By Rick Hiebert. All Rights Reserved. Used By Permission
A story just posted on the Vancouver Sun website, may make pro-choice supporters think that stopping motions by pro-life MPs in the House of Commons is not unlike getting Rasputin to die.
The Vancouver Sun’s news story, in which pro-lifers explain that they feel emboldened after getting over 90 MPs to vote for motion M-312, starts like this:
“A second Conservative MP plans to introduce a motion related to abortion, despite this week’s defeat of an attempt by one of his colleagues to prod Parliament into examining when human life begins.
[B.C.] Conservative MP Mark Warawa’s motion would ask Parliament to condemn the practice of sex-selective abortion.
Anti-abortion MPs immediately claimed the proposal as a sign they are not going away, though Warawa said his motion was in no way related to a vote earlier this week on when life begins, a motion brought by fellow Tory Stephen Woodworth and defeated late Wednesday…..”
A wild thought…are pro-life MPs hoping to get other MPs on the record with their votes in case there is someday an explicitly pro-life Reform Party 2.0? Will they cross the floor to run against pro-choice Tory MPs?
One thing I think I can guess… motion M-312 was set up to allow pro-lifers to get a Parliamentary committee to talk about what, if any- abortion laws Canada may need. They sought to argue, in part, “Canada needs to at least have a discussion about the issue.”
Now, with the issue of abortions which are [allegedly] designed to ensure that a child of the “wrong” sex is not born, the rhetoric will be kicked up a notch.
We’ll hear “How, for goodness sake, can you not condemn these types of abortions?” in the House of Commons.
Or “How, for goodness sake, Mr. Harper, can you not let us go on the record as opposing this?”
Mr. Harper, if he is as tired of abortion as pundits think he is, might have to start kicking pro-life MPs out of his caucus…
To explain my analogy, the men trying to kill Rasputin did several things to try and kill him, any one of which should have quickly killed him. IIRC, he was poisoned and then shot and then thrown into a freezing river.
Seeking to just handicap this, as I’ve noted before
Warawa, IIRC, is MP for the Vancouver suburb of Langley.
Maclean’s has his one sentence motion here:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/27/the-next-fight/
You might not need a Reform 2.0 to have that work; if I recall the Canadian system, riding associations get to pick their candidates. If there is a SoCon majority in a riding, a candidate voting the wrong way could get “primaried” (to use a US term) and voted out by the “riding ass.”
It also puts MPs from the other parties in a slightly awkward spot. Sex-selective abortion would be a woman’s issue if you’re not staunchly pro-abortion-rights, since it (with a slight tad of hyperbole) is a war on girls. I’m not sure whether this issue will scare off more Tory-leaning pro-choicers or reel in some red/orange leaners who thank heaven for little girls, even the really little ones. Abortion as a whole seems to be problematic for those swing voters, but sex-selection abortion might skew the Tories way if played well (don’t count on that from the Sherman tanks in the SoCon ranks).
Warawa’s motion is numbered M-408.
On reflection, Warawa could make use of this motion…if everyone decides it is a “motherhood” motion and supports it, he could say “I’m glad you feel that way, so obviously, you will support this…” He then would present a further motion the “Banning Sex-Selection Abortions Act” and say something like “Well surely since you think these abortions are so bad, you will vote to ban them, of course…”
Mark—There has been a past Canadian parctice to refuse a candidate. I recall back in the 1970s, 80s, the then Progressive Conservatives had a candidate running in the Maritimes who opposed official bilingualism. The PC leader, Joe Clark?, kiboshed him by, as leader, refusing the sign the papers certifying his offocial candidacy, his “nomination papers.”.
With the new Conservative party, I don’t know if Harper has this option any more, or whether he can unilaterally kick someone out of caucus without a majority vote of his MPs. And seeing that 87 or so Tories voted for M 312, I think that Warawa would have to do something really really bad to be asked to leave.
Not that he should be kicked out of caucus, of course. Far from it. I’m just wondering if Harper could do something like that and how, whether he could prevent him from running for the party, etc.
I have cases where the national party has forced a candidate on a riding on occasion; that’s often the case if you have a new party leader who doesn’t have a seat and gets shoe-horned into the next by-election seat. I also recall when Michael Ignatieff got first elected, he was shoved down the throat of the riding association by Liberal HQ. However, with the exception of such “star candidates”, the party doesn’t often pull rank.
Mr Harper is going with his gut feel about what the majority of Canadians think and where they believe the priorities should be.
He is no doubt taking a very hard look at the recent Alberta election. Wildrose, despite the polling results, did not do well. This was attributable to the publics rejection of a specific soon candidate and the the leader’s failure to rejec or even distance herself from these beliefs.
Mr Harper is first and foremost a politician. His first three priorities are to get elected, to take care of those who helped him get elected, and to get re-elected.
The Reform Party had reached it’s zenith and was going no where prior to it’s merger with the Tory party. It had the same challenges as the Republican Party in the US.