Over here we learn that Stephen Harper is not merely ignoring a change to parliamentary procedure, but is in fact reversing his position on the very procedure that he pushed through:
Mr. Harper was a vocal critic of appointing chairs when he was leader of the Official Opposition. In 2002, he co-wrote a letter to The Globe with Chuck Strahl, now the Minister of Agriculture, accusing the Liberals of "posturing" on parliamentary reform.
"Standing committees of the House should not simply be extensions of the Prime Minister's Office, and members of Parliament should choose their committee chairs by secret ballot and set their own agenda, free from the Whip's direction," Mr. Harper and Mr. Strahl wrote.
In the fall of 2002, Mr. Harper successfully divided the Liberal caucus by proposing a motion that committee chairs be elected by secret ballot, rather than appointed directly by the Prime Minister. The motion passed when Paul Martin and his supporters in the Liberal caucus broke ranks with then-prime-minister Jean Chrétien.
Now, he is reverting to exactly the tactic he demanded be changed:
But now in office, Mr. Harper is planning to avoid the elections by pre-selecting one Conservative MP per committee to put their names forward as chair. This would mean that the person would be acclaimed and a secret ballot unnecessary. Earlier this year, all MPs approved new rules stating that all committee chairs except three must be a government MP.
And, in the first concession to the wingnut factions lurking just beneath the veneer of Harper's lipstick smile, he appoints Maurice Vellacot as chair for the Aboriginal Affairs committee. Brilliant Stephen...just brilliant.
Oh yes, and just to remind us of how wingnutty things can be just under the surface:
Mr. Vellacott is one of the more controversial MPs in the Conservative caucus, an evangelical pastor who frequently issues anti-abortion press releases.
A quick perusal of Mr. Vellacott's website turns up a lovely collection of his rantings.
From last years debates over Marriage, we find the following gem in the Hansard:
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could help me out a little on the history around the world as we have looked at the issue of extending the vote to different people over time, and rightly so, but specifically with respect to extending the vote to women. It has been done in various regimes and was long overdue.
At the time the vote was extended to women, for example, were women called men? To my knowledge, that is not the case anywhere. When bringing a new group in to have those particular rights, one does not need to call them the same thing in order to give them the equal benefits and rights, which is what our party is proposing to do by giving equal benefits and rights without terming it the same.
Unless I missed something in history, and I am certainly open to being enlightened, has there ever been a time where, when extending the right to vote, women have been termed men?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the member certainly missed something in history, which is the evolution of society, and I am sure of that.
Women were not called men. They were called nobodies. They simply did not exist. That was the problem. I do not want the same situation where people who do not have the same rights simply do not exist. We do not want to live in that kind of society. I want everybody to exist, not just by having a name, but by having the same rights and living under the same conditions, all of us, not just those who are not gays or lesbians. This is a question of justice and living with our own identities. It is not more than that.
Duceppe does such a lovely job of handing Vellacott his own ass back to him, I had to leave it in.
No comments:
Post a Comment