Candidate, Jim Flaherty
Conservative Party, Whitby - Oshawa, ON
Bio
CLC rating: evaluation pending
Rating Comments: Tragically, he voted against Stephen Woodworth's principled Motion 312 to study whether a child in the womb is a human being based on the preponderence of evidence from modern medical science. He also supported the reckless, transgender 'Bathroom Bill' (C-279, 3rd reading) which, if passed, will put young girls and women at risk by creating a counterfeit, legal 'right' for men to access women's bathrooms and changerooms.
Position: Minister of Finance
First elected (yyyy.mm.dd): 2006.01.23
Previous Occupation: Provinical politician, Lawyer
Birthdate (yyyy.mm.dd): 1949.12.30
Percentage in last election: 51.0%
Victory margin last election: 25.3%
Religion / Faith: Anglican
Contact
Parliamentary Office
House of Commons
Room 607, Confederation Bldg
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Tel: 613-992-6344
Fax: 613-992-8320
Constituency Offices
204-701 Rossland Rd E
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 8Y9
Tel: 905-665-8182
Fax: 905-665-8124
Here is Jim Flaherty's voting record relating to life and family issues:
| Votes, Surveys and Policy Decision | Vote | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Bill 109, Consent to Treatment Act This bill took away parental rights over the medical treatment of their minor children by lowering the age of medical consent from 16 to 14. This vote occurred during the time this person served as an MPP in the provincial government, prior to entering federal politics. [Dec 7, 1992] |
Absent | -- |
| Motion 312: Studying Canada's 400 Year Old Definition of Human Being Motion 312 (sponsored by MP Stephen Woodworth) called for parliament to review Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. |
No |  |
| Motion 12, Re-open debate on definition of marriage [Dec 2006] |
Yes |  |
| Position on taxpayer funding of elective abortion procedures | Supports | |
| Bill C279 - 3rd reading of 'transgender & transsexual' empowerment bill which added the radical concepts of "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. This radical private members bill by NDP Randal Garrison sought to invent a counterfeit right to "gender expression" and "gender identity" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Dubbed "the bathroom bill" by critics, this change in law would put women and young girls at greater risk from bathroom attacks by sexual predators and from peeping toms. It will create a legal right for men who identify as the opposite sex, to use female washrooms and change rooms - a form of "gender expression". Critics point out this radical departure from social norms will provide a convenient excuse for male sexual predators to get in close quarters with potential female victims by cross-dressing or pretending to be "transgendered". It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses and Christian charities that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transgenderism & transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. [Vote March 20, 2013 - passed 150 to 137] |
Yes | |
| C-484, Unborn victims of Crime Act Common sense legislation that would allow criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when the childs mother is the victim of violent crime. This cannot be considered a "pro-life" bill because it specifically excludes deliberate acts of abortion by the woman. Nonetheless, it is a good "pro-family" bill because it protects women and their wanted children from violent crime. (Mar5/08) |
Absent | -- |
| Bill C389, 3rd reading of the "Transsexual Bathroom Bill" This radical bill sought to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. If passed, the bill would've endangered women and children by creating a legal right for men who "identify" as the opposite sex, to use female public washrooms. Male sexual predators or peeping toms would have certainly used this as an opening to enter the girl's washroom. It is unconscionable for legislators to put women and children in such a compromising position. It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. This bill passed final reading in House of Commons by a 143-135 vote on February 9, 2011, but then, thankfully, died in the Senate when a federal election was called. |
No | |
| Bill C279 - 2nd reading, to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. This radical private members bill by NDP Randal Garrison would invent a counterfeit right to "gender expression" and "gender identity" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Dubbed "the bathroom bill" by critics, this change in law would put women and young girls at greater risk from bathroom attacks by sexual predators and from peeping toms. It will create a legal right for men who identify as the opposite sex, to use female washrooms and change rooms - a form of "gender expression". Critics point out this radical departure from social norms will provide a convenient excuse for male sexual predators to get in close quarters with potential female victims by cross-dressing or pretending to be "transgendered". It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses and Christian charities that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transgenderism & transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. [Vote June 6, 2012 - passed 150 to 132] |
Yes | |
| Survey on awarding Order of Canada to Henry Morgentaler Do you agree with awarding the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler? (July 2008) |
No | |
| Bill C-510, to protect pregnant women from coercion to abort This private member's bill by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, also called Roxanne's Law, was a common sense bill to protect women and their unborn children from coercion to abort. Abortion coercion by boyfriends, husbands, relatives and even physicians is very common in Canada. Unfortunately, the bill was defeated in 2nd reading by a vote of 97 to 178. [December 15, 2010] |
No | |
| Bill C-304, 2nd Reading - to repeal the censorship provision (Sect 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act This clause enables Human Rights Tribunals to abuse their power by acting as 'thought police' to opress freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. They usually target Christians who hold to biblical moral teachings, especially in the area of homosexuality. For example, the Catholic Bishop of Calgary was dragged before an HRC kangaroo court for merely issuing a pastoral letter in which he reiterated his Church's teaching against homosexual conduct. This vote passed 158-131. (Feb 15, 2012 ) |
Yes | |
| Bill C-304, 3rd reading - to repeal the censorship provision (Sect 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act Section 13 enables Human Rights Tribunals to abuse their power by acting as 'thought police' to opress freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. They usually target Christians who hold to biblical moral teachings, especially in the area of homosexuality. For example, the Catholic Bishop of Calgary was dragged before an HRC kangaroo court for merely issuing a pastoral letter in which he reiterated his Church's teaching against homosexual conduct. This vote passed 153-136. (June 6, 2012 ) |
Yes | |
Here are quotes from Jim Flaherty on various life and family issues:
On forcing taxpayers to continue funding abortion: "I would not interfere with the status quo...Ontario does provide funding of abortion services, some in hospitals and some in clinics, and would continue to do so (if I become premier)." [LifeSiteNews.com, Ontario Tory Leadership Candidiate Flaherty Distances Himself from Pro-Lifers, Nov. 30, 2001]
At a 'gay rights' party, Flaherty congratulated his gay-activist Chief of Staff, Jaimie Watts, for having re-written every single statute in Ontario law that dealt with common-law couples. This gave same-sex couples the same rights, and paved the way for homosexual 'marriage': "Some were surprised our government took this decision . . . but conservatives fundamentally believe in equality and fairness." [Maclean's magazine, Jun 18, 2009]
On the definition of marriage: "My policy is that I'm in favour of the traditional definition of marriage -- one man and one woman. I think it supports the family which is the foundation of our society. I'm not opposed to the use of the notwithstanding clause in limited circumstances." [LifeSiteNews.com, Aug 31, 2004]
Flaherty denies (and is proven wrong within a few short years) that a homosexual 'rights' bill he authored would open the door for gays to legally marry: "Marriage is not affected by this bill… We have preserved in the bill the traditional definition of spouse and marriage" [The Toronto Star, Oct. 27, 1999]
After interviewing him, a secular reporter summarizes Flaherty's position on abortion: "Jim Flaherty described himself as 'pro-life', but stressed that he believes the province is legally obligated to provide access to abortions under the Canada Health Act. In his 14 months as Attorney-General, Mr. Flaherty did nothing to weaken legal protection for abortion clinics..." [Globe & Mail, Witmer to declare pro-choice beliefs, by Richard Mackie, Nov. 20, 2001]
Here are the answers for the questionnaire as provided by Jim Flaherty on January 3, 2006.
| Question | Response |
|---|---|
| Do you believe that life begins at conception (fertilization)? | Yes |
| If elected, will you strive to introduce and pass laws to protect unborn children from the time of conception (fertilization) onward? | no response |
| If elected, would you support all legislative or policy proposals that would result in a meaningful increase of respect and protection for unborn human life? | no response |
| Are there any circumstances under which you believe a woman should have access to abortion? (note: Medical treatments to save the life of a mother and which result in the UNINTENDED death of her unborn child, are NOT abortions. Eg. in case of tubal pregnancy or cervical cancer) | Rape and incest |
| If elected, will you oppose any legislative or regulatory measures designed to permit the deliberate euthanasia of a human being or designed to permit "doctor-assisted suicide"? | no response |
| If elected, will you support legislative or regulatory measures that would prohibit the dispensing of abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals? | Yes |
There are no videos available for Jim Flaherty.
-
GREEN light means the person supports CLC principles and is rated as SUPPORTABLE -
RED light means the person is NOT SUPPORTABLE -
AMBER light means voters should be cautious about the candidate. CLC is still evaluating this individual, does not have enough data, or their record is mixed. View their quotes & voting history to help you decide.