After the 2007 provincial election in Ontario I stirred the pot a bit with a cover story in The Interim titled “Is the FCP still relevant.”  My argument was that the Family Coalition Party is not a political party in the usual sense but rather a vehicle to advance the pro-life cause in the political arena by 1) raising the abortion issue in election campaigns in all-candidates’ debates and through other election activities (door-to-door canvassing, pamphleteering, etc. …), 2) giving a conscientious option to pro-life voters who don’t have pro-life candidates, and 3) moving other political parties to the pro-life position by being strategic in how they run candidates. My model for this last point is the Conservative and Pro-Life parties in New York state who run candidates in elections when the Republicans do not nominate a pro-life, but forgo running in races where there is a pro-life candidate. I argued that the FCP should do the same thing in Ontario. (I would make the same argument for the Christian Heritage Party federally.) Furthermore, I took exception with the party’s focus on electoral reform and proportional representation at the expense of highlighting life and family issues and the ridiculous stance of making support for PR a pro-life litmus test.

There was briefly some “bad blood” between this paper and the party — and understandably so. 

In 2008, the FCP underwent a leadership change and Phil Lees replaced Giuseppi Gori. In the January issue, there is an in-depth interview with Lees. Regrettably, I did not get around to asking him about proportional representation. What is most exciting — and in another meeting I had with Lees, he was clearly excited about this — there is a vision the FCP leadership has to change politics and the culture by boldly calling upon the FCP and the structures that support it to be more than they have been; to create local groups who can be active within their community on a host of issues. There might be some consternation among pro-lifers (we have already received letters of concern) at the focus on education over abortion, but I do not necessarily share it. I think Lees and his party are completely pro-life and that there is the assumption on his part when talking to Interim readers that opposition to abortion is a given. He said the FCP is still coming up with a platform for the 2010 election and I’m curious to see what specific abortion-related policies it highlights (defunding abortion, conscience rights for healthcare workers, informed consent for women  seeking abortions). Education, as you will read in the February issue of The Interim, is bound to be an issue in the provincial election, especially for people who hold traditional moral values (the equity and inclusiveness strategies are required by the Ministry of Education to implement this year).

Education policy is not as important as abortion, but for many social conservatives this is where the policy fight is now. But to go back to the point made in my 2008 article, the FCP is mostly about ensuring abortion is not a forgotten issue in provincial politics. Re-reading this interview, I can see where pro-lifers might think the FCP is going to miss the boat again, but for now it deserves the benefit of the doubt.