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