A Coup for Parliament or a Recruiting Tool for CHP

As we know, Warwara's Wank ended with a further wank, this one about Free Speech.

The long-awaited Speaker's decision on his point of privilege over having his member's statement (S.O.30) snuffed by the CON Whip was announced yesterday at around 3 p.m.

Here's Kady O'Malley's story filed at 4:57 p.m.

If backbench MPs want to the right to speak freely in the House, they're going to have to start standing up to be counted -- even if it means ignoring the speaking lists prepared by the party whip to compete against their caucus colleagues for the attention of the speaker. 

That, it seems, is the gist of House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer's much-anticipated ruling on the point of privilege raised by Conservative MP Mark Warawa after his pre-Question Period speaking slot was abruptly yanked by his party's whip due to his choice of subject -- specifically, his similarly scuttled attempt to bring a non-binding motion to condemn sex-selective abortion before the House.

Although he ultimately found that no prima facie breach of privilege had occurred, Scheer made it clear that, as far as he and his predecessors are concerned, the speaker has never ceded the right to choose which member should be recognized -- not just during the fifteen minute block designated for members' statements, but, in theory, during QP as well. He just hasn't yet been put in a position where he would have to do so, as -- again, at least as yet --  no members have ever attempted to circumvent the whip-created list.

So, fans of the Westminster parliamentary system parsed that all to hell, gleefully anticipating little bobble-heads bobbing up and down trying to catch the eye of the venerable 33-year-old Speaker.

The more cynical of course wondered just how much eye-catching Opposition members might have to mount. Clown-costumes wouldn't be out of place, after all.

Other cynics wondered if this really meant anything at all.

Funny, though, not much attention at all was paid to this story filed by John Ivison at 11:13 yesterday morning, about 4 hours before the decision.

John Ivison: Ruling on alleged breach of Warawa’s privilege to speak freely could head off Tory rebellion

But there are rumblings in caucus that Mr. Scheer may make a significant additional ruling by pointing to the Westminster example, where it is a long established convention that the Speaker has the right to recognize members from either side of the House when they stand during Question Time. In the British House of Commons, a number of MPs bob up and down at any given time, trying to catch the Speaker’s eye, and it is up to the chair to recognize them. The inference would be that if more than one MP stands up during members’ statements and Question Period, they could be recognized by the Speaker, whether they are on the whips’ list or not.

If Mr. Scheer leans towards the Westminster model, it could have profound implications in both the short and long term governance of the House. It would also suggest he will not find Mr. Warawa’s privilege was breached, since he could have been recognized by the speaker if he’d only stood up to speak at members’ statements.

In the short-term, it could head off a rebellion in the Conservative caucus that threatens to culminate in some Tories voting alongside the Liberals. New Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has introduced a motion to allocate members’ statements in alphabetical order which will reach the House on Wednesday and, absent some kind of significant reform, a number of Tory MPs may be tempted to signal their displeasure.

So, at least four hours in advance, senator-in-waiting Ivison was tipped to the outcome.

And indeed, the Speaker's ruling does have the salubrious effect of quelling the now pretty-well defunct Backbenchers Spring.

As the Church Lady would say: How conveeeenient.

Political shenangigans in the Speaker's Office!?!1???

Say it ain't so.

Now of course the question is which of the intrepid backbenchers will get up on their hind legs and attempt to speak to an unapproved topic -- like abortion, for example?

@fernhilldammit It's actually pretty close in structure to the UK model. We'll see if he actually sticks to it.

— E (@freezingkiwi) April 23, 2013

(I've bet @freezingkiwi that his kiwis will really freeze before that happens.)

Will only the nutbars avail themselves of this privilege ignominious display? Will more sensible, team-playing BBers keep shtum and/or clap their flippers as they read the usual 'job-killing carbon tax' talking points ad nauseum?

I wondered if Speaker Scheer had offered any protection -- kinda like whistle-blower protection -- for retribution from vengeful whips and leaders.

According to Mark Jarvis, author of Democratizing the Constitution:

@fernhilldammit @thomashall17 nothing.

— mark d. jarvis (@markdjarvis) April 24, 2013

Retired House of Commons procedural clerk, Thomas Hall, went further.

@fernhilldammit @markdjarvis Yep!The pwr to sign nomination papers needs to be removed from party leaders and returned to riding assocs.

— Thomas Hall (@ThomasHall17) April 24, 2013

It's down to party constitutions. And ipso fatso, only future Christian Heritage Party candidates will partake.

ADDED: For all of you breathless with anticipation as to what Free Speech Warrior and Defender of Girls, Mark Warawa, would say in his totally unfettered S.O. 31 today -- behold! (I swear you can't make this shit up.)

UPDATE (April 26/13): How successful was Speaker Scheer in quelling the Backbench Revolt? Perfectly. Not one BBer voted for the Liberal motion to choose MPs to make member's statements by alphabetical order.

Gastropods Unite!

Go read Dr Dawg. He's on top of current events in the House of Commons. Her Majesty's loyal Opposition has roused itself from a 14 week slumber (okay, part of that was Stevie Peevie's Prorogation delay tactic). The speaker must respond to the question: Shall Parliamentary supremacy be upheld?

And also: Kady O'Malley updates directly from the warzone.

Oh and could someone run over to the Manning Centre for the Subversion Study of Democracy or whatever it's called to poke Captain Canada Stephen Taylor? I hear today's lunch in the cafeteria is the Gastropods All-you-can-eat Buffet; it seems that Taylor is known for a trademark thrust-and-parry with his snail fork. He might want to know what's happening in Parliament instead of waiting for the Coles Notes version from Dimitri Soudas.

- / - / -

fern hill piles on: W00t!!!!!!!11 I was watching at Kady's and the CAPP Facebook wall.

If you're feeling a little euphoric -- as I am -- by this stunning display of backbone on the part of the Opposition, now might be a good time to celebrate by sending some money to the totally grassroots group Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper, or CRUSH, here.

One of the organizers just wrote on the CAPP wall:

This Saturday, in the Insight section of the Toronto Star, our ad will appear. It is the largest ad we could afford in the largest circulated paper....

Without all your faith and support this ad would not have happened. Your kind words in your messages are touching and give us more energy. The first small battle has been won but the war is far from over. We can do this...together.

As one donor wrote to Billy Nobels, "I cannot trust my government but I am trusting a complete stranger with my $20.00 donation".

Westminster Model 101

Could this be any clearer?

No. I didn't think so either.

Here's how it ends (emphasis mine):

Though Parliament is now prorogued, when it resumes in January, the Governor General still could not simply agree to a dissolution without first satisfying herself that no alternative government is possible without an election. Given the $300-million cost of an election held only seven weeks ago, and given the magnitude of a looming financial crisis, the Governor General would be justified -- indeed, required -- to canvass all options, including the one proposed by Dion and Layton, assuming it is still on the table. This is one of the few areas where the Governor General has real discretionary power -- not to use it would be an abdication and reduce the office to a mere cipher. It would also mean that, hereafter, minority prime ministers would be free -- as Eugene Forsey once said -- to act as though the electors have simply got their arithmetic wrong and must be put through elections over and over again until they get it right.

h/t LuLu at Canadian Cynic

The ignorant, the zealots and the haters will reveal themselves.

Earlier this evening, a Radio-Canada journalist was trying to interview Dimitri Soulas, the PM's media spokesman. Michel Picard, I think it was, became increasingly frustrated with Soulas' evasiveness and his overbearing rote declarations that ran roughshod over the reporter's attempts to get him to actually answer the questions asked.

The speaking points issued by Harper play over and over again in a never-ending audio loop, emerging from those who still march to his beat.

On discussion boards and blogs, such as those associated to Stephen Taylor's Blogging Tories, Harper supporters - the knuckle draggers, the religious ideologues and the lunatics have been free-styling and embellishing the party line.

Over the last four days, they have been savaging members of Parliament and the political parties who were elected by Canadians to serve them and govern their country.

Next they will direct their ignorance, their zealotry and their hate towards Governor General Michaëlle Jean. She is a woman, she is of Haïtian ancestry and she is progressive. She is also the most powerful person in Canada at the moment, invested with the legal and political potential to determine who will be governing our country in the year to come.

Pay attention to what they'll write about her, the lies they'll concoct, the venom they'll spew, the rage they'll direct towards this intelligent, powerful woman who represents the sum of all their irrational and toxic fears.