One of the most challenging aspects of teaching about politics is that some issues are very controversial. The political science student is not a tabula rasa: "a mind not yet affected by experiences." Certainly some students take political science because they are unaware of how the political system works but I have never met a student who does not hold some deeply felt opinions about important issues. So, it is critical to create a safe space in the classroom in which people can express their opinion and learn from others. We want a place where we can ask the question, "How should we live together?"
I was thinking about this because I was wondering how I might handle a discussion about Justin Trudeau's statement that, "Future candidates need to be completely understanding that they will be expected to vote pro-choice on any bill." I think that this statement needs to be examined from the point of view of a political scientist so I thought I would tackle it here.
The issue of contention is that Justin Trudeau is saying that he won't approve of any new Liberal candidate unless they agree to vote pro-choice if and when there is a bill that attempts to change the current law. This issue seems to have arisen as a result of concerns about the closure of a private clinic in New Brunswick and the concern that broader access to abortion will not be provided in provincial hospitals. This concern exists because New Brunswick has fairly strict rules for abortions performed in public hospitals.
Some federal Liberal members of government have requested that the federal government intervene because they believe that New Brunswick's policies may violate the Canada Health Act.
Stephen Harper stated that this is not an area of policy that the Conservatives want to open up and, in the N.B. case he has said that the matter is a provincial jurisdiction. It is true that health care is a provincial jurisdiction but the purpose of the Canada Health Act is "...to establish criteria and conditions in respect of insured health services and extended health care services provided under provincial law that must be met before a full cash contribution may be made." So, while health falls under provincial jurisdiction, the Canada Health Act provides the overarching rules that must guide provincial policy. It is understandable that the Conservative government does not want to open up the issue of abortion but one might argue that the federal government does have a role in ensuring that the criteria are being met no matter what issue is at stake.
An explanation of the current dispute about the whether or not to look at New Brunswick's legislation in light of the Canada Health Act does not really help us to explain why Trudeau made the leap to a position on MPs voting on potential future legislation.
Certainly the Liberals want to assert that, if the issue is raised in Parliament, the party will have an official position but in some way Liberal candidates are already bound to the party. I have said before in this column, even as recently as last week, that the executive has considerable power in the House. Even though Justin Trudeau is not the Prime Minister, his Members of Parliament are still bound by party discipline. In other words, MPs are bound to vote with the party when legislation is brought forward. Now, in this case and with these kinds of very contentious issues, governments sometimes call free votes that unleash party members from the party line. They allow members to "vote their conscience." So, I assume that what Trudeau means by saying that members will vote pro-choice is that even if the government calls a free vote, Liberals would be expected to vote along party line. Traditionally, the punishment for not voting with the party is expulsion and the member then sits as an independent.
Trudeau's position has raised hackles because it is seen as counter to the point of parliamentary debate, committees, representation and the democratic process. The issue here is whether or not such a position denies the moral obligation that MPs have to consider the complexity of issues.
