The Backbench Top Ten

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, June 13, 2010 at 3:55 PM - 10 Comments

Our weekly, and wholly arbitrary, ranking of the ten most worthy, or at least entertaining, MPs, excluding the Prime Minister, cabinet members and party leaders. A celebration of all that is great and ridiculous about the House of Commons. Last week’s rankings appear in parentheses. Continue…

The Commons: Lawrence Cannon explains everything

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, June 10, 2010 at 6:19 PM - 47 Comments

The Scene. This is surely not the worst of times, but it is perhaps nearly the dumbest. For sure, this is a time of witless woe.

We have no doubt been sliding for some time, but when we got to Guergis we should have realized we had taken a wrong turn, crossed some threshold. Now here we are, stuck in this place with this fake lake and a phoney merger and a theoretical coalition. The threats are only ever exaggerated, the questions are facetious, the crises are manufactured. There is flailing and wailing, faux outrage and bad acting, adult human beings reduced to live-action press releases or made to demonstrate like the characters of professional wrestling. Hearsay leads the news. Bad jokes carry the day. Everyone claims patriotism. Everyone is accused of treason. All seemingly see intellectual dishonesty as the path to power. Few looking on seem to find anything here to believe in.

And so here today was a spectacle for this era, the Foreign Affairs Minister rising in the House of Commons to explain at length the government’s choice of wallpaper. Continue…

The Commons: Sound and fury signifying a lack of anything

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 9, 2010 at 5:56 PM - 19 Comments

The Scene. He seemed from the outset to be slightly smirking. With his first opportunity, the Prime Minister invoked the Olympics. When that failed to dissuade the opposition side, he raised his voice and began speaking forcefully about unrelated matters. The well-coached extras who fill the government backbenches sprang to their feet to roar their support.

For another day, the opposition persisted in asking about novelties—the fake lake, the gazebos, the antique boat—and pursuing the premise that behind it all was nothingness. Lacking explanation for their specific expenditures, the government responded with volume. Where yesterday the government was chastened, today it was defiant. The day would be won or lost according to the decibel count. In short order it was a contest of which side could more readily leap up to applaud. Continue…

The Commons: Struggling to swim in their own reflecting pool

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, June 7, 2010 at 6:41 PM - 191 Comments

The Scene. After Jack Layton had finished haranguing the Conservative side, swiping his right hand dismissively and projecting across the chamber his outrage at the latest revelation of government expenditure, John Baird was compelled to defend his team and here the platitudes runneth over. But as the Transport Minister waxed proudly about Canada’s status as a “major player” and “world leader,” his face seemed to give the game away—the makings of a slight smirk breaking ever so slightly and ever so briefly.

Alas, for even his generation’s most formidable obfuscater, it is perhaps becoming near impossible to keep a straight sneer in the face of such stuff.

Where once there was merely a billion-dollar security bill over which to trade accusations of failure, the meetings of the G8 and G20 in Ontario this month are now being discussed in terms of the antique steamship and the remote gazebo and the faraway toilets. And to those novelties, you can now add an indoor lake—sorry, “reflecting pool“—in downtown Toronto.  Continue…

What $1 billion buys you at the G8

By Scott Feschuk - Saturday, June 5, 2010 at 4:25 PM - 15 Comments

Illustration by Taylor Shute

We are spending more than $1 billion to host this month’s G8 and G20 summits, which Liberal MP Mark Holland has taken to describing as “the most expensive 72 hours in Canadian history.” Obviously he never saw Brian Mulroney’s mini-bar bill after Meech collapsed.

Think of the upside, Mark Holland: dignitaries! And entourages! If a life-threatening crisis were to break out, we could rely on the wonks to recommend a working group to investigate creating a sub-committee to formulate a draft interim policy pursuant to—oops, we’re already dead.

The G8 Summit (aka The Good One) will be held in Huntsville, Ont., at the Deerhurst Resort. I spent some time at Deerhurst last year and have disturbing news for the international community. Extensive efforts at carbon dating indicate my hotel room was last decorated in 1978. This may seem irrelevant, but don’t underestimate the ability of the decor to guide the summit toward the ethos of the 1970s, as manifested in wage-and-price controls and the German chancellor adopting Farrah Fawcett hair. The curtains alone had me craving fondue for days.

Here’s how the billion dollars we’re spending on summitry breaks down:

Pomp: $500 million. Epaulets? Surprisingly expensive.

Circumstance: $400 million. (We got a good deal on circumstance.)

Security: $75 million. At least half that sum will be devoted to ensuring world leaders are at all times protected from terror (i.e. the close-ups in Sex and the City 2).

Ambiguity: $20 million. You can’t write the G8 final communiqué without a fresh supply of vague. Why risk vowing that you “will” achieve a goal when, with the power of vague, you can pledge to “work toward” it? Back when I was a government speech writer, I gave this type of commitment a name: it was a promise-ish—a “promish.” In 2005, for instance, the G8 promished to fight climate change by “taking the dialogue forward.” And today, five years later, global warming has been defeated. (That’s the truthesque.)

Making sure Stephen Harper doesn’t miss another G8 group photo: $2 million. Twenty bucks for an alarm clock and $1,999,980 for a team of stout men to follow around the Prime Minister carrying a porta-potty.

Loot bags: $40. Everyone goes home with Twizzlers and a super ball.
Food safety: $1 million. This is actually true: we are spending $1 million to keep safe the food that will be served to G8 leaders. And you know what—I think I could do it for less. A million seems like a lot. Are we renting the tuna its own safe house?

I guess the costs add up. They’re probably hiring food tasters to ensure the meals served to G8 leaders aren’t poisoned. Attention G8 leaders: I will taste your meals FOR FREE. I’ll even cut up your ham just how you like it, Mr. Harper.

Or there’s another solution: mice. During the 2008 Olympics, the Chinese used mice to detect impurities in meals being served to athletes and officials. The animals were fed milk, alcohol, rice and a variety of other foods. They ate and ate and ate for weeks and the whole thing cost, like, 40 bucks—plus $5 for more mice when the first ones exploded.

I think the reason regular folks are cheesed about the cost of the summits is that, as taxpayers, we get no apparent benefit. If world leaders want to continue to meet in style every year, they need to give something back to the people. By which I mean they need to turn the summit into a reality show.

I’ve been to the G8 (when I worked for Paul Martin) and I am here to tell you that nothing on network television tops the real-life sight of Tony Blair fast-walking down a hallway, arms pumping, to avoid having to talk to Bob Geldof. And remember when George W. Bush got all frisky with Angela Merkel, squeezing her shoulders while she made the “Get it off! GET IT OFF!” face? More entertainment than five seasons of The Bachelor.

So here’s the deal, G8 leaders. Pull back the curtain. Welcome in the cameras. Show us the behind-the-scenes stuff like heated Middle East policy arguments and Silvio Berlusconi hitting on all the waitresses. Do that and we’ll continue forking out billions so you get your military-band welcomes and your motorcades and your bunk beds (Cameron and Clegg only). We promish.

The Commons: Anatomy of an outrage

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 2, 2010 at 6:10 PM - 130 Comments

The Scene. The afternoon culminated in a protracted and passionate debate, the crux of the discussion being perhaps the most profound question facing Western democracy and human discourse as we enter the second decade of this new century: To what extent should one be allowed to stand and publicly accuse another of evil?

In this particular context—within the walls of the House of Commons, members on all sides rising in the moments after Question Period on points of order to vent and plead and attempt reason—it might easily be dismissed as a matter of Parliamentary procedure. But then what happens here is, quite literally, a representation of us—of who we are, and what we become, when taken together. And so here we find ourselves.

Consider the case of Mark Holland, the Liberal member for Ajax—Pickering. Continue…

The Commons: What price freedom?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 27, 2010 at 6:08 PM - 107 Comments

The Scene. “What’s this about?” Michael Ignatieff begged, verging on the profound.

The subject, for a second day, was the apparent cost of securing this summer’s meetings of world leaders in cottage country Ontario and downtown Toronto respectively. The sum is now said to be a few nickels short of a billion dollars. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is apparently thinking about checking the government’s math, and the Liberals and NDP have asked the auditor general to investigate.

In the meantime, and in the absence of such accountings, there are only laments—”It borders on indecency,” the NDP’s Olivia Chow cried this afternoon—and accusatory questions, most wondering if somehow government mismanagement might perchance explain the tab. Continue…

Let us now discuss who loves criminals most

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 18, 2010 at 3:37 PM - 42 Comments

There are, it seems, the makings of a serious debate about crime policy in this country.

“We need to contextualize these choices and say, ‘If we are going to spend perhaps tens of billions of dollars on building new prisons, is that the intelligent way to go?’” said Mr. Holland.

“I think [the government] can expect that we are going to be very critical of bills that are going to cost massive amounts of money for very little return, and that we expect the government to be basing decisions on evidence as opposed to playing politics with emotions and trying to bully people into voting for things that don’t work.”

Be afraid

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 10:51 AM - 30 Comments

In the midst of a rather heated exchange with Liberal Mark Holland yesterday, Vic Toews, the Public Safety Minister, offered this.

Mr. Speaker, the kind of prison cities that the Liberals build are for ordinary citizens to be barred in their own homes because they are scared to be out on the streets. Our government believes that it is criminals who should be behind bars and ordinary citizens entitled to walk the streets when they feel like it.

The Commons: Your deferential silence is appreciated

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 4, 2010 at 6:54 PM - 263 Comments

The Scene. Bob Rae watched the Speaker for his cue and then, when called upon, checked his tie and stood to face the government side.

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to try to find the words to ask this question,” he began. “Yesterday, Senator Ruth gave perhaps the pithiest, sharpest description one can imagine of Conservative political policy that we have all heard in a long time.”

This was perhaps not quite a compliment.

“Her advice to groups that are criticizing the government or that have an issue with the government or might want to raise the issue was, I am not going to quote entirely, quite simply,” he continued, turning to the Speaker with a somewhat apologetic look on his face, “Shut the ‘F’ up.”

You can for yourself imagine what the “F” here represents. We at this demure publication do not make a habit of printing the word, so I can only tell you that it begins with an F and that after that come three letters I can only represent with dashes.

“This is what has come to the current government,” Mr. Rae lamented. “This is a culture of intimidation that has now been established by the Conservative Party: If someone has a disagreement with the government, just shut the F up.”

Here then came the polite and proper and restrained Transport Minister John Baird to respond. “Mr. Speaker,” he reported, “obviously that type of language is completely unacceptable.”

Obviously. Continue…

The Commons: ‘Whoops!’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 3, 2010 at 6:09 PM - 28 Comments

The Scene. Dominic LeBlanc stood and did as so many great rhetoricians have done before him. In this moment, he stood and sought solace in a complicated law that governs the professional behaviour of elected officials.

“Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest Act specifically states that a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further the private interests of their friends,” Mr. LeBlanc stated.

And so the echoes were sufficiently stirred.

Funny thing about this Gaffer Affair, the longer it remains with us, the more substantive it becomes. What once was a simple tale of well-endowed prostitutes and illicit narcotics is now something to do with the Conflict of Interest Act, a 13-page code of conduct that is understood by perhaps one person in the capital. This is progress. Continue…

The Commons: Finally, a straight answer

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 6:11 PM - 17 Comments

The Scene. Mark Holland walked out into the foyer and, surrounded by cameras, gamely tried to explain that he was not particularly interested in the cocaine and hookers, that this was about much more fundamental matters of governance and accountability. A short while later, Libby Davies, in sandals, strode out and, surrounded by microphones, attempted to parse the difference between the Conflict of Interest Code and the Conflict of Interest Act. The assembled reporters gamely pretended to be interested.

Alas, Day whatever-this-is of whatever we’re calling this crisis (“The Gaffer Affair” seems both a tidy and au courant moniker) passed without much more in the way of insight. Which is perhaps precisely the problem. Continue…

Mid-afternoon in Guergis

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 16, 2010 at 3:40 PM - 70 Comments

Dominic LeBlanc says the government didn’t act fast enough to guard the cabinet. The Globe tries to sort out exactly what the ethics commissioner was asked or told. Libby Davies formally asks the ethics commission to investigate. Mark Holland formally asks the lobbying commissioner to investigate. Mr. Gillani’s spokesman talks to the CBC. Doug Bell notes that spokesman is also a dog photographer. Alison Crawford notes the difference between “credible” and “serious and credible” allegations. The Prime Minister of New Zealand surmises that salaciousness is universal. Mr. Jaffer is scheduled to appear before a parliamentary committee next week. And the Ontario Provincial Police union wants to know why the charges against Mr. Jaffer were dropped.

The Commons: Made for television

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM - 48 Comments

The Scene. The Prime Minister must surely appreciate Michael Ignatieff’s concern for the good reputation of this government.

“Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Ignatieff lamented this afternoon, “by letting the rumours swirl the cloud over the government continues.”

Indeed. Though it was quite sunny and warm here today, a metaphorical cloud has descended on the capital—a swirling mess that can now be said to include references to a private investigator, blackmail, drugs and compromising photos taken in strip clubs. All or none of which may ultimately be proved to have anything to do with anything.

Mr. Ignatieff attempted to put this in some kind of context.

“There is a pattern here. When Parliament gets in the Prime Minister’s way, he shuts it down. When MPs ask for documents, he blacks them all out. When ordinary citizens ask for access to information, he turns them down. When Parliament asks a simple question, why did he fire a minister, he will not even deign to answer,” he said. “There is a pattern of arrogance here.”

The government side laughed, as, well, an arrogant bunch might be expected to react.

“When will it stop?” the Liberal leader pleaded. Continue…

The Commons: A mysterious stranger enters the story

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 12, 2010 at 5:45 PM - 69 Comments

The Scene. Michael Ignatieff did not seem particularly enthused about the subject matter, but as he clarified for reporters afterwards, this is his job now and this is the place where these matters are meant to be aired.

“Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Prime Minister fired a minister, kicked her out of caucus, called in the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner, and Canadians still do not know why,” he reviewed, trying to sound as serious as possible. “There are serious allegations surrounding the conduct of this minister, but we still do not know what they are. When will the government tell Canadians the truth?”

The government turned here to John Baird, their all-purpose refuter and obfuscationist. He did not, quite surprisingly, provide a date upon which the opposition could expect the truth to be tabled.

“Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister reported to Canadians this past Friday, allegations came forth from a third party,” Mr. Baird said, solemn and sober. “Those allegations were forwarded to officials at the RCMP and with the office of the Ethics Commissioner here in Ottawa. The RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner will come to their own conclusions, as is proper on this issue.”

Unfortunately, it was unclear to which prime minister Mr. Baird was referring. His prime minister, Stephen Harper, made no reference to this third party in his official statement last Friday. Nor does it appear the Prime Minister invoked any such mysterious source in speaking with reporters Friday afternoon. Continue…

Shelly Glover versus the world (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 8, 2010 at 2:42 PM - 41 Comments

Following Shelly Glover’s latest appearance on the national broadcaster, I asked her office to explain the Conservative’s suggestion that Liberal Mark Holland had voted against strengthening the sex offender registry. I then forwarded that explanation to Mr. Holland for his response, which he has now provided.

Here, then, those missives. Continue…

Shelly Glover versus the world

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 2:27 PM - 111 Comments

After last week’s showing, Shelly Glover returned to the national broadcaster’s airwaves this week—at the 15:50 mark of this video—to fight the government’s battle. Liberal Mark Holland was prepared this time, eager to argue that he is not a monster and, when challenged, to assert his own understanding of objective reality. That understanding of objective reality is helpfully seconded by the NDP’s Don Davies.

The insight of Shelly Glover

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 11:27 PM - 99 Comments

CBC’s Power & Politics reported this evening—available at the 24:30 mark here—on a study of current and projected prison spending by the Conservative government. To discuss the findings, the CBC turned—starting at the 28:40 mark—to a panel of MPs, including Conservative Shelly Glover. Ms. Glover, a former police officer, first suggested that “numbers can be skewed any which way you want, depending on who’s doing them.” She did, though, concede that spending will increase. Host Evan Solomon then moved on to Liberal Mark Holland and New Democrat Joe Comartin.

After Mr. Holland and Mr. Comartin had been permitted to offer their thoughts, Mr. Solomon turned back to Ms. Glover with a specific question about spending on rehabilitation. Ms. Glover’s answer was as follows. Continue…

The Liberal Christmas party

By Mitchel Raphael - Thursday, December 24, 2009 at 11:53 AM - 11 Comments

(Left to right) MPs Navdeep Bains, Mark Holland, Martha Hall Findlay, Mario Silva, Gerard Kennedy and former MP Omar Alghabra.

.

MP Mario Silva (centre) with Navdeep Bains (right).

.

Continue…

The Commons: Shrug and dismiss

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 10, 2009 at 6:01 PM - 126 Comments

The Scene. The Prime Minister stood and shrugged and declared that the military and the government had conducted themselves properly. Michael Ignatieff asked a second question. The Prime Minister rose and shrugged once more, suggesting the Liberal leader was without evidence of wrongdoing by the Canadian Forces.

In the face of futility, Mr. Ignatieff switched to English for a third try. “Mr. Speaker, there are no allegations against Canadian Forces. It is the conduct of the government that is in question,” he attempted to clarify for the umpteenth time. “The government has withheld evidence, it has intimidated witnesses, it has censored documents. This morning it even tried to prevent Parliament from debating the issue. The Prime Minister is responsible for this conduct. He is responsible for a year of wilful blindness. What does he have to hide?”

The Prime Minister stood here to declare the matter closed. “Mr. Speaker, the reason the leader of the opposition now tries to say he does not point the finger at the Canadian Forces and diplomats is, of course, because they have always respected their obligations. These people have been operating in extremely difficult conditions in Afghanistan. Whenever they have been faced with difficulties, they have taken the appropriate action,” he explained. “Systems have been changed two, three, four years ago. This issue has long since been dealt with.”

The government would seem to no longer be interested in trying to explain itself. Continue…

In remembrance

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 8:00 AM - 34 Comments

On the 11th day of the 11th month, statements of remembrance from Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff, Jack Layton, Glen Pearson, Ujjal Dosanjh, James Bezan, Ruby Dhalla, Hedy Fry, Martha Hall Findlay, Peter Stoffer and Mark Holland.

MPs mingle with the RCMP

By Mitchel Raphael - Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 4:36 PM - 7 Comments

RCMP officers mingled with MPs at The Mounted Police Members Legal Fund reception held in House Speaker Peter Milliken’s dining room.

(Left to right) Anthony Carricato from Speaker Milliken’s office, Tory aide Matt Deacon, Transport Minister John Baird.

Continue…

A new Tory star?

By John Geddes - Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 12:15 PM - 24 Comments

The star candidates who are trotted out before federal elections tend to have worked in one of several typical careers: lawyer, professor, business executive. But the Conservatives just might have a new recruit for a campaign this fall—or whenever the next election comes—whose resumé reads more like an adventure story.

Chris Alexander is arguably the most celebrated Canadian diplomat of recent years. Just 34 years old when he took over as Canada’s ambassador to war-torn Afghanistan in 2003, his youth, idealism, and a certain air of derring-do have attracted admiring media attention. Alexander went on to become the UN secretary-general’s deputy special representative in Afghanistan, spending six years in the country before coming home recently with his new wife, former Danish army officer Hedvig Boserup. Continue…

Janet Napolitano, secretly Canadian

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, September 15, 2009 at 11:37 PM - 17 Comments

Mark Holland, April 23. Mr. Speaker, while the minister is in denial, the homeland secretary is making quotes like this, “To the extent that terrorists have come into our country…it’s been across the Canadian border.” Does the public safety minister think this statement is acceptable, that we should just leave it out there, that terrorists come from Canada? Does he realize that such myths cost Canadian jobs and that in a tough economy we cannot afford to have him sitting on the sidelines with his fingers in his ears? He should stand up, speak for Canada, protect Canadian jobs, and confront this appalling lack of knowledge.

Janet Napolitano, May 27. Let me say once again, we know and I know that 9/11 terrorists did not cross the Canadian border.  I regret that the Canadian media only seems to hear an early misstatement by me to that effect.  So let me be perfectly clear: we know that.

Canadian Press, tonight. In the Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey, conducted this summer in the United States and Canada, 29 per cent of Canadian respondents said they believed some of the hijackers accessed the U.S. through Canada eight years ago. Only 19 per cent of American respondents agreed.