News

These items on the Canadian Alliance, from the June CLC National News, follow up on the previous May analysis on the leadership race.

CLC National News – June 2000

  CAMPAIGN LIFE COALITION AND THE CANADIAN ALLIANCE
  CA LEADERSHIP RACE
  MANNING, DAY ANSWER CLC SURVEYS
  LONG BEHIND MEDIA ATTACKS ON CLC?

CAMPAIGN LIFE COALITION AND THE CANADIAN ALLIANCE

  CLC’s mandate within the pro-life movement is to act as a lightning rod to stimulate pro-lifers to join a political party of their choice and become active in the public forum. Over the years, CLC’s efforts have succeeded in putting the abortion issue before the public on numerous occasions. Your work in individual ridings has resulted in hundreds of pro life, pro-family candidates being elected to public office at all levels of government. Sadly, the unseen fruits of your work in the political trenches will never be fully known or credited. Our current work includes an initiative within the Canadian Alliance Party. We emphasize, though, that we will continue to work with pro-life politicians and candidates at any time and in any party.

CA LEADERSHIP RACE

  The first round of the Canadian Alliance leadership race will come to a close on June 24 when every member of the CA will vote in the “first ballot” of the leadership race. Several debates have been held, with more occurring in the weeks leading up to the vote. It has been disappointing that public policy on moral issues has not been debated by the leadership hopefuls considering that it is precisely such issues that distinguish them from one another. There is little disagreement on economics and government accountability, so, many party members will be voting on the candidate’s personality. But there is something else that is important: their record. We just want to remind you that the actions of Preston Manning and Stockwell Day have sought to protect unborn children and the traditional family whereas Tom Long advises that politicians keep those values to themselves and Keith Martin is pro-abortion.

MANNING, DAY ANSWER CLC SURVEYS

  In May we asked the Canadian Alliance candidates to answer a questionnaire to determine where they stand on life issues. As we went to press, neither Keith Martin nor Tom Long had returned the survey. We thank both Preston Manning and Stockwell Day for their cooperation and hope that you will learn a little more about these candidates as a result.

Both Manning and Day said they consider themselves pro-life and believe life begins at fertilization. Day would like to “see legal protection of all innocent human life in Canada,” but declined to say how abortion access would be restricted or prohibited. He does support cutting taxpayer funding of abortion and has advocated such cuts in Alberta. Manning said “The federal government must act to define the rights of the unborn, and the specific nature of this protection should be settled through a broad public debate ending in a national referendum.” Manning said funding of abortion is a provincial matter and that he would not stand in the way of any province that wants to restrict abortion funding. Both Manning and Day support the principle of conscience protection for health care workers. They both say that funding and regulation of abortion is primarily a provincial issue. Day adds “Any legal limits on abortion per se would be a federal matter.”

The most important question in the survey was, “Would you initiate any public discussion on the issue of abortion or initiate any legislative measures to end abortion?” Day noted that he has a record of initiating “broad public discussion of the protection of innocent human life” and said he “would undertake measures that will allow Members of Parliament and private citizens to bring forward legislative measures protecting life through free votes and citizens’ initiated referenda.” He also promised to “support any pro-life measures brought forward through these processes.” Manning said he doesn’t expect the issue to be dealt with until Parliament looks at regulating reproductive and genetic technologies. He said “As Prime Minister I would initiate a broad public dialogue followed by a national referendum on establishing legal rights for the unborn so that Canadians can decide for themselves how they want to deal with this issue.” He would also allow citizens’ initiatives so that concerned Canadians could force a discussion and decision on the issue if the government lacked the courage to do so. (This cuts both ways. If we establish rights for the unborn, pro- abortion forces could use a referendum to reverse the decision, or worse.) Manning said that the people and not unelected judges must take the initiative on this issue. However, he also said not “even elected MPs, ought to be able to make such decisions for the whole nation.” He said that pro-lifers must “convince our friends and neighbours to support our views.”

On euthanasia, Day and Manning said the current law pertaining to euthanasia and assisted-suicide is satisfactory but that it should be watched to make sure it is not weakened. Day said he would not liberalize the law. He also said he supports palliative care to strengthen legal protection for the elderly and disabled and other vulnerable persons and would consider “what appropriate measures could properly be put in place within federal jurisdiction.” Manning said health issues are exclusively a provincial jurisdiction and that if “a provincial government decided to introduce [palliative care] legislation, we would support their doing so.” Day and Manning both said MPs should be clear about their moral beliefs and to represent constituents wishes as best as possible. Day added “I believe that this obligation cannot bind legislators to vote in favour of measures which would abrogate inalienable human rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and property.” Manning said an MP should try to convince constituents of the validity of his or her own views. But if “it can be clearly demonstrated that the consensus of my constituents is contrary to my own views then I feel that I must either vote according to their wishes or resign my seat.” He said MPs have “no right to demand that others accept” their own moral views.

NOTE: The CLC questionnaire response from Tom Long was received just as this report was completed. Reporting and analysis of Long’s responses will be incorporated into this report in the near future.

LONG BEHIND MEDIA ATTACKS ON CLC?

  In his May 27 Toronto Sun column, Alan Fotheringham said that Long’s negative campaign against Manning, Day and social conservatives such as CLC was part of a scheme hatched by Long’s American advisor and friend Mike Murphy. Fotheringham calls Murphy the “Merchant of Mud.” Fotheringham explained that the media’s attacks “had the fingerprints of Murphy all over it. When in trouble, go negative. Hit ‘em below the belt.”

Understood as such, the attacks have no credibility because they are simply negative political strategy by a campaign in trouble. Nonetheless, the media was in a tizzy as the Globe and Mail, National Post and other papers focused on our analysis (as well as comments from Peter Stock of the Canadian Family Action Coalition) of the CA leadership race. The May 25 Globe and Mail complained of “attacks” by pro-life and pro-family organizations, implying that we have no right to express our views in the political arena. Outraged by our analysis in last month’s CLC National News and news items from LifeSite, the media has tried to paint us as extremists who are dividing the CA. Particularly offensive in the media’s mind was that we noted five of Long’s key advisors were social liberals, two of whom were homosexual activists. The media implied we were bigots, but overlooked the fact that our concern was not about their chosen lifestyle but the public policy agenda they were likely to continue to push via Tom Long – a radical, same-sex rights agenda that would appeal to social leftists and not pro-life, pro-family Canadians.

We support the rights of everyone to take an active role in politics but we are obliged to inform our supporters about people in key positions of influence that do not share our values. In the wake of this controversy, there were the usual cries for “tolerance,” which in media-speak means complete intolerance for traditional grassroots Canadian principles on abortion and family. As Michael Coren noted in his May 4 Toronto Sun column, key Long advisor Leslie Noble has said there is no place for such social conservatives in the new party.

Noble’s comments naturally imply that the large number of social conservatives already in the party should move out. So why is it that pro-life and pro-family Canadians are the ones who are labelled intolerant?