Woodworth Watch: The "human being" motion, and what's likely to become of it.

(My analysis, such as it is, follows.) 

M-312 -- February 6, 2012 -- Mr. Woodworth (Kitchener Centre) -- That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

that the membership of the special committee consist of 12 members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);

that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; and

that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth, (ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth, (iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth, (iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1).

Now, above and beyond the substance of the debate itself, what's interesting about this motion is that, as far as I can tell -- and yes, I've asked the speaker's office for a definitive answer -- unlike the vast majority of private members' proposals put forward for the consideration of the Commons, this one would actually be binding.

If passed, it would direct the House to do something that is entirely within its aegis; namely, strike a special committee with a clear mandate, and a requirement to report back to the House within a certain period of time. 

Given that fact, the government can't simply keep pumping out the same talking points about how they really, truly don't want to reopen the debate; if the motion passes, the debate will be reopened. Period. There's just no way around it. 

Given those parameters, the PM will be facing two choices when the bells ring: He can allow a free vote, and permit MPs to vote their respective conscience, and count on the mathematics to work out in his favour. After all, the vast majority of opposition MPs would likely oppose it, as would an unknown, but likely not inconsiderable number of Conservative MPs, thus rendering it unlikely that even four square support from the social conservative subcaucus(es) would be enough sway the vote in Woodworth's favour. 

Alternatively, if it looks like the numbers are tighter than expected, the government could take its chances and lay down a two-line whip - which would apply to cabinet, but not individual members -- and guarantee that the motion would go down to defeat.

In any case, it should be a fascinating debate to watch -- as much for the off-camera strategy as the action on the floor of the House of Commons. Let the Conversation about the Conversation begin!