The Commons: Not a contest you want to win
By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 28, 2008 - 0 Comments
Pierre Poilievre is next in line to defend this government against accusations of scandal
The Scene. Back again, then, to the House. And to the question of the day, or perhaps the month, or perhaps the year.
“When,” asked Stephane Dion, “will the Prime Minister wake up and smell the coffee?”
This was, somehow, a reference to the state of our national finances.
The Prime Minister, unfortunately, was not present to offer a response. Though he was later spotted on the balcony overlooking the House foyer, apparently posing for pictures with some children. Cameraman desperate for fresh images of the man were left to capture riveting images of the back of his head.
Not that the government was left without a strong voice on this day. Quite the contrary.
“I am pleased,” sniffed Peter Van Loan, “the leader of the Liberal Party has woken up to the economy.”
So dismissed, Dion changed metaphors. “They spent the cupboard bare,” he charged of the other side.
When that failed to rattle the government, Michael Ignatieff openly wondered whether Conservative incompetence was part of a “secret agenda.”
“I am sorry to disappoint the member opposite Mr. Speaker, but there is no secret,” Jim Flaherty lamented.
This was getting us nowhere, so, thankfully, the Bloc Québécois chose a different tact, returning us once more to the risquely named In-and-Out controversy.
One immediately expected Van Loan, the resourceful House leader, to rise once more. But no. He sat. And up came Pierre Poilievre.
“What’s he doing standing up?” a member of the press gallery asked openly.
Poilievre, recently named in a poll as both the biggest gossip and the second-best scrooge on the Hill, has also won the title of Tory point man on that bit of electoral dodginess. If James Moore’s Cadman quagmire is any indication, Poilievre will now be fielding questions on this so long as the allegations of nefariousness persist. Congratulations or condolences are probably in order.
With John Baird beaming proudly at his protege, Poilievre stood no fewer than 14 times this day, demonstrating a remarkable ability to simultaneously excuse his party’s actions and accuse its opponents of doing likewise.
First, there were a few quotes from the former chief electoral officer (never mind that apparent misreading of the source). Then even a line from our own Andrew Coyne.
So daunted were the Liberals by the government’s newborn pit bull that several of them called out, “More! More!”
Later, a few allegations of Liberal misdeed—a tactic that was at least preferable to the limpest of talking points. “Mr. Speaker,” Poilievre offered at one point. “Conservative candidates paid for Conservative ads with Conservative money.”
When it was all over, Gordon O’Connor, late of the defence minister’s portfolio, stopped by on his way out of the House and patted Poilievre on the shoulder. Smiling, the white-haired veteran of this stuff offered a hearty thumbs-up.
Surely O’Connor knows what is to come for Poilievre in subsequent days. And surely he must be happy that, exiled to national revenue, he will likely never again see such fun.
The Stats. Election financing, 14 questions. The economy, seven questions. Quebec media, four questions. International aid, abortion, language rights and natives, two questions each. Drugs, Chuck Cadman and biofuels, one question each.
Pierre Poilievre, 14 answers. Jim Flaherty and Josée Verner, four answers each. Peter Van Loan and Rob Nicholson, three answers each. Bev Oda, Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Chuck Strahl, two answers each. James Moore and Gerry Ritz, one answer each.
Segue of the Day. Courtesy of Liberal Joyce Murray. “Mr. Speaker, earlier the Minister of International Cooperation boasted about the Conservatives meaningful commitment. Here is one we know about. Financial considerations were offered to Chuck Cadman to influence a critical vote.”
-
The Commons: A Prime Minister named Sue
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM - 0 Comments
The Scene. The government benches stood and cheered, unanimously and enthusiastically, swollen with pride. What were they all so happily applauding? Good question.
Surely it was not the news that an inquiry into their handling of Afghan detainees will soon be launched. Nor could it have been word that one former prime minister (Clark, Joe) sees Canada’s international stature wasting away under this administration. Nor reports the last prime minister (Martin, Paul) was recently in Mexico showing more concern for a mistreated Canadian citizen than the current head of government has yet demonstrated.
What about the arrival on Parliament Hill of Justice Gomery, the esteemed detailer of government malfeasance, to identify the current Prime Minister’s Office as a “danger to Canadian democracy?” Or the latest calls for various resignations in the wake of that NAFTA messiness?
No, neither of those developments seem worth cheering either.
So what was it? What had so reassured this bunch of its purpose and righteousness? Well, it was this. Continue…
-
The Commons: So it goes
By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 12:12 AM - 0 Comments
The Conservatives have no credible answers and the Liberals are now mocking them in verse
The Scene. It surely says something about this place right now that you can wander way for a few days, only to return and realize you haven’t missed any development of any kind. Indeed, in this case, the Liberals continue to come after the Conservatives with straightforward questions on the Cadman case, while the government steadfastly refuses to provide wholly forthcoming answers. Perhaps both should be commended for their persistence.But first, a poem, courtesy of Todd Russell—the Liberal class clown rising just before Question Period from his seat in the back row with the following. -
BTC: The health hazards of covering the House
By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 10, 2008 at 10:16 PM - 0 Comments
No column today on account of a rather nasty cold. One note though before crawling back into bed.
On Friday, in response to a question from Ralph Goodale, James Moore repeated that Chuck Cadman was being courted in hopes of his returning to the Conservative side. Only this time, Mr. Moore added a personal note.
“Mr. Speaker, Chuck Cadman was always welcome to rejoin the Conservative caucus. As a matter of fact, after that vote there were a number of times when I saw Chuck Cadman around and I would tell him he was welcome back to our party any time.”
According to Like A Rock, Chuck and his wife, Dona, flew from Ottawa to Vancouver on May 20, the day after the infamous vote. His health deteriorated quickly after that and he was dead six weeks later. And, as we learn on page 288, “Chuck never did return to Ottawa after the big budget vote.”
When, then, did Mr. Moore see Mr. Cadman?
I’ve e-mailed Mr. Moore twice now—once on Friday night and again today—seeking clarification, but have yet to hear from him.
(Objection! Relevance? Goes to the credibility of the witness.)














