Brent Rathberger: How to get kicked out of caucus

If you want to know what it's really like being a back bench MP, read today's National Post.

Former Conservative MP Brent Rathberger has written a book about his experiences working in the Harper Conservatives and his book is excerpted in: From an ex-Tory MP, confessions of a former trained seal.

Rathberger clearly shows how back bench MPs have no power whatsoever; are not actually part of the government; are not responsible for any funding that goes to their constituents; don't have to support the government position when voting; etc. Very enlightening indeed.

A few excerpts:

"In modern Canadian party caucuses, blind loyalty is valued over constructive criticism. Such loyalty is beneficial for promoting caucus solidarity. But it has a decidedly negative effect on an individual MP’s self-esteem, and is ultimately detrimental to both democracy and to good political decision-making. 

... 

Governing-party backbenchers like to think of themselves as part of the government. They are not. Under our constitutional convention of responsible government, the executive is not composed of the legislative caucus of the governing party. The executive is the prime minister and his handpicked ministers of the Crown. Each minister heads, and is responsible for, a department of the permanent government bureaucracy. Since parliamentary secretaries (PSs) answer questions in the House when their minister is absent and are frequently dispatched to the cable political news shows to defend the government, PSs must, by extension, be deemed to be part of the executive/government. However, the rest of the legislative caucus of the governing party (i.e. the backbenchers) isn’t part of the government. As MPs, their role should be to serve their constituents by holding the government to account. In theory, this could involve occasionally voting against the government. 

The government — i.e., the ministers and parliamentary secretaries — are bound by what is known as “two-line whips” (instructions from party leadership) during votes. But backbenchers, at least theoretically, are supposed to be allowed to vote independently on all but “three-line whips” (such as confidence votes). 

The convention of cabinet solidarity requires that a minister (or parliamentary secretary) must always support the government position when voting, or in public, or resign from his or her position. No similar doctrine of caucus solidarity exists — but in recent years, an imposed one has been evolving. 

I am always amused when Conservative backbenchers refer to “our government.” As noted above, that’s inaccurate. However, sitting in the Commons, one frequently hears a member’s statement that begins, “Mr. Speaker, our government’s number-one priority is such and such.” Equally common are planted questions, delivered during Question Period, that begin with the same premise. A question such as, “Can the Minister of Finance comment on our government’s recent positive employment statistics?” is founded on the same false premise: that a backbench MP from the governing party is part of the government.
... 

The idea of being part of a team is stressed at weekly caucus meetings. Every caucus meeting begins and ends with an address by the leader. The opening comments usually are mundane. However, the closing comments, which are akin to a half-time locker-room pep talk, would make a college football coach proud. After summarizing the government’s record, Stephen Harper will close a Wednesday caucus meeting with a Knute Rockne-esque speech full of platitudes such as: “Now let’s go back to our ridings this weekend and remind Canadians that we are the only ones they trust to man- age the economy; and that we are the only party with ideas for the economic growth and crime prevention that Canadians want and deserve.” 

In the Spring of 2013, Chief Government Whip Gordon O’Conner took the team analogy to new and disturbing limits. Langley MP Mark Warawa wished to deliver a statement in the House of Commons, expressing his disappointment that his private member’s motion condemning sex-selective abortion would not be allowed to proceed to a debate. O’Connor justified denying Warawa the opportunity to speak in the House by stating that the caucus was a team and that he was the coach. As coach, he argued, he had the unfettered discretion to determine who gets to “play.” 

The problem is that governing a country is not a game. The stakes are much too high and the outcomes too important to trivialize through sports analogies. 

The sad reality is that government advisors too frequently evaluate any initiative in terms of partisan objectives, rather than policy outcomes. Governing has to be more important than just notional winning; it ought to be about achieving effective outcomes for Canadians. 

The Speaker’s ruling on the Warawa matter confirmed that only the Speaker, not the whip, ultimately gets to determine who is allowed to speak in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, the reality is that backbenchers continue to allow themselves to be ruled by the government. Indeed, there rarely are any occasions when the government needs to worry about restraining its backbench MPs — the members restrain themselves." 

Rathberger's full excerpt is well worth the read. I bet the book is even better. I'd love to know what Stephen Harper thinks of this book.

98% of Canadians supported Motion 312

My latest ATIP to the Privy Council Office revealed that Motion 312 had 98% support from Canadians who wrote to the Prime Minister.

That is, 1033 of the 1054 letters, written to Stephen Harper, supported Stephen Woodworth's Motion which:

"asked that a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. 91 members showed support for the bill asking that the special committee be appointed. Unfortunately, 203 members voted against the appointment of the special committee."

Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 had 97% support
Mark Warawa's Motion 408 had 99.7% support

Once again, we see a Prime Minister completely out of step with the Canadian public he supposedly serves.

Back as far as 2001 we had politicians playing the run-away-from-anything-relating-to-abortion game, when Alberta Premier Ralph Klein did it:

"Discussing the possibility of defunding abortion, Klein said in a press conference that “The chances, I believe, are slim and none.” The Edmonton Sun reported that when pressed on whether the issue was open to debate, Klein said, “No, it’s not. Not at all. No. Full stop.” In the legislature, Klein went further, saying “My position is that this is a matter between a woman, her doctor and her God.”

Now it's almost all politicians who play this game. Apparently there's not a backbone in the lot of them.
 
So what is it exactly is going on here? Is it that our fearless leader Mr. Harper is in fact fearful of a very tiny minority of pro-abortion extremists? Or is it that Mr. Harper is simply the de facto pro-choice leader in Canada?

Why we need Motion 490

I think the timing of Maurice Vellacott's Motion 490 is perfect.

M-490 would change the votability process for Private Members' Business through amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

Mr. Vellacott wrote this in his backgrounder on Motion 490:

Examples of how the current votability determination process has failed  

The most recent and obvious example was Mark Warawa's Motion 408 in 2013. Mr. Warawa appealed the PMB Subcommittee's non-votability ruling to the PROC committee. The members of PROC, which upheld the subcommittee's decision, conducted their deliberations behind closed doors--even MPs who had attended the meeting as observers were told to leave.

I have been compiling the results of my most recent ATIP to the PCO on that very Motion of Mr. Warawa's.

I had asked for all correspondence from the public and from the media, to Prime Minister Harper, regarding Mark Warawa's motion 408.

In other words, I was looking to see how much support there was for Motion 408.

What I learned, was that the Prime Minister received a total of 699 individual emails/letters. Of these 699 letters, there were only two letters against the motion.

That's two letters against the motion. 2 letters. Two letters. T-W-O letters.

Without putting too fine a point on it (pun intended), that means that only point three percent (.3%) of Canadians were against Motion 408.

In one of that large number of against-the-motion letters, the letter writer simply provided the Prime Minister with some of Joyce Arthur's usual pro-abortion nonsense on the subject.

Letter #1:

The second against-the-motion correspondence, is listed below, and includes the letter writer's original email. Then the PM's response. Then the writer's additional response to the PM's response.

Letter #2:

Dear Prime Minister Harper and Minister Ambrose:

Just one day after Minister Ambrose finally acknowledged that the majority of Canadians have no interest in debating abortion, the Canadian Press is reporting that (text blacked out) used House of Commons letterhead to request that the RCMP investigate any abortions performed after 19 weeks in Canada as possible homicides.

Not only do these MPs pretend ignorance of Section 223 of the Criminal Code, which excludes a fetus from the definition of human being in relation to homicide law, they implicitly challenge the constitutionally protected right and freedom of women to choose to have safe, legal abortions.

I note, too, that House of Commons time has been taken up with numerous anti-abortion petitions since the defeat of Motion 312, and that, if legislative experience in the U.S. on the matter of a ban of sex-selective abortion serves as an indicator, more time will be taken up in defeating the equally unwanted Motion 408.

When will the government shut down the useless and tremendously costly anti-abortion lobbying such as (text blacked out) currently wallow in? 

I look forward to your response.

The PMO responded with this:

Please know that your e-mail message has been received in the Prime Minister's Office and that your comments have been noted. Our office always welcomes hearing from correspondents and being made aware of their views.  

Thank you for writing.  

Sachez que le Cabinet du Premier ministre a bien reru votre courriel et que nous avons pris bonne note de vos commentaires. Nous aimons titre bien infonnes de ('opinion des correspondants.  

Je vous remercie d'avoir ecrit au Premier ministre.

To which the outraged letter writer responded:

Excuse me, I asked the Prime Minister to respond to my question: When will the government shut down the useless and tremendously costly anti-abortion lobbying such as (text blacked out) currently wallow in? He has not responded. Will he kindly respond?

So like Bill C-510, nearly all Canadians who wrote the Prime Minister on M-408 (99.7%), supported it. (Rod Bruinooge's Bill C-510 had 97% support)

So why doesn't the Prime Minister listen to the majority of Canadians? Why is he instead listening to only two Canadians? Is this the kind of people Mr. Harper is getting his advice from?

If it is, then I think Mr. Vellacott's newest Motion is just the thing we need.

Federal Conservatives don't support all conservatives

Rex Murphy talked about 2013 and how Prime Minister Stephen Harper reacted to the senate scandal:

"As always in a crisis, Mr. Harper drew up the drawbridge and retreated to the fortress, i.e., his political base. There is a genuine hardcore of Conservative followers who will stay with the party however dark the clouds; and when in difficulty, Mr. Harper tends to them and them only. (The Liberals and NDP both can claim a similar core of diehards.) But in Mr. Harper’s case, the power of the Senate scandal was such as to detach even some from this otherwise unshakeable support group."

Here is my response to this in a letter in today's National Post:

I used to be a ‘hard-core conservative’

Re: For Harper’s Conservatives, 2013 Was All About The Senate Scandal, Rex Murphy, Dec. 27.

Rex Murphy talks about “genuine hard-core of Conservative followers.” That was me — up to the point when Stephen Harper made the decision to become pro-choice.

I had a glimmer of hope back in November when the Conservatives had their policy convention and finally condemned sex-selection abortion. Yet afterwards, we saw no real action on this practice. It also appeared to be a somewhat disingenuous move, since it didn’t jibe with MP Mark Warawa’s own motion on the same subject. [This motion was deemed non-votable because it was supposedly outside of federal jurisdiction. So how could it be legitimate for a federal party to condemn the practice, but outside of Parliament's jurisdiction to condemn the practice?]

As well, the Conservatives also supported the Unborn Victims of Crime policy resolution at the 2008 Conservative policy convention. Yet, five years later, that support still has not translated into any kind of policy, bill, or motion.

I will have to see some pretty hard-core changes in the leadership of the Conservative party before the next election in order to vote Conservative again. As it stands now, if the government continues to support the status quo on abortion (i.e., a pro-abortion position) and/or Mr. Harper remains leader, I could not in good conscience vote Conservative. And I’m pretty sure I won’t be the only hard-core Conservative who chooses to move away from the Conservatives.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

Conservative policy convention - But what does it mean?

This week I received an email from Minister Jason Kenney. It came with a link to an article in the Calgary Sun regarding the recent Conservative Party's policy convention in Calgary.

After reading the article, I replied to the Minister with this email.

Dear Minister Kenney,

 

I was guardedly happy to hear that the Conservative grass roots delegates have voted on two pro-life initiatives, condemning sex selection abortion and euthanasia.

This is welcome news. I have a couple of questions that I would really appreciate if you could answer for me.

What I would like to know now is, how will your government respond to these issues, in particular the condemning of sex-selection abortion? It is encouraging that the delegates condemn the practice, but condemning sex-selection abortion as a policy of the Conservative party is one thing, but action taken by Prime Minister Harper and the government, in Parliament, is another one entirely.

And how does this jibe with Mark Warawa's own motion on the same subject, a motion that was deemed non-votable because it was outside of federal jurisdiction (supposedly because it was under provincial jurisdiction)? That is, why is it legitimate for a federal party to condemn the practice, but outside of Parliament's jurisdiction to condemn the practice?

The Conservative base has spoken on sex-selection abortion. However, they also supported the Unborn Victims of Crime policy resolution at the 2008 Conservative policy convention. Yet, five years later, that support still has not translated into any kind of policy, bill, or motion. With all due respect, Mr. Kenney, if the Conservative base speaks in such a clear way on something as important as this, but that never actually translates into concrete action by the Conservative government, I don't see why I would get excited about it.

I must be very honest with you. I really need to see some changes in the value system of the leadership of the Conservative party before the next election. As it stands now, and if, the Conservative government continues to support the status quo on abortion (i.e. if it maintains its pro-abortion position) and/or Mr. Harper remains leader, I could not in good conscience vote Conservative. I would probably vote for the Christian Heritage party since I couldn't vote NDP or Liberal.

Mr. Kenney the lack of any real pro-life initiatives coming from the Conservatives is very troubling for me and for many other social conservatives in this fine country. I believe this really is becoming a conscience issue for many of us.

I sincerely hope that we will all see some real substantial changes in this regard before the next election.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to respond to the questions/concerns I have raised.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Maybe the Conservatives are finally getting a grip

It seems the rank and file Conservatives have some pretty good heads on their shoulders at this weekend's Tory convention.

"A motion condemning sex-selective abortion passed with overwhelming support among delegates. Earlier this year, a group of Conservative MPs kept a similar controversial motion from reaching the Commons. "Right now in the world there are over 200 million missing girls because of the practice of using ultrasounds to find out if its a boy or girl," said Vancouver-area MP Mark Warawa. "Girls have equal value as boys, we should not be discriminating against them in any form."There was a closer vote on a policy that "the Conservative Party will not support any legislation to legalize euthanasia or assisted suicide." It ultimately passed, but one delegate from Nova Scotia encouraged delegates to put themselves in the shoes of a person dying in pain who can't find palliative care."

So what was all the fuss about last year, when Stephen Harper, Joyce Arthur and the rest of the pro-abortion crowd all went hairy ape over Mark Warawa's motion against sex-selection? Seems their pathetic attempts at intimidation didn't stand the test of reason, morality, or logic. In short, they're talking through their ears.

Maybe Mr. Harper will finally listen up, and heed what his grass root members are so very clearly telling him. Because many of us, myself included, may not vote Conservative next time. First we need to see more changes in Conservative policy/laws on life issues.

A big part of the Tory base is Social Conservative. We've already been fooled into thinking we'd see some support for life "once the Conservatives got elected". It didn't happen. Then again , "once we got a majority". It didn't happen. You can fool us once or twice, but I wouldn't hedge my bets on round three.

We're watching. And waiting.

Pro-life and freedom of speech win

I think an important result of Parliamentary Speaker Andrew Scheer's ruling this week has been the civics lesson learned. It taught us how our Parliamentary system is supposed to work, but hasn't been:
"Andrew Scheer, the Speaker of the House of Commons, has made a potentially landmark ruling on MPs’ freedom of speech that could stem the flow of power from the backbench to party hierarchies, in defiance of the wishes his party leader, Stephen Harper...the Speaker brought down his ruling on the breach of privilege issue involving MP Mark Warawa’s right to talk about sex-selective abortion in a members’ statement."

I had never really understood that our MPs ability to freely speak up in the House of Commons, didn't actually exist. I had always thought they were free to speak--until this happened. I learned that it was actually the party whips who were controlling MP's ability to speak. Unlike the Parliamentary system in the UK, where MPs can speak freely, (as long as they stand up and are recognized by the Speaker) our MPs could not.

Our practice had begun when Speaker Jeanne Sauve started asking for lists of MP names from the parties, since she apparently couldn't remember the names of the MPs and their ridings. Seemed to make sense at the time, until the implications of that practice were fully realized with Mark Warawa's Motion.

For instance Maurice Vellacott, an outspoken pro-life advocate only spoke twice, while Quebec MP Jacques Gourde spoke 35 times in the House:
"Mr. Scheer "acknowledged that members who complain they are rarely on their party’s list have a “legitimate concern.” An analysis of members’ statements, for example, suggests that 10% of Conservative backbenchers delivered 28% of the members’ statements in the last year, with Quebec MP Jacques Gourde giving 35 statements (mostly pushing party messages) and Saskatchewan MP Maurice Vellacott delivering just two."

Justin Trudeau's then brought forward his own free speech Motion:
"That is why we are tabling this motion to open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities.”

But it looks like this motion was purely for political reasons. While it seems like his Motion was about free speech, Mr. Trudeau had also stated to a CBC reporter that he was:
"Committed to giving MPs more freedom to represent Canadians, but MPs would be required to support Canadians’ fundamental rights. For me, a woman's right to choose is a fundamental right."

This sounds like his motion would exclude any abortion talk. I sent Mr. Trudeau an email asking him to "clarify for me whether or not, you would allow an MP to use their Member Statement (SO31) to speak out against abortion?"

Because, if Mr. Trudeau really believes that abortion is a constitutional right (which of course it isn't), then he must be excluding it from his free speech motion, right? Since he still hasn't replied to me, I can only conclude that abortion would be excluded. He can certainly correct me if I'm wrong.

The can't-talk-about-abortion-virus started with Mr. Harper, then spread into Parliament, then into most of the mainstream media, then into our democratic practices, then all the way over into one of the most right wing talk show hosts in this country, Lowell Green. Even Mr. Green won't let listeners discuss abortion on his show. We know the can't-talk-about-abortion-virus must be pretty deadly when Mr. Green--the man who says listeners can speak on any topic--won't allow abortion discussion.

The abortion debate is important yes, but freedom of speech is fundamental to its ultimate success. On this we have scored an important win.

If Mr. Harper hadn't insisted on not letting Mr. Warawa speak, none of this would have happened, and Mr. Harper's iron fist squeeze on MPs ability to speak freely would have been maintained. As it is, we learned a valuable civics lesson by all the attention Mr. Warawa's Motion has inspired and the resulting ruling by the Speaker.

We must thank Mr. Scheer for his principled ruling. And a very special thank you to Mr. Harper for making it all possible.

To the Prime Minister: the flowers are coming

Gotta love that Brad Trost:
“We should send a big bouquet of roses straight over to PMO. If they want to keep this issue quiet, they’ve done anything but.”

Gotta love that PMO:
"The Prime Minister’s Office wouldn’t comment on Trost’s remarks specifically. “That being said, the Prime Minister has always been clear the government will not reopen this debate,” said spokesman Carl Vallee."

The Prime Minister. Has always. Been clear. The Government. Will not. Reopen. This. Debate.

No shaving cream. Sherlock. Tell me something. I didn't know? If you'd only let. Mark's Motion. Be debated. In Parliament. The debate. Would. Be closed. Now. But you didn't. So the debate. Continues. In the media. And everywhere. Even the Liberals. Are debating it. In Parliament. Yesterday. With you. Or without you. Mr. Harper. Even the Globe. Is debating it. Imagine that. Well thank you. Anyway. Mr. Harper. For allowing. The debate. To be open. We couldn't have. Done it. Without you.

The Prime Minister. Has always. Been clear. The Government. Will not. Reopen. This. Debate.

Liberal strategy - have a good weekend Mr. Harper

Well well well. Maybe Justin Trudeau isn't just another pretty hair-do. Seems like he's pulled a pretty big rabbit out of his hat.

Check this out from the Liberal's website:

Liberals to Introduce Motion to Give all MPs a Greater Voice For Their Communities in the House of Commons

Posted on April 19, 2013

MONTREAL– The Liberal Party will launch a debate in the House of Commons next week to help make Parliament more democratic and more representative of Canadians and their priorities, said Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau today.

“Members of Parliament from all parties should be community leaders, free to share the priorities and express the views of those they represent,” said Mr. Trudeau. “That is why we are tabling this motion to open up Parliament and allow all MPs to speak freely on behalf of their communities.”

The Liberal Opposition Day motion, to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons on Monday, would change House of Commons rules to ensure that every MP has an equal opportunity to raise issues of importance to their communities. Currently, that process is controlled by party leadership, which decides who will speak and on what issues.

“Canadians must have confidence that the candidates they elect will represent their views in Ottawa, not Ottawa’s views to them,” said Mr. Trudeau. “Our motion is a strong step in the right direction and we hope that all Members of Parliament, regardless of party, will agree to support it.”

Background:

The Liberal Opposition Day motion is as follows:

That Standing Order 31 be amended by adding the following:

(1) The Speaker shall recognize Members in alphabetical order by Party. For the purposes of this Standing Order, all Members who do not belong to a recognized party shall be grouped together.

(2) When a Member is unable to present his or her statement on the date required by Standing Order 31(1), he or she may indicate in writing to the Speaker at least one hour prior to the beginning of Statement by Members, the name of the Member with whom he or she will exchange position.

Not only will the Conservatives not let us discuss abortion, they don't seem overly fond of freedom of speech either. It was one thing when Mr. Harper's threw social Conservatives under the bus--driving over us a few times for good measure--when he killed Motion 408.

But he did all of this in OUR Parliament. He somehow thought it was HIS Parliament. Imagine that?

We know that the Liberals are pro-choice, but no more pro-choice than Mr. Harper. Yet now we find out that the Liberals seem to be pro-freedom-of-speech.

Well if I had to "choose" between the Liberals and the Conservatives right now, guess which party it would be Mr. Harper?

Pretty smooth move, Mr. Trudeau. Great manoeuvre on a Friday. Bet Mr. Harper's having fits right now.

Oh well, you reap what you sow I always say.

"I do not work for the Prime Minister's Office"

Tory MP seeks more freedom on the Hill

Edmonton's Brent Rathgeber gives us a back bench primer on democracy.

He is one of the 10 Conservatives who has asked the Speaker to look at the recent democratic lock-down on Parliament Hill.

Here is some of what he said as reported by the Ottawa Citizen:

Q. What's the role of an MP, and how do you balance that role with the responsibilities to party?

The role of the MP is to represent his or her constituents in the Parliament of Canada. However, we are elected under party banners. So you owe a significant loyalty with respect to the party and the party leader under whose banner you ran. It's a difficult compromise.

Q. Does that necessarily mean that caucus always has to speak with one voice?

I don't believe so. It's a moving line and a constant struggle of tug of war. I'm elected as a Conservative member of Parliament. My constituents expect me to support the prime minister and the cabinet. I don't have a problem doing that. Confidence motions, budgets, throne speeches - anything that could compromise the ability of the government to have the confidence of the House and therefore govern, I have an absolute obligation to support the government.

With respect to private members' business, I think it's a very different set of considerations.

Q. You've written that the last thing a government needs is sycophants and yes-men.

Well, absolutely. Different members of Parliament view their role here differently. There are those who believe an appropriate role for a backbench member of the government caucus is to be part of the communication machinery of the government. To use the talking points.

Q. When you write in your blog, have you ever had the PMO come down on you?

In the early days, individuals from Langevin (the building that houses PMO staff) - very, very junior individuals - would call me and suggest that they should become the editor of my writing. And although I was flattered that they wanted to become involved in my project, I was not convinced that that was going to be a workable relationship.

Q. How polite were you in telling them it was none of their business?

I was diplomatic. I think anybody who understands the Canadian Constitution knows that I do not work for the Prime Minister's Office. I am not a member of the prime minister's staff. I am a member of Parliament.

Q. Do you consider yourself a rogue member?

Not at all. In fact, quite the opposite. I don't believe I am the rogue at all. I am standing up and acting the way parliamentarians have acted for 800 years. They represent their constituents and they hold government to account. Loyal to this government, but not a simple yes-man.

I absolutely dispute the notion that constructive criticism of the government is somehow equivalent of rogueism.

Being a constructive critic of the government leads to better legislation, whereas a yes-man or a sycophant will continue to cheer blindly on the advent of imminent policy derailment.

Q. Is Parliament turning into bad theatre?

With more and more reliance on talking points and speeches written by someone else, you are seeing bad theatre where people are just reading their lines as opposed to actually debating.

It's no different than a play or a movie. You have a series of writers who write the lines and a series of actors who go into the House and read the lines. All parties are doing it. And that's not what Parliament was intended to be.

Dear Prime Minister's Office,

Are you paying attention? What's happening is not the way Parliament is supposed to be. Our Honourable Members do not work for you. They work for us. It's not really that difficult to understand. Okay?

Thanks for listening and looking forward to the necessary changes soon. How about tomorrow? Does that work for you?

Sincerely...

Love and power are incompatible

This excerpt is from Chapter 8, called The right to be born from Dr. Donald De Marco's book Abortion in perspective published in 1974.

In this chapter, Dr. De Marco is talking about how the powerful thwart the rights of the unborn. I couldn't help but see the parallels to the passage below, and to what happened in Parliament these past weeks, with MP Mark Warawa's motion being killed. A huge blow to the democratic process and to our yet to be born citizens.

There is a lot of raw power at the top level in our Government. I think this passage speaks to that power:
"...but the human foetus, not possessing asserting might, clings precariously to his long awaited, slow-brought existence by the tenuous cord of his parents' will.

Here the cosmic paradox is complete. Lifeless matter and unorganized energy from obscure reaches of the universe have collaborated in the most unimaginably complex ways through endless epochs to deliver man to the very threshhold of birth - only to have his advent annulled because the last ingredient in his eternal prescription could not be filled. That last ingredient, seemingly the easiest, was not entrusted to the powerful universe, but to man, who, being free, can choose to negate even the being upon whose soul Time has placed a cosmic seal. Thus, man's free denial, his act of not loving, can bring to nought a lineage which began with the very dawn of creation.

The plan of the universe is not complete until it is accepted through the generosity of human love. The human foetus who awaits his birth or extinction, through affirming love or negating power, had his right to be born purchased for him at a cosmic price that extends over eternity.

Man's basic strength is his power of love. Inversely, his radical weakness is his love of power. The power of love, through affirmation, accepts the rightful course of the universe; the love of power, through negation, seeks to destroy it. The French existentialist Gabriel Marcel has remarked that all temptation may be a temptation towards power — the immoral power to control another.

'Love and power are extreme polarities in man's psychological, moral, and religious nature. They are necessarily incompatible. Love for another requires renunciation of power over him; power over another requires renunciation of love. "Where love rules," wrote Carl Jung, "there is no will to power; and where power predominates, there love is lacking. The one is the shadow of the other."

When man turns his power against other men, he regresses, reversing the course of the universe. This is what happens in abortion. Physical power is exerted over another for the purpose of "progress"; but true progress can take place only through love.

Man's faith in love and his preference for power are sharply contrasted in the abortion debate. The foetus is the most powerless of human beings and therefore the one most in need of human love. At the same time, because he is relatively undeveloped and hidden from view, he is difficult to love and easy to overpower. To condone the willful killing of an unborn human being is to accept as dogma the superiority of power over love. But if man loves, his love is the renunciation of the will to power and the affirmation of eternity."

I just received an email from Mr. Warawa's office which he sent to his supporters. He ended it with this:
"...I would like to close with the words Member of Parliament William Wilberforce sent to his supporters after his first bill was defeated in his eighteen-year campaign to abolish the slave trade through Britain’s Parliament: “I wish you… to consider yourselves not as having concluded, but as only beginning your work: it is on the general impression and feeling of the nation we must rely, rather than on the political conscience of the House of Commons. So let the flame be fanned continually, and may it please God, in whose hands are the hearts of all men, to bless our endeavors."

Amen, amen I say to you...

Motion 408: keeping the government accountable

In response to my email to Mr. Harper, I received this response from his office:

Dear Ms. Maloney:

On behalf of the Prime Minister, thank you for your correspondence of March 21 regarding Member of Parliament Mark Warawa's Private Members Motion, M-408. Please be assured that your concerns have been noted. We appreciate your input.

We understand your deeply held views on this subject. However, the decision to deem motion M-408 non-votable was made by two all-party committees.

Our Government ran and was elected on a pledge not to raise this issue. The Prime Minister has been very clear, as he was during the last election, that we have no plan to reopen this debate.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Here is my reply:

Thank you for your email.

You state that: "the decision to deem motion M-408 non-votable was made by two all-party committees."

If I am not mistaken, two members on that committee were Conservatives, were they not? Why then didn't they uphold the principles of democracy, instead of following the sheep-like lead of the other parties? It shouldn't really matter to the Conservatives what the other parties did; I hold the Conservatives to a much higher standard than the other parties, yet the Government has failed us with this breach of Parliamentary procedure.

You then say that: "Our Government ran and was elected on a pledge not to raise this issue. The Prime Minister has been very clear, as he was during the last election, that we have no plan to reopen this debate."

With all due respect, what does this have to do with the subject at hand? Mr. Warawa's motion had absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Harper's desire to not reopen the abortion debate, and everything to do with Private Member's Business. It has nothing to do with Government business at all, and to imply otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Please ask the Prime Minister to honour our Canadian democratic principles, and to allow Mr. Warawa's Motion to proceed in a manner that upholds the integrity Canadians expect from their Government.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Freedom of speech: winners win, losers suppress

George Jonas is not talking specifically about abortion in this article; rather about freedom of speech issues at Queen's University.

Yet his comments are applicable to the abortion debate in general, and in particular, to what happened recently with Mark Warawa's Motion 408 being killed two weeks ago.

All of Parliament went into top-down, lock-down mode, on freedom of speech rights when this happened.

The following is the discussion Mr. Jonas had with his father:
"Assume you come upon a bitter dispute,” I remember saying to my father many years ago, “with the two sides ready to kill each other.”

“Okay,” my father said, “so far it’s easy.”

“Assume further,” I continued, “that you have no inkling what the dispute is all about, and the more people try to explain it to you, the less you understand it. How can you tell who is right?”

Father thought you couldn’t, not for sure, anyway, without understanding the issues, but you could still take a pretty shrewd guess. “See which side is trying to stop the other from speaking,” he said. “That’s the side that’s likely to be wrong.”

“Wrong to do it or wrong on the merits?”

“Both,” father said. I still remember it. It’s not foolproof, but it’s a pretty good rule of thumb. Show me someone who silences or censors another, and I’ll show you someone with a losing argument. Winners win, losers suppress — that’s how the game plays out most of the time. Except, of course, if the losers suppress successfully, the winners lose."

The politically correct pro-choicers in this country, including most MPs and the Prime Minister, don't want us to talk about abortion. They don't want us talking about abortion in Parliament. They don't want us talking about abortion in the Universities.

They don't want us talking about abortion period.

Of course that doesn't mean we won't talk about abortion. We will. They can try and suppress us but they can't. Because the pro-abortions only have losing arguments.

Private Member's Business is not Government Business

On Monday this week, Lowell Green said on his talk show on CFRA that:
"the Prime Minister campaigned that he would not reopen the abortion debate and that every single Conservative MP campaigned with that promise" because they signed up for Conservative policy.

(Listen to Lowell Green's April 1 broadcast here.)

I disagreed with Mr. Green on what he was saying. Not only did I disagree with him, but I felt he had his facts wrong and he kept arguing with at least one caller, that because the Conservative MPs had signed on to the Conservative policy, that they had no right to bring up anything related to abortion.

I sent an email to the station manager Steve Winogron (the station manager) and copied Mr. Green.

I told them the following:
"On yesterday's Lowell Green show, Lowell stated that "the Prime Minister campaigned that he would not reopen the abortion debate and that every single Conservative MP campaigned with that promise." That is not the case at all. That is categorically an untrue statement. MPs are not breaking their promises and this is very upsetting to many of us, that Lowell would say this on CFRA which has a wide audience and following. People will believe that he is correct. Lowell kept repeating that the MPs campaigned on that platform. Not true.

Individual MPs are completely within their rights to to bring forward items of Private Members Business, that is, Bills or Motions, and this has nothing to do with the government not reopening the abortion debate.

Lowell said that MPs must support Party policy, and yes, MPs do support the Party policy. And that policy since 2005 as we know, says that the Government won't bring forward abortion legislation, but it says nothing about individual MPs' Private Members Business, which are completely separate from Government bills/motions, and have absolutely nothing to do with the government. And on an item of Private Members Business, the PM is equal to any other MP, and gets one vote like any other MP.

AND the Conservative Policy also says that MPs can vote their conscience on moral issues.

It is already a freedom of expression concern, that Lowell refuses to allow callers to discuss abortion on his show. Lowell will allow any person, to discuss any topic on his show, but he won’t allow them to discuss abortion. He is following the example of the politically correct people he disdains so much, by not giving a voice to pro-life people. It’s his show and I suppose he would argue that’s his right. But at the very least he should get his facts straight about Private Members' Business.

Private Members' Business is distinct from Government Business and to blur this distinction is unfair not only to individual Members of Parliament, but to their constituents, and to democracy."

Mr. Green wasn't happy with my email in his reply to me (something about going behind his back and stabbing him), but he never bothered to address the subject of my email, which was the definition of Private Member's Business, and how that allows MP's to bring forward their own bill or motion, regardless of the party's policies.

Mr. Green has a wide following and by him giving wrong information over the air waves, a large number of people can be, and will be mislead.

Besides having his information wrong, Mr. Green won't ever allow his listeners to discuss abortion on his show (as I mentioned above). Yet he never tires of telling us that freedom of expression is always allowed on his show. Yes it is. But only if you don't say the "A" word.

So I was pleased when this morning, Mark Sutcliffe said that this issue [of Mark Warawa's motion 408 being killed] is:
"one of the most important stories this year."

Mr. Sutcliffe believes it is good to disagree on subjects. He thinks on this issue Stephen Harper is wrong [not allowing Mark Warawa's motion to go forward]. That if 92% of Canadians are against sex-selection abortion, then the discussion should not be shut down. Mr. Sutcliffe thinks Mr. Harper has done a lot of good things, but does not agree with him on this issue. He continued:
"And I don't think there's anything wrong with saying he's wrong [i.e. that Stephen Harper is wrong]. That should be part of our system. It should be possible for an MP to get up and say, I like the Prime Minister, etc...we ran on the same platform, etc. I disagree with him on this particular issue...MPs are not employees of their parties. MPs are the employees of the people who elected them."

(Listen to Mark Sutcliffe's April 3 broadcast here.)

Are you speaking for me?

Quite a lot of arrogance in this editorial in the Calgary Herald:
"Most Canadians do not agree with Langley MP Mark Warawa's views on abortion, nor his wish, and the hope of a small group of other backbench Conservative MPs, to reduce the access of Canadian women to abortion services."

This anonymous writer apparently knows that most Canadians do not agree with Mr. Warawa's views on abortion. Must be a mind reader. And a genius. Especially since 92% of Canadians are against sex-selection abortion. You'd think an editorial writer of a major Canadian newspaper would get his facts right.

Then this:
"Most Canadians believe that is a choice that should be left to individual women and their doctors. We have long agreed."

And no, we have not "long agreed" Mr. editorial writer, that the "choice" of killing unborn children should be left up to women and their doctors. Polls have told you this over and over again that we do not agree with this world view.

The writer must attend the school of the pinko lefto feminists that regurgitate this propaganda every minute of every day. The politically correct dogma of their "woman's right to choose" ideology that is neither a right nor agreed upon by the masses.

And I really wish they would finish the sentence on that little phrase but they never seem to have the courage to do so, so please allow me to do it for you:
"A woman's right to choose to deliberately end the life of another human being."

Sorry Mr. anonymous editorial writer, we don't agree now; we never have agreed; we never will agree. Sorry to burst your choice bubble.

I like that. Choice Bubble. Full of hot air.

Stephen Harper afraid of Niki Ashton

In this article in the Hill Times: PM's tight grip, PMO's 'boys in short pants' frustrating some restless Tory bacbenchers, Jessica Bruno says that:
"former deputy chief of staff to the PM says restless backbenchers are also frustrated by the caucus control of "the boys in short pants" running the PMO. "Certainly the level of control is higher even from when I was there," said Keith Beardsley in an interview with The Hill Times..."If he had let that go forward, the way the media responds—the attacks from the Niki Ashtons of the world and so on—would be that Harper’s direction is going back on abortion, he’s breaking his word”

I think Mr. Beardelsy is on to something here. Have you ever heard those noisy NDPers like Niki Asthon speak? There are many of these attack dog female MPs who always manage to link everything under the sun to Mr. Harper reopening the abortion debate. Ms. Ashton just seems to be the latest alpha female devoted to this line of work, and I think Mr. Harper doesn't like it.

Kind of ironic really, because we all know that we aren't allow to have an abortion debate in Parliament.

Below are a few examples of how this works.

Before Stephen Woodworth’s motion 312 was debated, is this exchange between Ms. Ashton and Rob Nicholson:
Niki Ashton. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would not reopen the debate on abortion. Nevertheless, that is exactly what one of his Conservative members is going to do tomorrow in the House. Canadian women have been fighting for decades for this right. Why is the Prime Minister not speaking out loudly and clearly against what his own party is trying to do here in the House?

Rob Nicholson. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the rules with respect to private members’ bills. That bill will be debated as all other private members’ bills are debated in the House, in accordance with the rules of the House. I do not see why that should be a problem for the hon. member.

Niki Ashton. Mr. Speaker, during the election and in the House the Conservative government has said that it is not going to reopen the abortion debate, but that is exactly what it is doing in this very House. While other members have done this in the past, the Prime Minister has done something to stop it. This is not the case this time. He is saying one thing in the House while through the back door he is rolling back Canadian women’s rights. Will the Prime Minister stand in the House right now and tell his party that a woman’s right to choose in Canada in 2012 is not up for negotiation?

Rob Nicholson. Mr. Speaker, the government’s position has been very clear. Unlike the NDP, we do not muzzle our members as that party now does. The bill will be debated as all private members’ bills are debated.

Notice how Ms. Ashton completely ignores Mr. Nicholson's comments about private member's business, and instead goes for Mr. Harper's abortion juggler, about him not reopening the abortion debate. (Notice the forshadowing here though with Mr. Nicholson's statement that "Unlike the NDP, we do not muzzle our members as that party now does.")

Then this here:
"We should not return to using coat hangers (or) vacuum cleaners,” NDP status of women critic Niki Ashton said during the Woodworth debate.

“This is the Conservative party’s ‘Trojan horse’ agenda. During an election and even here in the House of Commons, they tell Canadians one thing and then they win . . . a majority government and we see what they truly mean. If the prime minister didn’t want a woman’s right to choose to be debated, we wouldn’t be here tonight.”

And this one here:
"In the Commons, New Democrat MP Niki Ashton blasted Harper for allowing Tory MPs to “reopen the abortion debate” despite his own promises.

“New Democrats are the only party united that will stand up to vote for women’s equality because this is not a matter of conscience. It is a matter of rights.”

Probably the best example, is this one regarding the born alive and left to die after abortion story. Watch Niki Ashton and Maurice Velacott being interviewed by CBC. Ashton completely ignores the story being discussed, i.e. born alive babies being left to die and Mr. Velacott asking the RCMP to investigate this fact as possible murders. Ms. Ashton either has no idea what she's talking about, or she purposely ignores the born alive aspect. Then she starts in on the expected: Mr. Harper "reopening the abortion debate" and "when will the Prime Minister put a stop to this".

So why do these female MPs do it? Because they know by equating everything to abortion, Mr. Harper digs his heels in a little deeper and abracadabra mission accomplished: no abortion debate. 

Is Mr. Harper afraid of Niki Ashton? Sure looks like it. And she and her cronies win every time. They keep all protection for the unborn from ever being discussed or debated in Parliament by simply uttering the magic words that Mr. Harper is reopening the aboortion debate and can't he keep those renegade MPs quiet.

This past week we witnessed a private member's motion actually being thrown out of Parliament when Mark Warawa's motion was deemed not votable. Now the Niki Ashtons are really winning because the Conservatives are now "muzzling" their own MPs from their rights associated with private member' business...

Bet Stephen Harper didn't know he worked for Niki Ashton.

M-408 - backbenchers sit on the bench

From today's National Post

M-408: a symptom of a much bigger problem

This is what happened yesterday with Mark Warawa's motion 408:
"After forcing B.C. Conservative MP Mark Warawa to rush through a prepared statement and then announcing they had no questions for him, the MPs on the all-party committee threw him and others out of the packed room on Parliament Hill to hold their discussions in secret.

They made their decision within 15 minutes and refused to reveal it until it is reported to the Speaker of the House of Commons — potentially as early as Thursday."

This democracy debacle, that has unfolded this past week, was summed up nicely by Andrew Coyne:
"This did not begin with Warawa, in short, and it will not end here. The question is whether opposition MPs will join the fray. The shuttering of Warawa’s motion, after all, was an all-party affair: it was his motion this time, but it could be theirs next. There’s a fight worth having, here, but it isn’t Conservatives vs. Opposition, or pro-life vs. pro-choice. It’s for the freedom of all MPs against the dictates of a system that, as in no other democracy, has vested all power in the party leader."

So how did we get here anyway? I'm glad you asked that question.

First, we allowed unlimited rights to choose to kill pre-born children. Next, we allowed the prime minister to not allow us to discuss abortion. Then, we allowed NDP and Liberal MPs to complain loudly and continually, that the prime minister won't muzzle his MPs who dare bring forward pro-life bills or motions. After that, we allowed the Conservative whip to yield a big stick and enforce the prime minister's bidding.

Finally, we allowed the abortion issue to be solved once and for all, by dispensing with parliamentary procedure and MP's rights to speak for their constituents, or with their conscience, about anything remotely concerning abortion or fetal rights.

That is how we got to where we are today. This is the footprint of a supposedly democratic nation, one of the wealthiest, most educated, most tolerant nations on Earth. We have allowed ourselves to reach this point, where we are tolerant of freedom of expression in all cases, on all subjects, except when it concerns abortion or fetal rights.

We have allowed backbench MPs--who don't fall into step with their leader and his will regarding what they can, or can't do; what they can, or can't say--to be ignored, marginalized, and muzzled.

That is how we got here.

We now need to ask ourselves a question. What are we going to do about it? Do we allow this to continue, or do we take a stand? Because in the end, it's all up to us.

Update: Mr. Warawa's press release this afternoon

"Warawa disappointed with Committee’s decision
M-408 — Mr. Warawa (Langley) — That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

Ottawa, ON (March 28th, 2013) — Today, following the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs’ decision to reject Langley MP Mark Warawa’s appeal on the votability of Motion 408, Warawa stated that he is very disappointed with their decision. Warawa will announce his next step when the House returns.

“I have three options. I can accept the decision of PROC, appeal to the House, or introduce another motion or bill,” stated Warawa. “I want to make sure that I take time to consider what is best for the issue of discrimination against women and girls.”

The United Nations estimates that 200 million women and girls are missing due to gendercide, and stated: “Renewed and concerted efforts are needed by governments and civil society to address the deeply rooted gender discrimination which lies at the heart of sex selection.”

“92% of Canadians want the practice of sex selection condemned,” said Warawa. “I need time to consider how best to move this issue forward.”

Mr. Warawa must make his decision by April 19th."

I have a pretty good feeling this isn't the end of this.

Abortion - the third rail of politics - touch it and you’re dead

Margaret Somerville asks us some very important questions today in her article on Why we should talk about sex-selection abortion and what is happening in our Parliament.

Here is part of what Dr. Somerville had to say:

"...Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not want any discussion of abortion, in his case, in Parliament. He had stated that the government would not support Motion 408. But was he speaking of “his,” “our,” or “the” government? The differences among these qualifying words can convey different messages.

“His” government strongly indicates Harper will tell members of cabinet and, sometimes, perhaps, all Conservative MPs, how to vote. “Our” government could mean the cabinet or the Conservative caucus decides the stance to be taken, or it could refer to Canadians and mean that MPs should pay at least some attention to how their constituents would want them to vote.

“The” government is less ambiguous — it’s the Canadian government, and, in a representative democracy, MPs should pay at least some attention to how their constituents would want them to vote.

We know that most Canadians abhor discrimination against girls and women and that 92 per cent of Canadians believe that sex-selective abortion is wrong and should not occur in Canada. So why wouldn’t the government support this motion, and would even, keeping in mind that Harper said it was “unfortunate” that Motion 312 had not been found non-unvotable, possibly go so far as to prevent discussion of it?

The short answer is that, yet again, they don’t want to touch the third rail of politics — touch it and you’re dead: abortion.

...And Ambrose’s excuse that she will vote against Motion 408 “only because it has been set up that way” — that is, is connected with abortion — doesn’t make sense. It’s not possible to discuss a motion on sex-selective abortion or vote on it, whether for or against, without mentioning abortion.

Just earlier this month, Harper strongly condemned violence and discrimination against women in his press release statement for International Women’s Day. Yet he is not prepared to vote against sex-selective abortion, and is prepared to force other cabinet ministers not to do so, regardless of their conscientious beliefs in this regard.

It’s true that recognizing sex-selective abortion as an instance of discrimination against women might sensitize more of us to the violence that all abortion involves. But not being able to face the reality of what is involved in abortion can be a warning from our moral intuitions that what we are doing is unethical, and it can result in our suppressing an emotional response to abortion that we would ignore at our ethical peril.

And a final question: To what extent is a failure to condemn sex-selective abortion, when confronted with the question as a lawmaker, or taking steps to prevent it being discussed, a passive endorsement of it?

I would answer Dr. Somerville's last question, by saying that if you fail to condemn sex-selection abortion, it's far worse than passive endorsement. Your refusal to discuss the subject, tells us all we need to know.

Democracy is not a sport

Well well well. Mr. Harper is facing some opposition to his Captain Universe and Supreme commander Persona (CUSP).

Some of his MPs are speaking out that their democratic rights are being thwarted. Mr. Mark Warawa, Mr. Leon Benoit and Mr. Rod Bruinooge aren't happy Commandees. No siree.

And lo and behold we even have Green Party leader Elizabeth May, lone Commander of a party of one, speaking out for, you guessed it, that pesky D word: DEMOCRACY.

Read what Government whip Mr. Gordon O'Connor, had to say about Mr. Warawa's complaint regarding Motion 408, and Ms. May's excellent reply:
"...However, Government whip Gordon O’Connor urged the Speaker to reject Warawa’s complaint, arguing that it’s up to each party to determine which of their MPs will be given a chance to speak.

“Put simply, this is a team activity and your role is referee,” he told Scheer.

“It is not your job as referee to tell the coach or manager which player to play at any given time. That is a question for each team to decide.”

But Green party Leader Elizabeth May said that analogy “cuts to the core of what is wrong with parliamentary democracy,” suggesting MPs “are here as teams, as brands or colours and we are all to take instructions from our team boss.”

“We are not here as teams,” May said. “The principle of Westminster parliamentary democracy is that we are here as representatives of our constituencies and our constituents.”

Noting that political parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution, May added: “They are not an essential part of our democracy. They have grown to be seen as the most interesting thing going on and we have grown to see politics as some sort of sport.

“However, democracy is not a sport.”

Go Lizzie go. You tell Mr. Whipper Snipper.

Interesting turn of events here. I wonder what the future may hold.

I've heard a lot of grumbling from the wee teeny tiny comandees (that's you and me, and we don't even get a CAP on the C because we don't usually count for too much if anything at all). And these little ittty bitty comandees are telling me that they won't vote for Mr. Harper next election time (neither will I as I've said before).

So...maybe we need to start a "Don't vote for Harper" next time we hit the ballot boxes with our puny little X's. Or maybe an "Anything BUT Harper" campaign.

Who knows. Maybe the Green Queen herself might give the CUSP a run for his democracy. Just saying.