Tempest In A House

The House of Commons loves nothing so much, during daily Question Period, as a good, rollicking rumpus about the failings of the Conservative-led Government of Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is rarely able to do something in the House, or outside the House, that honourable parliamentarians of the NDP, Liberal or (sole) Greens could find merit in. Their sole purpose, it seems, in being elected to the Parliament of Canada is to continually attack the party that happens to be in government.

The governing party of any persuasion has long traditionally been in the habit of persuading its caucus that loyalty to the party and the values of the party -- as exemplified by the leader who just happens also to be the Prime Minister of Canada -- when theirs is the leading party voted into power, is essential. That within the party the differences of opinion in response to situations and to governance should be muted, that it is essential to maintain loyalty.

There is a place for those Members of Parliament who believe and behave as though their personal interpretation of party values and the manner in which government should respond to situations should prevail; outside the party, as an independent. And there are indeed some Members of Parliament who do sit as independents, proud to state that they are invested in serving the interests of those who sent them to Ottawa; the voters whose riding they represent.

How useful they are then in serving the interests of the voters who chose them out of a slate of candidates, selecting the party, then the candidate in most instances, is a matter of conjecture. Surely party affiliation and loyalty is far more serviceable to the needs of constituents than opting for no alliance whatever. The current office holder as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is often accused of ruling with an iron hand.

But, in fact, all Prime Ministers have a tendency to do just that. In the current instance, two serial private member's bills in defiance of the clear and unequivocal stance that the Prime Minister has taken with respect to abortion in Canada, have been brought before the House. Both have been set aside by all parties. In the latest instance, the individual who prepared a statement on gender-selected abortions was refused the opportunity to air it.

This, then, became a cause celebre among Parliamentarians who are now huffing that the matter of free speech in the House supersedes the issue that was to be brought before the House. MP Mark Warawa has asked the Speaker of the House to rule on whether his parliamentary privilege has been denied by the whip's decision to stop him from pursuing his members' statement on his motion.

Perhaps the problem is inherent in the discomfort and sense of alienated victimhood felt by backbenchers who are proud members of Parliament, duly recognized and acclaimed by those who have voted for them, but in the larger scheme of things mere puppets whose strings are pulled to accommodate the greater needs of the party. They wish to be individualists, to take pride in their authentic vision, their version of truth, reality and justice.

They take grave affront that they must be dependent on the judgement of the party leader and those within the party chosen to be Cabinet material along with their senior MP ministerial secretaries. All others are, essentially, deadwood until such time as they are brought into play when the leader requires their acquiescence on an issue of importance to the government.

Or, as Pierre Elliot Trudeau once famously stated, "backbenchers are nobodies", the further back they sit. Like it no, lump it because it's fact.