Blatant Liberal hypocrisy

Nin Ottawa othing sums up this government’s unique fusion of cant and artifice as neatly as the ousting of Conservative MP Rachael Harder as chair of the status of women committee, voted out by the Liberals Tuesday on the grounds of her pro-life views.

In their first throne speech, the Liberals pledged to respect diversity and differences of opinion in Parliament.

“In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter,” said the speech, delivered by the Governor General, which outlined the government’s priorities.

In the event, David Johnston should have added a caveat: “Except if you disagree with the prime minister. Then you will be shamed, disdained and silenced.”

On Tuesday, the Liberals, aided and abetted by the New Democrats, imposed the committee chair’s role on a pro-choice Conservative MP, Karen Vecchio, who didn’t even want the job. She was nominated, but she asked to withdraw from that nomination. Her withdrawal would have required the consent of the Liberal- and NDP-dominated committee. She didn’t get it. (The status of women committee chair is always a member of the official Opposition, according to House standing orders.)

This is the same NDP that one short month ago complained Justin Trudeau was trying to dictate which New Democrat would sit on the new committee on national security and intelligence. Tom Mulcair, the former NDP leader, wanted to appoint MP Murray Rankin. Instead, Trudeau insisted Mulcair submit four names for consideration, from which he would pick one that would best reflect Canada’s regions, gender and culture.

Mulcair told him to get stuffed, accusing the prime minister of abusing his position by choosing who could represent the NDP at committee. Now, his party is complicit in helping the Liberals do just that with the status of women committee.

With Harder in the chair, there would have been tensions when dealing with such issues as reproductive rights. But the committee is there to give voice to all women in Canada, regardless of their beliefs. The very definition of pro-choice is the choice to disagree.

Trudeau has made it a condition that all Liberal MPs be pro-choice, even if there are grandfathered members of the caucus who are pro-life. That is his prerogative.

But he shouldn’t get to trample on the rights of opposition parties by choosing committees’ members and their roles.

It turns out in this case there are good business reasons for such blatant hypocrisy. No sooner had Liberal MPs walked out of committee last week to protest Harder’s nomination than the party’s fundraising machine was cranking out calls for cash.

“This is a very clear demonstration of what we mean when we say Andrew Scheer’s Conservative party will take us backwards," the fundraising email said. "If you oppose Andrew Scheer’s out-of-touch agenda, then chip in what you can and help our movement keep fighting for real change we believe in.”

This is likely to be the Liberal line of attack as we head toward the election in 2019.

It’s hard to paint Scheer as a malevolent figure, plotting to bring soldiers with guns into our cities, as the Liberals did with Stephen Harper in 2006.

But he goes to church, has five children and has been consistently pro-life, even while saying he would never legislate on the issue.

Thus, his agenda is “out of touch” and “backward,” if not hidden. Contrary to the prime minister’s heartfelt soliloquies on the plight of beached jellyfish and other tragedies, the Liberal party is a great, heartless electoral machine.

As we get closer to the 2019 vote, we can expect to see more cynical episodes like the removal of the status of women committee chair, particularly if the party’s grip on power looks to be under threat.

They should make a red Liberal ball cap: Making Canada Safe for Hypocrisy.