Last year’s federal election produced plenty of surprises – none bigger than the tremendous success enjoyed by the Reform Party.
Many voters, wary of a return to a Trudeau form of red Liberalism, opted for the Reform style of populism and fiscal restraint. Reform rode this wave all the way to Ottawa where they came within one seat of the official opposition status and became the standard bearers of Canadian conservatism.
Included in the post-election euphoria were many pro-lifers. Although the pro-life movement did not officially endorse the party, many quietly suggested that not only would Reform be able to control spending and reduce the deficit, but would provide an open ear to pro-life concerns.
Going into the last election, Manning and over 50% of the party’s candidates claimed to be personally against abortion and pro-lifers felt they had finally found a place to cast their vote.
However, from the outset, there was a fly in the ointment. Before the election, the party had formed a policy whereby elected MPs would let a constituency referendum decide how they would vote on moral issues – the key ones being abortion and euthanasia. The constituents would decide how the politicians would vote.
Last month, Preston Manning and his Reform Party concluded their annual policy-making convention in Ottawa and appear to have solidified their often divided ranks. In doing so, the party cemented its conservative roots on many matters but (inexplicably to pro-life supporters) still made no mention on key life issues.
This could have more to do with politics than with the party’s refusal to address the issues. In the past Manning has been burned by other parties and the media for revealing Reform’s stand on contentious issues.
Pro-life/ Reform supporters maintain that the party can be most effective by remaining silent on abortion and euthanasia and thus attract a greater amount of the centre-right support needed to win an election. When in power, these issues which don’t necessarily matter to those in the centre, could be more properly dealt with.
Suggestions range from MPs wording their referendums with questions favourable to the pro-life side or campaigning in favour of the pro-life side. Though party policy says MPs must abide by the results of the constituency referendum, it says nothing about making their position known or campaigning for a particular side.
At the very least, say supporters, through these constituency referendums, it would be fairly easy for Reform to withdraw government funding of abortions or to institute a 24-hour waiting period for abortions. While stopping well short of an outright ban, these could be the first and necessary steps toward achieving that goal.
Their feeling is that with a leader like Manning, who has hinted at being personally pro-life and a support-base made up of decent Canadians, it is time to give Reform a chance. After all, none of the other parties (with certain individual Tory and Liberal exceptions) have ever shown any inclination of changing the abortion on demand status quo.
The other school of thought within the movement says no to this strategy. “That has been the American approach for the last ten years and we have seen it just doesn’t work,” said one pro-life leader. “When you start working in half measures, certain concessions are going to be made. When you are dealing with a human life you cannot make concessions.”
Others suggest that while the party is willing to buck the politically correct trend with issues such as immigration quotas, deficit reduction, social security cutbacks or refusing benefits to homosexual couples, they consider abortion and euthanasia too hot to handle. They can sidestep these issues and hide behind their constituency referendums: letting the people take the stand – and the blame.
Another fear is that when the life issues do arise, candidates may find themselves voting against their consciences. Manning himself found this out last year when he held a town hall debate in Calgary. The majority of his constituents said they were in favour of legalizing assisted suicide. Can Manning, who said he is against the practice, vote in good conscience for it?
So the argument continues and Reform keeps marching along. The Ottawa conference showed that the Party is ready to shed its exclusively Western image witnessed by the fact that Ontario delegates had, by far, the largest contingent. Though many of these Ontario delegates pushed for the formation of a provincial Reform Party, they were voted down saying a provincial commitment would interfere with their chances of winning federally.
Besides healing rifts which have developed within the party, the conference was all about making the party more electable. The growing concern over Quebec separation and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s refusal to offend Quebec has left Reform with a chance to make up tremendous political ground.
If the Quebec situation worsens, it stands to reason that Reform may become the alternative voice to separation, giving them a decent shot at winning the next election. The party has evolved to such an extent that it will run a candidate in the by-election for the Quebec riding of Brome-Missisquuoi – something previously unthinkable. This action shows that the Party is ready to make the jump from regional opposition to a full-fledged contender.
This being the case, observers feel that the pro-life movement would be well advised to put out feelers to Reform. This would not mean cozying up to the party but could be an opportunity for discussion of ways of removing the obstacles which separate the two.
Reform offers pro-lifers a chance to have their voices heard in Ottawa. Many think that now is the time to exploit this window of opportunity.
