Conservatives backbenchers are revolting!

[JimmytheT]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I'm not sure if it would be possible for Harper to have been more clear in the last couple of elections. They will not be reopening the abortion debate as long as he is PM period. The people who voted for Warawa knew that they were voting not to reopen the debate. If that was a problem for Warawa then he shouldn't have run as a CPC candidate. If there are other cases where MP's can't speak then lets hear them but if we are talking about something this is totally opposite to the platform and policy they were elected under then I don't see the problem.

This is exactly what is wrong with our so called "representative democracy". Hypothetically, if a large enough number of a member's constituents ask said representative to voice something and he/she feels agrees it is worth raising, then it should not matter what the "election platform" two, three or four years prior was.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Jacks

I'm not sure if it would be possible for Harper to have been more clear in the last couple of elections. They will not be reopening the abortion debate as long as he is PM period. The people who voted for Warawa knew that they were voting not to reopen the debate. If that was a problem for Warawa then he shouldn't have run as a CPC candidate. If there are other cases where MP's can't speak then lets hear them but if we are talking about something this is totally opposite to the platform and policy they were elected under then I don't see the problem.

Harper said the Conservative Party would not reopen the abortion debate. That's not the same as an MP introducing a private member's bill, which is what Warawa wanted to do. Are you suggesting that private member's bills should also be subject to the whims of the party leadership?

[kirant]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is the natural end result of a party that has attracted numerous candidates who have political views that are incredibly unpopular with a large percentage of the Canadian public. Harper has no choice but to keep a very tight muzzle on his MPs because he knows all too well how a few "bozo eruptions" from his members could cost his party future elections. Here in Alberta, the Wild Rose Party learnt a similar lesson last year.

This is pretty much what I was thinking. On Harper's side, he was damned if he let them reopen the debate, damned if he slammed it on his ministersparty. I think he made it sometime before that he wasn't going to reopen this debate...so I think it's expected for him to tell the party "No, we're not doing it. Shut up".

I do find it interesting though that this was broke the backbencher's back. We all knew beforehand that Harper was the controlling type (and that this was going to be the inevitable result if he was in power long enough), but the topic interests me because of Harper's earlier comments..

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's interesting how, prior to becoming PM, Harper promised that a Conservative government would be more open and accountable than the previous Liberal regime. Since assuming power, he's concentrated more and more power in the PMO and has been anything but open, effectively silencing anyone within the Conservative ranks until their comments are cleared by Harper's communications team. Given the nature of some of his MPs, it makes perfect sense why he would do this, but it certainly doesn't jive with the type of government the CPC promised Canadians before they came to power.

I honestly can't remember many political parties which keep many promises. Most parties seem happy with promising the moon and back, then selectively deciding what to actually work on. Fair enough that this was a pretty big platform to break...but still.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Remember Carolyn Parrish? She made a few stupid comments (as is her right) that didn't please the party leadership, so Paul Martin kicked her out of the Liberal caucus.

What the CPC is doing now is entirely different. Harper's staff is banning Conservative MPs from discussing certain topics. In this particular case, Mark Warawa wanted to speak about the issue of sex-selective abortion in the House of Commons, but he was denied the time he requested by the CPC leadership. I certainly have different views on abortion than Mr. Warawa does, but as an elected MP, it's his parliamentary privilege to raise an issue in the House if he feels it's important.

so if Harper kicks Warawa out of caucus, would there still be a backlash?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

so if Harper kicks Warawa out of caucus, would there still be a backlash?

Why would he be kicked out of caucus when he hasn't done anything wrong? He wanted to raise an issue in parliament as a private member.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Harper said the Conservative Party would not reopen the abortion debate. That's not the same as an MP introducing a private member's bill, which is what Warawa wanted to do. Are you suggesting that private member's bills should also be subject to the whims of the party leadership?

We both know that the opposition (and their supporters) are jumping on board with this because they want to use it to hammer the government on the abortion issue. Even if it comes as a private members bill it will be trumpeted as government policy, hidden agenda, bringing it in the back door, etc. The issue isn't getting opened, it is totally against a clear party position. I wouldn't expect that the NDP would allow someone from their caucus to propose an anti-gun registry bill and I wouldn't expect the Liberals to allow one of their caucus to propose a bill to scrap universal health care.

Originally Posted by JimmytheT

This is exactly what is wrong with our so called "representative democracy". Hypothetically, if a large enough number of a member's constituents ask said representative to voice something and he/she feels agrees it is worth raising, then it should not matter what the "election platform" two, three or four years prior was.

If enough of the constituents felt strongly enough to reopen the debate then they probably would have voted for a party that supported that policy, like say the Christian Heritage party that got 594 votes in the 2008 election and didn't even field a candidate in 2011. I see no evidence that any significant portion of his constituents are asking for this.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Jacks

We both know that the opposition (and their supporters) are jumping on board with this because they want to use it to hammer the government on the abortion issue. Even if it comes as a private members bill it will be trumpeted as government policy, hidden agenda, bringing it in the back door, etc. The issue isn't getting opened, it is totally against a clear party position. I wouldn't expect that the NDP would allow someone from their caucus to propose an anti-gun registry bill and I wouldn't expect the Liberals to allow one of their caucus to propose a bill to scrap universal health care.

This is obviously the reason why Harper muzzled his own MP, yes. He knows it's bad optics for a Conservative Party member to introduce any kind of anti-abortion bill. Should he have the power to undemocratically quash a private member's bill even if he thinks it's bad politics for his party? Let's ask the man himself:

"Every private member can table bills and motions in the House. Party leaders don't have any control over that."
-Stephen Harper, April 2012

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This is obviously the reason why Harper muzzled his own MP, yes. He knows it's bad optics for a Conservative Party member to introduce any kind of anti-abortion bill. Should he have the power to undemocratically quash a private member's bill even if he thinks it's bad politics for his party? Let's ask the man himself:

"Every private member can table bills and motions in the House. Party leaders don't have any control over that."
-Stephen Harper, April 2012

This is a member statement, not a members bill. You show me any evidence whatsoever that a significant portion of his constituents want him pursing this.

Edit: Also, Motion 312 on abortion was allowed and was introduced by Stephen Woodworth, it was soundly defeated.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Harper said the Conservative Party would not reopen the abortion debate. That's not the same as an MP introducing a private member's bill, which is what Warawa wanted to do. Are you suggesting that private member's bills should also be subject to the whims of the party leadership?

I have heard at the provincial level that when an MLA is allowed to submit a private members bill his party presents him with three and he gets to chose which one he wants to present.