A caucus revolt!

Free the backbenchers!

Open season on closed government!

DEMOPOCLYPSE 2013.

This, children, is the story of the little abortion bill that could — but might not.

By now you’ve probably hearing of the backbencher rights advocate Mark Warawa. His non-binding motion on sex-selective abortion was ruled out-of-order by an all-party committee last week.

As Warawa took up arms against what he perceives as excessive party control, a collective smirk spread across the faces of the Anti-Conservative movement in Canada.

Harper’s raucous caucus has finally wedged themselves free of his dictatorial grasp and voiced their malcontentedness. Light the sparklers.

From Warawa’s office, c/o Kady O’Malley:

Today, following a shocking and undemocratic decision by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business, Langley MP Mark Warawa announced his intention to appeal this decision “as far as necessary,” which could include an unprecedented secret ballot in the House of Commons.

“Motion 408’s call to condemn discrimination against women and girls is definitely in order,” said Warawa, noting that “MPs must defend their right vote on issues of the day.”

But there’s a problem.

As I needn’t remind anyone, Warawa’s fellow backbencher Stephen Woodworth introduced his own motion last year that would have taken on the abortion issue from a different angle. Rather than simply allowing the House, if it wishes, to express its displeasure with one aspect of the practice, as Warawa is trying to do, Woodworth sought to prod the House into possibly adopting some sort of regulatory or legislative oversight. That, understandably, ruffled some feathers.

But more than decrying the content of that motion, the opposition went after why the backwards government would ever let it before the House. Take NDP Justice critic Francoise Boivin, in September

Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to denounce certain government MPs’ attempts to criminalize abortion.

Of course, they know that their approach is extremely unpopular with women, who hate it when men try to tell them what to do with their bodies.

That is why these members are drawing inspiration from the Republican Party and using roundabout ways and bogus motions that are based on pseudo-science.

Let us be clear: this will not work. Canadian women have a right to access abortion and this backwards-thinking government cannot take that away from them.

Our party has always defended women’s rights and we will continue to do so. It is unfortunate that we cannot say the same for this government, which has let Motion M-312, moved by the member for Kitchener Centre, in by the back door in order to attack women directly.

It is not enough to answer on behalf of the government that it has no intention of reopening the abortion debate because—here is a reality check—Motion M-312 has already opened it. We must close it immediately.

Boivin, of course, is wrong. M-312 was an entirely legitimate piece of private member’s business — as Warawa’s is — that was moved forward not by the Conservative Party, but by House procedure.

Or take NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen’s intervention, to present a petition against M-312

The petitioners urge the government and all parliamentarians to vote against Motion No. 312 presented by the Conservatives, which would reopen the debate on abortion. They note that the Prime Minister made a promise and has since broken it with this issue now being debated on the floor of the House of Commons and being voted on this evening.

The NDP, naturally, opposes the motion. Its members on the procedural committee, along with all the other MPs on it, voted against sending the bill to the House — some said it encroached on provincial jurisdiction, others said it was too similar to other anti-abortion motions. Yet deputy leader Megan Leslie told CTV’s Powerplay that she disagrees with the motion, yet:

[Warawa] has the right to bring it forward. I mean, he is one vote just like me…we’re all just one vote. We’re here to represent our constituents.

I suspect not all of his constituents are supportive of him, but at the same time he’s essentially doing something brave by going against those folks and he has the time. He’s allowed to stand up and…bring forward motions. We’re all equal here.

Stephen Harper tended to agree — last April, anyway, when answering a question on M-312.

Mr. Speaker, every member has the right to move a motion. Party leaders have no control over that. An all-party committee decides whether or not these motions are votable.

I think it is unfortunate that this all-party committee decided that the motion is votable. In my case, I will be voting against the motion.

So, then, why did Woodworth’s motion meet committee critera, when Warawa’s didn’t? Certainly a motion trying to establish new regulations should be considered more out-of-order than one merely expressing the House’s will, no?

But this ideological snafu wasn’t over yet.

Warawa rose in the House on a point of privilege over, what his says, was a removal of his rights as an MP. His own party, he says, killed his SO 31 (private member’s statement.)

If at any time that right and privilege to make an S. O. 31 on an equal basis in this House is removed, I believe I have lost my privilege of equal right that I have in this House. I was scheduled on March 20 from 2:00 to 2:15 to make an S. O. 31. Fifteen minutes prior to that time, I was notified that my turn to present the S. O. 31 had been removed. The reason I was given was that the topic was not approved. However, there is no reason why an S. O. 31 should be removed.

The only person who can remove that is you, Mr. Speaker.

Warawa was promptly slapped down by the party — senior MP Jay Aspin called him “rogue” — yet found support amongst La Montagne in the backbenches. Cullen and the NDP reserved judgement on this matter until a later date, prompting the Speaker to delay any ruling on the point of privilege.

So here we are, in a strange case of ideological contortion. The Tories have killed a motion — and punished its mover — even though they had at least allowed a previous, much stronger, iteration to come forward. On the back of that, a group of revolutionaries have sprung up to oppose such unwarranted control.

The NDP, meanwhile, flatly oppose any debate on abortion. That said, they also want to stick it to Harper on matters of caucus control. So, throwing consistency to the wind, they’ve managed to criticize the government for doing something that they, in the same breath, support doing.

Surely there is something deeply wrong with this system.

At present, Warawa and his compatriots are debating in the House to free him from his partisan shackles and release him to fulfill his duties as an MP.

This situation muddies the theories on why exactly M-312 came forward. Was it a trial ballon, a permitted act by Harper to field out support for such a move? Was it strawman, burned in effigy as a sacrifice of their past beliefs? Or maybe it was a pacification for an increasingly demanding social conservative caucus. Or, perhaps, most logically of all: the Tories simply respect the rules of Parliament and let it come forward, as it should have.

But, maybe because of the intense public pressure they faced from that motion, the Tories are loathe to experiment with such controversial private member’s business again. And even more poisonous still is the idea, not that their caucus is out of control, but that their caucus is full of backwater Reformers. The Social Conservative is Harper’s deformed stepbrother that he keeps locked in the attic.

And right now, for Harper, that ogre is making too much noise.