Cardigan MP ensnared by Trudeau error

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

P.E.I. MP Lawrence MacAulay told The Guardian he expects to be permitted to vote pro-life in any future votes on abortion, but an official with leader Justin Trudeau’s office says that’s not the case.

Federal Liberal leader fumbles badly on a simple Charter of Rights ruling

Federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau didn’t do himself, his party or Cardigan MP Lawrence MacAulay any favours by fumbling his pro-choice ruling on the abortion issue. Mr. MacAulay hoped a grandfather clause would exempt him from supporting any abortion bill that might come before the House of Commons. Parliament has failed to pass replacement legislation after the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1988 ruling striking down the country’s abortion law as unconstitutional under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The country has been left with only the court’s ruling for over 25 years, without the guidance of a replacement law, since those same judges said the state should also have an interest in the protection of the unborn.

Mr. Trudeau ordered that all candidates must declare as pro-choice before being allowed to run for the party in the next election. Then he clarified that to say it wouldn’t apply to sitting MPs who are pro-life. Mr. MacAulay grasped at that straw since his pro-life stand is well known, believing he could vote his conscience on the matter.

The grandfather clause would respect, to a certain extent, their choices, the leader had said. Mr. MacAulay felt he was unaffected, that he could vote whatever way he chose. It took one day for Mr. Trudeau to say: “Sorry, Lawrence, you may have a personal opinion on the issue but you will be required to vote party lines.”

A thunderstruck Mr. MacAulay had to backtrack and say he would bow to his leader’s wishes, while Mr. Trudeau had to clarify his own comments for the benefit of other MPs or potential candidates. The confusion in Cardigan has helped spotlight Liberal waffling on the issue.

Mr. Trudeau could have simply said his party would follow the court’s ruling on the Charter issue and obey the law of the land. End of story. But like so many of his decisions, he waded into the abortion debate hornet’s nest without a clear plan and without the courtesy of informing his MPs. It turned out neither the leader nor his MPs were exactly sure what his initial comments actually meant.

Cardigan voters now face a confusing decision: “Do I vote for a pro-life candidate who will vote pro-choice?” Hmmm.

A reprieve for Cornwall

Public transit users in Cornwall got an 11th-hour reprieve this week as council reversed a plan to withdraw from a regional bus system. The relieved citizens in attendance who broke out into applause following the vote gave testament that council made the wise and correct decision. The highly controversial motion to pull out of a network involving Charlottetown and Stratford was passed last December and has been hotly debated ever since.

As a progressive, growing town, Cornwall has an obligation to provide some form of public transportation options for its citizens. Yes, there might have been disappointing numbers in ridership, and the costs might not have seemed worth the expense, but the town must look after residents who don’t have other means of transportation.

The challenge facing council is to work at growing those ridership numbers while citizens must utilize this valuable public transit option. Deputy Mayor Corey Frizzell, who voted both times to kill the bus service, softened his stance Wednesday night. He is concerned at the extra $40,000 cost for the rest of this year. Frizzell has suggested using vans or taxi sharing as some possible options to large, almost empty buses. He would be wise to develop a sound transit plan before the November elections when he is seeking the mayor’s chair.

Organizations: Charter, Rights, House of Commons Supreme Court of Canada

Geographic location: Cornwall, Charlottetown

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Randy Visser
    June 20, 2014 - 22:44

    I am disappointed that Mr. MacAulay has stated that he will vote against his personal convictions and against the convictions of the majority of his constituents on the abortion issue. Canada lacks a law that puts any restrictions on when a baby can be aborted. This means that a fully developed baby ready to be born can be aborted. The minute after that same baby is born, anyone who would willfully harm that child would be considered a criminal and could face a long prison sentence. We need a law to deal with this issue. Forcing MPs to vote against any motions to deal with this issue doesn't seem like the way a democracy should work. I won't be supporting Mr. MacAulay in the next federal election if he feels that towing his party's line is more important than standing up for his beliefs and standing up for the unborn.

    • Reggie
      June 21, 2014 - 08:03

      Your comment on the majority of islanders is unfounded. For the past twenty years Canadians have consistently been pro choice in the majority of polls and studies. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. To talk of abortions at nine months is simply a straw man argument.

    • Randy Visser
      June 21, 2014 - 20:07

      Reggie, At what stage of development do you think there should be restrictions on abortion? While the majority of abortions occur in the first trimester there still are many that happen in the second and third. Should there be a law dealing with this?

  • Rita Joseph
    June 20, 2014 - 18:59

    It's a cruel injustice that unborn children are routinely aborted, utterly defenseless victims of current ideological battles between and even within political parties. True justice requires that elective abortions be recognized and treated not as idiosyncratic, personal ‘choices’ but as abusive practices, as human rights violations perpetrated by individuals and involving the complicity of politicians, judges and others.

    • Just saying
      June 21, 2014 - 08:05

      You can have your own little world of 'true justice'. I'm going to stick with the one set out by the Supreme Court justices. They know better than you.

  • Peter
    June 20, 2014 - 15:12

    Cardigan voters now face a confusing decision: “Do I vote for a pro-life candidate who will vote pro-choice?” Hmmm. Would they rather vote for a candidate who will vote "No Choice" for the electorate? Or ... would they rather vote for a candidate who votes in favour of the electorate having a choice? Methinks they should be careful of what they vote for .. They may just get it!

  • Platinus
    June 20, 2014 - 12:56

    Mr. MacAulay needs to get in touch with his constituents on this issue - It's THEIR wishes, NOT HIS that should prevail. How about some responsibility to those who have put him there for too long. Neanderthal !!