By Dennis Gruending

An exit poll conducted by Ipsos-Reid following the January 2006 Canadian election indicated that, outside of Quebec, people who attend regularly at evangelical churches were four times more likely to vote for the Conservatives than for Liberals or the New Democratic Party (NDP). This result was markedly different from that of Catholics and mainline Protestants, whose vote was divided much more evenly among the parties. A question in these waning days of the 2008 campaign is whether evangelicals will continue to provide overwhelming support to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. Evangelicals account for only eight to 10 per cent of the population but their vote could well be important in close election races, particularly in suburbs and smaller cities. A second significant question is how Catholics and mainline Protestants will distribute their vote.

Professor Barry Kay, a political scientist at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, says the large sample in the Ipsos-Reid poll makes it a useful analytical tool. The poll was able to show, for example, that the vote among mainline Protestants in the United and Anglican churches was similar to that of Catholics. Those Catholics who were frequent church frequent attenders gave 36 per cent of their vote to the Conservatives, 34 per cent to the Liberals and 24 per cent to the NDP. In the United Church, the numbers were 38 per cent, 34 per cent, and 23 per cent respectively. Interestingly, Catholic, United Church and Anglican adherents voted for the Conservatives in roughly the same ratio as the voting population as a whole. The vote by Catholic, Anglican and United Church adherents for the Liberals and the NDP was actually four to six percentage points higher than it was among voters as a whole.

The results among evangelical voters, however, were radically different. “It is among the smaller churches, many of them more conservative doctrinally,” Prof. Kay writes, “where there is a much stronger trend to voting Conservative, by proportions approaching 4 to 1 Conservative to Liberal in 2006.”  Among evangelicals, 63 per cent voted for the Conservatives, compared to 16 per cent for the Liberals and 17 per cent for the NDP. Prof. Kay said in a telephone interview that polling in both the U.S. and Canada has shown consistently that most evangelicals vote for the Republicans or the Conservatives. Polls undertaken by the Pew Forum, an American research institute, show that in the U.S. white evangelicals are the single most supportive constituency for the Republicans.

A flurry of American media stories in 2007 and early this year reported on divisions and a changing of the guard among evangelicals in the U.S. An emerging group of leaders wanted to embrace issues such as poverty and climate change in addition to the old staples such as abortion, same sex marriage, and the teaching of intelligent design (creationism) in schools. But Pew now reports that any such movement appears to have stalled. “The selection of Sarah Palin as the Republican Party’s vice presidential candidate and Catholic bishops’ criticism of Joe Biden’s comments on when life begins have increased the attention paid to culture war issues,” Pew says in a recent posting.

In this country, the largest evangelical organization is the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. The EFC’s election kit pays attention to matters such as poverty and climate change, even as it maintains its traditional emphasis on issues such as abortion. There is no hint of nuance among other organizations, however, including the Canada Family Action Coalition, Campaign Life and a group called Defend Traditional Marriage and Family. They continue to insist that the issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage, are “non-negotiable” and should be ranked above all others in the political debate. It’s worth noting that these organizations are not members of the EFC.

Mr. Harper sees evangelicals and the religious right as essential to the conservative coalition that he wants to build. He has courted them by chopping women’s programs that many of his supporters considered feminist; shelving a universal child care program negotiated by the previous Liberal government and provincial-territorial leaders; allowing several private members bills to come forward regarding abortion; and presenting legislation to censor publicly-supported film projects that the government deemed morally offensive. These moves have, in turn, alienated Canadians who profess no religion, and many others who profess a more moderate and inclusive religious faith than that of religious conservatives. This is hurting Harper politically so he has taken to sending mixed messages. He promised during this campaign that he will not introduce or allow new legislation recriminalizing abortion. Following his recent ill-advised goading of the arts community, he has promised to withdraw his film censorship legislation.

If one is to believe right wing newspaper columnists and pundits, many religious conservatives feel betrayed. Rev. Alphonse de Valk, the editor of a magazine called Catholic Insight, says that Harper should be defeated in his riding and removed as Conservative party leader. David Warren, a self-described socially conservative columnist for The Ottawa Citizen, calls Harper “gutless” and predicts “there are several million electors of genuine conservative tendency who feel disenfranchised, and hesitate to vote for him even when the alternatives look worse.” This expressed disappointment could soften the social conservative and evangelical vote for the Conservatives on October 14. Religious conservatives may well conclude, however, that despite their disappointment with Harper the Conservatives remain a better option than the rest.

Churches that belong to KAIROS, an ecumenical social justice coalition, are urging their members to focus on questions of social and economic justice. The organization has issued a four-page election resource kit that highlights poverty, aboriginal rights, peace and the environment, particularly climate change. KAIROS includes mainline Protestant churches, as well as the Catholic bishops, Quakers, the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. They easily comprise a larger group than do the evangelicals, a gentle sleeping giant if you will. KAIROS makes no partisan declarations, but a close reading of the KAIROS election kit provides little succour for the Conservatives.

It is also possible that the frightening financial crisis will cause voting shifts that had not been anticipated. Ipsos-Reid is planning an exit poll of 15,000 voters following the election on October 14 so we will soon have new information about the relationship between our religious convictions and our voting preferences. If you have any information or even educated guesses about how the religious vote is likely to play out on October 14, please write about it in the Comments section below.

By Dennis Gruending

Some Canadian churches are posing earnest but polite questions for candidates and parties in the 2008 election campaign while religious conservatives are denouncing Stephen Harper for betraying them on abortion. The statements and election kits prepared by the churches fall into three broad categories: those that focus on questions of social and economic justice; those that give precedence to issues such as abortion and euthanasia but which acknowledge other issues as well; and those that focus solely on questions such as abortion and insist that they are the only issues which really matter.

Churches that belong to KAIROS, an ecumenical social justice coalition, exemplify the first category. The organization has issued a four-page election resource kit that highlights poverty, aboriginal rights and the environment, particularly climate change. The first in a list of questions that KAIROS recommends be posed to candidates asks,  “Will your party commit to the immediate ending of subsidies to oil companies and redirect these funds to energy conservation and sustainable, renewable energy?” The second question relates to aboriginal rights: “Will your party endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and conclude treaties with Indigenous peoples that implement the rights contained in the Declaration?”

KAIROS includes mainline Protestants, including the Anglican, United and Presbyterian churches, as well as Quakers, the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) along with Development and Peace, the Catholic organization tasked with promoting international justice, represent Catholics at KAIROS. Most of the KAIROS member churches and groups have also issued their own election statements or kits.

The Catholic bishops, for example, issued a document called Federal Election 2008 Guide in which they frame the political choices that Catholics should make under the heading of “Respect for the life and dignity of the human person.” Life, they say, must be protected at all stages, “from conception to death, no matter the circumstances.” They say that, in addition to questions such as abortion and euthanasia, protecting life includes “being present to people with disabilities and those who are elderly, ill, poor or suffering; promoting peace and ending violence as a way to resolve conflicts; and encouraging policies that help people balance their family and work responsibilities.”

There is little ecumenical crossover at the national level between evangelical Christians and mainline Protestants. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) represents evangelical churches and organizations but does not belong either to KAIROS or the Canadian Council of Churches. The EFC has issued an election kit that is in some ways similar to that of the Catholic bishops, highlighting abortion but also including questions of poverty and justice. The kit also features a statement by EFC President Bruce J. Clemenger, who says: “There are a variety of important issues being debated in this election and at least one, abortion, will likely be absent as no party seems willing to dissent from the status quo.”

Clemenger’s comment signals the widespread disppointment that religious conservatives have come to feel toward Stephen Harper, who has made it clear during this campaign that he will not introduce or allow new legislation recriminalizing abortion. Perhaps the strongest denunciation of Harper has come from Rev. Alphone de Valk, the editor of a magazine called Catholic Insight. De Valk issued a news release on October 2 under the heading: “Prime Minister Harper betrays conservatives.” De Valk says that Harper should be defeated in his riding and removed as Conservative party leader.

The anti-abortion organization Campaign Life is rating the leaders based on what it calls a “party leader report card on life issues.” Harper is accorded a D, although he might take at least small solace because all other major party leaders receive an F. Campaign Life and several other organizations on the religious right, including the Canada Family Action Coalition (CFAC), have also prepared an online pamphlet called Election Guide for Serious Christians. This, of course, implies that some Christians are not serious about their faith. Charles McVety, CFAC’s president, has in past elections organized on behalf of right wing religious candidates seeking nominations for the Conservative Party. He has also led the Canadian section of a group Christians United for Israel. Brian Rushfeldt, CFAC’s executive director, says he wants churches to use the election guide as a Sunday bulletin insert and hopes that people in the pews use it as a guide to “vote the way they should.” The guide outlines five “non-negotiable issues” which it says, “should be ranked above all other issues that come up in political debate”. They include: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and same sex marriage. There is no mention of any of the social and economic justice issues raised by the churches involved in the KAIROS coalition or the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Interestingly, the EFC’s election resource kit reminds its congregations of the rule that, as charitable institutions, churches must be non-partisan. The EFC says that, “a church may not endorse a particular candidate or political party, or use its resources to support a candidate or party (even if they attend your own church).”

All of this civic activity on behalf of churches exists against a backdrop of Canadians being wary of religious involvement in politics. A national Angus Reid poll conducted in July 2008, prior to the election being called, indicated that 82 per cent of respondents consider it inappropriate for religious leaders to urge people to vote for or against a political candidate, and that 66 per cent of Canadians believe it is inappropriate for political candidates to talk about their religious beliefs as part of their campaigns.

By Dennis Gruending

Broadcaster Steve Paikan will moderate an English language election debate among the leaders of Canada’s five political parties on Thursday, October 2. He says that networks in the debate consortium settled on 10 questions to be asked. I have questions to pose about the election and I am sure that you do too. Please consider posting yours below in the Comments section found as you scroll down on this page. In that way, we can share notes and information to help us question candidates in community meetings or at the door. My first question to each of the five leaders is this: What value or principle do you hold most dear and tell us how it will help Canadians?

Question 2: Canada has been criticized by the United Nations for enduring levels of poverty among aboriginal people. Political and aboriginal leaders negotiated the Kelowna Accord in 2005 to invest approximately $5 billion into schools, housing and clean water in aboriginal communities. The Conservative government refused to honour that agreement. What will each of you do to restore that $5 billion investment in aboriginal people and their communities?

Question 3: At least 19 Canadians have now died from listeriosis after eating tainted meat products. This tragedy occurred after the government cut back on food inspections and turned much of its responsibility over to industry to police itself. One of a government’s basic responsibilities is to keep its citizens safe from harm, and that includes protecting us against being poisoned by the food that we eat. What will you do to restore the federal government’s role in keeping the food supply safe for Canadians?

Question 4: The Conservative government has chosen to provide $100 a month to parents with young children rather than proceeding with a childcare plan negotiated by the previous federal government, the provinces and territories. Parents and people who work in early childhood education say that the government’s modest tax breaks have failed and that there is an urgent need for more childcare spaces. What will you do to ensure that children can receive childcare while their parents go to work?

Question 5: Development of the tar sands has been proceeding at breakneck speed. These mega projects will create open pit mines in an area of northern Alberta equal to twice the size of New Brunswick. The projects are already polluting the river and lake systems and experts say that if they go ahead Canada cannot hope to meet even its modest commitments to reduce our levels of greenhouse gases. Peter Lougheed, the former premier of Alberta, has publicly criticized the rapid pace of development. How is it possible, if indeed it is possible, to develop the tar sands in a way that allows Canada to meet its Kyoto treaty commitments and to protect the land, air and water in Alberta?

Question 6: American economist William Nordhaus says that any politician who will not support placing a price on carbon is “not really serious and does not recognize the central message about how to slow climate change.” The Liberals and the Green Party want to introduce a carbon tax and use the money collected to reduce income and other taxes. The Conservatives oppose a carbon tax and say they will introduce intensity-based pollution targets for industry. That might slow the rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions but will still allow them to rise for many years to come. The NDP says it would tax big polluters while leaving individuals alone, and that it would use the money collected from corporations to invest in green programs and technology. The question to the Conservative and NDP leaders is this: How do you respond to the charge that by refusing to put a price on carbon consumed by everyone you are not serious about preventing climate change?

Question 7: The war in Afghanistan has now taken 100 Canadian lives with many more Afghan civilians being killed and maimed. A Liberal government sent our troops to that country and a Conservative-led government voted to keep them there. The prime minister now says our troops will come home in the year 2011 no matter what happens. The question to the prime minister is this: You used to tell Canadians that the Taliban were a direct threat to our security but now you appear to be saying that is not the case. Have 100 Canadians die for nothing?

The question to the NDP, Green and Bloc Quebecois leaders is this: You have called for the immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops. How do you respond to the fear that to withdraw immediately would lead to chaos and civil war in Afghanistan?

Question 8: A growing number of Canadians are weary of violence and war and are seeking ways to create a sustainable peace. They are lobbying the Canadian government to create a Department of Peace. The minister in charge would be responsible for creating and supporting activities that promote a culture of peace and non-violence in Canada and the world. The question to all leaders: We already have a Department of National Defence. What will you do to promote a Department of Peace?

This, obviously, is but a short list of questions that could be asked of our political leaders. Please use the Comments section below to share a question or questions that you would like to see asked of candidates during the remainder of the campaign.

By Dennis Gruending

 Jean-Claude Cardinal Turcotte has waded into Canada’s federal election campaign by returning his Order of Canada medal in protest against Dr. Henry Morgentaler’s receiving a similar award in July. Morgentaler went to prison in the 1970s for providing women with abortions in free-standing clinics and without permission from hospital abortion committees. The courts later overturned both Morgentaler’s conviction and the existing laws. Turcotte, who is also the Roman Catholic archbishop of Montreal, received his Order of Canada title in 1996. He is asking Canadians to consider the abortion question before voting in the October 14th election.

Nothing has changed recently in Canada’s abortion law or policy but some have used the Morgentaler award in an attempt to breathe new life into an old campaign. A few individuals, including B.C. priest Father Lucien Larre, have returned their medals. It occurs that, years earlier, Larre had been charged and convicted for physical assault against a teenager in a group home that he operated. There has also been a protest in front of the Governor General’s residence and individuals have signed on line petitions calling for Morgentaler’s award to be rescinded.

The precedent that the Cardinal is setting could come back to embarrass his church. The next time that a Catholic cleric receives the Order of Canada (or some other public recognition) might we expect other citizens to organize a symbolic protest against such an award because of the many cases of sexual abuse that have been prosecuted against Catholic clergy? Might we see a protest against such an award because of the church’s unwavering position that it is sinful for women to use most available means of birth control in order to plan the size of their families? It could well happen.

Turcotte made his announcement on September 11, just a few days before the Canadian Conference of Catholic bishops issued a competent but rather tepid document called Federal Election 2008 Guide – a text that is now certain to be overshadowed by the Cardinal’s action. The bishops in their document frame the political choices that Catholics should make under the heading of “Respect for the life and dignity of the human person.” Life, they say, must be protected at all stages, “from conception to death, no matter the circumstances” — and, as always, they grant the status of personhood to the embryo and fetus. Other instances of choosing life, they say, include being present to people with disabilities and those who are elderly, ill, poor or suffering; promoting peace and ending violence as a way to resolve conflicts; and encouraging policies that help people balance their family and work responsibilities. They also talk about a “preferential option for the poor”, the environment, and the war in Afghanistan, but their analysis is vague and their recommendations timid.

Regarding the war they simply say, “our country has a serious responsibility to do everything possible to encourage dialogue leading to peace.” While that is true, it sidesteps the more delicate questions of whether Canada should be in Afghanistan at all, and when we should leave. The war has now taken almost 100 Canadian lives and those of many more Afghan civilians. Even the prime minister, if one is to take him at his word, now says that Canada should not remain beyond 2011.

In December 2007, Rev. Paul Hansen, then the board chair of the ecumenical group KAIROS, accused the Canadian Catholic church of having  “abdicated its responsibility to speak about Canada’s largest military endeavour since the Korean war.”  Hansen said that Catholics sitting on the KAIROS board were not showing up at important meetings, including one discussing an ecumenical response to the panel led by former politician John Manley regarding Canada’s role in Afghanistan.

Rather than demonizing the 85-year-old Dr. Morgentaler, Cardinal Turcotte could have chosen to make a prophetic statement by returning his medal to protest against Canada’s continuing involvement in Afghanistan; or the federal government’s walking away from the previously negotiated Kelowna Accord, which would have made major investments in Aboriginal education and housing; or the government’s refusal to abide by the rulings of an environmental panels regarding mega-projects in the tar sands.

Most Canadians simply will not support the recriminalization of abortion, which is the logical result of what the Cardinal and others are demanding.  Such a move would represent an unacceptable encroachment upon the lives of individual women. Many people, however, would like to see the number of abortions reduced. The question is how best to do that in a way that does not penalize women. It would best be accomplished by pursuing a range of social and economic policies that would support women and families. This could include a higher minimum wage, better maternity and paternity benefits, improved child care and housing programs, more supportive labour legislation and any number of other initiatives. It would also be refreshing if our political leaders would, as Barack Obama has done, speak out clearly about the responsibilities of fathers in families.

Finally, on the topic of good election analysis and guides to action, I would recommend material being produced and distributed by Citizens for Public Justice, a small but engaged ecumenical organization.