Since the first abortion law passed in this country in 1969, Canada has not had a pro-life federal political leader in politics. A generation of politicians has come and gone, many of whom claimed to be pro-life, and yet we have virtually abortion on demand.
And now another election approaches this fall and members of the pro-life movement ask themselves what the chances are of getting a parliament elected which respects life at all stages.
The leaders of the three mainline parties can all be considered pro-abortion.
Kim Campbell, the Prime Minister, defined her political career when she publicly opposed B.C. Premier Bill Vanderzalm’s decision not to publicly fund abortions. She left the B.C. Social Credit Party over the issue.
As Justice Minister under Brian Mulroney she attempted to get Bill C-43 into law. She described herself as a “committed and passionate pro-choicer” at the time. She said the bill was “consistent with the pro-choice position.” She has been targeted by pro-life leaders across the country for her consistently anti-life ethic.
But, depending on the results from the expected fall election, she will probably have to contend with a caucus which is significantly more interested in family values. There is no formal pro-life lobby within the Tory party but a group of about 35 MPs and two senators organized during Mulroney’s second term calling themselves the Caucus Committee on Family Issues.
According to a Globe and Mail report at the time it “wielded enormous influence over federal politics for the past three years.” Brian Mulroney and key cabinet ministers were said to be sympathetic with the aims of the group. Among the cabinet ministers who were unofficially part of the family caucus were Perrin Beatty and Jake Epp.
Al Johnson, an Alberta MP, was seen as the leader of the group which formed after a speech he gave in 1989 describing the inequities the Canadian tax system shows towards married couples. By the end of the Mulroney regime it was meeting once a week and had the ear of key decision makers. His views on taxes for married couples were eventually adopted as party policy.
Other members included Kitchener MP John Reimer and Saskatchewan MP Geoff Wilson.
But the influence which these family-oriented MPs were said to wield could all be dissipated with the new Tory regime.
Significantly, Kim Campbell, who was still a rising star at the time the Family Caucus was meeting regularly, distanced herself from he fellow Tories who were fighting on behalf of the family. MP Don Blenkarn, a member of the group, said the then-Justice Minister had little sympathy with the goals of the family caucus. “Kim is cut from a different mold,” he said.
This means she will be less willing to listen to the views of MPs who are friendly to the pro-life movement. The only hope is Alberta MP Jim Edwards, who surprised many pro-lifers by supporting Campbell, and who will likely have her ear with a cabinet position if the Tories form the next government. Edwards has said he is pro-life and particularly favours consent laws.
The other two mainline parties are hardly any better.
For years Jean Chrétien has sent mixed messages about his position on abortion. He has infuriated pro-lifers with his flippant responses when questioned about his views. Once he asked how anyone could suggest he’s not pro-life when his initials are J.C., his mother’s name is Mary, and he’s been crucified politically many times. In the past he would never answer the question directly and pro-lifers had to trap him to get his position.
In a recent interview he indicated there would probably be another vote on the issue after this year’s election although he wouldn’t be the one to introduce it. He has said he supports unrestricted access to abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy.
A policy paper called Talking Points on the Liberal Party and the Right To Life Movement recently set out Chrétien’s and the party’s position on the issue. The paper laid to rest any run ours that the Liberal leader could be considered even remotely pro-life.
“While personally pro-choice,” the paper states, “Jean Chrétien believes abortion is a matter of individual conscience, not party policy.”
It said he “respects the views of MPs and candidates who oppose abortion” but he “opposes attempts by single-issue interest groups to hijack party nominations for their own narrow purposes.”
The paper was a response to a pro-life group within the party calling itself Liberals for Life. The group gained national attention recently after Chrétien appointed women in ridings where pro-lifers were well organized. Many Liberals for Life saw this as an attempt to quash the movement within the party.
In other interviews, Chrétien has said Liberal MPs are “absolutely free” to vote their consciences on the issue of abortion. He has also said while not intending to introduce legislation himself, an MP or group within the party could. However, a Private Member’s Bill has much less weight than one introduced by the government. Pro-life Liberal MP Tom Wappel has welcomed the statement that another individual or group could raise the issue in the House. He said it “gives us an opportunity to bring forward the kind of legislation that we want.”
Liberals for Life organizers have said there could be up to 60 pro-life Liberals elected in the next election and they feel with such a significant force they can’t be ignored.
At the height of the Liberals for Life publicity Audrey McLaughlin and her New Democrats threatened to take on the Liberals and make abortion rights an issue in the next election. The Liberals responded by saying they “will not play cheap political games on divisive and emotional issues.”
With the attempts by the Liberal Party to quash the Liberals for Life movement, Chrétien has contradicted his previous statements which suggest that anyone who doesn’t like the Liberal Party can join it and change the way it works.
The New Democratic position on abortion is ambiguous.
“Canada’s New Democrats are the only party with a position on choice,” McLaughlin has said. She said the federal NDP has targeted up to 40 ridings across the country where Liberals for Life are trying to get candidates elected and will fight them on the issue.
The New Democratic Party was not always this way. The last vestiges of a pro-life movement within the NDP disappeared in 1988 when a group known as New Democrats for Life was ejected from the party. Joe Borowski, one of the most famous pro-life crusaders in this country, served as an NDP member in the Manitoba legislature before leaving over the abortion issue.
McLaughlin has said she will put abortion rights in the election platform in the hope of attracting pro-abortion Liberals. So far the issue doesn’t appear to be surfacing and the NDP stands at historic lows in the polls.
The Reform Party of Canada stands at about the same level in the polls as the NDP. Although it has large numbers of pro-lifers who plan to vote for it, and many of its candidates claim to be pro-life, the party itself has shied away from the issue.
In its bid to “place more decision-making power in the hands of the people” the party advocates a national referendum and citizen’s initiative bill.
This means that controversial issues, like abortion, or capital punishment, are decided by referendum. If there is no referendum process in place then the MP must conduct his or her own poll in the riding to discover consensus. If there is no broad consensus then the MP can vote on the issue according to his or her previously stated position. Only in this case could the Reform MP vote his or her conscience.
This is why, in spite of the fact the leader Preston Manning is “personally pro-life,” his conscience could be nullified by the rules of his own party.
The only officially pro-life party in Canada is the Christian Heritage Party. CHP official policy upholds the right to life from conception to natural death.
The interim leader, Heather Stilwell, comes from a pro-life background having served as president of Alliance for Life Canada as well as other pro-life organizations.
Official party policy advocates education, alternatives to abortion, and an end to government-funded abortion.
In 1991 the CHP responded to suggestions it join forces with the Reform Party to oust the Tories. The board decided the Reform Position that “the desire of the constituents comes before an MP’s conscience” prohibited any cooperation.
At press time the CHP had only ten candidates officially chosen nationally but Stilwell said there are many more in the process of getting nominated.
