removed from any group considered to be inconvenient.

We've been waiting for some time now to receive an update from the Privy Council Office regarding the number of petitions and today we recieved a lengthy document detailing the information we asked for. Petitions are an excellent way to generate discussion in the House...

The 2012 National Pro-Life Conference takes place in Toronto, Ontario from October 25 - 27. With an exciting lineup of speakers including: Margaret Somerville (Director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law), Stephen Woodworth (Member of Parliament for Kitchener-Centre), and Charmaine Yoest (President...

ABORTION-RELATED ARTICLES   1. How shocking sex-selective abortion data may finally yield a Canadian abortion law -Jonathan Kay, National Post (April 17, 2012) 2. Canada needs proper, open debate on abortion policy - Andrew Coyne, Vancouver Sun (April 26, 2012) 3. The idea...

Last week, I was a guest on the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform's weekly podcast. Click here and listen to Stephanie Gray, Jonathon Van Maren, and myself discuss various pro-life political strategies. A prudent political strategy involves a proper understanding of the role of...

That delegates at the recent Canadian Medical Association general council meeting held in Yellowknife, N.W.T. supported the current Criminal Code definition of a human being, smacks of ignorance from those we’d least expect it on this issue. You would think physicians should know that when a man and woman copulate, the ‘products of conception’ are none other than a human being. I’m pretty sure you won’t find any of the doctors that attended this meeting argue to the contrary. Why then the ignorance? Why would Canada’s physicians show a blatant disregard for all they have been taught concerning embryology and human anatomy? The Canadian Medical Association, rather than enter this debate over the definition of a human being from an objective position, and relying on their credentials, has placed ideology over science. Instead of educating Canadians as to the various stages of human development, they have become a mouthpiece for ardent feminists who believe that abortion is solely a women’s rights issue. “I’m not asking if you are for or against abortion,” Dr. Genevieve Desbiens said to the delegates at the general council meeting. “I’m asking for you to recognize that women must retain their full and complete rights,” she added. This coming from a Montreal physician who knows full well that when she treats a woman who is pregnant there are two patients she is caring for.

Join us in building support for these initiatives: