FCP leader Phil Lees said party trying new tactics to influence Ontario's culture and politics
Lees told The Interim that the FCP does not want to be the kind of party that puts up candidates every four years and is not heard from otherwise. “We have been communicating the vision of the party to have constituency associations active between elections,” he explained. He described the impression of even some party members that the FCP was “a party that every four years finds a sacrificial lamb, to present the pro-life, pro-family message to remind people we are here, and then go away.”
So instead of touring and preparing candidates for the October election, Lees found himself selling a new vision of the party to “get the mission clearly understood.” Now, he said, there is solid support for creating constituency associations “that influence their communities between elections with the goal of influencing provincial politics with a more hands on, personal approach” to promoting pro-life and pro-family principles.
He said that between elections these associations would host social events and speakers, become active in working on education issues, and support local pro-life activities such as Show the Truth or picketing at hospitals.
But the FCP is also preparing for the election, and the goal is to have 25-30 candidates running. “We will be close,” he said. Lees himself will not be a candidate, but instead tour and support FCP candidates across the province. The goal is also to have active associations in place to assist the candidate.
The FCP will not put forward any “paper candidates” – individuals who put their name on the ballot, but do not campaign. Lees said FCP candidates are expected to take part in all-candidates meetings and respond to media inquiries; they must “effectively communicate the message.”
Lees said the “number one issue for us” to strengthen the province is to “strengthen the family” and he said that currently, government policy “discriminates against the family because it does not let families do what is best for their own situations.” He noted that public policy favours parents who return to work after having a child, but that FCP wants to support families in whatever decision they make in terms of their child-rearing choices.
All their policies have support for families in mind. The FCP wants to reduce taxation to keep more money in the wallets of families. Education and health care policy must be oriented toward respecting the values of parents. For example, an elder policy must not be solely focused on expanding long-term care funding, but allow for tax rebates for families to renovate their homes for so-called granny flats and schools should offer programs within the public system that reflects the educational priorities of parents.
Lees said the two-page platform if focused on solutions “that improve quality of life by respecting family decisions about what is best for their own situation.” He said the goal is to “put decisions in the hands of families and respect their decisions.”
He said this is necessary because big government is not the solution to all of society’s problems and that the financial burden is unsustainable. “We are imposing on the freedom of our children by mismanaging our funds and mismanaging government.”
Mary Ellen Douglas, president of Campaign Life Coalition, told The Interim that all this is fine and good, but it ignores why the Family Coalition Party was created in the first place: to raise the issue of abortion in election campaigns and give pro-life voters an ethical alternative to vote for on election day.
Douglas said, “the FCP was founded by CLC to bring forward the issue (of abortion), but they can’t bring the issue forward if they won’t highlight it.” Douglas pointed out that in the two-page platform, the word abortion is not even mentioned and that where the issue is addressed, it is done through coded language.On the second page under health care policy, the FCP asserts its support for conscience protection for health care workers and the right of families to make life and death medical decisions. It also states the FCP wants to “Implement community-driven life-respecting solutions that support women and their partners in crisis pregnancy.” Douglas said it is critical that the word abortion appears and that specific policies to restrict and reduce abortion, such as defunding and parental notification laws, be mentioned.
Lees said that the policy on “life-respecting solutions” could include defunding abortion through a larger program of delisting services that are not medically necessary and life-supporting. Other possible policies include medical consent laws that require parental permission before any type of non-emergency surgery is performed on a teen, informed consent laws that would require physicians to acknowledge the medical ramifications of and alternatives to abortion, and waiting periods of 72 hours to consider abortion-related information before having the procedure.
Douglas said, “pro-lifers will not support a party unless they are standing clearly on pro-life principles.”
Lees said all candidates defend the FCP principle that life should be protected from conception to natural death, but that they are finding language that will reach out to the majority of Canadians that polls show are pro-life, but skeptical about pro-life legislation. “For 22 years we have led with a ‘we’ll ban abortion platform’ and it has gotten us nowhere,” said Lees. “We are here to influence the province (and) we are not backing off this position, but we need to influence people by reaching out to the majority who oppose abortion but aren’t with us on policy.”
Douglas is unconvinced. “Perhaps they are feeling they can’t get elected without watering down their stand,” she said, while re-asserting that the goal is not to elect FCP candidates, but to be a standard-bearer in the political arena.
Fr. Alphonse de Valk, a founder of the FCP and editor of Catholic Insight, told The Interim that the party “was founded to bring up the abortion issue in season and out of season.” He said that some early FCP supporters would have thought about getting elected, but that first and foremost the purpose was to raise pro-life issues.
He noted that the FCP has always had a comprehensive platform, promoting social justice policies in a wide range of areas, but the emphasis was always on pro-life. He said if the FCP is not openly pro-life, “there is no further purpose” for its existence. Pro-life and pro-family issues such as abortion defunding, opposition to euthanasia, IVF, and gay rights, “should be proclaimed from roof-tops,” and if they are not, “the FCP should cease to exist.”
Another FCP founder, Dr. John Meenan of Kitchener, told The Interim that the party was formed to give pro-life Ontarians “a secure place for their votes.” He said that while electing members of provincial parliament was thought to be possible, the FCP was “based on a pro-life and pro-family message.”
From his Summer home in Prince Edward Island, Bill Mullally, another founder of the FCP, said he was disappointed with the de-emphasis of pro-life issues by the party. He said the FCP needs to highlight abortion defunding as well as right-to-know and conscience protection legislation because no other party is going to.
Douglas also said putting politics before principle is nothing new. She said that when the late Joan Jackson was a FCP candidate in Kingston in 1990, there were advisors who suggested Jackson needed to sugarcoat her pro-life message. The backroom boys were shown the door and Jackson presented a clear pro-life message. She got 1452 votes – 5.9 per cent of the total.
Indeed, 1990 was the high-water mark for the FCP. While their platform addressed numerous issues, candidates ran on abortion. The party received 2.7 per cent of the vote in the 68 ridings they ran candidates. In most ridings, the FCP candidate won about five per cent of the vote, although often more. Douglas said they did well because they earned the support of pro-life voters.
Meenan, who is a member but is less involved in the FCP today, said the party “is not moving away from pro-life principles, they are just disguising them.” But, he added, that “is playing politics.” He warned that it might be politically wise to increase the FCP’s support, but that regardless they will be consigned to fringe party status.
Lees insists, “this party is not backing off” its pro-life principles. “We are not changing principles, just tactics.” He said that the old tactics were not working and the strategy needed to change in order to influence the province’s politics and culture “to be more effective.”
Douglas said this was mistaken because the FCP “is the tactic” – it was created specifically to raise the abortion issue in the political sphere and now that the party is not doing that, she wonders what purpose the Family Coalition Party serves.
Lees said the mission goes beyond the political, with the FCP hoping to create an infrastructure for activists to work within for years, not the four weeks of the election campaign. He said the goal is to work with all pro-life and pro-family groups, including Campaign Life Coalition. Douglas and others at CLC hope to continue working with the FCP. For now, however, there is a fundamental difference of opinion about not only FCP strategy, but also what the Family Coalition Party is.
Ultimately, pro-life voters will decide the wisdom of this new FCP approach.
