Voting in the next election.

Which candidate should a conscientious voter support in the next federal election? The answer depends on a single issue of overriding moral significance; namely, the shameful lack of protection in the Criminal Code for children in the womb.

Thanks to a disastrous ruling by our judicial masters on the Supreme Court of Canada in the 1988 Morgentaler case, Canada is the only so-called democratic country in the world where it is legal for an abortionist to kill a perfectly healthy baby at any point in a pregnancy right up to the last second before birth. That's disgraceful and disgusting. It follows that conscientious voters should aim to support the candidate who is likely to do the most to rectify such a shocking lack of regard for the sanctity of human life.

In most cases, that candidate will be the standard-bearer for the Canadian Alliance. Of course, not all candidates for the Canadian Alliance are pro-life. It's likely that in some ridings, the only candidate showing any respect for the sanctity of human life will be the representative of the Christian Heritage Party (CHP): Does it follow that pro-life voters in all of these ridings should vote for the CHP?

Not necessarily. It may be that an anti-life candidate for the Canadian Alliance stands a good chance of getting elected to Parliament, while the CHP contender is completely out of the running. In this case, prudent voters might well vote for the anti-life representative of the Canadian Alliance as a means of helping to elect a predominantly pro-life Canadian Alliance government that is committed to allowing Canadians to settle controversial moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia in binding national referenda.

The CHP is fond of pointing out that vox populi is not vox Dei. But that's not the point. It's a question of tactics. Referenda are the only likely means of curbing the abortion licence in the near future. Suppose, for example, that the horrors of partial-birth abortions are put to a vote in a national referendum. Chances are a solid majority of Canadians would choose to outlaw such an evil attack on innocent human life. And it's unlikely that either Parliament or the Supreme Court of Canada would dare to thwart such a clear expression of the popular will.

As it is, some of the most effective pro-lifers currently serving in Parliament are members of an overtly anti-life party. That's true, for example, of Tom Wappel (Liberal: Scarborough Southwest), who has been hailed by the Campaign Life Coalition (CLC) as "one of the most outspoken pro-life MPs in Parliament, strong pro-family, pro-life record." Likewise, the CLC has lauded Elsie Wayne (Progressive Conservative: Saint John) as "outspokenly and consistently pro-life." All such stalwart pro-lifers deserve the gratitude and continuing support of conscientious voters.

The greatest threat to some pro-life candidates is a split in the pro-life ranks. That's what happened to Garnet Bloomfield, a principled pro-lifer who ran for the Reform party in Perth Middlesex in the 1997 federal election.

Bloomfield is a long-time activist within the London and Area Right to Life Association and a former Liberal member of Parliament from 1980 to 1984. In this latter role, he distinguished himself by defying the Liberal whip and voting against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because, he says, "it failed to guarantee the right to life of all Canadians from conception to natural death."

The CHP also ran a candidate in Perth Middlesex in 1997. He vigorously disparaged Bloomfield throughout the election campaign for affiliating with the Reform party, but ended up with fewer than 900 of 44,500 valid votes. An anti-life Liberal won the riding, while Bloomfield finished third, fewer than 2,000 votes behind the Progressive Conservative.

Bloomfield has announced plans to run again in the next federal election for the Canadian Alliance. Let us hope the CHP has the good sense this time not to put up a candidate against him. There are bound to be ridings in which the Canadian Alliance is weak and none of the candidates for the other major parties upholds the sanctity of human life. That's where the CHP should concentrate its limited resources. It's sheer folly for the CHP to split the pro-life vote in ridings where an outstanding pro-life candidate for another party stands a good chance of winning.

Rory Leishman's column appears four times a year. He writes on political affairs.