Edmonton – Edmonton East Member of Parliament Peter Goldring says he was pleased with the outcome of yesterday’s verdict in Edmonton Provincial Court, where he was found not guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample following a December 2011 targeted police pullover.
“I took issue in this case of constitutionality, whether police had the right to stop me in the first place without a reason and whether they then followed correct procedures when they did so. I felt at the time that correct procedures were not being followed, and the court agreed.”
The court summation states: “This is not a trial about impaired driving. Mr. Goldring was not charged with impaired driving. No witness in this trial claimed to observe any symptoms of impairment. This trial is about a failure to comply promptly with police directions.”
“There has been a cost to my standing on principle, both personal and political. The whole process, lasting over 18 months from arrest to final court date, has been extremely unpleasant. As a public figure I have been subjected to considerable abuse, as many have assumed guilt before the facts were heard”, stated Mr. Goldring.
“It is important for Canadians to be aware of their constitutional rights and to stand by them,” he notes. “I firmly believed from the beginning that this was not being done properly. As a Member of Parliament I have an additional responsibility to insist on all the rules being followed correctly - if I don’t, who will?”
On the afternoon of the 6th of June, Mr. Goldring received a congratulatory phone call from Prime Minister Stephen Harper inviting him back to caucus. Mr. Goldring greatly appreciates this very personal gesture and will be with the Conservative Caucus on Monday to add his support to the intended votes.
News of over the top linguistic cleansing efforts at the hands of the separatist Quebec government made international headlines in February, involving a Quebec restaurateur, the word pasta, and Quebec’s overzealous Language Police.
Although it is shameful that there would be Language Police in any part of Canada, “Pastagate” has become a symbolunder which Canadian Unity groups can focus, allowing them to raise awareness on the diminishing nature of Rights and Freedoms by separatists and other legislators.
I spoke in the House of Commons about an event that was very successful in raising awareness of the issue. This function was sponsored in part by the Special Committee for Canadian Unity, SCCU, of which I am a long-time supporter.
Below is the full text of my statement in the House:
On April Fool`s Day, pasta lovers will gather at Massimo Lecas’ restaurant ‘Buonanotte’ in Montreal, lampooning Quebec`s separatist government and their linguistic cleansing comedy of errors.
Sponsored by the Special Committee for Canadian Unity and PutBackTheFlag.com, this evening of comedy will be held at the Italian Restaurant where Quebec’s Language Police ordered the removal of the word “PASTA” from the menu.
Imagine – No Pasta – on an Italian Restaurant Menu!
Throughout the world from Australia to England to, of course, Italy, they regaled at this farce and at the silliness of the separatists.
Welcome to Pastagate!
Join us on the evening of April 1st in Montreal for even more comedic fun as we support the needy; support Canadian Unity; support the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms; support Linguistic Fairness; and indulge in our love of pasta!!”
I believe that it is important to support all Canadians constitutional right to use the language of their choice on business signs and restaurant menus in Montreal, Vancouver or here in Edmonton.
The Quebec government is proposing legislation legalizing euthanasia. This legislation is disturbing and should not be supported anywhere in Canada.
The proposed legislation would infringe upon the Federal jurisdiction of the Constitution of Canada Article 91.27 of the Canadian Criminal Code by calling euthanasia a medical act, and thus putting it under provincial jurisdiction. This would allow a doctor, at their own discretion, to aid a person who is suffering from a terminal illness and has given their consent to die.
It sounds noble: ending suffering and supposedly giving the right of a person to decide themselves to die with dignity. The reality is, once society starts deciding who is to live and who is to die, compassionate reasons can readily be replaced with convenient expediency by criminal greed. The bill would serve to make the elderly even more of a target by the creative opportunists, some of whom are their very own caring children.
Many elderly people, on medications or not, have difficulty deciding on issues, have times of depression and are susceptible to being influenced by others. This legislation does not take into account the subtle and not so subtle abusive coercion that could cause a confused senior to agree to euthanasia as an escape, for example, rather than face the shame of reporting close family members’ abuses, financial or otherwise.
This path could also lead down a slippery slope towards Belgium-style euthanasia problems. Despite them having similar safeguards in place, it is reported that upwards of 32 percent of euthanasia deaths in Belgium occur without a patient’s request.
I think proposing euthanasia legislation must be challenged across Canada. We need better, stronger laws to protect the elderly and susceptible, many times from their own families, and not laws that put the elderly at greater risk.