Here, again, is Frances Ryan’s look at Question Period reform. Here is the longer essay from which that article is derived. Lots in there, but the discussed changes are essentially as follows:

1. Extend the amount of time allotted to each question and answer.
2. Switch to a “roster” system, whereby the Prime Minister is available once a week, with separate ministers assigned to each day.
3. Limit the ability of party whips to determine who gets to ask questions and the use of supplementary questions.
4. Broaden the ability of government backbenchers to ask actual questions of minister.

Some of this mirrors what our Paul Wells proposed in June. Some of it refers directly to what Conservative MP Michael Chong argued in a previous issue of the CPR.

Now then, here, as an amalgam of all that plus a suggestion of my own, is what I think I’d do. Continue…

Glen Pearson has pleasant conversations with MPs from other parties. And such as it is this is considered noteworthy.

In all, it was a remarkable day, made all the more meaningful by the willingness of members to put aside their more partisan ways to engage in a middle space, even if just for a time.  There was a lot of crossing over yesterday and Parliament was the better for it.

So, remember how Michael Chong kinda sorta took a cheap shot at RIM co-founder Mike Lazaridis just as he was finishing up his testimony before the Industry committee today? When he suggested that there seemed to be a double standard as far as his objections to the way the Nortel auction was handled, and his fellow co-founder Jim Balsillie’s objections to the NHL league auction process? And then instead of giving Lazaridis the chance to reply, he gaveled down and adjourned the meeting? Which ITQ thought was a little bit unfair, since it was sort of taking advantage of his chairmanly powers?

Anyway,  as we were filing out of the committee room this afternoon, we were greeted by a RIM official handing out copies of the following written response to Chong’s comments.

Your move, Chairman Chong:

August 7, 2009
The Honourable Michael Chong, M.P.
Chair
Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario

Dear Mr. Chong,

Thank you for allowing me to appear before the Industry Committee this morning. I appreciated the opportunity to make a statement, table a brief, and in particular to answer the questions posed to me. At the end of the session, as we ran out of time, you raised some important issues without giving me the chance to reply. As such, I would appreciate it if you could read this reply into the record before adjourning today.
Continue…

Rudyard Griffiths, co-founder of the Dominion Institute, held the Ottawa launch of his book Who We Are: A Citizen’s Manifesto at Social.

The book’s publisher calls the work: “A passionate call for Canadians to take stock and re-engage with our country and its values before we falter as a nation.”

Below is Griffiths (left) with Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

Marc Chalifoux, executive director of the Dominion Institute.

Continue…

Rudyard Griffiths, co-founder of the Dominion Institute, held the Toronto launch of his book, Who We Are: A Citizen’s Manifesto at Toronto’s Ultra Supper Club. According to the publisher, the book is “a passionate call for Canadians to take stock and reengage with our country and its values before we falter as a nation.”

 Marc Chalifoux, Executive Director of the Dominion Institute.

Joseph Lavoie of Navigator Limited. He’s also a former winner on Canada’s Next Great Prime Minister.

Continue…

The Guelph Mercury has posted video of Conservative Michael Chong commenting, at a debate during last fall’s election, on Omar Khadr.

Suffice it to say, you can add Mr. Chong to the list of pinko softies who believe Mr. Khadr should be repatriated.

Full clip after the jump. Continue…

The Conservative surveys the scene for the Guelph Mercury.

“I think that both sides of the House have learned from their mistakes before the Christmas break,” said Wellington-Halton Hills MP Michael Chong. “I think we’re going to see a renewed sense of co-operation.”

Mistakes on both sides?

A question asked by the Conservative MP in the final moments of debate in the House today.

“Mr. Speaker, in light of the events that are taking place as we speak, my question is, what would Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine, two fathers of responsible government in Canada, two citizens, one francophone, one anglophone, who reached across the aisle to forge a consensus, two people who, out of the rebellions of the Upper and Lower Canada in the 19th century, argued that violence was not the solution but, rather, a redefined role for the legislative branch of government, one that would see the legislative branch as central to the political life of a nation, have said about the events that are transpiring in this House and outside of this House this week?”

“We misread the situation.”

The enigmatic Conservative MP manages to make what is, to my knowledge, the only public, on-the-record admission of fault from a member of Stephen Harper’s government to date.

Then he dismisses the coalition, pledges his allegiance to the Conservatives and follows up with a written statement to reinforce his agreement with the party line.

First, this. Now, this.

An opinion piece published Friday in the Globe and Mail by Tom Flanagan, a past Conservative campaign director, suggested that ethnic voters are “easier to woo” than Quebec voters in Harper’s quest for a majority.

“Ethnic voters don’t rally to the fashionable causes of the left, such as gay marriage, carbon neutrality and the 100-mile diet; and they don’t make many demands except to be accepted as good Canadians,” wrote Flanagan.

Chong disagreed. “New Canadians are as diverse as the population at large,” said Chong, and the party has to continue to broaden its appeal, not through narrow-casting, but by presenting a moderate, diverse political option.

The latest issue of Canadian Parliamentary Review includes an essay about improving discourse in the House. Usual stuff about reforming Question Period and so forth.

But there is this: “Today, virtually all speeches for Debate are written in various leaders’ or ministers’ offices. Members often have no input into the content of these speeches.  They are reading literally reading someone else’s words into Hansard. This is the job of a transcriber, not a Member of Parliament.”

And this: “Furthermore, the existence of the whip on most votes means that the outcome of Debate is all but preordained before Debate has even begun … members need more latitude in expressing their views and in deciding the outcome of votes. Clearly, members of the cabinet are bound by ministerial solidarity to support government legislation, but there should be greater latitude for non-cabinet members to freely to express their views and to vote as they wish on many more issues.”

And then there’s the fact that the author is not a member of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition, but Michael Chong, a sitting member (and former minister) of the current government.

So that’s a government MP and former member of Stephen Harper’s cabinet. Publicly acknowledging that he and his colleagues have little to no freedom in what they can say. And lamenting that he and his colleagues have little to no freedom in how they can vote.

Even if you already assumed those things to be true, this would seem to be rather, well, noteworthy.

Not to dwell unnecessarily on this question of timing, but compare these two sentences.

First, from Mr. Bernier’s statement today. “Last Monday, I informed the prime minister of my resignation as Canada’s minister of foreign affairs as soon as I became aware of a security breach whereby I forgot confidential government documents at Ms. Julie Couillard’s residence.”

Then, from the letter of resignation distributed Monday night by the PMO. “I informed you late this afternoon that last night I became aware that I had left behind classified government documents at a private residence.”

Is there any reading by which both those statements can be true? Continue…