One of Canada’s top Catholic clerics has fired a shot across the bow of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and in the process sent a warning to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins issued a statement late Thursday saying it was “astonishing” that Ignatieff was advocating for contraception and abortion to become part of Harper’s G8 proposal to reduce maternal and child mortality in the developing world.
“When there are so many obvious practical steps that can be taken to promote maternal and child health throughout the world, it is sad to see Mr. Ignatieff introduce into the discussion this negative proposal, which in no way serves to improve the health of mothers or children, but which rather imperils the most vulnerable among us.”
Archbishop Collins, who represents 1.7 million Catholics across an area that covers much of the GTA and the area north of Toronto up to Georgian Bay, says the focus of any such proposal to improve the lives of women and children should focus on clean water, improved nutrition and vaccines, not abortion.
The statement is unusual in that it singles out a specific politician for a specific proposal but comments on policy by Canada’s Catholic bishops is not unusual in and of itself. In the last year, the bishops have spoken out on euthanasia, human trafficking and several international issues from Israel to Sri Lanka. And while this statement seems to focus on Ignatieff, in saying, “We all await with keen interest the tangible measures that the Prime Minister will propose,” Collins has put Harper on notice as well.
Ignatieff’s office offered no immediate comment in response but earlier in the day the Liberal Leader had been asked about his abortion commitment as it relates to several pro-life members of the Liberal caucus. “I’m in a party that has deep respect for the privately held views of my colleagues and friends, including my friend Paul,” said Ignatieff. “I understand that this is a very serious issue. I respect liberty and freedom of conscience, especially freedom of religious conscience.”
The argument from Ignatieff though is that freedom of conscience is not the issue. “The issue is,” says Ignatieff, “will Canada continue with its 25 year-old policy of supporting full access to the full gamut of reproductive health services that women need in order to have safe pregnancies, safe terminations, and healthy kids?”
One of the interesting things to note over the past few days of Ignatieff advocating abortion as a means to reducing maternal and child mortality is that he has been unable to say the word abortion in public. In statements and in response to questions from the CBC, Sun Media, the Toronto Star and myself, Ignatieff has used several euphemisms but not the abortion word. Reporters have noticed, he can’t say it. Instead he says safe terminations, full gamut of reproductive health services and at least until Thursday he had been calling abortion part of a range of contraceptive options.
There is clearly politics at play in Ignatieff’s decision to raise this issue and in his words “lay down a marker” for the Harper government. The Liberals hope to resurrect the “hidden agenda” tactic with the Conservatives as a way to make voters uneasy with Stephen Harper’s government. They also hope to squeeze the Conservatives into accepting what maternal health care means on Liberal terms. There are many in the Conservative caucus, and I would include Stephen Harper among them, who are afraid of being called social conservatives. They avoid all issues that might give the opposition an opportunity to label them. If enough of these Conservatives get nervous, the PMO will quietly give the Liberals, and the mandarins at CIDA what they want, abortion as part of the maternal health package.
There is a risk for the Conservatives here politically speaking. Although they may feel that they can ignore their social conservative base, that these voters have nowhere to go, the reality is, these voters, campaign workers and volunteers could just stay home in the next election. Anecdotally, I can tell you of many former Liberal volunteers that did just that and avoided the party they once gave so much to, in the first elections after the sponsorship scandal broke. Social conservatives may be among the weakest sub-sections within Harper’s Conservative party but without them, it’s unlikely he would win any election.
The Prime Minister though could satisfy his base and not alienate middle of the road Canadians by simply saying no to Ignatieff. When Harper announced in Davos that something must be done for the 500,000 women that die in childbirth each year and the 9 million children that die before their fifth birthday, I doubt that anyone outside of abortion lobby groups said, “I know the solution, abortion.” By saying that his plan will focus on primary health care, clean water, food and vaccines, Harper could gain widespread public support. The question is, will he be brave enough to do it?
Brian Lilley is the Ottawa Bureau Chief for radio stations Newstalk 1010 in Toronto and CJAD 800 in Montreal. Follow Brian on Twitter to get the latest as it happens.
Get more from Examiner.com's Canadian Politics Examiner
Comments
I think the Catholic Church would better serve to address its' dark and dirty child abuse history within its' own walls and work on reparation. Church and Government are still seperate last time I looked.
Leaving aside the off-topic views of cross-burning anti-Papists (whether of the Red variety or Orange), I read one comment troll defend Iggy on this by saying that Iggy "never used the word 'abortion'". And I'll let you know if Iggy's abortion drives away my elderly, practicing RC dad from the Liberal Party he's always voted for, even after Adscam etc.
Thanks Rural Observer -- You took the words right out of my mouth.
This is what you descirbe - a wedge issue, and maybe one of the first put forward with this Liberal party. It does raise an interesting question that the Prime Minister would not repond to, which was not acknowledged in this article. That is, in Harper's new found interest in women and children (this, coming from the man that canceled pay equity legislation and failed to live up to his own child care promises in Canada), will aid delivered abroad be supportive of abortion or not? It is really a simple question and the fact that a simple answer could not be delivered, is more than likley indicative of their true intentions.
This is what you descirbe - a wedge issue, and maybe one of the first put forward with this Liberal party. It does raise an interesting question that the Prime Minister would not repond to, which was not acknowledged in this article. That is, in Harper's new found interest in women and children (this, coming from the man that canceled pay equity legislation and failed to live up to his own child care promises in Canada), will aid delivered abroad be supportive of abortion or not? It is really a simple question and the fact that a simple answer could not be delivered, is more than likley indicative of their true intentions.
And as has been already commented here, since church and state are separate I wonder, will Harper bow to the church about a woman's right to have an abortion? Will Harper defend that right or will he condemn it? Or will he pull a Harper and change the channel? Like so many Harper and Conservative antics this question is asked and yet no response may be expected other than spin doctoring or lies about why the question is not relevant. Typical Harper!
Well, the ignorance of some never ceases to amaze me.
1. There is no "right" to abortion in Canada. The Supreme Court struck down the old law in 1988 & invited Parliament to craft a new one. They failed. Now abortion is paid for right up to the 9th month with Canadian tax dollars. We also pay for abortions in private clinics & send women to the US for late term abortions with tax dollars. But we get upset with Danny Williams getting heart surgery there.
2. Separation of church & state does not mean the church cannot express and opinion. I'll bet many of those complaining now about the bishops speaking out on abortion were critical of Harper cutting funding to Kairos, the church sponsored NGO. Does anyone complain when churches speak against the oil sands or in favour of more immigration, higher minimum wages or other leftist causes? No, you only complain if it could impact your ability to have sex without guilt or consequences, like getting rid of that "mistake" from Friday's fun.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!