Helen Alvaré at World Meeting of Families

"The Family Provides Ample Homework on the Give and Take of Love"

Here is the conference Helen Alvaré, law professor at George Mason University, gave today at the 6th World Meeting of Families, being held through Sunday in Mexico City.

* * *

"The Family and the Values of Human Life"

In 1995, in his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae," Our Holy Father John Paul II wrote that you and I are the "people of life because God, in his unconditional love, has given us the Gospel of life, and by this same Gospel we have been transformed and saved." (EV 79) Over the last 40 years in particular, several of our beloved modern popes have repeatedly urged Catholics to understand themselves as created with a call, an orientation to revere life itself, to guard it, from the moment of its first conception unto natural death. Just last month, on the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, in the instruction "Dignitatis Personae," we were exhorted to give "unconditional respect" to the "fruit of human generation," "to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality" from the first moment of its existence." (DP4). Often these exhortations have a joyful tone. They also convey a sense of urgency.

Occasionally, even secular journalists marvel at the Catholic Church's willingness to speak so unequivocally and so inclusively about the value of human life. In the United States, for example, when Pope John Paul II issued "Evangelium Vitae," several leading newspapers -- even those which supported legal abortion, could not help but grant that the pope had put his finger on a profound truth when he identified a prevailing "culture of death," as "a veritable structure of sin," fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency," a "war of the powerful against the weak."(EV 12). And on the occasion of the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Washington DC last year, a prominent Washington DC journalist gave thanks for the Roman Catholic Church's constant expression of the equality and dignity of every single human person across the globe, and urged readers to do the same in the name of world peace, no matter their disagreements with the Church on any particular matter.

If you reflect at greater length upon this call to respect human life, and particularly if you see it against the backdrop of the world's situation today, it appears even more remarkable. The word "countercultural" is almost not strong enough to capture its effects. It is rather like a call which feels out of time or from another world. Why do I put this so dramatically? First, because this call is a demand to respect each and every human life. As Our Holy Father Benedict XVI said so plainly and so poignantly in "Deus Caritas Est" -- as if answering our interior skepticism that it is possible for us to give love to so many: "Seeing with the eyes of Christ, I can give to others much more than their outward necessities; I can give them the look of love which they crave." Second, I speak in this way because this call encompasses human lives at every moment of their existence -- from the first moment of fertilization until their last breath. Third, this call by its nature requires us to extend ourselves -- in a sacrificial matter - precisely on behalf of persons in situations that most challenge us, that most defy or exhaust our sense of competence.

With rare exceptions, other national and international institutions simply do not speak this way, do not make such passionate, or sweeping statements in defense of the great good of human life itself. Rather, as observed both by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the world seems to respond to the call to respect human life in a distinctly bipolar manner. John Paul II observed in "Evangelium Vitae," for example, that nations' and international bodies' noble proclamations about human rights are "unfortunately contradicted by a tragic repudiation of them in practice. The denial is ...distressing, indeed...scandalous precisely because it is occurring in a society which makes the affirmation and protection of human rights its primary objective and its boast." (EV 18). Now the Church is not blind to progress. We recognize that there are influential voices resisting precipitous moves to warfare. That voices are more united in opposition to various weapons of mass destruction. That there is a growing call to abolish the death penalty, and a growing resolve to put racism and sexism unequivocally behind us.

There is a genuine crisis of contradiction, however, between the teachings and the aspirations of the Catholic Church regarding welcoming a new life into the family, and the respect owed to nascent human life, and the policies and rhetoric of powerful national and international governments and organizations. There is also a commensurate crisis in the hearts of women, men and couples, who more and more seem to believe that their limited reason (and worries) about accepting new human life are sufficient for their needs, and for the needs of the world. Many reject, or ignore the possibility of received wisdom, of objective truth, and of any religion's acting as a graced, chosen instrument for helping to reveal God's plan for the human person. Many women, men and couples reject in particular interventions pertaining to the meaning of their own bodies in the world, the meaning of intimate love, and the meaning of God's choosing to bring new life into our world by means of this love.

In fact, the gap between the Church's call to respect the "language of the human body" and the gift of human life, and positions assumed by influential groups and governments about marriage and children, is nothing less than alarming. Tens of millions of nascent human lives are annually terminated by abortion because the child would interfere with somebody's plan of life. An untold number of embryos are made to order out of a desperate demand for children. Many, many embryos are de facto abandoned in storage. Others are created overtly as "research material," with not the slightest acknowledgement of their co-membership in the human race. Among even those who oppose abortion or destructive embryo research, there is what can only be described as a fear of caring for "too many" children. There are many possible explanations for this -- among them economic and psychological ones -- but certainly we cannot exclude an impoverished and incomplete appreciation for the meaning of life itself: loving service, death to self as the path to "finding oneself." Marriage and childbearing are a privileged symbol of and path to this wisdom, but leading bodies appear to be drifting away from or denying this truth. On the contrary, a growing body of nations insisting even that it is a matter of "human rights" to confer state benefits upon intimate adult relationships which are by nature sterile. This is a move destined to further distort the already fragile human perception that authentic love must always in practice, and in its very structure, move beyond the me and the you, and overflow onto another and many others.

Still, as John Paul II pointed out in Evangelium Vitae -- there is something overtly ugly about the demand for "rights" to kill family members at the weakest points of their existence, whether we are speaking about abortion before birth, or about euthanasia or assisted suicide when a family member is ill or disabled. A more subtle, and seemingly less ugly, undermining of respect for human life comes by means of calls to defer to, to respect, and sometimes nearly to worship human technological prowess instead, even as it embraces research upon human embryos. Similarly, respect for life is subtly undermined with the insistence that we view the human populace primarily as a threat to a cleaner or sustainable environment. While there is truth in the calls to marvel at nature, or to marvel at what the human mind can do, these messages, in their overt or subtle forms, fail to mention, and sometimes contradict, the preciousness of human life. When we observe the gulf between these equivocal evaluations of the worth of the human person, and the Church's celebration of the same, we are more than a little tempted to despair. In fact, like Our Blessed Virgin Mary at the Annunciation, we may find ourselves "deeply troubled" (Lk 1:29) by the words of the Church. We might find ourselves saying "how can this be?" (Lk 1:34), given our opposition by powerful forces in the world today. It remains for us, like Mary, to come to understand how with man alone, this is impossible, but with God, "nothing is impossible." (Lk 1:37)

And so I come to the heart of my presentation to you today. How are we to do what we have been asked of us regarding fostering respect for life, within our own circles of influence? And -- for those with a vocation to go out to the world -- how are we to approach the institutions wielding worldly power, with the argument, with the demand to respect all human life. I am here today to urge you to consider that one possible, one promising, one ingenious way given to us by God, is through the family. Why and how is this so? An attempted answer will constitute the remainder of my presentation, according to the following points:

-- First, the family as the place where, ordinarily, and for the vast bulk of the human race, one learns to love, or not. In John Paul II's words, the family was designed to be the "school of love."

-- Second, this school of love provides essential human and social skills. Skills necessary to realize the meaning of our own lives in loving relationships with one another and with God.

-- Third, family as the place possessing the real potential to transcend any political "dividing up" of issues or causes in favor of human life and dignity. Another way of putting this: the family has the potential to transform political obstacles when it comes to questions about the respect owed human life.

Beginning with the first point: for most people, the family is the place where one learns to love, or not. We can see this most clearly by distinction. We most likely do not learn to love from our school, or from our place of employment, or from our interactions with the government. Now we might, when we are older, learn a lot about love from our friends or a romantic love. But at crucial developmental periods prior to adulthood, if we do not come to understand the contents of attentive, secure, sacrificial love from our family, we will likely be impaired in ways difficult if not impossible to transcend in the matter of giving and receiving love.

Like other "schools," the family provides ample -- some might ironically say, "relentless" -- homework on the subject of the give and take of love. The day-to-day life of a typical family means that graduates will not be launched into the world in the situation of a popular American cartoon character who opined: "I love humanity; it's people I hate." The school that is the family -- assuming of course that there is not significant conflict or even violence there -- determines that you will have learned to love actual people before you "graduate."

The lesson that begins the family is about the love of a spouse. In the words of the philosopher and theologian Vladimir Solovyov, loving one's spouse leads us to understand how someone else might occupy the center of the universe, might be a gift from God to the world. We appreciate the total importance of the spouse -- body and soul -- and the totality of gifts they have to share.

Marriage also leads us toward grasping the value and meaning of procreation; we find ourselves, are taken aback at the remarkable feat of our love giving forth new life, and at the mystery of God's deciding to bring new life into the world via an act of love, when He could have done it any way he wished.

There is no mystery therefore regarding why married couples feel themselves able to welcome new life, and choose abortion so rarely as compared with single persons, who are uninitiated into the adult aspects of this school of love. Of course, too, the circumstances that correlate with and constitute marriage make it the place where new life can be given its most full-throated welcome. In marriage, we find the long-term commitment necessary to rear relatively slowly-maturing human infants to adulthood. We also find in marriage greater economic stability, extended families well-disposed to assist the new parents, and social satisfaction with the married couples' initiation into the ways of sacrifice, long-term planning and care for the next generation.

On the other hand, non-marital unions are unsuited by their very natures to offer a similar welcome to new and vulnerable life. Cohabitation, for example, because of its instability, its association with later divorce in many cases, and even its higher rates of infidelity and violence, is very poorly suited to welcoming a child. The poverty and instability correlating with single parent households, and the absence of necessary role models there, also render this situation difficult for children and parents alike.

There are influential voices today, however, who insist that children are as well (or better!) served by non-marital or one-sexed upbringing, as they are by being reared by their own married, biological parents. These voices point to the increasing numbers of children born or reared without the steady presence of their parents and insist even that laws and cultures which prefer marriage, actively discriminate with public resources against such children. To this they will sometimes add that since marriage is an inherently sexist institution, which devalues women and their service, it is just as well that we move to overtly or implicitly de-institutionalize it, and concentrate rather on the mother-child pair, if, of course the woman alone chooses to become pregnant, or to carry the child to term. This argument concludes, therefore, with the remarkable claim that marriage is not the cradle of respect for life, but the actual enemy of respect for the lives of women and children.

Even if we set aside our initial incredulity at such a hypothesis, we find that it is not supported by a substantial, credible body of research. Indeed, there are many and increasing numbers of children born or reared without the benefit of married parents, and they most definitely command our attention and our help. But it appears that the Church's (and still, generally, the world's) intuition is correct: children made by love, and reared in low-conflict, stable home environments, with knowledge of their heritage as well as the presence of their heterosexual parents, are significantly advantaged in this world. Of course, some fragile families overcome the odds. Of course, sexism continues to happen in some marriages. These are reasons to affirm the Church's constant teachings about the equality of the woman and the man, and our insistence that fragile families deserve the assistance of the state, not reasons to deinstitutionalize the historically, globally constant role of marriage as the place in which human life can thrive.

A second, and more brief point on the relationship between the family and respect for human life has to do with the particular lessons learned in the family. So many of these are the stuff of daily life, that they go unremarked. But their importance cannot be overlooked. The family is where we first see the building of a bridge between males and females, between younger and older, and between diverse personalities. In the close-range give and take between family members, we learn to model male or female traits and gifts. We learn the meaning of compromise, sacrifices and sharing. We learn what religion "looks like" when it is lived out. Culture and values are transmitted, social capital is exchanged, and the practical skills necessary for living independently are acquired.

In the family, we learn -- because we experience it totally with our bodies, our minds, our emotions and our spirits -- the relationship between adult love and the blessing of children. No matter how often this happens in history, every one who experiences it marvels at it.

Is it any surprise, then, as John Paul II has said so often, that the family is where we get our first and most important glimpse of the character and quality of God's love? First with our spouse -- maybe the first person we have truly understood to be as important as ourselves, and indispensable to our happiness -- and then in our children, understood similarly. The world understands this part of our teaching perhaps the least. Rather, increasingly marriage is labeled by courts and legislatures as a purely human institution, alterable at will by the state. There is resistance, maybe disbelief, in understanding the link between physical union, procreation, and the very meaning of our lives as destined for permanent union with God. In the world today, physical union often understood is a free-floating event, a category with no meaning beyond what we ascribe to it, and a choice without implications for the rest of our lives. Whether observers hold sex to be too humble, too earth-bound, or too marred by dysfunctions, infidelities, passions, and other failures, there is real resistance to linking the language of our bodies to the meaning of our lives. Catholic teaching brings it all together. It "rescues" the body and the meaning of spousal unions and of procreation. It elucidates the contents of the family as the school of love.

A third and final point about the precise relationship between the family and respect for human life. It seems to me that the family transcends a common tendency to divide up as between competing political parties, various issues or causes, all of which issues or causes should be seen together to support the overall cause of life. To explain: I feel that I have been searching for years for the "Holy Grail" of messages to communicate effectively the inseparability the cause of the defense of life and the cause of guaranteeing to every human person a dignified way of life. Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has commented upon the troubling evidence that many people and political organizations take sides as between these causes. Bishops' conferences around the world have spoken similarly.

I have regularly made the case in my own country about the need to extend our moral imaginations so that those easily condemning injustice they can see -- violence, racism, sexism, and more -- could come to understand the injustice happening in places they cannot see such as in abortion clinics, and in the storage tanks housing hundreds of thousands of "spare embryos." I have exhorted those who were not in the thick of the struggle over abortion to understand the legitimate claims of those suffering poverty or violence or discrimination, whether they were the victims of others' individual choices or of sinful social structures.

Recently, though, I have wondered if there is perhaps no one messages or set of messages guaranteed to open up people's eyes of people to the entire panoply of causes on behalf of human life. Perhaps, instead of a message, there is a place. Perhaps there is a group of people, and a way of life, that can do this better than any message. I am suggesting, in other words, that perhaps the family -- the family which cares automatically for both the sanctity of human life, and its dignity -- can and will mediate respect for human life at all times and in all conditions better than any verbal formula. In the family we practice loving the human person in his or her entirety -- their body, their soul, their gifts, their promise, their hopes - and we love persons from the first moment of their existence to their last. We do not say we want our spouse or our children or our mother to have life but not dignity, or dignity but not life.

Perhaps, it is living in this reality which is the key to helping people understand what other people's children, what all God's children, must mean to us . . . and to God. I can never forget bringing my first child home from the hospital when she was one day old. A tiny, wrinkled creature in a car seat that seemed giant in comparison to her fragile body. I guarded her little head against every movement of the car. It came to me in a flash during this short ride home: this how every mother, every parent feels, how every mother in history has probably felt, in every place in the world. As my children grow closer to the age of my grown students, I have now begun to see in my students' faces, the traces of the small boys and girls they were. It is all I can do not to address these hard-working, seemingly self-sufficient, smart graduate students, as if they were my own children. And I have considered the possibility that this is just another lesson in the school of love that is the family.

To conclude then. Several weeks ago, a doctor I had just met asked me about the nature of my work. I told him the subjects about which I taught and wrote: "marriage, family, children," I offered. "Very controversial stuff," he replied. Internally, I mourned at this instinctive characterization. I mourned that the beautiful realities that are romance and marriage and children and human love, could be seen more in the light of controversy than as gift, mystery, joy. I mourned that God had given us our spouses and children, and the institution of marriage, as crucial parts of His plan for our happiness, only to watch as many tried to turn their meaning upside-down. But then, of course, I remembered, as I urge you to remember, that we do not alter God's plans.

Marriage and the gift of children remain among the greatest blessings God has given us. Human beings in history will always glimpse God's face in such love. The unique constellation of total union, commitment, fidelity, and openness to new life that is marriage, will continue to offer the safest haven for the children God entrusts us. Like our Mother Mary, our human exemplar, we must heed God's words, "Do not be afraid" as we recommit ourselves to God's causes in marriage, motherhood and fatherhoo

Problems around Saint John, ...

Politics Amalgamation was a fine idea, until the suburbs realized City Hall was broken. Trouble is, 13 years later it still is

On Nov. 18, 1996, roughly 125 residents from what was then the village of East Riverside crowded into the main room at the Riverside Country Club to share their opinions about amalgamating with the city of Saint John.

At first, everyone was polite.

By the end of the two-and-a-half-hour meeting, insults and catcalls were being hurled at Skip Cormier, the man who had been commissioned by the province to study amalgamation of the eight local municipalities into one super city.

It was not, the former general manager of Moosehead Breweries discovered during that first of many stormy public hearings, a popular idea.

As the crowd grew hostile Cormier tried to remain diplomatic. They were incredulous he was following the province's orders to study only five possible scenarios. They wanted things to stay exactly as they were, but Cormier insisted that wasn't part of his mandate.

"I want to talk to the organ grinder, not the monkey!" village resident John Marr barked into the microphone.

Cormier, who was hobbling on crutches after breaking his leg days before, stayed cool. But on this night and in the hearings to follow, he ran into a powerful argument from suburban politicians, who stoked it for all it was worth: Why would any suburban taxpayer in their right mind want a wasteful and inefficient Saint John City Hall running their community?

Cormier continues to believe that full amalgamation would be a good thing for the region, bringing the professional and business elite back to the city. He also knows it's unlikely to happen for the very reason raised more than a dozen years ago.

"The only way you could ever make a case for putting them together again is to clean up City Hall and have a good track record for five to 10 years, and go back and say, OK, let's look at this again.

"But until people believe Saint John City Hall is operating fully effectively, fully efficiently and all those things, you're just pushing water uphill."

**********

Many blame a complacent, comfortable culture at City Hall. Cormier, a consultant and the former head of the Saint John Board of Trade, has felt for years that common council and city management could do a better job.

During the amalgamation assignment that began in 1996, Cormier pushed hard for Grand Bay and the towns of the Kennebecasis Valley to merge with the city. He thought taxes could be lower for everyone if services were shared. The province was also willing to give millions more back in the form of grants.

The deal breaker was suburban revolt. The politicians railed against amalgamation at those public meetings and fiercely lobbied government MLAs. There were many reasons why people were opposed, but the coup de grace was the overwhelming feeling that the city was mismanaged and couldn't be trusted with their tax dollars.

Cormier, a city resident, understood the sentiment and included in his final report that full amalgamation should go ahead only if there was a performance review for city management and the city manager was hired on a five-year contract. The province ultimately watered down the plan, and Saint John remained on its own.

It was, Cormier believes, a big mistake. He thinks suburbanites should help pay for more of the infrastructure that Saint John provides as the region's economic engine.

Today, what remains missing from Saint John is program review and benchmarking against best practices elsewhere.

For years, the board of trade pushed for a full-scale operational review of city services. This practice has been used by successful provincial governments stretching back to the McKenna years, and the federal government of Jean Chrétien, to slay their monster annual deficits. Program review often results in job losses, hiring and pay freezes.

Pressure has been put on Saint John to do the same, but the city has always resisted. The closest it came was in 2005, when council hired the Toronto consulting firm Chartwell to do a review. However, the terms of reference, drawn up by council, transformed the enterprise into a review of the city's governance structure. The lead consultant, Alan Mitchell, recommended that the city move toward a committee system of government, similar to Fredericton's. Three years later, the project has stalled. The new council is having second thoughts about the whole thing.

City manager Terry Totten says he would welcome a full program review.

"Until very recently, councils in Saint John have been somewhat reluctant to hire outside consultants," Totten said. "Lately, we've swung the other way pretty quickly. But from a city manager's perspective, what would I have to lose? I have everything to gain."

Totten says staff will recommend a value-for-money audit to council later this year. It's based on a motion spearheaded by new councillor Carl Killen. Totten says he likes the idea of someone giving independent advice.

"I'll use this example. I have tremendous respect for the management of our fire service. Quality professionals. They inform me, they show me, they demonstrate to me (what they need), but it's still expensive. Why would I not just love to have someone - not an accountant, but operations people - to come in for $50,000 so I could say, 'I want you to review what I'm being told about the fire service and give myself and common council recommendations'. The next year, let's do our street services. I would absolutely love that."

Many say the audit is long overdue. Saint Johners who are fed up with the way their city is run have voted with their feet. The city's population has steadily dropped to 68,043 in the latest count two years ago from 89,039 in the 1971 census. That's a loss of nearly 21,000 people over 35 years.

The reasons for the exodus, of course, are many, but it's not hard to figure out where many of these people went. The suburbs, run by different councils and administrations, have ballooned as Saint John has deflated.

It can't all be blamed on foggier summers in the city, either.

Over the past 25 years, Saint John has had the highest property tax rate in New Brunswick, with the exception of one year, 1998, when its rate was a fraction of a penny lower than Moncton's.

The household water and sewerage bill, at $696 a year, is fourth-highest in the province, and the most costly of the three largest cities.

A city survey in 1999 showed that almost half the roads were in poor or very poor condition and had to be completely rebuilt. The jarring situation has not improved since. Drinking water does not go through a modern treatment system. People have to put up with an average of 80 watermain breaks a year, occasional periods of brown or murky water and, every so often, a boil order to protect them from illness. The fix is years away and the repair bill that will be passed along to ratepayers will be staggering.

Years of cuts to recreation programs mean sports fields, parks, community centres, arenas and the Canada Games Aquatic Centre have slowly decayed. Even tree planting was axed. The Simonds Centennial Arena was demolished nine years ago and nothing has replaced it. The annual recreation and culture budget is about half of the $14.7 million Moncton spends to attract young people and families.

An estimated 120 boarded-up buildings blemish the city, but the Building and Inspection Services department calls it an aesthetic problem and insists little can be done.

One in five Saint Johners is poor, yet they're subsidizing top-drawer salaries and benefits of civic employees, whose contracts consistently outstrip inflation.

The pension plan for city employees has been in the hole for seven years, despite local taxpayers bailing it out by more than $19 million. The 'going concern' deficit - the estimated shortfall to fully fund the pensions of future retirees - is said to be hovering somewhere near $70 million.

The city's annual operating budget is the largest among the province's municipalities, yet many people who attend ward meetings say service is the pits. Year after year, the city budget is late and the process provides for little feedback from the public on how its money is spent.

If nothing changes, and Saint John's economic surge peters out in a few years, it's not hard to believe the city's depopulation will continue. Given the long-term trend, Saint John could be out of people and out of business in a few generations.

**********

People who understand budgets and think about these problems say there's much more room for improvement at City Hall. To waste extra money that comes in thanks to the energy boom and soaring housing values would not fix the long-term problems that bedevil Saint John.

Cormier says if it wasn't for a healthier-than-usual real estate market in Saint John, the city would be in deep financial trouble. He's not impressed with the performance of common council or staff over the years.

"If there were a magical world where you could wave a wand, without restrictions from the Municipalities Act, I would put in a board of directors and a CEO, and performance targets ever year that are directed toward long-term outcomes."

In practical terms, many objectives could be accomplished, Cormier says. Take the tax rate, which for homeowners is $1.79 for every $100 of assessed property. Council could say to the city manager it wants the rate reduced by 10 cents over a decade. Each year, it would monitor progress in achieving that goal.

This could be one of five or six long-term goals that would be tracked each year. After each budget the politicians could ask whether the target was attained and if it was done effectively.

"At the end of the year, if the two sentences don't bond, guess what? The city manager hasn't done his job. And he's gone. That's the way it is supposed to work in a very simplistic terms. But it doesn't work that way."

A former high-ranking provincial official who would not consent to be identified, says Saint John City Hall lacks accountability.

"When I talk to people, they're never sure they're being told the true story. They can't trust city management."

Because of that lack of accountability, people get frustrated when issues don't get resolved. The ward meetings are a classic example. People show up who have beefs in their neighbourhoods, and the flash point is City Hall, which they believe ignores their concerns.

"You start to wonder whether they're going to get anything right."

Unlike the city, the province has detailed policy books setting out what management can and cannot do. In terms of accountability, a senior civil servant must answer to the minister, cabinet and central agencies. The checks and balances include the department in question, the minister and the auditor general. There's also the opposition debating in question period. In Saint John, almost everything goes through the city manager. This, the former provincial official believes, is one of the biggest problems.

"They all could be good, but they're caught in a culture. They're all very competent, but only in a certain way of doing business. They're not good at finding a more affordable approach. They're working on the basis that no one gets too pissed off at City Hall, rather than how can I get this done the most effectively at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers?"

In any government, he says, five to 10 per cent of the annual budget is flexible. The other 90 to 95 per cent is predetermined by existing agreements, not the least of which are labour contracts. So the question for council becomes, instead of fighting over the five to 10 per cent they quibble over each year, how do we wrest back control of the remaining 90 per cent? The provincial government, he points out, is currently under program review to find savings to avoid a huge deficit. Why isn't the city doing the same thing to find savings and stretch tax dollars?

To restore confidence, you need third-party validation.

"Bring in someone to assess or give a critical analysis of the existing management. The easiest way is benchmarking. How is the city performing against other cities?"

Parliament closed till January

PM obtains Governor-General's consent to prorogue in face of bid to topple his minority government; opposition complains he's 'throwing the locks on' and 'running away'

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has obtained Governor-General Michaëlle Jean's consent to temporarily shut down Parliament, a move that allows him to avoid a confidence vote next week that he was expected to lose.

It's a blow for the Liberal-NDP coalition, backed by the separatist Bloc Québécois, that was seeking to replace the minority Conservative goverment.

The development buys time for Mr. Harper to assemble an economic package that he hopes will discourage the multiparty alliance from taking him down at that time.

He grudgingly acknowledged he has to make peace with the opposition parties. "Obviously we have to do some trust-building here on both sides."

The Prime Minister said he will spend December and January hammering out the budget. "My work over the next few weeks will be focused almost exclusively on preparing the federal budget."

He added that he hoped the other parties would work with him. "Canadians expect us to get on with this."

Mr. Harper suggested that not all opposition MPs were happy with the coalition that sought to replace him. "I think there are many people in the opposition that were not entirely comfortable with a different path."

The Prime Minister also took time to admonish the Liberals and New Democrats for considering an alliance with the Bloc. In reference to the separatist party, he said: "My Canada includes Quebec, their Quebec does not include Canada."

Standing in the foyer of the House of Commons after Mr. Harper's announcement, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said: "We must realize the enormity of what has happened here today. For the first time in the history of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada is running away from the Parliament of Canada."

All three opposition leaders said they still intend to bring down the government. Mr. Dion said only a "monumental change" on Mr. Harper's part would alter that.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said the coalition will not be abandoning its accord over the next seven weeks while the Commons is shuttered.

"I cannot have confidence in a Prime Minister who would throw the locks on the door of this place, knowing that he's about to lose a vote in the House of Commons," Mr. Layton said. "That's denying about as fundamental a right as one has in a democracy."

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe reacted similarly. "We don't believe him and we don't have confidence in him."

The Prime Minister's bid to buy time, however, may work in his favour, with cracks in the coalition already emerging.

Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis wasted no time in calling Mr. Dion to be replaced before the House returns in January. "Who are we kidding? I think it's over," he said, heading into a closed door caucus meeting.

"To become Prime Minister at all costs? Where do we take the Liberal brand? ... The brand got hit. The brand is good. The CEO of the company screwed up."

The Scarborough MP emerged from caucus saying the party supports remaining in the coalition, but Mr. Dion must be replaced. "The party still wants the coalition to keep together. My constituents want Mr. Dion to go."

He said it's time to move the party's leadership race up - a conventon is slated for May - or find some way of making sure it has "a leader who can lead us" if there is an election in February or March.

Mr. Dion's botched video address was a clincher, he said: "We bombed."

Mr. Harper, who was forced to cancel an afternoon appearance in Woodstock, Ont., arrived in a motorcade after traveling literally across the street from his official residence, 24 Sussex Drive.

About 50 demonstrators greeted him as his black vehicle entered the gates of Rideau Hall, most of them cheering on the Prime Minister.

Benedict XVI: Liberalism Needs to Rediscover God,

Liberalism Needs to Rediscover God

(I will be attending this lecture with Marcello Pera tomorrow afternoon, and will try to make available a brief afterward -Thanks dad for making the book written by Pera and the Pope available. I also learned that Pera has visited the Fraternity on more than one occasion as a gust lecturer)

At the heart of liberalism is the Christian image of God, and rediscovering that is the key to overcoming the current crisis of ethics in Europe and the world, says Benedict XVI.

The Pope wrote this in a letter sent in September to Italian philosopher and senator Marcello Pera, in response to the latter's latest book titled "Perche dobbiamo dirci cristiani. Il liberalismo, l'Europa, l'etica" (Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians: Liberalism, Europe, and Ethics").

Published by Mondadori, the Italian-language book will be presented Thursday in Rome. The letter appears as a forward in the text.

Marcello Pera, 65, president of the Italian Senate during the last legislature, dedicated his academic research to his friend Karl Popper, Austrian philosopher of the "open society."

In his letter, Benedict XVI acknowledged the text to be "a fascinating read," and he applauded Pera's analysis of liberalism. "With an exceptional knowledge of the foundations, and with convincing logic, you analyze the essence of liberalism from its principles, showing that rooted in the heart of liberalism is the Christian image of God."

"With irreproachable logic, you show how liberalism loses its base and destroys itself if it abandons this foundation," he added.

The Pope also expressed his admiration for Pera's analysis of liberty, and the concept of multiculturalism, in which he "shows the internal contradiction of this concept and, therefore, its political and cultural impossibility."

"Of fundamental importance is your analysis of what Europe and a European Constitution can be in which Europe is not transformed into a cosmopolitan reality, but finds -- from its Christian-liberal foundation -- its own identity," he notes.

The Holy Father also reflects on the senator's analysis of the concepts of interreligious and intercultural dialogue: "You explain with great clarity that interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the word is not possible, while intercultural dialogue is particularly urgent, which analyzes the cultural consequences of the underlying religious decision."

"Although it is true that as regard the latter, no true dialogue is possible without putting aside one's own faith, in the public debate it is necessary to address the cultural consequences of the underlying religious decisions," he indicates.

The Holy Father said he believed Pera's proposals are necessary to overcome "the contemporary crisis of ethics."

"You show that liberalism, without failing to be liberalism -- rather, to be faithful to itself -- can refer to a doctrine of the good, in particular the Christian, which is familiar to it, thus truly offering a contribution to overcome the crisis," he continued.

Anti-Christian

In an interview Saturday on Vatican Radio, Pera explained the reasons why on occasions liberalism has become anti-Christian.

"In so far as Europe is concerned, in particular, a historic explanation is given. Many have often found themselves in conflict with the Catholic Church, and it is a bitter fact of the history of Europe, which is not the case in the history of the United States," he explained.

"Some national States -- Italy, France, etc. -- have constituted themselves as nation-states with a struggle, with a dispute against the Catholic Church," he noted.

"This has generated what is known as the phenomenon of anti-clericalism, and anti-clericalism has generated another: what in the book I call 'secular equation,' namely, 'liberal equals non-Christian.'"

"This is an error," he said, "as one can argue historically on the merits and demerits of the Catholic Church in Europe at the time of the foundation of the national states, but the importance of the Christian message cannot be disputed."

If one opts for anti-Christianity, what the Pope calls "the apostasy of Christianity," added Pera, "we lose the very virtues, the very foundations of those liberties and rights on which are liberal States are founded."

NB Conservatives Rockin' the House

Politics Two New Brunswick MPs named ministers as province rewarded for Tory seats

OTTAWA - New Brunswick now knows its reward for doubling the seats Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives won in the province Oct. 14.

Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson, left, who stays in the post he's held since 2006, leaves Rideau Hall in Ottawa on Thursday with his new cabinet colleague. Keith Ashfield, the rookie MP for Fredericton, was named minister of state responsible for ACOA.

It is Keith Ashfield, who became a second voice for New Brunswick, alongside Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson, as Harper unveiled his new cabinet on Thursday.

Ashfield, the rookie MP who brought Fredericton back to the Tory fold, was appointed Thursday as minister of state for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

News of the province having two ministers for the first time under the Harper government raised expectations that the province should reap results - but Thompson was quick to lower them.

"I look at it as just one more voice for us," said Thompson. "I don't see that people should expect more.

"I think most Canadians know we're going into a tough international economic situation and we're going to have to manage very tightly.

"It goes back to the campaign - we made no extravagant promises."

Liberal MP Jean-Claude D'Amours, who was his party's ACOA critic in the last Parliament, said he hoped having a second minister will mean the Harper government does more for New Brunswick.

"We will have to see in the next budget how (Finance Minister Jim) Flaherty will treat ACOA, because he's already talking about cutting some programs," said D'Amours.

"A second minister is good for New Brunswick as a small province, but we'll need two ministers who are delivering."

Provincial Finance Minister Victor Boudreau told reporters in Fredericton that having two ministers could be an advantage.

It "might help us move our files forward much faster," he said.

Ashfield vaults into cabinet as a junior minister despite being elected to a federal seat less than a month ago.

The appointment is recognition of the political experience he gained as former premier Bernard Lord's minister of natural resources from 2003 to 2006, and as an MLA for nine years in total.

But it's also because the Conservatives went from three seats to six in New Brunswick.

"I was pleasantly surprised, but I think the prime minister took a look at the good results in New Brunswick and thought a second cabinet position was warranted," said Ashfield.

Harper's decision to appoint Ashfield gives Thompson, still the regional minister, or Harper's political lieutenant for the province, an old friend at the table.

The two men forged a friendship that goes back to Thompson being first elected in 1988.

Parts of Thompson's federal riding and Ashfield's provincial riding overlapped around Hoyt.

Thompson has known since shortly after the election that Harper wanted him to stay on in the role he has occupied since the Conservatives took office in February 2006. Harper told him he's pleased with what he hears around the country from his MPs and veterans about Thompson's work, said Thompson.

"It's a real compliment when the prime minister says that to you eyeball to eyeball," said Thompson.

The MP for New Brunswick Southwest described Ashfield as "a really genuine individual who works really hard.

"It's a good combination to have in politics."

NDP MP Yvon Godin said he never felt it was realistic for Peter MacKay, the Nova Scotia MP who was foreign affairs minister, then defence minister, on top of being ACOA minister, to give ACOA the attention it deserved.

"I welcome this decision to have a new minister responsible for it," said Godin.

Ashfield should be more accessible than MacKay's double duty allowed him to be, he said.

And "since he comes from a provincial government, he should know the needs of different places, like the north of New Brunswick that has been hit very hard with mills closed in Miramichi, Bathurst and Dalhousie."

Provincial Conservative leader David Alward served in Lord's cabinet with Ashfield and calls him a friend.

"I'm thrilled New Brunswick has two cabinet ministers," said Alward.

"I think it reflects the tremendous work done in New Brunswick and the fact we were able to double the number of MPs.

"We'll have more people working in Ottawa on behalf of New Brunswickers.

"My hope and expectation is we're going to see results." Alward described Ashfield as "down-to-earth, a real people person.

"It helped make him an outstanding constituency MLA. He'll take this new role very seriously."

Thompson also spoke to the expectation some observers had that Fundy Royal MP Rob Moore might have been elevated from parliamentary secretary to cabinet.

Moore, he said, has one toddler at home "and a baby on the way" and many MPs would find the travel and long hours of being a cabinet minister hard under those circumstances.

"Rob has talent coming out his ears," said Thompson, "but those are the things a young man has to think of."

New Brunswick last had two full cabinet ministers in 1993 under the Conservatives, when Gerry Merrithew was at veterans affairs and Bernard Valcourt was at health and welfare.

It had a full minister and a minister of state as recently as 2004-06 under the Martin Liberal government, when Andy Scott was minister of Indian Affairs and Claudette Bradshaw was minister of state for human resources development.

Cabinet ministers and ministers of state are paid an extra $74,400 on top of the base salary of $155,400 for a member of Parliament, for a total of $229,800.

USA Election Day Novena

Election Day is only nine days away. As millions prepare to make important decisions about the future leaders and policies of the United States, let us join in prayer.

In anticipation of Election Day, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops prepared a Novena for Faithful Citizenship, which is available here:

http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/docs/FC_Novena.pdf

And, if you haven't seen it already, please also check out the inspiring video here:

www.catholicvote.org

God bless America,

John Roderick

Judgment on Upcoming Election

Elections are a unique educational opportunity for all of us. We do not expect salvation from politics or politicians. Nevertheless, politics plays a critical role in our lives.

Father Giussani taught us that when we face the real problems and challenges of life, the ambiguity at the roots of our actions rise to the surface and we affirm what it is we hold most dear. Thus, in the exercise of voting we will see “whether faith is really in the foreground, whether faith truly comes first, whether we really expect everything from the fact of Christ or whether we expect what we decide to expect from the fact of Christ.”

Two criteria will guide us in deciding where to place our vote in the Canadian elections:

First: Religious Freedom. A political power that respects the freedom of the Church and its free expression in the public square, and acknowledges its valuable contribution to society will also acknowledge the freedom of any human association. A position that respects freedom of the Church will also respect the freedom of all.

Second: The Common Good. Political power, if conceived as service to the people, will
defend any experience that promotes the increment of the common good. Such a power will uphold the principle of subsidiarity, that is, the partnership between the public and private sectors is facilitated by a robust non-profit, charitable and voluntary sector, and will promote solidarity among all Canadians.

For these reasons, we will support a political vision that:
• upholds this freedom and this good
• defends “human life and dignity at all stages, from conception to death” (Federal

Election 2008 Guide Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops)
• defends the family
• defends the freedom to fulfill works which express true human desire
• does not substitute the state for society but rather encourages society to seek realistic solutions for the common good

Such a political position will also advance realistic social and economic programs motivated by a concern for workers, entrepreneurs, natives, immigrants and all Canadians. It will also demonstrate a real concern for environmental issues, keeping in mind Pope Benedict XVI’s reminder that “Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests.”

These criteria will guide our electoral choice in the October elections.

COMMUNION AND LIBERATION CANADA
WHAT WE HOLD MOST DEAR
October 2008 2008 ELECTIONS

Canaport LNG terminal cretes buzz for Maritime Markets

An anticipated influx of liquefied natural gas into the Canaport LNG terminal carries untapped opportunity for the Maritime markets that could boost economic development, according to the Atlantica Centre for Energy.

The National Energy Board released its recommendations into a 25-year licence application for Repsol Energy Canada Ltd. to import liquefied natural gas and export regasified LNG into the U.S. northeast. The licence will become final following a consultation period.

Spanish-based Repsol is partnering with Irving Oil Ltd. to build the LNG terminal near Saint John.

Market studies undertaken by Repsol show that up to one quarter of the LNG it expects to bring to the new Saint John terminal could be sold into the Maritime market.

Tim Curry, president of the Atlantica Centre for Energy, said that availability of new quantities of natural gas will be a huge benefit to local economic development.

"A quarter of a billion cubic feet per day of discretionary capacity would be two to two and half times what the Maritimes is using now, it allows for a lot room for growth," Curry said.

Repsol Energy North America has a daily contract to sell one billion cubic feet a day, but only three-quarters of that is destined to pre-arranged buyers, leaving the rest to be put on the market.

"Given that not all of the applied-for export volume is contractually committed to the export market, Repsol reiterated its commitment to make gas available to Maritimes Canada on competitive terms and conditions," the documents said.

"We're pleased that the NEB concluded that this new source of natural gas supply will be a very beneficial resource for energy markets in Canada and the Northeast U.S.," said Phil Ribbeck, president of Repsol Energy Canada, Ltd. and Repsol Energy North America Corporation, in a release.

The report filed with the national regulator from Concentric Energy Advisors indicated that there is "significant long-term demand" for natural gas in the region and that growth will be fuelled by access to LNG and the reduction in domestic supply.

"The demand projections also indicated that the Atlantic Canadian market by itself is not sufficient to absorb the entire output from the Canaport LNG terminal. Repsol indicated in its application that the ability to export the natural gas to serve anchor markets in the U.S. northeast is therefore fundamental to the availability of incremental supplies to serve Canadian markets," the report said.

Repsol was given the licence on Thursday to import LNG to the Canaport terminal in Saint John and export shipments. The company had applied in January for a 25-year licence to supply 365 billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas annually into the terminal and export up to one billion cubic feet a day of gas to customers in the United States.

The national regulator said in a release it had concluded that the operation would be a "useful addition to the supply of natural gas in North America."

Curry said the long-term licence, which had been opposed by some interveners earlier this year in favour of a 10-year deal, is a "major step forward" because it offers more stability.

"What this does is give business the confidence to invest in facilities and manufacturing processes that require natural gas," Curry said. "It also gives long-term choices to residential and commercial customers to make the commitment to invest in natural gas."

Canadians to go to the Polls

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper triggered a widely expected federal election campaign this morning, framing the vote set for Oct. 14 as a choice about who is best suited to lead Canada while the global economy stumbles.

The prime minister emerged from Rideau Hall, the official residence of Governor General Michaelle Jean to announce the coming vote after Ms. Jean granted his request to dissolve Parliament.

Mr. Harper defended his decision to call an election despite the fact he'd earlier vowed to fix the vote date for October, 2009.

The Tory leader said his 31-month old minority government can no longer govern in a fractious Parliament and needs a new mandate from voters.

"The frank reality is this Parliament is at its useful end," Mr. Harper said.

"Between now and Oct. 14th, Canadians will choose a government to look out for their interests at a time of global economic trouble," he said.

THE AWARDING OF THE ORDER OF CANADA TO MR. HENRY MORGENTALER

Henry Morgentaler awarded the Order of Canada
A decision that must be revoked

The Catholic Organization for Life and Family would like to express its dismay at the sudden decision of the Order of Canada Advisory Council to award the Order of Canada to Dr. Henry Morgentaler.

The Order of Canada website describes the award as “the centerpiece of Canada’s honours system” which “recognizes a lifetime of outstanding achievement, dedication to the community and service to the nation”.

Dr. Morgentaler, a survivor of Dachau and Auschwitz concentration camps where he fought for his own survival, has reportedly estimated that he has performed more than 100,000 abortions (www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/interview/2008/5_interview_01.html). In 1988, a Supreme Court decision that bears his name removed all legal barriers to abortion at any stage of pregnancy – since then, nearly two million future citizens have lost their lives to abortion. Is that the outstanding achievement that has been a service to this nation?

Canada has its heroes, and they deserve to be recognized; however, it is neither heroic nor admirable to cause the death of unborn children, the most vulnerable of all Canadians. COLF therefore urges the Harper Government to take the necessary action to ensure that the decision to award the Order of Canada to Dr. Morgentaler be revoked.

The Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF) is co-sponsored by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) and the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus.


For more information:

Michèle Boulva
Director
Catholic Organization for Life and Family
Tel.: 613-241-9461, ext. 141
E-mail: mboulva@colf.ca

Below is the Press Release from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

COMMENTARY FROM THE CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS ON THE AWARDING OF THE ORDER OF CANADA TO MR. HENRY MORGENTALER



The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops is dismayed by the upcoming appointment of Mr. Henry Morgentaler to the Order of Canada. We believe that linking this award to a procedure as harmful as abortion constitutes a serious error which undermines the significance of the Order of Canada.

On the Governor General’s website, it is written that “The Order of Canada’s motto is DESIDERANTES MELIOREM PATRIAM (They desire a better country)”. Far from improving our country, Mr. Morgentaler’s actions continue to create controversy and division in our nation. In the name of freedom of choice, he has encouraged the development of a culture of death and has thus attacked the most vulnerable, the unborn.

Awarding such a decoration in this context discredits the Order of Canada. It amounts to an inadmissible affront to the numerous Canadians who dedicate their lives to the protection of the most vulnerable, especially the unborn.

We ask the appropriate authorities to reconsider this nomination and not to award this distinction to Mr. Morgentaler.

Taylor Bouchard Report

Amid the upbeat recommendations for moderation and compromise, the report published on Thursday by Quebec academics Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor contains a more sombre warning. If exaggerated media reports about supposedly overbearing immigrants were enough to plunge Quebec into what the commissioners call a "psychodrama," what's to prevent another dangerous skid?

The government-commissioned report says the province's French-Canadian majority has the largest share of responsibility for patching up intercultural relations and warns of errors to avoid.

"The most harmful would be to give in to the way of fear, to the temptation of withdrawal and rejection, to play the victim, to fall back on an inheritance that, with the drop in the birth rate, leads to a future that has no long-term horizon - a frozen heritage that isolates and impoverishes," the authors write.

The problem, as seen in the immediate political reaction to the Bouchard-Taylor report, is that playing the victim and invoking a frozen-in-time heritage are the stock-in-trade of at least two of Quebec's main political parties, the Parti Québécois and Action démocratique du Québec. And even the governing Liberals are wary of seeming soft when it comes to the politics of identity.

Instead of looking in the mirror extended by Messrs. Bouchard and Taylor, both PQ leader Pauline Marois and ADQ leader Mario Dumont quickly lashed out at the commissioners for failing to appreciate Quebecers' insecurity about their society's survival.

At a news conference yesterday, Ms. Marois complained that the commissioners did not propose enshrining the "common values" of Quebecers in legislation. She tried to breathe new life into the Quebec Identity Act she introduced last fall, which would require new arrivals to pass a French test before they could become citizens of Quebec and run for office.

Mr. Dumont told reporters the commissioners did not go far enough in protecting "the culture of the majority." Like Ms. Marois, he said the province needs its own constitution to ensure the majority culture and values do not become diluted.

Premier Jean Charest's first response to the report was to introduce a motion rejecting the recommendation that the crucifix be moved from above the Speaker's chair in the National Assembly.

Yesterday he took out full-page ads in Quebec newspapers, with a subtle like-it-or-lump-it message to immigrants: "When one chooses Quebec, one also chooses Quebecers and their values." He also elaborated on his proposal to have immigrants sign a "contract" upon arrival promising to accept Quebec values.

"There are efforts to be made on both sides to ensure that those who come here know exactly where they are coming," he told a radio interviewer. "No one can say after, for example, that they didn't know they were coming to a society where French is the language of work, the language of our society."

Leaving aside the merits of the party's various proposals, the common theme uniting them is that immigration is a threat, a message that is nowhere to be found in the 300 pages written by Messrs. Bouchard and Taylor.

Rather, the authors portray immigrants to Quebec - the majority of whom are selected because they already speak French - as the key to a vibrant francophone Quebec. "From the point of view of French as a language of common usage [and also as mother tongue], it can be said that French-speaking Quebec is alive and well. But with the condition that the circle of identity is enlarged, that there are no barriers - and more specifically no hierarchy - separating different categories of francophones, as if they were not all of the same value."

The initial political response reflects what the report calls the "insecurity of the minority," always present in a people preoccupied with their own survival. Writing yesterday in La Presse, Alain Dubuc praised the Bouchard-Taylor report and said it is time for francophone Quebecers to get over their insecurity and learn how to behave like the majority they are.

"Francophones, who control the state and its institutions, have to assume their role, accept that they have duties and understand that the minorities are more fragile and more vulnerable," he wrote.

The politicians, unfortunately, have decided there are more votes to be found in appealing to people's fears.

National Post

Sarkozy takes strong stand on Canadian unity

Sarkozy takes strong stand on Canadian unity

'You know, we are very close to Quebec, but I want to tell you, we also love Canada very much'
RHÉAL SÉGUIN


QUEBEC — French President Nicolas Sarkozy firmly realigned France's foreign policy toward Canada yesterday, distancing himself from Quebec sovereigntists and saying he no longer wants to choose between Canada and Quebec.

In Normandy, while standing next to Governor-General Michaëlle Jean in a ceremony at the Bény-sur-Mer cemetery for Canadian soldiers killed during the Second World War, Mr. Sarkozy all but abandoned France's long-standing policy of "non-interference and non-indifference" toward Quebec's independence movement.

"You know, we are very close to Quebec, but I want to tell you, we also love Canada very much. Our two friendships, our two loyalties don't oppose each other," he said. "We will take them and turn towards the future so the future of Canada and France becomes the future of two countries, that are not only allies, but two friends."

In his most vibrant plea yet in favour of Canadian national unity, Mr. Sarkozy embraced the sacrifice all Canadians made in liberating France during the war.


France salutes the 'almost Queen of Canada'

"We didn't ask those who died here what region [of Canada] they were from. We knew what country they were from. We didn't even ask them what language they spoke. Those buried here, even if they didn't speak our language, saved us and helped us," he said.

The comments were made in the midst of a controversy over the Governor-General's presence in France to kick off celebrations of Quebec City's 400th anniversary. Mr. Sarkozy appeared to side with the Governor-General.

In her interpretation of the anniversary, Ms. Jean argued that the founding of Quebec City in 1608 marked the beginning of Canada and not just the foundation of Quebec as a French-speaking nation in North America. She urged France to look beyond Quebec and help francophones throughout Canada preserve their language and culture, insisting that Quebec City's 400th anniversary belonged to all Canadians.

Her comments sparked a flurry of recriminations from sovereigntists, who accused Ms. Jean and the federal government of attempting to rewrite Quebec history. The absence of Quebec Premier Jean Charest from the ceremony only fuelled the controversy.

"There are 250 years that separate the foundation of Quebec City and the birth of Canada," Parti Québécois Leader Pauline Marois said yesterday. "A lot of things happened during those 250 years ... a people was conquered, a people was annexed. ... Not once did Michaëlle Jean mention the Quebec nation as she reiterated the idea that there existed only one people in Canada."

The Leader of the Official Opposition in Quebec, Mario Dumont, expressed serious concerns over the direction Quebec-France relations are taking, accusing Mr. Charest of abdicating to Ottawa his role as the true spokesperson for the Quebec nation.

"The more we see this relation become more Canadian in its approach, less bilateral between France and Quebec ... the more we are worried," Mr. Dumont said. "In a love triangle, there is a thin line between being the neglected lover and the cuckolded party," he noted, adding that Mr. Charest was content to be overshadowed by Ottawa.

The Premier responded angrily, calling Mr. Dumont's comments pitiful. In the National Assembly, Mr. Charest sided with the Governor-General, insisting that Quebec is an integral part of Canada.

"Canada would not exist without Quebec ... it is a reality which defines us as a people, as a nation," he said.

Unborn Victims of Crime Act -Catholic Organization for Life and Family

Dear Friends of COLF,

On November 21, 2007, Conservative MP Ken Epp introduced Private Members’ Bill C-484, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence). Known as the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, this bill would recognize intentional assault upon an unborn child as a separate offense from assault upon the pregnant mother.

On March 5th, Bill C-484 passed its second reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 147 to 132, and was sent for further study to the parliament’s Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

The public debate around Bill C-484 is now heating up, and some citizens are alleging that the bill threatens the “right to abortion”. This is incorrect, as this bill is worded to preserve the possibility that a woman may choose an abortion, and would not grant any rights to unborn children whose mothers chose to abort them.

Bill C-484 is a welcome development because it recognizes, at least in the case of violent assault against the mother, the human dignity of the unborn child and the value of human life. If the bill is adopted, the unborn child that is hurt or killed would also be considered a crime victim, together with its mother, who had chosen to carry the child until birth.

For this reason, the Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF) would like to encourage Catholics and all Canadians to contact their local MPs and ask them to vote in favour of Bill C-484, and to circulate the petition that Ken Epp has posted on his website (in both French and English) at: http://www.kenepp.com/issues/insidepage.asp?ID=84 This petition (whose format must not be changed, and each sheet of signatures must include the text of the petition) may be returned to the office of Ken Epp in Ottawa, postage-free.

Sincerely,

† Bishop Jean Gagnon
Chairman of the Board
Catholic Organization for Life and Family