Pro-lifers showing enthusiasm for the Alliance
Party seen as a sign of new hope, but some of its policies are misunderstood

By Paul Tuns
The Interim, Nov. 2000

The Canadian Alliance offers both opportunity and confusion for pro-life voters: opportunity because the way it deals with the abortion issue is somewhat better than the Reform Party; confusion because despite its pro-life leader and its many pro-life MPs, it is not actually a pro-life party, and some of its members and advisors are pro-abortion.

CLC national president Jim Hughes told The Interim some pro-lifers are so fed up with Jean Chretien that they're planning to vote CA, even if the local CA candidate is pro-abortion, simply to oust the Liberals. But he says it would be wrong to decide whom to vote for based solely on the party leader.

"To vote for a pro-abortion Canadian Alliance candidate simply to get rid of Jean Chretien is short-sighted," Hughes said. "People want to see a change from Jean Chretien and his Parliamentary jack-booted behaviour. But what good is changing the guy at the top if there are more pro-abortion MPs in Ottawa?"

Hughes said many pro-lifers wrongly view the CA as a pro-life party. "There is no commitment to end or even curtail abortion," he said, adding that while the party is very promising on several fronts, "Clearly the party is not pro-life. The Christian Heritage Party is the only party in Canada committed to protecting life."

And while Hughes endorsed Stockwell Day in the CA leadership race, and believes Day is a strong pro-lifer, he reminds pro-life voters that Day has not promised any specific action on life issues.

"Day has no intention of bringing in pro-life legislation and will depend on referenda and citizen's initiative," he said, noting that there is the perception that because Day has demonstrated a commitment to pro-life measures as an Alberta MLA and cabinet minister, he has a pro-life agenda for Canada.

When Day mentions abortion it is always when answering a question someone else has posed and he has repeatedly said he would let the issue be decided by a citizens' initiated referendum.

While the CA is not officially pro-life, it should be noted that the CA constitution might someday provide the basis for an official pro-life plank. One of the articles states, "We recognize that all human beings possess the fundamental human rights of life, freedom and the right to own and enjoy property." Many pro-lifers feel the use of the term human beings (as opposed to the legal term "persons") is significant here, and shows an openness on the part of some in the Alliance to address the question of rights for the unborn.

Hughes said, "At the United Alternative meeting when the policy was struck, there was a general feeling of respect for human life, among both social and fiscal conservatives." He said it would be better if the rights of the unborn were spelled out, but finds it "a breath of fresh air to have an open debate on these questions," noting that at other party conventions, the microphones would be turned off when pro-life delegates sought to debate the issue.

Unfortunately, pro-abortion CA candidates such as former leadership hopeful Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) and former Ontario organizer Nancy Branscombe (London North Center) will not recognize the humanity of the unborn child and refuse to protect its right to life. Hughes says for this reason it is vitally important for voters to determine whether the local candidate is committed to protecting the unborn.

While the misconceptions that the CA is officially pro-life and that Day is committed to a pro-life agenda may work in the CA's favour among some pro-life voters, other misconceptions about the party work unfairly against it. Pro-life leaders are noticing that the rank-and-file do not fully appreciate the fact that the CA's policies on using referenda to decide moral issues and on the obligations of MPs to represent the "consensus" among their constituents on such issues, are improvements over the deeply problematic policies of the Reform Party.

Reform obliged its MPs to represent their constituents' views over party policy or personal conscience. When certain controversial moral issues (primarily abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment) were considered in Parliament, a Reform MP had to determine the wishes of his constituents and vote accordingly.

Canadian Alliance policy on this point states that "Where an MP finds that a clear consensus has been reached on an issue, his or her responsibility is to represent that consensus over party or personal views." While many pro-lifers see this an unfortunate relic of the Reform position, the CA does not single out issues like abortion the way Reform did, and its use of the word consensus seems open to a much wider range of interpretations. For example, does the CA understand consensus to mean a simple majority, a two-thirds majority, or virtual unanimity? And is it a consensus of the riding, the province, or the country?

There are also substantial changes to the use of referenda. Reform specifically called for referenda on abortion and capital punishment, the results of which would be implemented by the government. The CA drops the reference to specific moral issues and, more importantly, moves from government-initiated referenda to citizen-initiated referenda.

CLC's Hughes was grossly misrepresented in a recent Ottawa Citizen interview which left the impression he supports the referendum idea in principle. What he did say is that if there was a referendum on abortion, CLC would be ready to educate the public and, if possible, try to influence the wording of the question being considered. He told The Interim, "We'll work to get the best deal we can," but stressed that CLC maintains its opposition in principle to the use of referenda to deal with an issue of fundamental human rights.

Hughes maintains CLC's long-time strategy of supporting individual pro-life candidates, regardless of party, as the best way ultimately to obtain pro-life legislation.

Apart from the CA's official silence on life issues, its policies on family issues is encouraging. Day has promised funding for religious schools, democratic accountability and free votes, close scrutiny of United Nations agreements to protect Canadian sovereignty and using the notwithstanding clause to veto any Supreme Court decision requiring gay marriage.

That said, Hughes reminds pro-life voters that abortion and euthanasia must be considered above other issues. "Abortion and euthanasia are disqualifying issues for local candidates," Hughes said. "It doesn't matter about the leader, the party or other issues, we cannot afford to have more pro-abortion MPs." impose their values and silence dissenting voices.