MPs who oppose abortion and want to see legislated limits for it are pushing back against caucus discipline, particularly in light of an all-party committee shutting down debate last week on a non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion.
But they aren't the only ones upset with heavy-handed tactics on the part of the Conservative leadership. That frustration boiled over Tuesday in the House of Commons, leading several MPs to raise public complaints about a party that has so far maintained strict control over what its members can say.
"There has been predominantly informal discussion about what is, or what is not, our rights, and MPs have to decide what's wrong and what's right, and what our rights are," said one Conservative MP, who requested anonymity.
A series of tactics seem to have led to the rebellion, including PMO staff denying MPs the right to make statements in the House of Commons, and a move by a three-member subcommittee to deny a Conservative MP the right to bring a non-binding motion on sex-selective abortion to the floor of the House for debate.
Last week, the subcommittee of the Procedure and House affairs committee voted that Mark Warawa's motion — "That the House condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination" — was non-voteable, or ineligible to go before the House for debate and a vote. The MPs, including a Conservative MP, made the decision against the advice of a non-partisan Library of Parliament analyst.
Warawa tabled M-408 last September and was expecting to be able to debate it this spring. Motions aren't binding on the House of Commons even if they pass, unless they cover matters falling under House authority.
There are only a handful of reasons why a bill or motion can be disqualified before it hits the floor of the House, including:
Falling outside federal jurisdiction.
Clearly violating the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Doubling up on business already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.
Doubling up on business already put forward by the government.
On Tuesday, Warawa raised a question of privilege in the House of Commons, asking the Speaker to clarify whether members have the right to make statements on issues of their choice. House rules, or standing orders, provide for 15 members every day to make one-minute statements before question period, known as SO-31s.
'Should be concern' to opposition too
Warawa said in the House Tuesday that he was removed from the list of SO-31s 15 minutes before the time for members' statements was due to start.
"The reason I was given was they didn't approve of the topic," he said.
"So I believe, Mr. Speaker, that my privilege as a member to present an SO-31 was infringed... I believe it's not an issue specifically for me. I've experience a removal of my right and my privilege, but it's a question for how this house operates."
Alberta Conservative MP Leon Benoit seconded Warawa's concern, telling the House that the same thing has happened to him.
"I have had my rights taken away when it comes to representing my constituents on certain topics and I just don't think that's appropriate," he said.
"I'm not allowed to speak on certain topics on SO-31s. I've had SO-31s removed. And I've been told that if I have it on certain topics, I simply won't be given SO-31s."
It's important for MPs from all parties to support Warawa's bid for member control over their statements, Rathgeber says.
"It doesn't really matter what your perspective is on [Motion-]408. The issue is whether or not a member of Parliament has a right to bring forward a motion that is deemed voteable by the independent expert that assessed it. And if that right is taken away, that should be a concern to Parliamentarians on all sides of the House."
"I believe if there is going to be any concrete change to the way this works... it's going to require support from more than just the Conservative caucus. I think it's going to require support from backbenchers from all sides of the house."
The MPs haven't gone as far as to set out other specific actions in protest, but "there has been discussion among members of Parliament about how it's important to maintain the right of MPs to vote freely and stand up," the Conservative MP said in an interview.
"And that includes not just social conservative MPs, but a wide range of people on the Conservative backbench."
"If our rights continue to be trampled upon, as appears to possibly be happening [with the Warawa motion], at that point MPs are going to have to sit down and decide where their line in the sand is and what to do."
Even members' statements vetted
There are few ways for MPs outside of cabinet to raise issues on Parliament Hill. The party whip assigns them to committees and they have to vote with their party on government bills and motions. Private members bills and motions are some of the only means MPs have to tackle problems in which they're interested.
But even the S0-31s are vetted by Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan's office, MP Brent Rathgeber said.
"They will either tell us that they're okay or suggest improvements or modifications," he said.
"They also vet them for timeliness. I think that's reasonable. With respect to content, I've always been uncomfortable having to submit my SO-31s to the House Leader's office in advance."
The Liberals and NDP were not immediately able to answer a question about whether their House leaders vet SO-31s.
Warawa tabled his motion on Sept. 26, the day MPs voted down a motion by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth to strike a committee to examine when human life begins, which was widely seen as a way to reopen the debate over setting limits on abortion.
Just over half of Conservative MPs voted in favour of Woodworth's motion — 86 of 163 (since then, byelections and one resignation have brought their total seats in the House to 164). Another 74 Conservative MPs voted against the motion, including most of cabinet. Most MPs in the House voted against the motion, defeating it by a margin of 203 to 91.\
'Violation' of MPs' ability to represent voters
According to one MP, the Prime Minister's Office told Conservative MPs that there were to be no more motions or private member's bills on abortion. But for those who believe in limits on abortion, or whose constituents believe in limits on abortion, that direction is hard to take.
Rathgeber says it's fair for the party leaderships to oppose motions and bills and vote against them, or even whip the caucus to vote against them.
"But to censor it right out of the gate by determining it to be non-voteable in the face of evidence — uncontradicted evidence — that it is voteable, I mean, I really am concerned that this is a violation of [a] member of Parliament's ability to represent his or her constituents and to speak on issues of importance to him or her," Rathgeber says.
MPs don't only owe their parties, says the MP who requested anonymity.
"We're beholden to our constituents in the broad sense, the entirety of them. We're beholden to our local riding associations and board in another sense. To our party overall. So there's a balance of various things and when pressure is put that takes out of balance what our representation is of those bases, we have to find a line in the sand somewhere," the Conservative MP said.
Warawa agrees.
"We have a great responsibility in coming to Ottawa. We're sent here from our communities. That's who our boss is, that's who we report to, is our community. So to lose some of those privileges, I think, is serious and to have then in committee, like subcommittee at [procedure and House affairs committee], if they're not going to obey the rules then we have some serious questions to ask," he told CBC News in an interview.
Original Article
Source: CBC
Author: Laura Payton
No comments:
Post a Comment