Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Harper's surprising abortion vote

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:56pm - 189 Comments

There’s a TV monitor in the foyer outside the House of Commons so reporters waiting to scrum exiting MPs can watch the proceedings while we wait. The other day (Dec. 15, I see now) I noticed my colleague Elizabeth Thompson from iPolitics.ca paying close attention to a roll-call vote and thought no more of it until today.

Turns out the vote was about abortion, sort of, and what was worth noting was that Stephen Harper was voting against one of his own MPs. I’m just catching up to this story, which others have covered more carefully. Perhaps you are too, so here it is.

The Bill, C-510, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code (Coercion), was introduced by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South). It sought to specify that coercing a woman to have an abortion would be a Criminal Code offense. The bill was defeated in a recorded division on second reading, and that’s the end of that for now.

Cabinet itself was divided on the motion, with Stephen Harper, James Moore and Lawrence Cannon, among others, voting against it, while Stockwell Day, Jason Kenney and Gail Shea, among others, voting in favour. Sun Media’s Brian Lilley quotes PMO press guy Andrew MacDougall: “The prime minister has always said he wouldn’t support a bill that reopens the abortion debate.”

Some pro-life groups are really angry at the Prime Minister. Other commentators are more muted. Deborah Gyapong, who was with the Harpers when they met the Pope in 2009, mentions his vote at the bottom of her Catholic Register article but not, at this writing, on her blog.

Tags: abortion, deborah gyapong, Stephen Harper

More by Paul Wells

kerry

i'm all for there being less punk-ass kids running around, so abortion is fine with me, coerced or otherwise.

if given the option to vote for a conservative government that bans abortion or a liberal one that will expand government, however, i'll opt for the conservatives.

Stewart_Smith

Sadly your choice is between a conservative government that expands government and puts us in debt or a liberal one that expands government but balances the books. As a result, according to the logic style you described above you choice should simply depend on your life expectancy.

Orson Bean

So how is it that the Liberals are going to balance the books? Are they going to hike the GST back up to 7%?

Gary

They will do it the way they did it last time, download on the Provinces!

Sue

Yes Stewart the Liberals did balance the books but contrary to your nature, treat us like big people.
There were a lot of reasons how:
Majority government, virtually no traditional opposition
$54 Billion illegally transferred out of the EI Fund
Police Pension Funds ransacked
Individual CPP contributions tripled
Had the benefit of the considerable GST revenue (broken promise)
Ceased every cent of social housing spending since 1993 when elected
Cut health care expenditures
Devolved services to the Provinces
Oh what am I missing….Generationally low interest rates….what else..

Gary

SHHHHHHHHHHH! He's reality challenged!

Stewart_Smith

Not at all Gary, the Liberals quite likely would (again) cause significant short term pain in order to balance the books.

My two points are: 1) these Conservatives spend like Liberals (note the recently announced extension of stimulus spending) so they should probably face up to the necessity of taxing like Liberals.
2) It is unfortunate that until Max Bernier is put in charge, Canadians who genuinely want smaller government will not have a federal party that advocates their interest.

For clarification, I don't particularly want smaller government although I do want a well-run government. I do however, recognize that a legitimate case can be made for much smaller (less intrusive) government based on individual rights. Also Sue, I apologize for not responding to your comment above, I agree with most if not all of your list, but couldn't figure out your comment about Liberals treat us like big people was referring to.
Sue

No SS it was your breathtaking condescencion about the political good vs bad (guess who).
Au contraire
Liberals loudly demanded the necessity of a stimulus spending initiative this last go round lets remember.
In the 90's it was as I stated above, a triangulation of many events. Which we are now thankful for. I was imploring you to treat us, the commenters, like adults, rather than trite throw away politicisms.

Esteban

No surprise.

Why would you spend political capital on such a divisive issue? Canadians don't want to have this debate. The people who want to have this debate are the people who want to use the power of the state to further their religious agenda. Actually sitting in the head chair in the PMO, you want to hold on the the power that comes with your office. Therefore, no to this "principled" but politically suicidal vote.
Graham Waters

Re: The Burning Question, Maclean's, Jan. 3, 2011 edition

Surely the most burning question is not about employee satisfaction, commuting time, well paid part-time job, or anything else covered in the article. I am amazed that the article does not even address the question "How effectively are the fire fighters able to carry out their duties when answering an alarm 22-23 hours into their shift?"
sandjsmith

We are so thrilled to FINALLY see some common sense on this issue in Parliament. For those of us who actually know what Bill C-510 entails….the best pro-choice/pro-life bill out there….what a relief it is to know we have leaders who do in fact still have moral integrity running through their veins. Canada, it's time to lead.
Cats

Why is this a surprise ?
Only "hidden agenda" and left wing news types like the star think that Harper is planning to criminalize abortion.

The fact that Paul Wells finds this vote surprising says something about himself too.

BTW this is coming from pro-life CATS!
Jan

Cats, the Cons not voting as a block is news. And a vote on anything to do with abortion is news. I am getting tired of Cons telling the rest of us what we should care about.
PeteTong

I don't think Paul Wells is surprised about how Harper voted because Wells has covered Harper's position in columns before (i.e. his intention not to reopen the debate). I suspect he is surprised that Harper was present in Commons for the vote.
D.D.S

Cats (ridiculous moniker for an adult)….NOBODY is pro-death….so spare me the label….you are anti-choice ………..pretty simple
SocialLiberal

This left wing news type was under no such illusion.

Harper will only move if it's politically positive for him or at least neutral. Tagging abortion on his party is the last thing he wants to do. So, he wants to avoid it. Just like he said.

Maybe he does want to make abortion illegal. It could happen in a majority, provided his party moved in unison. Maybe he does want to privatize heath care. Maybe he does want to spoil the statistics of the country so he can bend the numbe… wait. That already happened.
Halo_Override

Be fair, for years conservatives have been tired of hearing about how women should have the same rights as men, and all that other hippie stuff.