In his most recent report to his constituents, first-term Conservative MP Dan Albas writes,
…contrary to what you may have heard in the media, Parliamentary practice is clear in recognizing that Whips of arespective party have long been involved in the process of determining the speaking order during Members Statements. Much of this current debate is in questioning to what extent a whip should and by extension a party be involved in what individual Members of Parliament can or cannot say within the House of Commons. This is largely the more important subject and one that I would like to address in my report today.
Read the rest of what he had to say on this issue here (it’s interesting) MP Report – Dan Albas MP, Okanagan- Coquihalla.
From MP Albas’ report:
“I make a point of authoring my own Member’s statements largely based
on events and achievements occurring within our riding of Okanagan-Coquihalla. My Member’s Statements are not directed by any outside influences and it has never been suggested to me what I should or should not say as a Member of Parliament.”
That IMO is the best use of the S.O. 31s: individual MPs writing their own statements about events taking place in their ridings.
Most of the MSM narrative is intended to reinforce the image they themselves created of PM Harper as the ultimate control freak who personally dictates every single word members of his caucus are allowed to utter.
The PMO can be faulted, I suppose, on the Warawa situation, not for being a control freak but for perhaps trying too hard to be true to the PM’s repeated promise that his government will not introduce legislation on abortion, among other contentious & divisive issues. However, keeping that promise should have been balanced with permitting private members’ motions, in this case MP Warawa’s, on those issues to be presented, allowing MPs to vote according to their conscience, as was done at other times. For example [from Wiki]:
“… On 7 December 2006, the Canadian House of Commons voted on a motion that read as follows: “That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.” The motion was defeated by a vote of 123 to 175. Liberal and Conservative parties gave their members permission to vote freely. Thirteen Conservatives voted against the motion, and the same number of Liberals voted in favour. The Bloc Québécois and NDP caucuses were expected to oppose the motion, all NDP MPs did so as did all BQ MPs except for two who were paired and two who were absent. …”
Another, more recent example [from the Toronto Star]:
“A controversial motion to study when human life begins, which some saw as re-opening Canada’s abortion debate, was defeated Wednesday despite strong support from Conservative MPs, including the minister for the status of women.
The motion was defeated 203 to 91 but the amount of support it garnered from the Conservatives — including eight cabinet ministers — surprised many, given that Prime Minister Stephen Harper had voiced his own opposition to the move. …”
Strategist Geoff Norquay makes a convincing case in his Mar. 31 op-ed “Why Harper is cracking the whip — and why he has to” [in iPolitics]:
“… The governance of party caucuses in the House of Commons requires a deft hand. It involves a delicate balance between individual MPs’ right to self-expression on behalf of their constituents and the need for cohesion and coherence on major policies and party principles. Achieving this balance becomes even more challenging when public policy confronts religious and/or moral values…