Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

The Commons: And so we come full circle

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, October 19, 2009 6:36pm - 112 Comments

091019_slide_chretienThe Scene. The Prime Minister was not in his seat this afternoon when Question Period began. Which seems a shame. Not least because of the profound moment in the history of his government that he was not there to witness firsthand. The rest of us will at least be able to say we were there, that we saw it with our own eyes and heard it with our own ears. The Prime Minister will have to suffice with seeing it on TV. Or perhaps hearing about it from a member of his staff.

Although, maybe it was best he wasn’t there after all. Indeed, in a way, it’s better he was spared the awful sight.

The session began simply enough with the obvious, the Liberal leader wondering aloud about a potential conflict of interest involving a Conservative senator and a sizable government contract. “Mr. Speaker, a pattern is becoming all too clear,” Michael Ignatieff posited. “The Conservative government is using stimulus spending to buy votes and reward its friends. This morning, we learned that one of the Prime Minister’s newest senators works for a company that has just won $1.4 million in infrastructure spending. At a time when the middle class is struggling, would the Prime Minister explain why infrastructure spending that is needed by all Canadians ends up in the hands of a member of his own—”

His time expired, the Transport Minister stood smirking to dismiss Mr. Ignatieff’s concerns. The Liberal tried again, this time en francais. John Baird once more swatted the question away. “Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to jump to the conclusions that the Leader of the Opposition does,” Mr. Baird declared. “If he has any evidence of any wrongdoing, rather than pontificating in this place, he should put his facts on the table and be accountable for those. We have been completely open, completely transparent with the infrastructure spending that we have made.”

The Liberals howled with mocking laughter.

“The grant in question was made by a crown corporation,” the Minister finished, “with no lobbying and no involvement whatsoever of my office or the office of the Minister of Public Works.”

Here, then, is where it happened. Where everything that once was up turned down. Where left became right, day became night and blue became red. 

“Mr. Speaker, this is part of a wider pattern,” Mr. Ignatieff said, starting his third attempt. “More than 50 Conservative MPs have handed out $600 million in cheques with their own signatures on them. The Prime Minister walks around…

There was some heckling.

“Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Ignatieff continued, “his spokesman says, ‘We’re shocked. We’re shocked. Let’s round up the usual suspects.’ But everybody knows nothing is authorized by the government unless it goes through the Prime Minister’s Office. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he personally signed off on this strategy. Did he or did he not approve these actions?”

As noted, the Prime Minister was not present to address this matter himself. So here, again, came John Baird with the government’s official response.

“No, Mr. Speaker,” he said. “Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The members of Parliament who support our economic action plan should be very proud of its achievements. Members of Parliament should not apologize for their achievements.”

He might’ve stopped there. He might’ve left well enough alone. But he went on, all caution cast aside, perhaps even unaware himself of what he was about to do.

“Here is what the Prime Minister said,” the Minister continued. “‘Listen. We are the government. I don’t see why we can’t try to get credit for what we do. I hope we do so. There is nothing to be ashamed in that.’ Do members know who said that? It was Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.”

The Conservatives behind Mr. Baird did not boo. They howled delightedly. Indeed, several stood to applaud.

So it was spoken and now so it is written in the record of Parliament, forever cast in proverbial stone. Nearly four years ago, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives came to power on one promise: that he and they were nothing like Jean Chrétien and his Liberals, that he and they were different, better. And here, nearly four years later, was John Baird, one of Mr. Harper’s most trusted ministers, wrapping himself in ideals of a man who represented everything the Prime Minister once despised, making Mr. Chrétien’s words his own.

So much for all that then.

It was all over at this point but for the shouting. A gleeful Gilles Duceppe happily damned the government’s cause. Wayne Easter stood and suggested the Conservatives were trying to “manipulate the public mind.” Mr. Baird rose and said he had pictures of Mr. Easter handing out government cheques in a previous life. Peter MacKay, the Defence Minister, resolutely questioned the patriotism of a pair of opposition members.

It fell to Thomas Mulcair, the NDP deputy, to stand and delight in the day’s revelation.

“The Conservatives were elected on the promise that they would do better than the Liberal Party on the sponsorship scandal,” he ventured. “What do they do? They create their own, except that this time they are using taxpayers’ money to promote the Conservative Party directly. They are using big taxpayers’ cheques with big Conservative logos. What is next, putting the Conservative logo on Canada’s Olympic uniforms?”

He paused for comedic effect.

“No, they have already done that,” he answered. “When will the government clean up its act and stop using taxpayers’ money for partisan political purposes?”

Mr. Baird did not have much of an answer for this one.

The Stats. Government spending, 16 questions. The environment, seven questions. Afghanistan, six questions. Crime, three questions. Quebec and H1N1, two questions each. Pensions and the Olympics, one question each.

John Baird, 13 answers. Mark Warawa and Peter MacKay, six answers each. Rob Nicholson and Christian Paradis, four answers each. Josee Verner and Leona Aglukkaq, two answers each. Tony Clement, one answer.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Does this mean the Liberals now think Harper is awesome? I'll remind you all of the various justifications:

    (1) Yes he's corrupt, but they're all corrupt!
    (2) A smart slippery PM is exactly what this country needs. Naive twits like the Opposition could never govern effectively.
    (3) Better to elect the devil you know than gamble on the one you don't!
    (4) Yes he'll misuse taxpayer money and bribe his friends, but at least nothing will get done federally and that's a good thing!
    (5) We don't care, we like him.
    (6) Doesn't matter what he's like, we vote Conservative 'cause it's Canada's Natural Governing Party.
    (7) Who cares about corruption. He looks Prime Ministerial. Have you seen those backwoods dweebs in the Opposition?
    (8) Peter Mansbridge likes him, and news anchors know everything so he must be ok.

    Let me also remind everyone that what we have here so far are (a) some disturbing allegations from the Liberals, (b) a lack of openness from the Conservatives to clear things up, and (c) an idiotic statement by Baird. That is a far cry, as yet, from proven misuse of public money on a grand scale…which is what Chretien left us as his legacy.

    So yes, if the CPC is funneling these funds to CPC ridings, they should face the music. I'm guessing though that all those on this board who are shocked, shocked I tell you, at the (alleged) shenanigans were Liberal voters both before and after Chretien's Shawinigate and Adscam peccadilloes came to light – and by "came to light" I mean "became known facts", not "were alleged by members of the Opposition".

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Does this mean the Liberals now think Harper is awesome? I'll remind you all of the various justifications:

    (1) Yes he's corrupt, but they're all corrupt!
    (2) A smart slippery PM is exactly what this country needs. Naive twits like the Opposition could never govern effectively.
    (3) Better to elect the devil you know than gamble on the one you don't!
    (4) Yes he'll misuse taxpayer money and bribe his friends, but at least nothing will get done federally and that's a good thing!
    (5) We don't care, we like him.
    (6) Doesn't matter what he's like, we vote Conservative 'cause it's Canada's Natural Governing Party.
    (7) Who cares about corruption. He looks Prime Ministerial. Have you seen those backwoods dweebs in the Opposition?
    (8) Peter Mansbridge likes him, and news anchors know everything so he must be ok.

    Let me also remind everyone that what we have here so far are (a) some disturbing allegations from the Liberals, (b) a lack of openness from the Conservatives to clear things up, and (c) an idiotic statement by Baird. That is a far cry, as yet, from proven misuse of public money on a grand scale…which is what Chretien's Liberals left us as their legacy.

    So yes, if the CPC is funneling these funds to CPC ridings, they should face the music. I'm guessing though that all those on this board who are shocked, shocked I tell you, at the (alleged) shenanigans were Liberal voters both before and after Chretien's Shawinigate and Adscam peccadilloes came to light – and by "came to light" I mean "became known facts", not "were alleged by members of the Opposition".

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Does this mean the Liberals now think Harper is awesome? I'll remind you all of the various justifications:

    (1) Yes he's corrupt, but they're all corrupt!
    (2) A smart slippery PM is exactly what this country needs. Naive twits like the Opposition could never govern effectively.
    (3) Better to elect the devil you know than gamble on the one you don't!
    (4) Yes he'll misuse taxpayer money and bribe his friends, but at least nothing will get done federally and that's a good thing!
    (5) We don't care, we like him.
    (6) Doesn't matter what he's like, we vote Conservative 'cause it's Canada's Natural Governing Party.
    (7) Who cares about corruption. He looks Prime Ministerial. Have you seen those backwoods dweebs in the Opposition?
    (8) Peter Mansbridge likes him, and news anchors know everything so he must be ok.

    Let me also remind everyone that what we have here so far are (a) some disturbing allegations from the Liberals, (b) a lack of openness from the Conservatives to clear things up, and (c) an idiotic statement by Baird. That is a far cry, as yet, from proven misuse of public money on a grand scale…which is what Chretien's Liberals left us as their legacy.

    So yes, if the CPC is frantically funneling these fantastic funds to CPC ridings, they should face the music. I'm guessing though that all those on this board who are shocked, shocked I tell you, at the (alleged) shenanigans were Liberal voters both before and after Chretien's Shawinigate and Adscam peccadilloes came to light – and by "came to light" I mean "became known facts", not "were alleged by members of the Opposition".

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

      Gaunilon, that was brilliant. Well done!

      The only point I might make in defence (the rest is bang on, LOL) is that a whole lot of us who are Liberals now, did not vote for the Liberal Party on their next opportunity after the sponsorship scandal came to light. I speak for myself, yes, but I'm betting I speak for a number of others around here as well.

      • Holly Stick

        I am not a Liberal or a member of any party, and have voted for many different parties. I don't like Ignatieff all that much, etiher.

        But as an Albertan and a Canadian, I have only contempt for Harper, who is the worst PM in living memory, worse even than Mulroney. Harper betrays Canada and Canadians every chance he gets and our children will suffer for the bad decisions that meanspirited prick makes today.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

        Fair enough. I just wanted to highlight that a lot of Liberals are keen to hammer Conservatives on their hypocrisy, but were themselves quite hypocritical in the first place. Sort of hypocrisy-squared.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

    Ahh seeing JC get this award makes me gag.Lord black and he make good companinions

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/frenchie101 frenchie101

    Hypocrisy thy name is Chretien

  • http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/dealing-only-with-one-leaking-hole-of-many-in/ Citizen

    Again "Just a Small Detail.. CBC contacted the office of Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt to ask about the lobbyist who helped organize a fundraiser on her behalf on Sept. 24. Michael B. McSweeney is vice-president of the Cement Association of Canada. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/politicalbytes/2009…

    and is this now also related to the Quebec corruptions scandals going on presently as well.. after all some of of the biggest cement companies are in Montreal.. Lafarge Cement included.. and is this why the Conservative federal government does not want to get into Quebec's legal affairs too?

From Macleans