It seems that in the wake of the Speaker’s ruling on members’ statements, the restless Conservative backbenches have backed off of their support of the Liberal opposition day motion on making Members’ Statements alphabetical in distribution. The feeling seems to be that the Speaker’s advice that if they want to stand up and be heard, that it was enough for them. Um, okay. We’ll see if that actually happens, especially considering that the delicate balance of party allotments are also in play during both Members’ Statements and Question Period in general, but it seems to me that this becomes a case of everyone being contended with half-measures, rather than any genuine reform. Sure, Warawa might have been surprised to learn that the lists are mere suggestions for the Speaker, but that doesn’t mean that MPs – or Canadians – should be satisfied by this ruling. Rather, it should be the springboard to the restoration of our Parliament to the way it should act – without lists or scripts, where MPs are engaged in the debates, actively participating, capable of delivering actual back-and-forth exchanges with spontaneity and class, rather than the dull recitations into the record that we’re now seeing.
Tag Archives: Peter MacKay
QP: Catching the Speaker’s eye
The press gallery was full at the very start of Members’ Statements, hoping that MPs would take the Speaker’s advice yesterday and start standing up to catch his eye, in order to bypass the dreaded Whip’s list. And no, nobody tried to catch the Speaker’s eye, and the list carried on unabated, with Warawa on said list to talk about a local talent show. Breathless anticipation, all for naught. When QP got underway, Thomas Mulcair read off a gimme question about meeting with Rehteah Parsons’ parents, and the need for cyberbullying legislation. (Funnily enough, the NDP voted against a bill to do just that by Liberal MP Hedy Fry, ostensibly because it was poorly drafted, yet not offering amendments). Harper agreed that there was a problem that needs to be addressed, and that they need to make it clear that the Internet was not a free pass for criminal behaviour. Mulcair moved onto the topic of the Federal Court decision regarding the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to which Harper replied with the implication that the previous PBO, Kevin Page, was partisan. Mulcair changed topics again, and moved onto the issue of privacy breaches, to which Harper assured him that they take those issues seriously and have developed action plans when breaches happen. Charmaine Borg asked the very same again, to which Tony Clement gave her the same reassurances, but with an added gratuitous shot at the former Liberal government. For the Liberals, Joyce Murray asked about the topic of the week — youth unemployment. Harper assured her that they had all kinds of programmes in place to help youth find jobs. For the final questions the round, Bob Rae asked whether Canada would try to get the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting moved here, and to take over the chair from Sri Lanka given their human rights abuses. Harper agreed that they were concerned about the Sri Lankan situation, and would be monitoring the situation. Elizabeth May and Bruce Hyer stood up for pretty much every question in this round, trying to catch the Speaker’s eye, to no avail.
Roundup: Economic Action Pandas!
Drop everything. Forget about the budget, or Peter Penashue, or EI reforms, or anything. Why? Pandas. Yes, those pandas that we made a deal with China are arriving in Canada today for a five-year period. Pandas! Economic Action Pandas! Are you distracted yet? Pandas! And yes, Stephen Harper will be making a big photo op out of the event. But did he mention the pandas yet?
Elizabeth May and the Greens have decided not to run a candidate in the Labrador by-election in order to ensure a Liberal victory in the riding – as those 139 Green votes in the last election would have ensured a Liberal victory had those votes indeed gone to the Liberals. During the Liberal debate on Saturday, Joyce Murray claimed victory for this move, and claimed it as the model for the kinds of “cooperation” that could happen in the next election – but as someone pointed out, this is more like capitulation for the Greens, and it perpetuates the magical thinking that “cooperation” is even possible, let alone desirable. The NDP, meanwhile, had no plans to similarly stand down, and had a nomination meeting where Harry Borlase was chosen out of the hundred or so ballots cast to run whenever the writ drops.
QP: Starting off the new parliamentary year
The first QP of 2013, and all leaders were in the House — even Bloc leader Daniel Paillé in the diplomatic gallery. Thomas Mulcair started off by wishing everyone a productive session before he read off a pro-forma question about the mission to Mali. Harper offered him assurances that there would be no combat mission and that he would consult the House before any future deployments. Next up, Mulcair read off a pair of questions about the First Nations, and why progress on their issues was so slow. Harper assured him that they were moving ahead with the issues, and that processes were in place and they would continue to work with those partners who were willing (this being the key phrase the government has been employing of late). Romeo Saganash was up next, and gave the vague threat that they didn’t need the government because he has a Private Member’s Bill on implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples — err, except that he’s number 167 on the Order of Precedence, and it’s the job of the opposition to oppose, and not to govern. It’s called the Westminster system, which he may need to read up on. John Duncan offered up a bland list of achievements by way of response. Bob Rae then got up for the Liberals, and pressed about the signing of the Declaration, and that the government has been insufficient in its consultations with First Nations. Harper disputed this, stating that the government has met all of its legal obligations and their duty to consult. For his final question, Rae asked about the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to which Harper reminded him that his government created the office to be non-partisan and credible.
Roundup: Return of the Commons!
The Commons is back today! Hooray! Oh, my MPs, how I’ve missed (most of) you! Believe me, after weeks of instant constitutional “experts” lecturing me over the Twitter Machine about how we haven an absolute monarchy in this country, where the Queen and GG rule with iron fists and Responsible Government is but a figment of our imaginations, well, I’m ready for a change of pace. So bring on QP!
To prep you for the House’s return, here is Paul Wells’ take on how the three parties are positioning themselves as the sitting resumes. Mark Kennedy lists some questions that will likely need to be answered now. The Canadian Press looks at the fiscal situation, and how that will affect the conversation in the Commons. Michael Petrou shows you the five things that are most pressing on John Baird’s desk right now. Michael Den Tandt believes the energy file will be the one to watch this spring. An here is a look at some of the Private Members’ business coming up for debate.
Roundup: Dissecting the by-election results
In the wake of the three by-elections, Pundit’s Guide crunches the numbers. While I disagree with the aggregation of the three events into a single grand number (for the same reason that I will remind you that the national “popular vote” numbers are a fallacy), the voter share breakdowns seem to indicate that the Greens were eating into the Conservative vote in Calgary Centre and Victoria, which further problematises the already dubious “unite the left” propositions. Because seriously – bundling both the Liberals and the Greens with the NDP as the “left” is too facile of an understanding of some of the issues the parties stand on, and one of the reasons why these “vote splitting” arguments annoy me. Colby Cosh gives his post-mortem of the Calgary Centre vote.
The government unveiled new emissions regulations yesterday for passenger vehicles a few years into the future – never mind that regulations are a far more costly way of controlling greenhouse gas emissions than simple carbon pricing. Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry gets a response from Preston Manning about his thoughts on carbon pricing – apparently he wants complete cost accounting, but that includes things like paying for the volume of land flooded by hydro projects as well as oil sands development.
Roundup: The road to 2015
From the NDP caucus meeting in St. John’s, Thomas Mulcair made a speech about their “positive, optimistic” future, and how the road to 2015 starts now. As part of that road, the party plans to target youth voters in the next election. Meanwhile, MPs have reaffirmed their belief that 50 percent-plus-one is enough for Quebec to separate, which has the Liberals sounding like they plan to put a motion on the Order Paper about support for the Clarity Act this fall.
The Liberals have formally announced the rules for their leadership contest, which kicks off in November. While We The Media wait to hear whether or not Justin Trudeau will run (who says the party needs teamwork and not a saviour), we’re now getting musings from Jim Karygiannis (aka “Jimmy K”) and Joyce Murray.
Pauline Marois referred to herself as “Head of State.” Um, no. That’s the Queen. You might be the province’s head of government (provided that you can maintain the confidence of the Chamber in a minority context), but you’re not the Head of State. Not even close.
Roundup: Kenney’s populist distortion
Aaron Wherry speaks to one of the organisers of those doctors who interrupt ministerial press conferences on behalf of refugee healthcare. Jason Kenney’s office responds with populist language that distorts the situation and frames it in such a way as to make refugee claimants look like freeloaders (ie – using “gold-plated benefits). That Kenney employs the “safe countries” talking point is actually a false argument because the designation is a political one, and not everyone who lives in a democratic country is “safe,” be it gays and lesbians in Jamaica, or the Roma in Hungary. But Kenney’s language is carefully scripted to stir up populist sentiment and appease an undercurrent of xenophobia in his base, and it should be called out as such.
With by-elections now in the works for both Durham and Calgary Centre, here are a couple of looks at them from Kady O’Malley, who runs down the lengthy list of would-be Conservative candidates in Calgary, along with a few Liberals who have thus-far declared interest, and Colin Horgan, who looks at some of the issues at play, and notes that all may not be lost for the Liberals given provincial results, shifting attitudes and Conservative infighting.
QP: A professional relationship
Not only was Harper away from Question Period today – as he is still in London celebrating Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee – but Thomas Mulcair was mysteriously absent as well. (What was that about people who wanted promotions needing to show up?) Nathan Cullen instead took his place and asked about the government’s need to redraft their entire Canada First Defence Strategy because they can’t afford all of it. Jason Kenney, still as the designated back-up PM du jour, insisted that his government acted to rebuild the Forces, and were better for the military than any other government in living memory. Jack Harris then asked about the very same thing, and then both he and Christine Moore brought in the costly price tag for Peter MacKay’s photo op about choosing the F-35s, to which Julian Fantino read off a talking point about the need to inform the public. Moore’s final question was about MacKay’s office chastising DND for not defending MacKay well enough with his various scandals, but Fantino read off a talking point about the professional relationship between the minister’s office and DND. Bob Rae was up next, and asked about the issue of youth unemployment and apprentices being laid off, and did the government have a plan to deal with that? Diane Finely at first insisted that they were proud of their investments in youth employment, before Kenney responded to the supplementals about how they were continuing to target economic growth.
QP: Confirming ideological cuts?
Without a weekly edition of Monday Morning Sanctimony to set the tone, we waited anxiously to see just how the Official Opposition were going to be holding the government to account. And when the appointed hour came, Thomas Mulcair stood up to denounce the omnibus budget bill and wondered what happened to those principles that Harper once espoused about these kinds of things. John Baird, acting as Back-up PM du jour responded that they were “focused like a laser” on jobs and growth, while the NDP was busy playing procedural games. (Could we please ban “focused like a laser”? It’s not cool or clever). When Mulcair asked about the environmental and EI provisions in the bill that gave the ministers an inordinate amount of power, Baird reminded him of Peter Julian’s 11-hour filibuster on the original budget. Peggy Nash was up next to wonder about the savings that the OAS changes will deliver, but Diane Finely was ready with her talking points about future sustainability. Bob Rae got up and listed off the number of organisations being slashed in the omnibus budget – the Inspector General of CSIS, Rights and Democracy, the National Round Table on Environment and Environment, the First Nations institute, the National Council of Welfare, and so on. Baird insisted that if they didn’t make these changes then the country would become the “Welfare capital of the world,” as Ontario was under Rae’s leadership. Not only that, but NRTEE advocated instituting a carbon tax, which the Liberals obviously were in favour of, which is why they wanted NRTEE kept intact. No, really, he said that. When Rae called him on that, Baird repeated it. Remember that the original reason why NRTEE was being cut was because it was from an era when there weren’t other such research organisations, but there are apparently plenty of them out there now. Now Baird seems to be indicating that the reason they were being cut was over a policy disagreement. Uh oh. (In the scrums after QP, Baird started combining both reasons, for the record). For Rae’s final question, he asked about the growing number of bungled military procurement contracts and wondered if we weren’t headed for a “Decade of Doofus.” Baird returned to an old talking point about how the Liberals oversaw a “decade of darkness.”