By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 - 0 Comments
Chris Selley questions the Liberal motion on statements by members and notes that Justin Trudeau’s interest in freedom for MPs doesn’t include the freedom to pursue a new law on abortion.
But it’s not just that Mr. Trudeau is trying to foment dissent within the Conservative ranks on a very basic and important point of privilege (which is certainly fair play, but not exactly Doing Politics Differently). It’s that he agrees with the subcommittee on private member’s business that quashed Mr. Warawa’s motion in the first place. “[I’m] committed to giving MPs more freedom to represent Canadians, but MPs would be required to support Canadians’ fundamental rights,” he tweeted a while back. “For me, a woman’s right to choose is a fundamental right.” (He seemed to be suggesting that the motion ran afoul of the Charter, which is absurd.)
In other words, Mr. Trudeau is not so much standing up for MPs’ freedom to discuss and debate issues, or for Parliament as the proper venue for same, as MPs’ right to make embarrassing statements that he can then use against them. It’s very likely that at least a few Liberals would vote for a private member’s motion condemning sex-selective abortion, and he couldn’t have that, could he? It would ruin his angle of attack.
This goes to both Mr. Trudeau’s promised democratic reforms and the larger discussion about abortion and democracy. It’s actually possible that all three party leaders in the House—Mr. Harper, Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair—are in agreement on this point: no votes in the House about anything to do with abortion.
Jeff Jedras has argued that the Liberals should whip any vote related to abortion: that if the party has taken a pro-choice position, its MPs should adhere to that position. Perhaps Mr. Trudeau basically agrees with Jeff. At least so long as none of his MPs decide to pursue a bill or motion related to abortion and Mr. Harper is able to block any Conservative MP from doing likewise, he might never have to enforce such discipline. But should such a motion or bill reach the floor, if Mr. Harper or his successor should allow that to happen or prove unable to stop it, Mr. Trudeau will be put in a bit of a spot. When Motion 312 reached the floor last fall, four Liberals voted in favour. Were something like Motion 312 to reach the floor now, what would Mr. Trudeau say to someone like John McKay?
McKay, one of four Grit MPs who voted in favour of a motion calling for a review of “when life begins” this week, is outraged over the suggestion debate should on stifled. “It is going to be discussed, and it is going to keep coming up and it is failure of political will to actually deal with it,” McKay told reporters outside the Commons Friday.
Although the Liberals circulated a petition against the motion put forward by backbench Tory MP Stephen Woodworth, interim leader Bob Rae allowed caucus members to vote freely. “I don’t like to go against my colleagues or the platform of the Liberal party. It is not a lot of fun but Mr. Rae had the wisdom to say these are matters of conscience and views,” McKay said. “I think I actually have an informed view. I think my opinion should count for something and I am sick and tired of people refusing to discuss what is a foundational issue in this country.”
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 5:43 PM - 0 Comments
Conservative MP Robert Goguen had apparently been up late last night, carefully reviewing the main estimates and he was keen this afternoon to rise shortly before Question Period and report back to the House with what he’d found. “Yesterday, in main estimates, there were significant reductions in the cost of prisons due to the influx of new prisoners not materializing,” the government backbencher celebrated, dismissing opposition concerns about prison spending in the process.
Mr. Goguen was being modest. At last report there were actually more individuals in prison than ever before. Which would seem to render those “significant reductions” all the more impressive. (Although the increasing violence in prisons might make it more difficult to feel good about frugality.)
This good news might’ve ruled the day were it not for those on the opposition side who’d also taken some time to review the estimates themselves. They were decidedly less enthused than Mr. Goguen.
“Mr. Speaker, at the same time that we continue to read in the estimates with respect to the cuts that are being made in front line programs, in foreign aid programs, in foreign affairs budgets, we now see that the CIC is increasing its advertising budget by $4 million, the Department of Finance is increasing its advertising budget by nearly $7 million, and the Department of Natural Resources is increasing its advertising budget by $4.5 million compared to the main estimates of last year,” interim Liberal leader Bob Rae reported, reading from a white piece of paper.
Now Mr. Rae wagged his finger in the Prime Minister’s general direction. “I would like to ask the Prime Minister how he can justify again this double standard where front line services are being cut but propaganda is being increased?”
Oddly, Mr. Harper begged to differ almost entirely. “Mr. Speaker,” the Prime Minister corrected, “those front line services are not being cut.”
By Aaron Wherry - Friday, December 7, 2012 at 12:10 PM - 0 Comments
This morning’s QP has just concluded. The F-35 procurement was, predictably, a particular point of opposition concern. Below, a sampling.
Jack Harris. Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives don’t even know how to cancel a project properly. The deliberations of a cabinet committee on operations has been leaked and after years of defending the F-35s in the most insulting way to anybody who commented, the government will now reportedly restart the whole process, as the NDP has demanded for years. This issue has shown the worst of Conservative mismanagement. Will they stop these backroom leaks and share the truth with Canadians and release and table the KPMG report today?
Jacques Gourde. Mr. Speaker, we are determined to continue with our seven-point plan and our exhaustive and transparent process to replace the CF-18s. The government has received the KPMG report and it is examining it. The government will talk about this publicly before the end of this Parliament.
Jack Harris. Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to know the truth and yet the Conservatives have been hiding the truth from Canadians for years. The cabinet leaks are everywhere, the KPMG report is supposedly out, there’s a program here that no one will defend and now costs are estimated to be north of $40 billion. A litany of Conservative failure and mismanagement. When will they come clean, admit their misguided plan has failed and finally agree to have an open and transparent competition? Continue…
By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 12, 2012 at 10:53 AM - 0 Comments
Liberal MP John McKay laments the defeat of Motion 312.
As MPs exited the Chamber after the crushing defeat of M-312 (a motion to Study Canada’s 400 Year Old Definition of a Human Being), I was struck by the sombre atmosphere. Usually MPs are quite chatty and boisterous after votes as they head off to various receptions, meetings, etc.; not so on Wednesday night. It was as if someone had died. In fact, I said to a colleague it was like exiting a funeral. Conversation was muted. The shrillness that characterized the debate was silenced. Maybe someone or something did die, and MPs inadvertently reflected it in their demeanor…
Parliament was asked to speak, and it refused. Maybe at some level the sombre atmosphere exiting the Chamber reflected more than merely friends and colleagues being at odds with each other. Maybe it reflected on the realization that MPs had just taken themselves out of the game. Canadians should be entitled to a mature and civilized rights dialogue.
By Aaron Wherry - Monday, September 24, 2012 at 1:23 PM - 0 Comments
Liberal MP John McKay will vote in favour of Stephen Woodworth’s motion. (Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae has condemned the motion, but has declined to whip the vote. Jeff Jedras has suggested there is a contradiction here.)
Meanwhile, on the government side, Jason Kenney says he will support the motion.
By Aaron Wherry - Friday, July 20, 2012 at 6:58 PM - 0 Comments
Opposition MPs criticize Jason Kenney for agreeing with what he thought Rob Ford was saying.
Liberal MP John McKay, whose Scarborough riding was rocked by the shooting, said Kenney should have known better than to echo anything said by Ford, whom he accused of fanning “the flames of ignorance and prejudice.” ”It’s classic dopey on dopey,” McKay said in an interview.
McKay, who has spent considerable time since the shooting meeting with residents in the affected community, said they’re “upset that their community is going to be stigmatized.” He said Kenney’s talk of foreigners is only going to make that worse. ”If being born here of Jamaican or Caribbean parentage makes you a foreigner, I guess they’re foreigners,” McKay said, adding that he saw the residents “more as Canadians.”
Bob Rae tweets.
When Jason Kenney takes his policy advice from Rob Ford, you know we’re in deep trouble as a country.
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at 8:01 PM - 0 Comments
“This is not a time for panicking. It is a time for people to work together at all levels and find solutions that actually will deal with these people in a preventable way,” Mr. Fantino, the International Development Minister, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. Perpetrators of these types of crimes have not been deterred by the criminal justice responses that existed for many years, he said. “That is why we are stiffening things up somewhat to make the consequences more meaningful and more certain. And, although that’s not the cure-all and the end-all, it does provide some answers.”
… Liberal MP John McKay, in whose riding the shootings took place, said there are better ways to spend crime-fighting dollars than the measures introduced by the Conservatives. But “to be candid about it, I frankly don’t know that any legislation can deal with something like this,” Mr. McKay said. “This is some immature individual who decided that they are going to solve their problems at the end of a barrel of a gun.”
Meanwhile, Vic Toews laments for judges who have refused to abide by mandatory minimum sentencing legislation.
“We are very concerned about the courts doing that, because illegal firearms — especially those smuggled in from the United States … minimum prison sentences are absolutely essential to create a strong deterrent against that kind of activity,” Toews said in an interview with Prairie network Golden West Radio. ”These guns are being used by gangs in order to perpetrate the kind of violence that we’ve seen on our streets.”
For last week’s print edition, Colby Cosh looked at the two rulings this year in Ontario that have found the mandatory sentences inappropriate.
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at 4:52 PM - 0 Comments
A joint statement from Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and International Cooperation Minister Julian Fantino (the Conservative MP for Vaughan) on the shooting in Scarborough last night.
“Our Government was very saddened to hear about this shooting in Toronto last night. We condemn this brazen shooting and extend our heartfelt condolences to the victims and their families.
“Canadians are concerned about violent crime, that’s why over the past six years our Government has introduced tough-on-crime legislation, like the Safe Streets and Communities Act, to keep dangerous criminals and gang members off the streets and out of our communities. We have also taken steps to ensure our border is open to legitimate travel and trade but closed to criminals and gun smugglers.
“Our Conservative Government has introduced mandatory minimum penalties for all serious firearms offences. We call on the Opposition to support victims and our actions to improve the safety of Canadian families. Canadians can count on us to stand up for victims and to continue strengthening our justice system so that those who commit serious crimes, particularly with firearms, serve serious jail time.
“Illegal guns and the criminals who use them have no place in our society. Our Government is committed to ensuring criminals are held fully accountable for their actions and that the safety and security of law-abiding Canadians comes first in Canada’s justice system.”
By Aaron Wherry - Friday, June 22, 2012 at 9:34 AM - 0 Comments
Yesterday’s QP exchange on the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
John McKay: Mr. Speaker, in November 2008 the PBO predicted a deficit, the minister a surplus. The PBO was right, the minister wrong. In December 2009, the PBO predicted a lapse in infrastructure spending. The PBO was right; the minister was wrong. In 2010, the PBO pegged cost overruns on the F-35 at more than $10 billion more than the minister. Again, the PBO was right and the minister was wrong. There seems to be a pattern here. The PBO is more frequently right than wrong, and the government appears to be more frequently wrong than right. If this is overstepping the mandate, maybe we need a bit more of the PBO, not less.
Tony Clement: Mr. Speaker, in 2009 this was said: “I’m quite concerned the Parliamentary Budget Officer sees himself as an independent practitioner who can report whenever he wants”. Who said that? It was the Liberal member for St. Paul’s. What the public can see through right away is that when the opposition members want to use the Parliamentary Budget Officer as an attack talking point, then they side with the Parliamentary Budget Officer; when they disagree because it does not fulfill their arguments, then they attack the Parliamentary Officer.
Meanwhile, last night on Twitter, Mr. Clement had praise for the committee report that includes a recommendation that further study be conducted into making the PBO a full officer of Parliament (including NDP and Liberal recommendations that he be given that status).
Kevin Pages says he’ll wait until the fall to see if the government responds to request for budget details before pursuing court action.
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 12:22 AM - 0 Comments
Less than 10 minutes into the evening, the NDP’s Jack Harris seemed to give up hope.
“I can see what kind of night this is going to be,” he sighed.
Mr. Harris stood here for the purposes of questioning the Minister of Defence and the Associate Minister of Defence, no less than four hours set aside for the purposes of scrutinizing the government’s policies and plans. The ministers in question—Peter MacKay and Julian Fantino—sat along the front row of the government side, each with a large binder of papers in front of them. With the two ministers sat Chris Alexander and Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretaries present and past, each with their own large binder of papers. And in front of the four Conservatives sat three officials, including the chief of defence staff, at a small table placed in the centre aisle, each official having arrived with a large binder of papers.
With so much paper present, the night had seemed so full of promise. Continue…
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 1, 2012 at 11:31 AM - 0 Comments
Beyond the matter of the toy shuttles and beneath the daily debate over the F-35 procurement, there is an intriguing dispute playing out in the House.
Nearly a month ago now, Bob Rae rose on a point of privilege and attempted to make the case that the House had been misled on the F-35 file. The Speaker could not find a question of privilege in Mr. Rae’s comments, so the interim Liberal leader tried again the next day.
Mr. Rae’s argument was twofold: first, that while ministers were telling the House that the government accepted the conclusions of the auditor general, two departments of government officially disagree with some of the auditor general’s findings; second, that “if in fact it is true that the government accepts the conclusions of the Auditor General’s report, the Government of Canada is admitting that for a period of 21 months it misled the Parliament of Canada.”
After some quibbling with this from the government side, the House went on break for two weeks.
Upon the resumption of business last week, Peter Van Loan offered a full response from the government. The next morning, Nathan Cullen tabled the NDP’s position. That afternoon, Liberal MP John McKay added ten points of his own. He was then followed by Wayne Easter. Last Thursday, Mr. Rae responded to Mr. Van Loan. Yesterday, Mr. Van Loan responded to Mr. Rae. Though the Speaker is now pleading for the House to leave the matter with him, Mr. McKay has suggested he might have more to add.
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM - 0 Comments
The Liberals blame the Prime Minister.
“The Harper Conservatives have done nothing but stonewall and withhold vital information from Canadians,” said Liberal Defence critic John McKay. “Now they appear ready to throw bureaucrats and our armed forces under yet another bus, but Canadians won’t be fooled. Responsibility for this fiasco lies squarely on the Prime Minister’s desk. Other NATO governments shared facts, told the truth and allowed for public debate. The Harper Conservatives tried to hide the truth, attacked their political opponents and have refused to come clean. They are still refusing to do so. Their conduct has been nothing less than disgraceful and the fault lies with one man, whose style of leadership has been exposed for all to see in this report.”
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments
During QP yesterday, Megan Leslie became the first MP to work the names of Canada’s new pandas into a question about the government’s credibility.
Mr. Speaker, even the Prime Minister’s new BFF is shocked by his disregard for Canada’s international commitments. No, not Er Shun and Ji Li but China, was joined by India, Brazil and South Africa in condemning the Conservative withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol. They said they seriously question the government’s credibility and sincerity on climate change and they slammed Canada for casually setting aside our existing legal commitments. Why will the government not stop working against Canada’s national interest and start defending our reputation?
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM - 0 Comments
After she’d finished, the Prime Minister stood and ignored her entirely. ”Mr. Speaker,” he said, “especially at this time of year, we all appreciate the chance to be Canadian.”
And why are we all so particularly appreciative this year?
“One reason is that our government and our country have a very good record in job creation and economic growth compared to other major developed countries,” Mr. Harper explained. “That’s the target of this government and we intend to continue to target the economy, growth and job creation.”
Later, one of Mr. Harper’s lieutenants would describe the government’s omnibus crime bill as a “gift” to all Canadians. (You were probably hoping for an iPad, but imagine all the fun your kids will have on Christmas day when they’re sentencing each other to mandatory minimums.) Continue…
By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, October 23, 2011 at 3:18 PM - 23 Comments
A statement from the Prime Minister on the liberation of Libya.
“Today, Canadians join with the Libyan people in celebrating the liberation of their country. The Libyan people have courageously risen up against decades of tyranny. Canada’s involvement, as sanctioned by the United Nations and led by NATO, has supported their aspirations for the future. We join Libyans in welcoming the post-Gaddafi era and the transition of the country to a democratic society – one that respects human rights and the rule of law.
“We again commend the work of members of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force and the leadership of Canadian Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard. Their efforts have led to the success of NATO’s mission in Libya. NATO has taken a preliminary decision to conclude the mission at the end of October. Canada will continue to work with transitional leaders as the new Libya takes shape.”
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 6, 2011 at 8:45 AM - 0 Comments
Tuesday night the House overwhelmingly passed the Liberal motion calling for a national suicide prevention strategy. Debate on the motion stars here and resumes here. Liberal MP John McKay’s speech in support of the motion is below.
By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM - 11 Comments
Not only does this reckless, unnecessary, opportunistic election imperil everything you hold dear, it also deprived Bev Oda her place in the history books.
A parliamentary committee reviewing whether she had misled the House of Commons over a decision to reject an international funding request was unable to adopt its report before Friday’s non-confidence motion vote brought down the government. ”Bev Oda missed becoming a footnote in history by about a millimetre,” said Liberal MP John McKay.
By Aaron Wherry - Friday, March 18, 2011 at 6:14 PM - 62 Comments
By her own reckoning, Bev Oda was here to address “the confusion.” ”At the outset,” she said, “let me state that I take full responsibility for the confusion my initial answers created—and I apologize for that.”
Of course, this was not quite the “outset.” Depending on when one starts the clock on this matter, Ms. Oda’s present predicament could be said to date back months, perhaps more than a year. Indeed, were this really the “outset,” she would not have had to show up here this morning to read from a prepared statement that, when distributed to the reporters present, included 12 footnotes and three appendices.
“I’m here today,” she continued, “to explain to this committee, and to the public, why, initially, I did not understand how my answers were creating confusion.”
Here was a tribute to the qualified statement—a four-page monologue that could plausibly qualify as an experiment in post-modern poetry or at least a brilliant satire. ”There was no intention to mislead the committee members,” she said of her appearance before the foreign affairs committee in December. “I now realize that from someone else’s perspective it was confusing … People listening to my answers might have thought that I signed the document and then after that someone added the word “not.” That didn’t occur to me because I knew that wasn’t what happened. At the time I did not see the confusion that my answer would cause, and I apologize for creating confusion.”
By way of conclusion, she offered a sentence so beautifully crafted that it should be immediately hammered onto a plaque and hung above the entrance to the House of Commons. Continue…
By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 4:30 PM - 165 Comments
Here is the prepared text for the Speaker’s ruling on the government’s refusal to produce documents:
Here is the prepared text for the Speaker’s ruling on Bev Oda’s statements to Parliament:
In both cases, the Speaker found a prima facie question of privilege. In response to the former, Liberal Scott Brison moved that the matter be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee and that the committee report back to the House by March 21. In response to the latter, Liberal John McKay moved that the matter be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee and that the committee report back to the House by March 25.
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 3, 2011 at 5:37 PM - 38 Comments
The Scene. To his credit, Pierre Poilievre, the fresh-faced and ambitious young parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, does not take himself too seriously.
“We are building the country,” he sighed in response to a Liberal question this afternoon about the in-and-out affair, “rather than tearing people down.”
Now so long as you have paid even a little attention—or watched even a little television—these last five years, you will understand this to be a hilarious statement. Indeed, so long as you do not believe Mr. Poilievre to be completely delusional, you must regard this statement as an attempt by Mr. Poilievre to make a joke—a knowing wink, a cheeky taunt.
Mind you, the punchline here is not merely that the government side hardly lives up to the genteel principles of respect and manners invoked by Mr. Poilievre. Rather, the joke here is that it’s all a joke. Continue…
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM - 21 Comments
The Speaker heard final arguments yesterday on the matter of Bev Oda and the inartfully edited paperwork. He has promised to return to the House with a decision in due course.
In response to Ms. Oda’s statement, the foreign affairs committee—with a notable Conservative dissent—filed a report with the House. A new question of privilege was then raised with the Speaker. The next day, the government delivered its official response. Which brings us to yesterday’s interventions. Which brings us to the moment at which Peter Milliken must rule.
In addition to all that one can glean from the links above, there is the original Embassy story on the document in question.
By Aaron Wherry - Friday, February 18, 2011 at 3:42 PM - 5 Comments
After John McKay, Paul Dewar and Pierre Paquette rose on points of privilege yesterday, several more points were made after QP today, including the government’s response via Tom Lukiwski, the parliamentary secretary to the Government House leader.
As in the Foreign Affairs committee’s report, the government’s claim is that Ms. Oda was unaware of precisely who added the “not” and as she was asked “who” (and not, say, “how”), she did not mislead the House.
After the jump, some of today’s discussion. Continue…
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, February 17, 2011 at 3:43 PM - 23 Comments
Shortly after Question Period, Liberal John McKay rose to raise a question of privilege related to International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda. He concluded as follows.
Privilege as you well know exists for good reason. In this instance as all others it is to compel truthfulness – even when embarrassing – even when it doesn‟t suit the government‟s agenda. Privilege exists so that M.P.s can make decisions based on fact, not on fiction. Privilege exists as a core value of democracy because M.P.s and their constituents, the People of Canada, have every right to expect that public discourse in this Chamber is without artifice. You Mr. Speaker, are the guardian of that core value – the value of truthfulness between and among Members, Ministers, and the Prime Minister. Any ruling other than a prima facie case of breach of privilege in this case will inevitably lead to another even more egregious abuse. Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues are calling upon you to put a stop to tampered documents, to blaming others, to casual regard for facts before a Committee of the House. We call on you to uphold the highest standards of discourse by Ministers in their communication to the House. Mr. Speaker, with the additional material before you, the case for contempt is even more compelling than it was before. I am prepared to move the motion of contempt upon your direction.
His full statement is here. He was followed by the NDP’s Paul Dewar and the Bloc’s Pierre Paquette.
By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 6:51 PM - 41 Comments
The Scene. The moment apparently called for an accusatorily extended index finger. But first, a flashback—subjective as it may be—for the sake of those just tuning in to this tale of Bev Oda’s woe.
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Prime Minister basically said: ‘I don’t care whether my minister doctored documents. I don’t care whether she misled the House. I don’t care whether she told the truth. I just don’t care,’” Michael Ignatieff reviewed off the top.
“This kind of disrespect for democracy just has to stop,” he continued, now turning to today. “When will the Prime Minister start showing respect for this House, respect for the people who put us here and fire that minister?”
Here is where he wagged that finger, a dramatic gesture rarely employed by the Liberal leader. Alas, it would him get no further.
“Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of that question,” the Prime Minister pleaded. “The minister took a decision. The minister made clear that the decision was contrary to recommendations which she received from unelected officials, but in a democracy it is the elected officials who make decisions on how to spend taxpayers’ money.”
Apparently here the Prime Minister meant to present us with a choice. We could have a democracy in which elected officials make decisions. Or we could have a democracy in which elected officials were expected to tell the truth and refrain from doctoring documents. But we could not have it both ways. Continue…
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 6:39 PM - 180 Comments
The Scene. The Speaker called for oral questions and Michael Ignatieff stood, rubbing his hands together. This likely had something to with the temperature, it being frightfully cold in the capital today.
But if it was a gesture—albeit a rather cartoonish gesture—of glee, it would not be without warrant. Here the opposition was once more presented with a minister of exceeding clumsiness. The Liberal leader had not so much to formulate an interrogation than relay the official record of events and then throw his hands up in the air.
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Cooperation cut funding to a reputable church organization, then doctored a document from her officials to make it look as if they agreed with her judgment when they did not and then she misled the House,” he recalled.
“This is conduct unworthy of a minister,” he ventured. ”The question to the Prime Minister is, what consequence will the minister face for misleading the House and the Canadian people?”
Here the Prime Minister stood to impose his authority upon the situation. “On the contrary, Mr. Speaker,” he said.
Indeed. A senior government official with some insight into Mr. Harper’s soul told the evening news last night that Ms. Oda maintained the full confidence of the Prime Minister. And no doubt that is true. How could it not be? If making a spectacle of oneself were a fireable offence, Mr. Harper would be without much of his cabinet. Indeed, a quick review of the frontbench would seem to indicate that by doing so so spectacularly, Ms. Oda might be in line for a promotion. If she’d somehow worked a pirate metaphor into yesterday’s explanation, she might already be Finance Minister. Continue…