|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY CONVENTION
By Cecilia Forsyth
Saskatchewan Board Member
REAL Women of Canada
Many members of REAL Women, attended the Conservative
Convention in Montreal, March 17 - 19, 2005 in order to ensure
that policies were passed in support of the family. The media
presented its own version of the Convention. The media's version,
however, differs in some respects from those of us who were
actually delegates to that convention. What actually took
place is as follows:
There was excitement in the air as the close
to 3,000 delegates were very aware of the importance of the
conference. The question foremost in everyone's mind: would
or could this new party embrace the many diverse factions
- red tories, reformers, libertarians, fiscal and social conservatives,
urban and rural, so as to form a unified party? We knew the
answer to this by the end of the conference which was in the
affirmative. What really elated us, too, was that the policy
platform at the convention formed a clear alternative to the
Liberal platform. No other major party has endorsed pro-family
policies, with the exception, of course, of the Christian
Heritage Party.
Pro-family Policy Resolutions Passed
at the Conservative Convention
Several of the 70 policy resolutions passed
at the convention addressed our pro-family concerns. They
were as follows:
- Family Tax Fairness policy to eliminate
all tax disadvantages to families, including those who care
for children at home. This policy also recognized the economic
value of stay at home parents by introducing measures, such
as income splitting, for spouses.
- Shared Parenting policy which allows both
parents and grandparents to maintain a meaningful relationship
with their children and grandchildren
- Child Care policy which recognizes that
parents are in the best position to determine the care needs
of their children, and recognizes that education and social
services are provincial responsibilities, not a matter of
federal jurisdiction as the Liberal party tries to make it.
The Conservative Party believes that support should go to
all parents and families raising children, especially to lower
and middle income parents.
- Child Protection policies to protect children,
such as eliminating all defences to justify the possession
of child pornography, and to raise the age of consent for
sexual activity from 14 to 16 years of age.
Marriage, Abortion and Euthanasia
The six policy resolutions on marriage, abortion,
euthanasia and free votes were decided without debate. They
were as follows:
-
The traditional definition of marriage "as a the union
of one man and one woman" was overwhelmingly passed by
75 percent of the delegates, in spite of the objections from
high profile MP Belinda Stronach, (Newmarket, Aurora).
- The resolution to "not support any
legislation to regulate abortion" passed in spite of
former MP Elsie Wayne's passionate plea to defeat it. Party
members voted 55 - 45% that a Conservative government would
not support legislation on abortion. The point should be made
here, however, that it was not that the majority of delegates
were pro-abortion, but rather, that the majority did not want
to deal with the issue of abortion in the next election. (See
discussion on this later in this article.)
- The resolution calling for "the creation
of a Royal Commission to study euthanasia, assisted suicide
and palliative care" was also defeated. This was a relief
to us since such a Commission would open the door to the legalizing
of suicide and/or euthanasia, i.e., provide the opportunity
to amend the present law, which protects vulnerable individuals.
- A resolution to permit MPs free votes acknowledges
the diversity of personal convictions among individual party
members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions
in consultation with their constituents, and decide in order
to vote freely on issues without party control.
Resolution on Abortion
The decision to not support any regulation
of abortion was a grave disappointment to us. In an ideal
world, a party that calls itself "conservative"
would recognize the value and dignity of all human life, especially
the unborn child. However, we do not live in such a world.
Consequently, we have to be realistic, that even though the
convention supported the abortion resolution, we believe it
could have been worse. The abortion policy could have required
the Party to explicitly endorse a pro-abortion policy (such
as a women's right to choose abortion).
It did not do that. This may be one of those
times when we have to see the glass as half full instead of
half empty. The former Canadian Alliance and Reform Parties
have never had a policy on abortion either as both parties
recognized that a free vote is required on issues of moral
conscience.
It is comforting that despite this lack of
a policy in support of life, the majority of the present Conservative
MPs support pro-life principles. It is up to us, as voters,
to make sure it stays that way!
Moreover, in last year's federal election,
the Liberals and the media viciously attacked and misrepresented
certain Alliance MPs for their public statements against abortion.
This gave rise to the desire by many delegates to avoid this
area of contention, with the understanding that the issue
will be raised again at future conferences. The policy to
"not support any legislation to regulate abortion"
is a policy not to have a policy. It allows the Conservatives
to fight the next election on their terms, not on the misrepresentations
of the Liberals and media. We do know, however, that the Conservative
Party's present position on abortion will not remain a permanent
one. We, as well as other pro-life groups, such as Campaign
Life, will be working on the issue at future conventions.
We will never stop the struggle to protect the dignity and
life of all human beings.
Policy on Women
A policy on "women" was included
in the "paper ballot process," which meant that
no discussion or amendment was allowed on the resolution.
This was unfortunate, since this contradictory policy should
not have passed. The first part of the resolution stated that
"individuals should be only judged on their skills, qualifications
and merits". This is a sound principle. However, the
very next sentence contradicts this when it states, "women
must be entitled to equal pay for work of equal value."
Unfortunately, this is a feminist concept of government wage
control, instead of free market supply and demand. What were
the delegates thinking? It was apparent they didn't understand
the feminist "equal value" concept slipped into
the resolution, and instead, thought it meant equal pay for
equal work - quite a different concept.
This policy, therefore, was a mistake. While
the intent is reasonable, the use of feminist terminology
completely changed the meaning of the policy. It must be dropped
at the next convention.
Party Unity
There was a clear sense of "unity"
at the Convention except for Mr. Peter MacKay's (Central Nova),
temper tantrum on the riding voting process, which made headline
news. His eruption was obviously a planned action in order
to support Belinda Stronach's career ambitions for the Conservative
leadership, which are backed by her supporters in Quebec as
well as all the red Tories.
The background to this situation is that the
Reform/Alliance policy has been based on the concept of one
man (woman), one vote concept. However, at the time of the
merger of the Progressive Conservatives and the Alliance parties
in 2003, it was agreed that the vote on the merger would be
based on the Progressive Conservative's Policy of an equal
number of delegates from each riding, regardless of the numbers
of members in the riding, rather than the one man / one vote
policy of the Alliance Party . Further discussions on the
voting process, however, were to follow after a successful
merger of these two parties. Despite this, Peter McKay, Deputy
Leader of the Conservative party, claimed that it has been
agreed that the voting process for the new Conservative party
had been permanently settled under the merger agreement, and
that each riding would be treated the same, regardless of
the number of members in that riding. This was a fanciful
interpretation. Nonetheless, Mr. McKay went on national TV
during the convention and claimed this issue would split the
party. His real objective, however, was to support Belinda
Stronach. With her unlimited funds, she had "arranged"
(paid) for delegates from Quebec ridings to represent her
and her red Tory opinions both during the leadership race
and as delegates to the convention. She was able to do this
because there is little Conservative organization in ridings
in Quebec. Consequently, the Quebec Conservative ridings having
a mere handful of paid "members" now have equal
weight to that of delegates from some of the western Canadian
ridings, which have thousands of paid up members.
The high profile temper tantrum by Mr. McKay
was intended only to shore up the career interests of Ms.
Stronach, as well as those of the red Tories in the party.
This led to the public debacle. In the interests of peace
and unity, the delegates voted for the "weighted"
ridings, claimed by Mr. McKay in his incorrect version of
the agreement, thus giving Belinda Stronach a continued free
hand and support in Quebec.
However, Mr. McKay's efforts were wasted.
He had the painful responsibility of informing party leader
Stephen Harper just two months later, that Ms Stronach had
bolted to the Liberals where she apparently believed her chances
for fame and fortune would be improved.
What Should We Do Now
We must continue to be a voice for the traditional
values of marriage and family life, including the basic right
to life, not only in the Conservative Party, but in other
political parties as well in order to elect strong pro-family
members to Parliament. To accomplish this, we must:
- Become involved in our local political
party federal riding associations. This will allow us to help
elect local pro-family candidates, both in the nomination
process as well as in the elections.
- Call, write, fax, or email the Prime Minister,
the Leader of the Opposition and our own MPs to oppose Bill
C-38, the same-sex marriage bill.
- Make the definition of marriage an issue
in the forthcoming election.
- Pray for our leaders and for our pro-family
MPs.
- Never give up.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
