Proud to be part of a Liberal Party that stands for choice

The drama around the revelation that only those with pro-choice views (incumbents exempted) will be allowed to run for Liberal Party of Canada nominations has been interesting to watch, with so many commentators turning to democracy arguments to seek to overturn something Liberal members have democratically decided many times: we are a pro-choice party.

It goes beyond the last leadership campaign. Liberals at policy conventions have routinely made our position on this issue abundantly and emphatically clear. And now, finally, we have a leader who is willing to have our backs on this and put the marker down.

For me, being a Liberal has always been about choice, and about personal freedom. Choice in who you marry. Choice in what you do with your body. I respect your right to make your own choices, and to have your own beliefs when it comes to matters of conscience. But I absolutely do not though respect your right to impose your own choice on others.

We are a big tent party. Some things, though, go to the central tenets of what the Liberal Party is about. And when those things have been clearly and firmly expressed in a democratic fashion by the party membership, they should be respected.

We believe in choice, and that also means making the choice to run for another party that does share your views more closely. No one’s rights are being trampled here. You have the right to run for Parliament, but you don’t have the right to be a Liberal candidate. Membership has its privileges – running under a party banner confers the resources, name recognition and brand benefits of the party. But it also has responsibilities – you need to share our core values, because that’s what brings those brand benefits – recognition you share those core beliefs. If you don’t, you’re in the wrong party.

Will some people be upset at this move by Trudeau? Probably. Some of them will even be Liberals. We may  lose a few members. That's fine. This is about principle, and fundamental beliefs. We faced the same reaction when championing same sex marriage rights – in the end, that core Liberal commitment to personal choice won out.

So I’m proud to be a Liberal today, and proud of Mr. Trudeau. Proud to say this is who we are, and this is what we believe in.

If you do too, you’re welcome to join us. 

And if you don’t, that’s fine, and we wish you well elsewhere. 

But we’re the party of choice.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If the Liberals want to stand up for reproductive rights, they should stop pretending and whip the dammed vote

Today Parliament will debate a “private members” motion from Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth that would effectively re-open the abortion debate in Canada, and put the reproductive rights of women at risk.

In the last 24 hours I’ve received two e-mails from the Liberal Party of Canada on this topic, both eager to trumpet our party’s support for a woman’s right to choose and our opposition to the Woodworth motion. And moreover, we make it clear that, by refusing to force Woodworth to cease and desist, the Harper government is tacitly supporting Woodworth (its protests to the contrary not withstanding).

Yesterday, under the byline of Liberal Senator Lucie Pépin, it was a petition drive to “tell thePrime Minister: Hands off our reproductive rights.”

Stephen Harper said he would not re-open the debate on a woman's right to choose.

But 24 hours from now, he'll allow Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth to put forward a motion in the House of Commons which clearly opens the possibility of re-criminalizing abortion.

It's up to you to make sure Canadian women and men know about it.

And then today, the party issued a press release on the topic, titled “Harper Conservatives Add to their List of Anti-Woman Policies.”

The Harper Conservatives are adding to their list of anti-woman policies by attempting to re-open the abortion debate, said Liberals today.

“Despite his promise not to re-open the debate on abortion Stephen Harper is allowing Conservative MPs to begin debating what Canadian women can and cannot do with their bodies,” said Liberal Leader Bob Rae. “As they attempted with other contentious issues, this Conservative government is once again using a backbench MP to further their agenda.”

That’s all very good; it’s a strong position from the party and I firmly agree with it. But there’s just one wrinkle that wasn’t mentioned in the petition e-mail to members, or in the press release to the media (and lowly bloggers like me). And that’s this wrinkle, buried in a CBC story:

Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae said he's going to allow Liberal MPs to vote however they want, known as "voting their conscience."

Yes, so despite all the bluster from the party about how Harper is out to strip women of their rights and how we think that’s fundamentally wrong, we’re going to allow Liberal MPs to vote to do just that. So how can we take any of this activity from the party seriously?

If this issue is as fundamentally important as our messaging makes it out to be (and I believe it is), why are we not whipping this vote? If Harper not killing a private members bill is evidence he supports it, what does it say when the Liberal leadership lets its members vote for it? How are we any different? 

And worse, we’re launching petition drives and releasing pious press releases while pretending to be different. It’s ridiculous, and we’re setting ourselves up to look like hypocritical idiots. 

I wrote the following in 2006, and I stand by it today:

I'm all for the idea of the Liberal Party being a big tent party welcoming of people from the left and the right with different views on different policy issues, but on some issues of fundamental importance I believe we should draw the line and say THIS is what we believe in, and if you're a Liberal so do you. Abortion is one of those issues for me.

 I believe there are certain fundamental policy issues that flow from these principles that are so core to what it means to be a Liberal that if you want to sit in the Liberal caucus, you need to vote with the party and defend them. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but while I respect your opinion and your right to it, the Liberal Party probably isn't the party for you.

Bob, you need to whip this vote. And if we’re not going to, then we need to get off our pulpit and let those parties that are willing to stand up for reproductive rights step up.

Because this sucking and blowing just looks ridiculous.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Kelly McParland and Conservatives: Missing the point on abortion

My conservative friend (small c) Kelly McParland over at the National Post has taken some issue with my post yesterday on the Conservative government’s decision to no longer include access to safe abortion (he doesn’t weigh-in on their also pulling contraceptives) from their otherwise laudable (and not at all political) push to improve maternal and fetal health in developing countries.

Here’s a taste from Kelly:

Even for Liberals, though, this is appalling stuff. The government proposes a program to help improve health care for impoverished women, and the Liberals try to turn it into a question of abortion politics.

(snip)

So just what is the Liberal plan, then? If some impoverished country refuses to guarantee abortion rights, they get nothing? Jeez, way to go Michael Ignatieff! Cut off the needy unless they toe the line with Liberal party values. That's Harvard thinking all right. Or maybe it's Yale thinking, because didn't Bush go to Yale?

Yeah, what? No. It would seem what we have here is a failure to communicate. I only went to Carleton myself (the Harvard of Ottawa South), I don’t know where Kelly studied, but it needn’t have been Cambridge to see that’s not at all what we’re talking about. And I don’t know who is.

Let me break down what we are talking about -- slowly, with Carleton-level words, and bullets – so we can move the debate onto non-fictional grounds and carry on from there with a degree of rationality.

• There are many factors that contribute to maternal and fetal health. Poverty. Access to medical services. Food and water. Education. Proper natal care.

• Part of that is access to contraceptives. Contraception is an important part of family planning. Access to contraceptives is lacking in many poor and undeveloped countries, leading to larger families that are unable to care for them, prolonging the cycle of poverty. That’s why providing access to contraceptives to give these women options and choice is important to improving maternal health.

• So is access to safe abortion services. The fact is, many women will seek access to abortion services, whether it is safely available or not. Forcing them into backalleys and unsafe environments leads to injuries and death, and is a major detriment to maternal health in developing countries. That’s why experts agree giving women the option and choice to access safe abortion services is important to improving maternal health.

• No one is talking about forcing abortions or condoms on anyone. The law and regulations of the host country are obviously the final word. And no one is talking about denying funding to countries that don’t allow abortion. We’re saying it should (continue to) be part of our programs in those countries where it is permitted.

Back to the politics, there is one fundamental fact that Kelly seems to have overlooked, and it exposes his Liberal wedge argument as ridiculous: all Ignatieff and the Liberals are doing is calling for the current policy of the Government of Canada to be continued and respected.

That’s right. Today, as part of its development initiatives in developing countries around maternal and child health, Canada funds access to abortion and contraceptive services in those countries where it’s legally permissible. That’s a policy that predates the Liberal government by the way, because the experts in the field say it’s important and effective and necessary. We think that should be continued.

The wedge is coming from Stephen Harper, Bev Oda and the Conservatives. The Conservatives want to change that policy. Indeed, they have admitted that they are changing the policy, and will no longer include funding for abortion and contraception as part of our development policy and funding for maternal and child health.

I oppose that change. So does Michael Ignatieff, experts in maternal and child health, and millions of Canadians.

And that change isn’t some figment of our fevered Liberal imaginations. Just ask the anti-abortion groups claiming credit for reversing the government policy and raising donations for the Conservatives in gratitude.

It is a conscious decision by the Conservative government, an apparent sop to their socially conservative base, and one that has nothing to do with their stated goal of improving the lot of women in developing countries, and everything to do with their ideological and political views.

Now, you can argue abortion is wrong, and that’s a perfectly legitimate debate to have. My own view is I support a woman’s right to choose, up to a certain point in pregnancy or if her life is at risk, but I think we should all work to make abortion as rare and unnecessary as possible.

It is, however, the law of the land in Canada. And I have no indication the Conservatives want to change that law for Canadians. So I don’t think we should deny funding for something that is legal in Canada and legal in the host country and effective with the stated goal of the program, merely on ideological grounds.

That’s what we’re talking about here. Not invented bogeymen, or Ivy League potshots.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Harper’s “help" for women: no abortions, no contraceptives?

UPDATE: Hello to readers from Full Comment. You can find my reply to Kelly's post here:
Kelly McParland and Conservatives: Missing the point on abortion.

When Michael Ignatieff last week called on Stephen Harper’s Conservatives to pledge that access to safe abortion services will be part of the government’s ballyhooed G8 initiative to generate international support for improving maternal and child care in the developing world, he was attacked by the critics.

Even though he was calling for an affirmation of what has been longstanding Canadian development policy under both parties – not to follow the George W. Bush route of tying development funds to personal moral and religious beliefs – Ignatieff was attacked by the critics for raising irrelevancies, for playing politics and trying to politicize the initiative.

It turns out, however, that his fears were far from unfounded. In a story in Embassy Mag (behind a subscriber firewall, but I’ve pasted the relevant sections below) Canadian International Development Minister Bev Oda confirms safe abortions, and even contraception, will not be part of the Conservative push on maternal and child care:

Oda says no abortion, contraceptives support

But the WHO reports that lack of both contributes to unnecessary deaths.

CIDA Minister Bev Oda says the government's child and maternal health strategy will not address unsafe abortions in developing countries or support access to family planning and contraceptives. Rather, she said that to ensure the aid agency remains effective, "it's the lives of mothers and babies that we are focused on."

But with nearly 15 per cent of all maternal deaths being attributed to such abortions, and up to 40 per cent of maternal deaths preventable with access to family planning and contraception, experts and critics say support for these areas is essential.

On Jan. 28, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that rallying support for maternal and child health would be a major focus of Canada's G8 presidency. In developing countries, more than 500,000 women die each year in pregnancy and 9 million children die before the age of five.

(snip)

When asked about support for contraceptives and family planning in an interview last week, Ms. Oda said: "In order to maintain our focus, again our focus is on maternal and child health and mortality rates.

"We want to make sure that mothers, pregnant women, are healthy and can have safe births, and that the birthing process is made safer because if you look at the number of births during the actual birthing process, that's where a number of maternal deaths happen," she added.

"We also want to make sure when babies are born, they are born as healthy as possible so that they can live through their early age, up to the age of five, with as strong and good health as possible."

The decision by the Harper Conservatives to not include addressing abortion safety as part of their effort would seem to question just how sincere their effort to address maternal and child care really is, not to mention how effective it would be, according to the experts:

A recent report from the New York-based Guttmacher Institute found that 20 million unsafe abortions are performed in developing countries each year, and World Health Organization spokeswoman Olivia Lawe-Davies said 68,000 women die because of unsafe abortions said.

"It is also estimated that up to 40 per cent of maternal deaths could be averted with access to family planning or modern contraception," Ms. Lawe-Davies wrote in an email last week.

A recent Amnesty International report said a lack of safe and confidential access to information and modern contraceptive methods in Burkina Faso, for example, has contributed to early and unwanted pregancies as well as life-threatening abortions.

"Family planning is severely underfunded," the report reads, "partly because, until recently, international donors and the government have concentrated on other public health priorities, notably the AIDS pandemic, polio and malaria."

(snip)

Liberal CIDA critic Glen Pearson says a narrow focus on pregnant women doesn't address many of the root problems associated with high maternal death rates in developing countries.

"The whole problem for women in these countries is they have no access to condoms," said Liberal CIDA critic Glen Pearson. "It's a nightmare out there for a woman to be able to just protect herself from even getting pregnant, or once she's pregnant and complications develop, from her going through her own abortion procedure and other things they do. You can't make it about just once the child is in the womb."

The idea of a major push to address maternal and child care is a noble one. But ideology can’t be allowed to dictate the program and the help we’re going to give to women in need. We should listen to the experts on the ground about what is needed and what will be effective to meet the goals we’re trying to achieve and let them direct the resources accordingly.

That has always been the Canadian policy, and if the Conservatives desire to address this challenge is legitimate, it shouldn’t change it now. Sadly, though, it seems that the trend of the Harper Conservatives allowing ideology to guide development and aid decisions is ever expanding.

UPDATE: In this YouTube clip, Conservative backbencher Shelly Glover confirms that, in a reversal of longstanding Canadian policy, safe abortion will not be part of the government program. And conservative anti-abortion groups are claiming credit for the policy reversal, using the clip to encourage donations to the The Harper Party.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Maurice Vellacott says the darndest things about abortion

I may need to make this "darndest things" thing a regular feature. Maurice Vellacott, a Conservative MP from Saskatchewan, released a press release last Friday about how great it is that it's getting hard to get an abortion in his province due to a shortage of doctors, and also commenting on criticisms the cut-off date for performing the procedure is too early in pregnancy.

No surprises there. But here's the line in Vellacott's release that caught my eye:

Pro-life feminists have also come to see abortion as part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available.

Really, Maurice? I mean, really?

That's about the dumbest thing I've read in some time.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Conservative mask is slipping

The polls open in less than 24 hours, but despite running a bubble campaign that has seen at least 119 Conservative candidate muzzlings and a Prime Minister in Stephen Harper that is no longer deigning to answer questions from members of the media, the true face of the Conservative agenda is beginning to show.

For example, there's Dean Del Mastro, the Conservative candidate for Peterborough, who in this video tells a pro-abortion rally on Parliament Hill. Del Mastro assures the crowd that the abortion "issues matters and is not going away" and that the abortion "laws will change in this country." (h/t) No matter what Harper says (when he is willing to actually speak to people) his caucus clearly has other ideas on abortion:



Then there's Peter Kent, the former Conservative TeleVision (CTV) anchor running again as a star Conservative candidate in Thornhill. In a recent debate, Kent called for more private clinics in Canada, a dangerous move towards a two-tier health care system for Canada where there's one system for the rich (who can afford to follow Stephen Harper's stock tips) and another for the rest of us. Once again, Harper's flimsy promises are overridden by his own caucus:

A Conservative candidate's suggestion that a private clinic be used as a model for health delivery across Canada prompted opposition charges that Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to expand for-profit health care outside the public system.

Peter Kent made the comment during a recent campaign debate in Toronto's Thornhill riding.

Besides letting their ultra-conservative mask slip, the Conservatives are also staying classy on the campaign trail. Like Luc Harvey, the Quebec Conservative MP that showed up at a BQ campaign event to shout at and heckle Gilles Duceppe. Remember when Preston Manning wanted to restore decorum to Ottawa? I do.

A Conservative MP crashed a Bloc Québécois campaign event in Quebec City today, haranguing Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe who was shaking hands and meeting voters at a local market.

Conservative candidate Luc Harvey narrowly won by 231 votes in the riding of Louis-Hébert in 2006, and is fighting for his political life in the face of polls that predict a Bloc victory in his riding in Tuesday's election.

As Mr. Duceppe talked to farmers and clients at the Marché Public de Sainte-Foy, Mr. Harvey walked up from behind and asked Mr. Duceppe to say what he has accomplished since his election in 1990.

“Tell us about your record,” Mr. Harvey shouted.

There's also Axel Kuhn, the Conservative candidate in Etobicoke-Centre, who distributed a flyer attacking Liberal incumbent Borys Wrzesnewskyj that contained out and out lies, attacking him for not attending committees he's not even a member of, or that don't even exist.

What does it take for an Ontario Superior Judge to leave his Thanksgiving dinner to grant an emergency injunction? Ask Axel Kuhn, the Conservative candidate in Etobicoke Centre, whose latest electoral advertising effort seems to cross the line into actual defamation, according to Justice G. R. Strathy, who earlier today took the rare step of barring Kuhn’s campaign from distributing campaign literature targeting his Liberal rival, incumbent MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

And then there's Stephen Harper himself, who delayed his campaign schedule last week and held his first impromptu press conference to attack Stephane Dion for being unable to answer a poorly-worded question in his second language.

I don't buy their smokescreen that he couldn't answer the question because "he has no plan" for the economy. He has been talking about his plan for weeks before Harper even introduced his platform. The plan was expanded with the "30-day plan, unveiled in the French-language debate, a plan Harper attacked as a sign Dion was "panicking" on the economy.

How, prey tell, could Dion be panicking by releasing a plan when he doesn't even have a plan? The Conservative talking points are tripping over themselves. They make no sense. Their presser was about insinuating that because Dion's English isn't perfect (it's better then that CTV interviewer's though), he's not fit to lead our country. I even heard a Conservative radio ad the other day that used the line "can you imagine him representing us on the world stage?" Real nice. I'm sure this message will go over real well with all the Canadians for whom English is their second language.

It's a good thing for Conservatives that Canadians are more understanding of Harper's difficulties with French:



We're also more understanding of Stephen Harper's problems with English. Unless we're really voting on February 14th:



And unless he really gave us $300,000 in tax breaks (I'm still waiting for my cheque, by the way Steve):



This has been one of the most mean-spirited campaigns I've seen in years run by the Conservatives, and one that has been based almost entirely on lies. They lie about our climate change plan, they like about our massive tax cuts, they say we'll cut the child care subsidy when we'll really increase it, they say we'll raise the GST when we said no such thing and that indeed we will not, they put out attack fliers filled with lies that Ontario Superior Court judges have to interrupt their turkey dinners to issue injunctions against. They display no empathy for ordinary Canadians worried about their jobs and their savings and offer no plan for the economy besides buying bargain stocks. Their candidates refuse to attend all-candidates meetings or talk to the media, and their "leader" even turtles for the last days of the campaign, afraid he might go off script and say something he actually believes.

Do we really want more of this?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

All's not well in Conservativeland

For a guy that's such a leader, Stephen Harper seems to be having a good deal of trouble keeping his fellow Conservatives on message and on the team. And the campaign hasn't even started yet.

You'll recall that last week, an election looming, Harper's justice minister Rob Nicholson hastily convened a last-minute press conference to announce, minus any actual legislation, research or supporting materials, that he was killing Conservative backbencher Ken Epp's Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act and replacing it with his own legislation.

"We've heard the criticism from across the country, including representatives from the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill could be interpreted as instilling fetal right," Nicholson said.

He said the new bill was specifically worded to avoid that interpretation.

"This bill will be very clear and straightforward, and the bill will not be misinterpreted," he said, noting that Epp had not yet been informed that another bill was being introduced to replace his.

This hasty decision coming after many, many months of Harper and this very Conservative government insisting that they had no problem with Epp's bill, nothing to do with abortion, we'll have a free-vote, nothing to see here.

Of course, we'll never see Nicholson's bill. And Epp's bill will die on the order paper along with this parliament. The press conference was just a PR exercise to make the Harper gang seem more palatable to mainstream Canada going into an election.

Unfortunately for Harper, Epp refused to go quietly into that sweet goodnight:

Epp, an Edmonton Tory, said he was given no warning of the pending government legislation.

"I definitely will not be withdrawing my bill," Epp told Sun Media. "They're quite different. I don't intend to let up."

Epp's retiring, so there's little Harper can do to him. But he's not the only one raging against the phony dying of the socially-conservative light:

The list of MPs who have pledged their continued support for C-484 are:

David Anderson, MP, Cypress Hills-Grasslands
Rod Bruinooge, MP, Winnipeg South
Royal Galipeau, MP, Ottawa-Orléans
Colin Mayes, MP, Okanagan-Shuswap
Myron Thompson, MP, Wild Rose
Brad Trost, MP, Saskatoon-Humboldt
Maurice Vellacott, MP, Saskatoon-Wanuskewin
Chris Warkentin, MP, Peace River

That's eight members of the Conservative caucus defying the will of the PMO and continuing to loudly and publicly support a bill Harper wants to kill. And their defiance is all the more interesting, given that the election will kill the bill anyway. So they don't really have to speak-up, except to preserve their so-con creds. One wonders though how The Dear Leader feels about eight of his MPs telling him to stick it?

Maybe not so bad, if Nicholson's press conference was just for show and Harper really doesn't want to kill Epp's bill after all (h/t BCL):

I called my MP's office (Dean Allison) for clarification regarding the apparent Conservative abandonment of Bill C-484...The Conservatives are not abandoning or distancing themselves from Bill C-484 or abortion. In fact, it is a mistake to view Nicholson's recently proposed alternative as such.

Or in other words, don't pay attention to a word Nicholson said, that was just meant for the ears of mushy centrist voters, we're still totally cool. Either Harper's justice minister is full of hot air, or he has eight MPs giving him the finger. Which is it Steve?

Meanwhile, out in Newfoundland, the province's Conservative premier is gearing-up to go to war with Stephen Harper's very Conservative government, and will even be making a cameo appearance in Ontario:

Premier Danny Williams is poised to take his campaign against Stephen Harper on to the national stage when a federal election is called, pushing his argument that the Prime Minister betrayed Newfoundland and Labrador.

He'll be taking it to them back in Newfoundland too, and has already been engaged in a nasty war of words with his federal cousins. It seems Harper's culture cuts aren't playing too well in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Williams government plans to make-up the cuts to its artists from provincial funds.

You'd think that the Harper Conservatives wouldn't care how a province spends money in its own domain, after all, I hear the Cons are big on provincial rights and separation of powers. Not when it embarrasses them though:

Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn, the federal minister responsible for the province, accused Mr. Williams on Friday of trying to score political points that are not supported by the facts.

Really? Has Loyola visited his party's Web site lately? But I digress.

In his statement, Mr. Hearn took a swipe at the government led by Mr. Williams on a number of issues, including the quality of drinking water in the province after a series of boil water advisories were issued.

It also appeared to dismiss Mr. Williams as a threat to the federal Tories.

“Voters will make up their own minds as to how they will vote in the upcoming federal election, whenever it will be, based on what's best for their families, their communities and their wallets,” Mr. Hearn said.

Boil water advisories, Loyola. Do you really want to go there?

I don't think Danny's campaign will have much impact in Ontario, but if I were a Conservative MP in Newfoundland and Labrador I'd be updating my resume. I think Hearn's fright is showing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Epp tells Nicholson, Harper to suck a lemon

In a post yesterday evening on the Harper government’s pre-election move to scuttle Ken Epp’s Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, I noted that justice minister Rob Nicholson indicated they hadn’t bothered to talk to Epp yet, that neither had any members of the media, and that Epp had already dismissed all of the objections raised by Nicholson when they were made by others previously. What, I wondered, would Epp’s reaction be?

Well, now we know. He says hells no, my bill won’t go (h/t):

Epp, an Edmonton Tory, said he was given no warning of the pending government legislation.

"I definitely will not be withdrawing my bill," Epp told Sun Media. "They're quite different. I don't intend to let up."

So, as promised, I hereby award a gold star to Christina Spencer of Sun Media. Bravo.

Now, one wonders, what is next?

The house coming back is looking unlikely, but if it does it seems Epps’ bill will continue through the legislative process. Should it come to a vote it would be very interesting to see how it shakes out. It would be defeated, although I’m sure some of the so-con idiots in the Liberal caucus will vote yey.

What of the Conservatives, though? I’m sure they’d still publicly call it a free-vote, but will the so-cons of the Conservative caucus risk the wrath of Stephen Harper, defy the wishes of the PMO, and vote their ideological conscience? It would be interesting to see, but I suspect we’ll never get the chance.

More likely, Epp’s bill will die with the dissolution of parliament. Which Nicholson knew, making his show of distancing the government from Epp’s bill clearly a pre-election PR exercise to excise a so-con skeleton from the Conservative closet.

What, though, of Epp? He has already announced his retirement, perhaps why he shows no fear of the PMO death star. Will he symbolically leave caucus? Will Harper symbolically kick him out? Neither, I suspect. We’ve probably heard the last of Ken Epp. And his ideological brethren on his caucus, liking their jobs and not wanting Doug Finley to pull their nominations, will likely bite their tongues.

The questions I asked in my previous post though about how the socially conservative wing of the CPC will react still stand though. Time will tell.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Tories abort Ken Epp's bill, but where's Epp?

As a number of other folks have already mentioned, the Conservative government announced its intention today to scuttle Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, a bill that many fear could lead towards the erosion of womens' reproductive rights:

The Harper government cut loose a contentious private member's bill that would have made it a crime to take the life of a fetus just as election speculation hits fever pitch.

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced Monday that the government will draft a new bill to replace Bill C-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, so that it closes the debate about fetal rights and focuses instead on penalizing criminals who harm pregnant women.

The act, which was introduced last year by Tory MP Ken Epp of Edmonton and passed second reading in the spring, would make it a separate offence for killing an unborn child when a pregnant woman is slain.

Pro-abortion advocates have denounced it for giving the fetus some human rights. Last week, the Canadian Medical Association voted to oppose the bill, and Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion spoke out against it, challenging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to clarify his own views on abortion.

I'll hold my thoughts on the Conservatives' true plans on the issue until when (or if) we see actual legislation. I question their ability to come up with something that will be acceptable. But clearly, they're trying to clear the decks for the looming election campaign and Stephane Dion's comments on the topic in Oakville last week (and the reaction they garnered) had an impact.

One thing confuses me though. Reading the Web story at the Globe site, they quote just Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. Looking elsewhere, Reuters also has the PMO's Kory Teneycke. Bloomberg just has Nicholson. Ditto CP and Canwest.

The CBC adds some insight on Epp' status, although without Epp himself commenting:

"We've heard the criticism from across the country, including representatives from the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill could be interpreted as instilling fetal right," Nicholson said.

He said the new bill was specifically worded to avoid that interpretation.

"This bill will be very clear and straightforward, and the bill will not be misinterpreted," he said, noting that Epp had not yet been informed that another bill was being introduced to replace his.

Nicholson would not give exact details about how the two bills are different.

Interesting. First reporter to chase down Ken Epp and ask him how he feels about the death of his deeply-felt legislation wins a gold star. Possible questions: did you get a phone call from the government before they announced they were killing your bill? Will you and your socially conservative brethren support a watered-down version?

And for you parliamentary procedure wonks out there, can the government simply decide to kill private member's legislation, which according to the wire coverage seems to be what they're doing? Note, they say Epp hasn't even been informed.

Now, if there's an election the bill dies, of course (and the Cons wouldn't have a chance to introduce their bill, making this all a pre-election PR exercise). However, lets say the HoC returns for a fall session, and carries on to the fixed election date. Now, of course the Cons can ask Epp to withdraw his bill, and if he didn't agree he'd be Garth Turnerized might quick. But suppose he said no. Would his bill remain on the order paper and continue through the legislative process?

A look at Ken Epp's Web site shows he's still full-steam ahead with his bill:

Surely bad planning by the PMO not to have white-washed his Web site yet.

But back to questions for Epp, given that in a number of lengthy statements posted on your Web site you reject and dismisses the concerns of legal and medical professionals, do you also reject and dismiss Nicholson's objections? If not, why not?

You says your bill has nothing to do with abortion or fetal rights, and that such concerns are off base:

And yet your justice minister says that, not only are the concerns of your opponents justified, he's drafting a new bill to address those concerns:

"We've heard criticism from across the country, including representatives of the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill as presently drafted could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights. Let me be clear. Our government will not reopen the debate on abortion," Mr. Nicholson said. "

For this reason ... I'm announcing that the government will introduce legislation that will punish criminals who commit violence against pregnant women but do so in a way that leaves no room for the introduction of fetal rights."

And in May, when Liberal MP Brent St. Denis introduced private member's bill C-543, which aimed to address the issue of violence against pregnant women without jeopardizing a women's right to choose, you were opposed:


How is what Nicholson is proposing now any different than the St. Denis approach that you have already rejected?

Anyway, also interesting will be the reaction of the social conservative wing of the Conservative Party. Of course, the ones in caucus will shut-up in fear of the Dear Leader. How about the rank and file though, the activists, the fundraisers? Will they hold their nose and still vote Conservative? Will they sit on their hands and stay home? Or will they rise up in anger and demand action? Will they take their votes to the Christian Heritage Party (join here disgruntled so-Cons!), or one of the other right-wing fringe parties?

After all, Stevie has burned them before. How long will he be able to keep them in the fold while kicking them in the nads? Time will tell, I suppose. You want to talk about hidden agendas come majority? No one is praying harder that Harper actually has one than the socially conservative wing of the Conservative Party.

UPDATE: Epp lives, and so does his bill.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers