Federal Budget 2012 – Families, Compassion & Charities: Key Components to Maintaining a Strong Canada (Part 1 FAMILIES)

By Don Hutchinson and guest blogger Rick Hiemstra, Director of Research, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) does not generally engage in the number crunching of the government budget process. Biblical principles inform us, and the EFC’s Centre for Faith and Public Life applies those principles to concepts for public policy initiatives that we believe to be of benefit to the nation. Canada is facing the dual challenge of being recognized by other governments as a leader in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis and maintaining the strong foundation that underlies that leadership through sound governance of the economy at home. Canada’s ability to lead on the international stage is dependent upon, and cannot take away from, consideration of the people and principles that have landed the nation in that leadership role. For that reason, the EFC decided to make a submission in the federal pre-budget consultation process – based on principles rather than numerical recommendations – and we have been invited to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance to engage further in the conversation.

As the Government of Canada seeks to set a course for the future through the priorities of the 2012 federal budget, the EFC has urged the Government to consider and address three key building blocks of our nation: families; compassion; and, charities. The stability of Canadian families underlies and evidences the stability of the nation. Our long history of compassion toward the less fortunate, at home and abroad, testifies to the heart of the Canadian people. Canadian charities have been significant in the development of Canada’s health, education and compassionate response mechanisms and continue to be vital to the life of Canadians and Canadians’ expression of compassion toward those in need. We will briefly consider each of the three – families, compassion and charities – in a series of blogs beginning with this one: FAMILIES.

The Bible teaches that the family is to provide physical, emotional and spiritual care for its members as it prepares them to serve God, other persons (including civic responsibilities in municipality, province and nation), and creation. In this way, the family is a microcosm of a healthy society. Families have been and remain the cornerstone of any successful nation, but even a rock can be eroded and lose its structural integrity. As every Canadian knows, given time salt can be as destructive as a sledgehammer.

Canadian families are facing mounting challenges in the early twenty-first century, including the fiscal realities of a challenging economy. We know that the primary stressor on marriage, and by extension the family, is money. Many Canadian families have experienced increasing expenses while either having wages frozen or salary increases that don’t keep up with inflation. Progressively eroding the family budget have been: increases in municipal, provincial and federal taxes and premiums; rising costs of housing and associated expenses such as electricity, telephone service and internet access; and, the realities of climbing prices for food, gasoline and other staples.

The Conservative Party of Canada’s campaign platform from the 2011 federal election proposed the “Family Tax Cut” as a form of household income splitting that will be available when the federal budget is balanced. Current tax laws penalize single income families – the very ones who often struggle the most financially – by requiring them to pay up to 37% more than dual income families earning the same amount (see "Taxing Families: Does The System Need an Overhaul?", The IMFC Review, Spring/Summer 2008). However, Canadian families are facing pressure today and balancing the budget is an aim for 2014-15 and goal for either 2015-16 or 2016-17, depending on cost savings that can be found in the interim.

Canadian families need the relief today. The EFC has encouraged the government to take this initiative immediately and to give serious consideration to expanding the initiative to a full family household income splitting initiative as supported in the analysis of Jack Mintz, summarized in "Taxing Families":

Canada has an ambiguous approach to family taxation and no clear application of principle has evolved over time. This has resulted in inequitable tax treatment for families with the same earning power. Raised 40 years ago by the famous 1966 Carter Report, which argued for equal treatment for families, still today, a single-earner family pays much more tax than two-earner families. This is an issue that should be corrected, and this can best be achieved by providing opportunities for families to split in­come more readily.

Government has been, but should not be the beneficiary of fiscal imbalance in household income earners. Income splitting ought to be available to all Canadian families – dual income and single income, those with children (or other dependants) and those without – as a measure of economic fairness. In the current economy, it will also help many who have seen their wages stagnate and then experience erosion by inflation. It could well keep several families from being forced to remove their children from after school activities, such as sports and arts programs; finding themselves unable to keep their homes; or slipping into the ranks of Canada’s working poor, lining up at food banks and soup kitchens to make ends meet.

Keeping Canada’s families strong financially will keep Canada strong. Community, school and church have our parts to play in securing the strength of Canadian families. We call upon the Government of Canada to do its part as well. The economic health of the nation depends on it.

The Challenge of Poverty in Canada

(As originally published in the January/February 2012 issue of Faith Today)

Journalists, politicians and concerned Canadians have all recently struggled to learn the proper pronunciation of Attawapiskat, and to comprehend the deplorable conditions of this northern Ontario community suddenly thrust into the national spotlight. The severe poverty and critical needs for health, housing and sanitation are more reminiscent of conditions seen in the developing world a decade ago than anything we imagine our fellow Canadians facing at the start of a long, cold, 21^st century winter.

The people of Attawapiskat are not the only Canadians lacking the most basic needs of human life. What has been declared a state of emergency is, sadly, indicative of conditions in other First Nations communities across Canada - and for too many Canadians living on the streets. Several hundred thousand Canadians live without homes, and increasing numbers are at risk of finding themselves homeless.

Jesus said, in Matthew 26:11 the poor would always be among us. What does that mean for us today?

Last spring the EFC participated in a multifaith forum on faith and poverty. This Parliament Hill event was one of several responses to a Federal Poverty Reduction Plan for Canada, a report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources (HUMA). The multifaith forum allowed us, along with representatives from other faiths, to speak to government and together share in the call for collective action to address poverty in Canada.

Members of Parliament from all parties had worked collaboratively on the HUMA report, making 58 recommendations for how the Federal Government could act to reduce poverty in Canada. Foremost was that the federal government take a strong, long term leadership role to address poverty in our nation. An earlier report from a Senate committee, titled In from the Margins, had drawn similar conclusions.

Regrettably, the government response to the HUMA report failed to directly address the recommendations. There has been little parliamentary movement with respect to a poverty reduction plan or housing strategy. Apart from a handful of private member’s bills, Canada’s federal government has displayed a reluctance to act.

To be clear, the Federal Government is not silent on poverty. There are much-needed and essential funds being delivered to support housing initiatives, shelters, and so on. But it’s time to move beyond what has been a piecemeal approach, one which is proving inefficient and insufficient. The Federal Government alone has the political gathering power to initiate a coordinated national action plan to deal with poverty and homelessness in cities, big and small, and on First Nations’ reserves from coast to coast to coast.

But is the challenge of poverty just for government response? Jesus’ words were for both church and government. Each has a unique responsibility and role to play in meeting the needs of vulnerable Canadians, and in finding solutions to poverty and homelessness. The role of each is so critical that the failure of either will mean that the crisis in Canada will continue to worsen. And, the failure of one does not excuse responsibility on the part of the other.

At the same multifaith forum on poverty, Greg Paul, author and Executive Director of Sanctuary Ministries of Toronto, gave a talk entitled “Who is at the Centre?” He spoke from Matthew 26 and challenged us to reconsider Christ’s words about having the poor always among us.  

What if Christ’s proclamation was not a statement of the futility of seeking to eliminate poverty, but rather a vision for what the church is meant to be? What if Jesus said the poor will always be among us because they belong in our midst, at the very centre of our church communities? What if welcoming, including and sharing with those who are poor and excluded is to be central to who are as the people of God?

While Christmastime is typically a season marked by generosity towards people in our communities who are living in poverty, what is our role when the decorations are put away and the trees taken down? When the bleak cold days of January and February set in are they still among us? Are we among them?

A Message to Pro-Choice Advocates: Women are not fragile flowers. We can handle the truth about abortion.

By Faye Sonier

A message to those claiming to be the voice of pro-choice advocates: Wake up. Canadian women are intelligent, bright and sensible. We do not need you to protect us from the realities of abortion or shield us from the potential risks associated with undergoing the “medical procedure.” You claim to be challenging the work and messages of crisis pregnancy centres and pro-life groups in the name of women’s “rights,” but frankly I’d appreciate it if you would take the time to care about our health. And by care, I mean something more substantial than indiscriminately throwing around the terms “back alley” and “clothes hanger” every time someone questions the ‘unquestionable’ benefits of abortion for Canadian women.

If you want to talk “rights,” one right women should definitely have is the right to be fully informed of the risks associated with any medical procedure we undergo. Oh wait, in theory medical practitioners are already required to provide that information. Our highest courts have reviewed and confirmed this to be a physician’s duty several times in the last few years. Why is it then that when crisis pregnancy centres or pro-life activists dare mention that there may just be some reported and documented risks associated with this particular medical procedure, they are quickly vilified as having a secret agenda and accused of seeking to manipulate women? (Or, should I say other women are being accused of trying to manipulate women, since most of the people sharing this information are female doctors, female counsellors, female peers, etc.)

If the secret agenda is to provide intelligent Canadian women with all the information necessary to make an informed decision about a medical procedure that will affect their current health and could well affect their future health, then I’ll take that secret agenda. But I tend to think that crisis pregnancy centres are rather poor at keeping their secrets. Almost all of these groups state rather clearly on their websites, in their waiting rooms and in the publications they distribute that they exist to provide care, information and support to women. Most even go so far as to clearly state in a way accessible in advance of any meeting or conversation that they will discuss options, including abortion, but will not make referrals for abortion.

It particularly upsets me that these “pro-choice” voices complain that some of the women who go to a crisis pregnancy centre for advice actually choose to carry their child to term rather than abort when they are presented information about medical risks associated with the procedure. Isn’t that their choice? Isn’t choice what you claim to be advocating for?

As someone who has had more than her fair share of serious medical challenges, I appreciate most the doctors and nurses who treat me as a woman with a brain. Even when I was just 16 and a physician was recommending that I take the birth control pill to address a physical issue I was suffering with, I was provided with the product’s pamphlet and given the opportunity to sit down and read through the risk factors, after which I challenged him about his recommendation. We had a frank conversation about the risks and benefits of going on the pill. I felt safe and secure having him as my physician and I knew that I could trust him to give me all the information necessary to make informed choice about my health and my body.  He would tell me the risks, small or great, and I would make an informed decision. He respected me.

There are risks associated with every medical procedure, including abortion. It is disingenuous to treat the procedure casually and women as if they can’t process information when advised of potential risks. Pregnant might equate with emotional but it doesn’t equate with stupid.

This comment is not the place for an exhaustive list of the numerous studies which demonstrate that there are in fact real risks associated with abortion procedures, but increasingly verifiable medical studies are shedding more and brighter light on the consequences. In fact, Barbara Kay listed several in her piece in a January 18th National Post column.

Canadian women are surgeons, politicians, senior executives, police officers, social workers, soldiers and mothers. We take on some of the most stressful and challenging positions this country has to offer. And we excel. We are touted as model citizens to countries who do not recognize the value of women. We can handle difficult realities, stressful circumstances and tough decisions. We aren’t fragile flowers and we don’t appreciate being patronized on national television or anywhere else as being too fragile to handle information about risks associated with any medical procedure; particularly by other women! Provide us with the information, all the information, and we’ll make up our own minds. If more Canadian women choose to carry their children to term, raising them or making them available for adoption, rather than abort them, would that really be such a bad choice?

Canada’s Tarnished Human Rights Record: Lone Democracy Not Recognizing the Humanity of the Child in the Womb

By Don Hutchinson

Last week I appeared on CBC TV’s Power & Politics with Evan Solomon. Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada was the other guest for a conversation about Canada’s lack of legal recognition for the child in the womb as a human being. In fact, Canada’s Criminal Code states:

s.223 (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.

During the course of our discussion I mistakenly identified The Netherlands as the only developed democratic nation in the world, other than Canada, that offered no protection to the child in the womb for the full 9 months of pregnancy. A friend challenged that assertion. I had put my trust in someone else’s research on that point, so conducted the research I normally would have done before making such an assertion and found that The Netherlands allows abortion on demand only until the end of the 21st week of pregnancy; and then for an additional 3 weeks in urgent care situations. I apologize for the incorrect statement.

My statement must have surprised Ms. Arthur, the other participant on the show, as during my research I also came across an article written by Ms. Arthur in 2007 in which she opens with the words, “Canada is the only democratic country in the world that has no abortion law or restrictions of any kind…”

Canada stands alone among democracies, although as stated on the show our nation is in the company of communist nations such as China, Vietnam and North Korea.

So how did we get to this point?

The Government of Canada has, over several decades, committed itself to adhere to a number of international agreements; generated initially through the League of Nations (predecessor to the UN) and then through the United Nations.

In the 1924 Geneva Declaration on the Rights of the Child (League of Nations) the context for international considerations in regard to children was established as “mankind owes to the Child the best that it has to give.” The subsequent Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the “Declaration”), established at the United Nations in 1948 – notably with significant input from Canada through the work and leadership of John Peters Humphrey –  declares in Article 2 that :

Everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. … [emphasis added by me]

“Everyone,” under the Declaration, is not limited by birth in its “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” (from the preamble of the Declaration, again emphasis added). Article 25 (2) of the Declaration declares:

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

We see this recognition of the rights of the child, both before and after birth, expressed more explicitly in the 1959 UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which begins its international agreement history with the 1924 Geneva Declaration as a guide:

… the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth … [from the preamble, emphasis added]

Article 1. The child shall enjoy all the rights set forth in this Declaration. Every child, without any exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to these rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family. [emphasis added]

Article 4. The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services. [emphasis added]

This is the context in which amendments were made to Canada’s Criminal Code (the “Code”) in 1969 through Bill C-150 introduced by the government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Prior to those amendments, the section that is now section 223 of the Code read as follows:

When Child becomes a Human Being:

s.195 (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether or not: (a) It has breathed. (b) It has independent circulation. (c) The navel string is severed

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injuries to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies.

Its companion section was:

Causing Death of Child Not a Human Being

s.209 (1) Everyone who causes the death of a child that has not become a human being, in such a manner that, if the child were a human being, he would be guilty of murder, is guilty of an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for life.

(2) This section does not apply to a person who, by means that, in good faith he considers necessary to preserve the life of the mother of a child that has not become a human being, causes the death of the child.

In 1969, s.195 (2) was amended to add the five key words “after becoming a human being” at the end of the sentence so that it now reads:

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injuries to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

Also in 1969, the then new s.251 was added to the Code. Section 251 set up protections against the procuring of a “miscarriage” except in accredited hospital after following an approval process to determine that the abortion was therapeutically necessary.  Although a more liberal law, there was still recognition of the child in the womb and protections were outlined. The law evidenced recognition of Canada’s international obligations in a manner similar to other democratic nations and complied with Canada’s Constitution as it existed at the time.

In 1982, the Constitution of Canada was amended to include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”). Section 251 of the Criminal Code (which had withstood a court challenge prior to the Charter) was challenged by three medical practitioners who were performing abortions at a private clinic and was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1988 in R. v. Morgentaler. In the Morgentaler decision, the court noted that the law was in violation of s.7 of the Charter as it had elements of vagueness and unequal application depending on geographic location within the country and thus endangered the life and health of women in violation of their “right to life, liberty and security of the person.” The court also made it clear that Parliament had the constitutional jurisdiction to enact laws to recognize and protect the child in the womb.

In 1989 Canada committed to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which affirmed the 1924 and 1959 Declarations mentioned above and included these words in its preamble:

… Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth" … [emphasis added]

In the same year, the government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney introduced Bill C-43 in an effort to patch the hole in Canada’s Criminal Code. The bill passed the House of Commons by a large majority in May 1990 but was defeated, in accordance with Senate procedural rules, as the result of a tie vote (43-43) on third reading on January 31, 1991.

Since then, although there have been several efforts by Members of Parliament in their capacity as private members – efforts that have ensured the debate which has continued in Canadian society and media has at least been periodically before Parliament – no Canadian government has introduced or supported legislation to offer a measure of protection to the child in the womb.

Canada remains the only democratic nation in the world that lacks any legal recognition of the rights of the child prior to birth, even though it has committed to that recognition in a series of international human rights agreements. Canada’s place on the international stage in regard to keeping its human rights commitments is tarnished and congratulating ourselves on Canada’s human rights record is self-contradictory, at least in regard to the child in the womb.

The Debate Is On: What is Human?

By Faye Sonier

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada regularly issues press releases. Depending on the topic, the timing and what is currently capturing the attention of Canadians, it may or may not get picked up by media outlets or blogs.

This week, echoing Members of Parliament Stephen Woodworth (Kitchener –Centre, CPC) and Jeff Watson (Essex, CPC), we issued a press release  urging Parliamentarians to examine section 223 of the Criminal Code, which essentially defines what Canadians consider human. In the words of Mr. Woodworth, the existing language “defines a human being as a child who has completely proceeded in a living state from the mother’s body, whether or not the child has breathed. This means that in Canada a child is legally considered to be sub-human while his or her little toe remains in the birth canal, even if he or she is breathing.” We stated our agreement that the legal definition of “human being” is an important issue, and in a matter of hours, our press release had been widely circulated. It was republished on numerous blogs and we received a number of requests for interviews with major media outlets.

Of course, the media discussion is not limited to the comments in our press release. Mr. Woodworth and Mr. Watson are sharing their perspectives in print and television interviews. A number of Canadian bloggers quickly took to their keyboards and weighed in on the debate.

Some outlets are framing this call for an examination of the Criminal Code definition of ‘human being’ as a covert attempt to re-open the abortion debate. To be frank, engaging a national discussion on what is human and carefully parsing through the relevant sections and subsections of the Criminal Code will be all-consuming in and of itself. If you’ve spent any time sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons, or have witnessed a parliamentary committee hearing, you know very well that the debate around a word or phrase can take hours or days. Imagine the time necessary to consider these very complex sections of the Code.  Further, and as Mr. Woodworth suggested last night on CBC, listening to the testimony of various medical experts, ethicists and scientists on what is human will take time and reflection as well.

And so it should. As a nation that prides itself on being a global human rights leader, we should really determine what we consider to be “human”, rather than relying on legislation inspired by 400 year old concepts.

That said, given the media attention and the voices calling out from the blogosphere, I’d say a national discussion on what is human has been engaged. Wouldn’t you?

Watch this CBC clip where the EFC’s Don Hutchinson debates Joyce Arthur on whether the child in the womb is human.