OTTAWA – Reform MP Maurice Vellacott’s conscience clause bill (C-207) was debated in
Parliament last Thursday, November 18. Pro-life Canadians have been waiting since prior to
the last election for the bill to come before Parliament. Campaign Life Coalition followed the
process closely and many grassroots Canadians called their Members of Parliament encouraging
them to support the bill. As reported previously by LifeSite, Mr. Vellacott ended up with
written support for his bill from at least 100 other MPs from all the parties in the House of
Commons.
This level of endorsement guaranteed that the bill would be debated in the House. But it still
had to be brought before the Parliamentary sub-committee, where the decision is made as to
which private members’ bills will be made votable. (There is a maximum limit on the number of
bills that the committee can declare votable in each group of private members business it
examines.) Despite the endorsement of one-third of the House of Commons, the all-party
committee shocked pro-lifers by refusing to declare the bill votable.
The bill came before the House last Thursday and for reasons that Campaign Life Coalition, the
political arm of Canada’s pro-life movement, is still trying to uncover, the only speech given
in support of the bill was that of Mr. Vellacott. Debate didn’t even take up the entire hour
available. Outraged pro-lifers across Canada want to know where the other pro-life MPs were
during the debate.
Mr. Vellacott’s office reported that Reform MP Gurmant Grewal was scheduled to speak to the
bill. but was called away on other urgent business at the last minute. Apparently no back-up
plans were in place – LifeSite sources indicated that Reform MP and Parliamentary Pro-Life
Caucus chair Jason Kenney was interested in speaking to the bill, but was told that he didn’t
need to because of the anticipated speech from Mr. Grewal.
When Members of Parliament introduce a bill in Parliament, they are generally expected to take
the initiative to navigate it through the necessary channels to the point of debate in the House.
Nothing, however, prevents supportive MPs from any party from taking the initiative to request
the opportunity to speak to the bill. They would make their desire known to the Speaker of the
House or to the sponsor of the bill – in this case Maurice Vellacott – who would give his list
of speakers to the Speaker of the House prior to debate on the bill. (The schedule of upcoming
debates in the House of Commons is printed each day and distributed to all MPs’ offices every
weekday morning so that they can be kept aware of legislation that they may want to address.)
The only speakers to the bill other than Mr. Vellacott were Progressive Conservative Greg
Thompson and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Yvon Charbonneau.
Mr. Thompson, who has a track record of being pro-life, didn’t speak in defence of the bill;
instead he devoted much of his time to a partisan trashing of the Reform Party, pointing out at
one point that the only Reformer in the House was Mr. Vellacott himself. LifeSite sources
indicate that his statement, “… the member who put forward this bill is a member of the very
party that denied us [the Tories] on opposition day the other day by simply denying unanimous
consent to continue the debate”, was the source of his hostility.
In terms of the bill at hand, Mr. Thompson questioned its relevancy, arguing that the kind of
protections called for in C-207 already existed.
Ms. Charbonneau devoted most of her time to explaining why the issue, being health-related, is a
matter of provincial, not federal, jurisdiction. The matter of federal intervention in medical
services aside, the provinces have themselves argued that the issue must be resolved by the feds
because it involves the Criminal Code. Ms. Charbonneau’s speech gives every indication, therefore,
of being little more than a brush-off; hurriedly thrown together to address the technical aspect
of the issue, but oblivious to the history of the controversy.
Meanwhile, as politicians bicker, obfuscate and become preoccupied with other matters, pro-life
health care workers continue to suffer employment-and education-related persecution when they try
to exercise their constitutionally-protected freedoms of religion and conscience.
ACTION ITEM: No centrally located outfit can contact all Members of Parliament to determine their
reasons for not participating in the debate on Bill C-207 without sacrificing a substantial
amount of time and even money. Please contact your MP, especially if (s)he is known to be
pro-life, and request an explanation for their lack of participation in the debate. Please
forward the answers to Campaign Life Coalition in Ottawa at (613) 729-0379 or to your provincial
CLC leader.