CanadaVOTES: Christian Heritage Party leader Ron Gray running in Langley

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Friday, September 19, 2008

CanadaVOTES
Interview series
2008 Canadian federal election

ALBERTA
Calgary Southwest: CHP
Edmonton—Leduc: NDP
Yellowhead: CHP

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Langley: CHP*
Vancouver Kingsway: NDP

MANITOBA
Brandon—Souris: CHP

NOVA SCOTIA
Dartmouth—Cole Harbour: CHP

ONTARIO
Cambridge: NDP
Carleton—Mississippi Mills: NDP
Don Valley West: NDP
Elgin—Middlesex—London: NDP
Haldimand—Norfolk: LIB, CHP
Hamilton Centre: NDP i
Hamilton East—Stoney Creek: NDP i
Lanark-Front.-Lennox & Addin.: LIB
Parry Sound—Muskoka: NDP
Perth—Wellington: LIB
Prince Edward—Hastings: NDP
Simcoe—Grey: NDP
Thornhill: LIB i
Toronto Centre: AAEV*
Toronto—Danforth: LIB, AAEV
York—Simcoe: CHP

QUEBEC
Louis-Hébert: CHP
Westmount—Ville-Marie: NDP

SASKATCHEWAN
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar: Lbtn

* Asterisks designate riding incumbents or registered political party leaders.
The letter "i" after a party abbreviation signifies an incumbent MP response.

To write, edit, start or view other Canada articles, see the Canada Portal

On October 14, 2008, Canadians will be heading to the polls for the federal election. Christian Heritage Party candidate Ron Gray is standing for election in the riding of Langley.

Wikinews contacted Ron Gray, to talk about the issues facing Canadians, and what they and their party would do to address them. Wikinews is in the process of contacting every candidate, in every riding across the country, no matter their political stripe. All interviews are conducted over e-mail, and interviews are published unedited, allowing candidates to impart their full message to our readers, uninterrupted.

Mr. Gray has been leader of the Christian Heritage Party since 1995. He first ran for office in 1988.

Interview

Why are you running for political office, why at the federal level, why this party, and why in this riding?

I'm not a 'new' candidate, having run eight times before; but neither am I an incumbent.
I'm running for office because I believe Canada desperately needs to restore respect for time-tested, proven biblical principles as the foundation for public policy; because the Conservatives have now made themselves the defenders of the abortion industry and the "gay rights" lobby... with Stephen Harper's statement (in december, 2005) : "I will use whatever influence I have to ensure that no legislation on abortion comes into Parliament"; and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's statement, when he introduced a government bill designed to trash Conservative MP Ken Epp's Unborn Victims of Crime bill: “Let me be clear, our government will not reopen the debate on abortion… the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights.”
Of course, the other parties are all in complete accord with this, which leaves the 40-70% of Canadians (depending on how the survey is framed) who are pro-life with no one to represent them.
In addition, the so-called "Conservatives: broke their promise on income trusts... on defending the traditional definition of marriage... and they even broke their own LAW on fixed election dates.... and all the other parties are equally vapid and culpable.
Why? Because they have no principled basis for shaping policies!

Previous to this campaign, have you been politically involved? How will you apply your previous work/volunteer/life experience to serving your constituents?

Yes. As stated above, I have run for office 8 times. My background as a journalist involved covering politics, as well as BC Supreme Court. My background in public information services (especially Information Canada) brought me into frequent direct contact with Canadians from many walks of life, and acquainted me with their needs and the ways in which the government bureaucracy (and, often, Cabinet venality) frustrated them.

As you campaign around your riding, it's likely that some issues are mentioned more often by voters, than other issues. What would you say are the three hottest topics this election, in your riding? What would you and your party do to address these issues?

1 - A deep, deep sense of betrayal and mistrust... the Tories 'Gardasil' program -- delivering up 9-12-year-old girls as guinea pigs to be vaccinated with an inadequately-tested vaccine that trats only four of the 36 forms of HPV, a sexually-transmitted disease -- a vaccine promoted by a 'friend' of the Prime Minister, and a program that delivered $300 million of taxpayers' money to Big Pharma... this scandal is seen as the Tories equivalent to the Liberals' 'Adscam'...
2 - High gasoline prices, a result (in the view of most constituents) of government inaction on energy and a too-close relationship to Big Oil...
3 - The revolving door of the court system pumps criminals back onto the streets faster than the police can arrest them; brainless court decisions handcuff the police, and we are not allowed to protect ourselves...
4 - When I tell them, (because the mainstream media won't) constituents are infuriated that the courts are unconstitutionally violating the exclusive right of Parliament to make laws, even unconstitutionally altering the Constitution...
5 - When I tell them, (because the mainstream media won't) constituents are infuriated that the four parties now in Parliament have voted themselves $30 million a year of taxpayers' money to finance their re-election campaigns, but at the same time they strangled the ability of the smaller parties to raise voluntary contributions, cutting the ceiling from $5,000 to $1,000 and outlawing all business contributions, even those from small sole proprietorships...
What would we do to address these issues:
1 - we would keep our promises
2 - Eliminate federal gasoline taxes (including GST) on prices higher than 75 cents a litre; mount a Royal Commission on energy marketing, to determine if pricing collusion exists.
3 - Make penalties for Criminal Code offenses mean what they say; mandate that penalties for crimes are automatically doubled if the offender carries a firearm; doubles again if it is loaded; and tripled on top of that if it is discharged.

Adopt the National Firearms Association's "Practical Firearms Control System", and allow any citizen who does not have a criminal record or mental illness, after taking the appropriate safety training program, to own and keep at home, or carry a firearm for personal and family protection. The NFA can provide $4 million of a liability coverage to its members for $9 a year; that proves that their system works!

4 - Parliament MUST establish a Standing Committee on the Judiciary, and arm it with the authority to examine any court decision on the sole grounds of conformity to the Constitution. This limitation of grounds would protect judicial independence in matters of law and fact; but if the SCJ considered a decision to violate the spirit of letter of the Constitution, they would have the authority to brig into Parliament a bill amending that decision (so that the body of precedent would not be contaminated by unconstitutional rulings). This would make the courts accountable to the SCJ for the constitutionality of their ruling; the SCJ accountable to Parliament; and Parliament is accountable to the electorate.

The SCJ should also have the authority to accept or reject Supreme Court Justices from nominations prepared by the Justice Committee; and to initiate impeachment proceedings, to be tried by Parliament, on grounds of moral turpitude, bias, corruption or neglect of duty.

5 - Eliminate all present allocations of taxpayer funds to political parties. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "It is tyrannical to compel a man to pay for the promulgation of ideas with which he does not agree." Instead, the income tax form should include a box with a message somewhat like this: "Two dollars of your taxes will be used to further the democratic political system in Canada. You may designate which registered political party will receive your $2; if no party is designated, your $2 will go into a non-partisan education fund to teach schoolchildren and new immigrants hw Canada's democratic political system works."

Is there any misconceptions about you, your leader, or your party and platform?

Yes, indeed! Many people think the CHP is a "one-issue" party, because of our on-going emphasis on the right to life. This issue is of primary importance, because the right to life is the one right without which no other right has any meaning.
But the CHP has a 56-page policy book (available on our website at www.chp.ca) that covers every aspect of federal government jurisdiction.
Many people also labour under the misapprehension that we aspire to use the power of government to compel others to believe that we believe. This is utterly untrue! Consider this statement from our web-page:

"Our purpose is to place ourselves under the authority and guidance of the principles of the Gospel — principles like justice, honesty, compassion, diligence, thrift and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Today, the 16% Secularist minority in Canada dominates four powerful institutions that shape all our lives: governments, courts, the public education establishment, and the major news and entertainment media. The best defence of the religious freedom and intellectual liberty of the minority faiths (which at 4% all together total only about 1/3 the 12% who are Secularists) is to make common cause with the 79% of Canadians who identify themselves as Christians. We are thus a bulwark defending religious liberty — for everyone — against a militant Secularist juggernaut that seeks to exclude all faiths from the public square.
Wikinews
This article features first-hand journalism by Wikinews members. See the collaboration page for more details.
Wikinews
This exclusive interview features first-hand journalism by a Wikinews reporter. See the collaboration page for more details.

There are more ways than ever to get your message out, from the traditional campaign fliers and lawn signs, to new media like websites, Facebook, and YouTube. The tried-and-true routes get the message out to the masses much easier, but digital alternatives are much more measurable in how many are seeing or interacting with your campaign. What seems to be the most effective, from your experience?

We view the 'new media' — especially the Internet — as a way to get our message past the media censors who have blocked us from speaking to the Canadian public for 20 years. We're still learning to use it, but we have several short policy statements on YouTube ... and there are more streaming videos on our web-page at www.chp.ca

External links

Bookmark-new.svg