The election of Maurice Vellacott, incumbent MP for electoral district Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, for a new term in the House of Parliament appears to be a given. He won his seat with substantial majorities of the votes in four previous terms.
Maurice Vellacott recently tabled a Private Members Motion (PMM-483) which proposes changes to the Federal Divorce Act to enshrine the principle of Equal Parenting during and after divorce (see Maurice Vellacott (MP) on F4J Crusade for Equal Parenting). It was fairly safe to do so. There was little chance for that bill to pass and that it would raise any controversy before the Parliament was dissolved for the current election.
Still Maurice Vellacott’s stance on the rights of fathers during and after divorce received attention in a newspaper article from Saskatchewan.
Sep. 17, 2008
Challengers not deterred by long odds
By David Hutton
….Taking out incumbent Conservative Maurice Vellacott in Saskatoon-Wanuskewin is going to be a formidable task….
In the past, those opposing Vellacott have run on the notion he has done little for the riding since he’s been in office other than promote his socially conservative views. In the last election, the campaign became heated after a Liberal campaign worker phoned a call-in show on cable television and made accusations of Vellacott that prompted a lawsuit.
This time, though, his opposition seems less willing to resort to personal barbs and name-calling. “I won’t attack Mr. Vellacott,” Zipchen said. “There are a lot of other issues.”
That suits Vellacott just fine, he says. He hopes to shift the focus to promote his campaign to change divorce laws to enshrine the principle of equal parenting. Currently, divorce laws are stacked against fathers, Vellacott said. “Every candidate for every election I’ve ever had has crabbed about Vellacott didn’t do this or that, it’s stock and trade. … But that hasn’t worked. Everyone has tried to use it and it’s time to try something else.”….(Full Story)
The odds of Maurice Vellacott being elected again will quite likely not be harmed by his pro-father stance, that is even though the Canadian Conservative Party proved itself, at best, to be apathetic to fathers and family rights, and to the rights of “fetuses”, that is, children waiting to be born, in what once was the safest place to be for them, their mothers’ wombs. The CPC’s election platform, as was apparent even as some of its members gained their seats in the House of Commons when neither the CPC nor the Canadian Alliance Party were yet in existence, varies very little from that of the Liberals in many of the major issues that matter most.
Stephen Harper quite clearly and intensively engaged on the path of political expediency. That leaves little room for the promotion of the restoration of the rights of the traditional nuclear family that had made Canada as great as we had once become accustomed to, before the dismantling of such rights was begun in earnest by Liberals as well as by Conservatives, in the 1960s.
No, I am afraid that there are now few reasons why one should choose between one or the other of the two leading political parties in Canada. As I wrote a few elections ago to the Reform Party of Canada, by the time Conservatives gain a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, their trend towards populism will have molded their election platform so much that most differences between the declared intentions of the two leading parties will have disappeared. The two parties will then be distinguishable only by their respective party colours and spelling of their names.
Being for fathers rights will not hurt Maurice Vellacott, other than to make fathers expunged from their families to be more likely to vote for him. However, his Private Member’s bill to that extent appears to have little chance of being put into law. It quite simply does not fit his Party’s agenda.
As Ralph Klein, former long-standing premier of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta indicated a couple of elections ago, when he explained the secret of his success in his speech to the National Convention of the CPC, “That is not rocket science. One does not have to lead the parade. The people know where they want to go. All it takes is to put oneself at the front of the parade.” (Quoted from memory)
Now, in a nutshell, that is populism, and Stephen Harper learned his lessons well.
The problem with that is, of course, that what passes for public opinion are the sentiments of vocal minorities but not the sentiments of the masses. The masses do not have a voice in the media, but the vocal minorities do, and many journalists are merely the spokesmen for the latter. That is what drives Canadian politics and those in all developed nations.
As to Ralph Klein’s opinions on expediencies in politics, at the beginning of his political career, a reporter once asked him, as they were walking across the parking lot of Ralph Klein’s favorite watering hole: “What made you choose a career in politics?” to which Ralph Klein replied: “You slide farther on B.S. than on gravel.”
Not that I am a friend of the Liberals, I cannot ever forgive them for the social and economic destruction they wrought on Canada, in their all-out drive to turn it into a socialist nation in which half of ever dollar spent goes to pay for government “services” (i. e.: government-funded abortions in excess of 100,000 a year, while Canada manages to compensate for its shrinking population only through massive immigration from underdeveloped nations) and diktats of one sort or another, the vast majority of whom I neither want, need nor receive, and for whom I have to pay anyway and must live by, but Stephen Harper and those under his direction are sliding a long way. They do much of what the Liberals did, only more so and more oppressively, but ostensibly for different reasons.
As to what our options are in this election, David Warren from the Ottawa Citizen said it best. See his article, The unprincipled cynic and the honest fool (Sep. 13, 2008).
David Warren figures that only Stephen Harper and the CPC are able to form a functioning government, but he provides no answer to the question of whom one should vote for: “But how does one choose between an intelligent unprincipled cynic, and a relatively honest fool?”
That leaves the dilemma unsolved, but does it? I cannot vote for either party. One of them legalized not only the whole-sale “terminating” of unborn children but even made it the law to have the taxpayers fund it. The other condoned that crime against Humanity by not only doing nothing but by nodding its approval of that ghastly government-sponsored practice through bestowing Canada’s highest award, the Order of Canada, on the main promoter and performer of government-funded abortions: Henry Morgentaler.
Yes, I know, our governor general is politically independent and merely the representative of the Queen, but you don’t seriously believe that the Queen told her representative to Canada to honour Henry Morgentaler, do you? But this I firmly believe: Canada’s ship of state has a figure head for a captain who actively averts his eyes so as not to find what he needs to avert looming disaster: a moral compass. To find and use one of those would hurt political expediency.