The Commons: Now is not the time for subtlety

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM - 0 Comments

It was just two weeks ago, asked about Alberta’s carbon tax, that Peter Kent was moved to muse aloud about a contentious and contested topic. “There hasn’t,” he ventured, “been a great deal of subtlety in talking about carbon pricing.”

Perhaps this lack of subtlety is something like the root cause of our current impasse. Or perhaps this is no time for nuance.

The foreign press is now referring to Joe Oliver as the Canadian “oil minister, which is terribly unfair to the trees and rocks and water he is also responsible for making use of. Of a year-old op-ed, Mr. Oliver is accusing a NASA scientist of “crying wolf” and suggesting that James Hansen ”should be chaining himself to a mannequin in Rodeo Drive,” which would be pointless unless the mannequin was itself nailed down. And now another scientist is likening Mr. Oliver to “a Shetland pony in the Kentucky Derby,” who is “making Canada look like a country full of jerks,” which is terribly unfair to at least the three or four of us who aren’t.

It was on something like this note that Mr. Mulcair stood to harangue the government side this afternoon. Continue…

QP Live: The beginning of the post-backbench rebellion era

By Nick Taylor-Vaisey - Thursday, April 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM - 0 Comments

Maclean’s is your home for the daily political theatre that is Question Period, when opposition and government MPs trade barbs and take names for 45 minutes every day. Today, QP runs from 2:15 p.m. until just past 3 p.m. We tell you who to watch, we stream it live, and we liveblog all the action. Once a week, we’ll feature a guest blogger to sort through the madness. The whole thing only matters if you participate. Read our morning tease to catch up on the issues of the day, and then chime in on Twitter with #QP.

Continue…

Stephen Harper vs. Kevin Page

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 25, 2013 at 11:37 AM - 0 Comments

Amid all else yesterday, the Prime Minister dismissed as a “partisan action” Kevin Page’s appeal to the Federal Court for a clarification of his mandate.

Thomas Mulcair: For over a year, the Conservatives have refused to tell Canadians the truth about their devastating austerity measures. According to the law, the new Parliamentary Budget Officer must have access to all the financial information she needs to inform parliamentarians and Canadians. The courts clearly said that they will intervene if the Conservatives do not comply. My question is simple. Will the Prime Minister finally show some transparency by requiring his ministers to provide all the required information?

Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see the court decision against the partisan action of the former Parliamentary Budget Officer and the leader of the NDP. This government created the position. We provide information on a regular basis and we will continue to do so.

Nonetheless, with that ruling in hand, the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer is now sending letters to 84 departments and agencies of the federal government to request information on the Harper government’s budget cuts.

The Commons: The silly and the hallowed

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 6:28 PM - 0 Comments

At 2pm, the Speaker’s parade—a ceremonial photo op, a silly show of hallowed tradition—proceeded down the West corridor of Centre Block toward the House of Commons. Preceded by one marching guard and flanked by three more—To protect the Speaker from what? A sneak attack by the Queen?—strode the sergeant-at-arms, carrying the large golden mace that must be in place for the House to conduct its business, and  the Speaker and his clerks in their three-cornered hat and robes. Once the official party was safely inside, the large wooden doors were shut and the official business of the nation began for another day.

***

Something like a dozen reporters had gathered at the gallery door, anxiously waiting for the House to be called to order. This was something like four times the usual attendance—the larger crowd here in anticipation that one of the duly elected adults sent here to represent the people of this country might stand up in his or her place without having first obtained the permission of the party leader he or she is supposed to support. Continue…

QP Live: Will backbenchers rise up?

By Nick Taylor-Vaisey - Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 1:37 PM - 0 Comments

Maclean’s is your home for the daily political theatre that is Question Period, when opposition and government MPs trade barbs and take names for 45 minutes every day. Today, QP runs from 2:15 p.m. until just past 3 p.m. We tell you who to watch, we stream it live, and we liveblog all the action. Once a week, we’ll feature a guest blogger to sort through the madness. The whole thing only matters if you participate. Read our morning tease to catch up on the issues of the day, and then chime in on Twitter with #QP.

Continue…

QP Live: After a terrorist plot was thwarted

By Nick Taylor-Vaisey - Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM - 0 Comments

Maclean’s is your home for the daily political theatre that is Question Period, when opposition and government MPs trade barbs and take names for 45 minutes every day. Today, QP runs from 2:15 p.m. until just past 3 p.m. We tell you who to watch, we stream it live, and we liveblog all the action. Once a week, we’ll feature a guest blogger to sort through the madness. The whole thing only matters if you participate. Read our morning tease to catch up on the issues of the day, and then chime in on Twitter with #QP.

Continue…

QP Live: In the wake of an anti-terror debate

By Nick Taylor-Vaisey - Monday, April 22, 2013 at 1:24 PM - 0 Comments

Maclean’s is your home for the daily political theatre that is Question Period, when opposition and government MPs trade barbs and take names for 45 minutes every day. Today, QP runs from 2:15 p.m. until just past 3 p.m. We tell you who to watch, we stream it live, and we liveblog all the action. Once a week, we’ll feature a guest blogger to sort through the madness. The whole thing only matters if you participate. Read our morning tease to catch up on the issues of the day, and then chime in on Twitter with #QP.

Continue…

The Commons: James Moore refuses to believe his government would increase a tax

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 5:44 PM - 0 Comments

Like most everything interesting that Michael Ignatieff ever said, he probably should not have said it.

“I never want to raise your taxes; I pay them (the same way) as you do,” the former Liberal leader told a crowd in Mississauga on a July day in 2010. “But we pay them to express fundamental social solidarity, one with the other. This is the contract that holds us together.”

He had actually gone on at some length about this in a speech to the Economic Club of Canada in the fall of 2009. “Back in July, after the G8 Summit in Italy, Mr. Harper gave an interview to The Globe and Mail, in which he said, and I quote: ‘I don’t believe that any taxes are good taxes.’ Think about that for a moment,” Mr. Ignatieff begged. “It’s an astonishing statement for a prime minister to make. We pay taxes, Mr. Harper, so that premature infants get nursing care when they’re born; so that policemen will be there to keep our streets safe; so that we have teachers to give our kids a good education. We pay taxes, Mr. Harper, because we’re all in this together. It costs us something, but it makes Canada the place it is: a place where we look out for each other. But Stephen Harper doesn’t think that way. Stephen Harper thinks no taxes are good taxes because he believes that the only good government is no government at all.”

In fairness, Mr. Harper does not appear to be an anarchist. And even Ron Paul allows that the government might be of some use. And for all Mr. Ignatieff’s willingness to defend the social contract, he would move to loudly proclaim his opposition to raising the GST after being caught musing about the possibility.

Even if one does not accept Mr. Ignatieff’s larger premise, rare is anyone willing to suggest that taxes might be applied in larger quantities to anyone other than the wealthy or the faceless (corporations). Because even if no one is seriously calling for taxes to be eliminated—even if the debate is basically, if quietly, about the size, shape and execution of our fundamental social solidarity, or at least the precise number of services we would lament if they suddenly disappeared—we have generally come to Mr. Harper’s position. Taxes are bad. Mr. Harper has sworn that, so long as he is prime minister, there will be no new taxes. Thomas Mulcair has said no to increasing taxes (even if he also advocates for a price on carbon). Justin Trudeau has said he would not increase the GST, nor the corporate tax rate and he would not implement a tax on the rich. Taxing the earnings of corporations is a tax on job creators. Taxing pollution is a tax on everything. Tax Freedom Day is something that is proudly celebrated.

Possibly this is all Bev Oda’s fault, she and her $16 glass of orange juice. And at least so long as we are never in need of more general revenue, perhaps we will be fine. But this now drives us to distraction. The abject awfulness of taxes apparently now so deeply felt that one cannot even bring oneself to admit that one is responsible for the imposition of such suffering. Continue…

QP Live: more on tariffs and health cuts

By Nick Taylor-Vaisey - Thursday, April 18, 2013 at 2:08 PM - 0 Comments

Maclean’s is your home for the daily political theatre that is Question Period, when opposition and government MPs trade barbs and take names for 45 minutes every day. Today, QP runs from 2:15 p.m. until just past 3 p.m. We tell you who to watch, we stream it live, and we liveblog all the action. Once a week, we’ll feature a guest blogger to sort through the madness. The whole thing only matters if you participate. Read our morning tease to catch up on the issues of the day, and then chime in on Twitter with #QP.

Continue…

The Commons: Let he who is not full of it cast the first aspersion

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 6:20 PM - 0 Comments

To Joe Momma then, where Murray Rankin, the bespectacled and button-downed national revenue critic for the official opposition, stepped before the cameras this morning to pose beside the proprietor of this bike shop, a tattooed young man in a white t-shirt and newsboy cap.

“We would like the hypocrisy to be exposed,” Mr. Rankin explained. “They said they wouldn’t raise taxes and here we are, a little bit later, in this very same store, pointing out that they are.”

This is most certainly fair play. It was Jim Flaherty who used this establishment for a photo op last fall. And it was Jim Flaherty who stood in the House less than a month ago and said he would not raise taxes. And it is the budget Mr. Flaherty tabled that day that raises taxes on the importation of hundreds of products from dozens of countries. And it was this government that championed the few tariffs it decreased as “supporting Canadian families and communities.” And it was this government that once screamed and cried about the very idea of a tax on iPods. And it was this Prime Minister who gave his word that, so long as he was prime minister, there would be “no new taxes.” And it was this Prime Minister who once mused that “I don’t believe any taxes are good taxes.”

“I feel misled more than anything,” offered the bike shop owner.

Fair enough. Continue…

QP Live: Carney cuts growth forecast, health council loses funding

By Nick Taylor-Vaisey - Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 11:42 AM - 0 Comments

Maclean’s is your home for the daily political theatre that is Question Period, when opposition and government MPs trade barbs and take names for 45 minutes every day. Today, QP runs from 2:15 p.m. until just past 3 p.m. We tell you who to watch, we stream it live, and we liveblog all the action. Once a week, we’ll feature a guest blogger to sort through the madness. The whole thing only matters if you participate. Read our morning tease to catch up on the issues of the day, and then chime in on Twitter with #QP.

Continue…

QP Live: In the wake of the attacks in Boston

By Nick Taylor-Vaisey - Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 12:07 PM - 0 Comments

Maclean’s is your home for the daily political theatre that is Question Period, when opposition and government MPs trade barbs and take names for 45 minutes every day. Today, QP runs from 2:15 p.m. until just past 3 p.m. We tell you who to watch, we stream it live, and we liveblog all the action. Once a week, we’ll feature a guest blogger to sort through the madness. The whole thing only matters if you participate. Chime in on Twitter with #QP.

THE STREAM

THE BLOG

QP Live: Justin Trudeau’s first test as Liberal leader

By Nick Taylor-Vaisey - Monday, April 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM - 0 Comments

Sean Kilpatrick/CP

Maclean’s is your home for the daily political theatre that is Question Period, when opposition and government MPs trade barbs and take names for 45 minutes every day. Today, QP runs from 2:15 p.m. until just past 3 p.m. We tell you who to watch and why, we stream it live, and we liveblog all the action. Once a week, we’ll feature a guest blogger to sort through the madness. The whole thing only matters if you participate. Chime in on Twitter with #QP.

THE STREAM

THE BLOG

If the House is broken, MPs should fix it

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 1, 2013 at 3:07 PM - 0 Comments

Colin Horgan notes John Williamson’s concerns about the power of party whips to decide who asks questions during Question Period.

Here is what Mr. Williamson cited from the book, How Parliament Works.

Later, regarding questions in the commons, it states on page 337: One of the main opportunities for backbench MPs on all sides of the House to pursue and expose issues and to get the government of the day to put information on the public record is the question period. The very existence of parliamentary questions and the opportunities that they provide for the representatives of the people to question the government of the day are of constitutional importance. Their effectiveness has always been down to the tenacity and skill of individual MPs, but whether the system can survive the strains that are now being put upon it is also in the hands of MPs generally.

Here, meanwhile, are some of the questions Mr. Williamson has put to the government over the last several months.

Mr. Speaker, the Irving refinery is a key employer of highly paid workers in New Brunswick. I am proud to say I support a pipeline from Alberta to Saint John to support jobs and economic prosperity. The Minister of Natural Resources recently visited the Saint John refinery and expressed our government’s support for this pipeline. On the other hand, the NDP leader recently made unclear and contradictory remarks about the pipeline. Could the Minister of Natural Resources update this House on our government’s position on the west-east pipeline to Saint John?

The NDP and Liberals have chosen to ignore the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Police Association, victims organizations, immigration lawyers and experts and have voted against the faster removal of foreign criminals act. They are voting to allow foreign nationals who break the law to remain in Canada. With the final vote on this bill taking place tonight, can the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism please update this House on our government’s commitment to protect the safety and security of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to overlook the role that sound public policy has in building a strong economy. Our government is focused on job creation, growth and long-term prosperity. Since July 2009, Canada has created nearly 900,000 net new jobs, the strongest growth record in the G7. This did not happen by accident and despite ongoing global economic turbulence, Standard and Poor’s today reaffirmed Canada’s AAA credit rating, joining Moody’s and Fitch by again giving our country a top score. Could the Minister of Finance update the House on our economic record?

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has a plan to impose a carbon tax that would raise the price of everything and hurt the Canadian economy and job growth. The NDP’s $21 billion cap-and-tax scheme would punish job creators, raise the price of gasoline and diesel, and essentially tax everything made in Canada. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans please inform the House how the NDP’s hidden tax agenda will punish fishing communities in Canada?

If the government whip no longer decided who got to ask questions each day, would Mr. Williamson have asked these questions of his own volition? If so, what good would it do to remove the power of party whips to determine the QP line-up? If not, why did he allow himself to be sent up with these questions? Does he believe he was fulfilling his duty of holding the government to account in asking these questions? Was he speaking for other MPs who feel the current system doesn’t work?

Those questions aside, the last bit of Mr. Williamson’s citation is important: “whether the system can survive the strains that are now being put upon it is also in the hands of MPs generally.” If MPs would rather the system function somewhat differently, they should move to change it. They are not captives. They are not hostages. They may be subject to any number and size of political pressures, but they are ultimately responsible for what they do or say in the fulfillment of their elected duties. Continue…

The Commons: Stephen Harper would rather not focus on the details

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 5:53 PM - 0 Comments

Megan Leslie stood to plead confusion. Within the budget, she said, were tax increases. But the Prime Minister, she recalled, had promised not to raise taxes. So why, she wondered aloud, had the Prime Minister allowed the Finance Minister to contradict him?

“Mr. Speaker,” declared the Prime Minister, “it is quite the opposite.”

Mr. Harper did not then explain how so. Instead, he alleged a number of tax increases that the NDP was apparently proposing.

Ms. Leslie tried again. “Why,” she wondered, “did the Prime Minister not keep his promise?”

The Prime Minister again insisted on talking about the NDP. “Mr. Speaker,” he said, “I know very well that the NDP favors higher taxes and taxes to finance larger deficits and higher expenses.”

Ms. Leslie was unimpressed. “Mr. Speaker, I understand why the government’s backbench is frustrated,” she responded. “Answers like that have been frustrating me for quite some time.”

The New Democrats laughed.

This is, most immediately, Ted Menzies’ fault. It was the minister of state for finance who yesterday pronounced that there were no tax increases to be found in last week’s budget. More specifically, he said “no one would find” tax increases in this budget. As a wager, this was a poor one. As a challenge, it had the unfortunate quality of having already been met—Mr. Menzies making it in response to a question about tax increases that had been found in the budget. Continue…

Abortion and democracy

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 1:37 PM - 0 Comments

An exchange from QP last spring, a day before Stephen Woodworth’s motion was debated in the House.

Niki Ashton. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would not reopen the debate on abortion. Nevertheless, that is exactly what one of his Conservative members is going to do tomorrow in the House. Canadian women have been fighting for decades for this right. Why is the Prime Minister not speaking out loudly and clearly against what his own party is trying to do here in the House?

Rob Nicholson. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the rules with respect to private members’ bills. That bill will be debated as all other private members’ bills are debated in the House, in accordance with the rules of the House. I do not see why that should be a problem for the hon. member.

Niki Ashton. Mr. Speaker, during the election and in the House the Conservative government has said that it is not going to reopen the abortion debate, but that is exactly what it is doing in this very House. While other members have done this in the past, the Prime Minister has done something to stop it. This is not the case this time. He is saying one thing in the House while through the back door he is rolling back Canadian women’s rights. Will the Prime Minister stand in the House right now and tell his party that a woman’s right to choose in Canada in 2012 is not up for negotiation?

Rob Nicholson. Mr. Speaker, the government’s position has been very clear. Unlike the NDP, we do not muzzle our members as that party now does. The bill will be debated as all private members’ bills are debated.

The Justice Minister’s comments about muzzling and private members’ business are interesting in light of what has lately occurred with Mark Warawa. But Ms. Ashton’s complaints are worth parsing too. The implicit or explicit suggestion would seem to be that the Prime Minister is somehow responsible for his caucus and could have (should have?) done something to stop Motion 312 from coming forward. Or at least that the Prime Minister is accountable for what’s going on behind him.

Here is something Francoise Boivin said in a scrum earlier this year.

The Prime Minister said abortion is legal in Canada. I mean that was strong words … And he made promises during campaign. So there’s obviously a problem with the way he controls his caucus or it satisfies him because it satisfies some part of their supporters.

And here is what Ms. Ashton told the House when Mr. Woodworth’s motion was debated.

If the Prime Minister did not want a woman’s right to choose to be debated, we would not be here tonight.

Of course, an an entirely separate front, the New Democrats have mocked Conservative MPs as messengers of the PMO.

It’s easy to fall into circular logic here—the Prime Minister controls what his MPs say and do, so why isn’t he controlling MPs like Mark Warawa and Stephen Woodworth?—and from there it’s easy to fall into conspiracy theories. (See my interview with Brad Trost for some discussion of this). So it’s maybe worth sticking with a basic question: Should MPs be free to table bills or motions that do anything other than express full and complete support for unlimited access to abortion? (Or is access to abortion sacrosanct?)

The Conservatives would seem to have run into trouble now after attempting to say no (or at least, no more). But it is a question the opposition parties might be asked as well.

Keith Ashfield samples baked goods, speculates on future matrimonial qualities

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 25, 2013 at 4:23 PM - 0 Comments

On Friday, Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield staged a photo op in Fredericton.

In Fredericton, MP and federal Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, invited the media to a staged family conversation about the budget with Roland and Gina Moreno and their two daughters.

It was an opportunity to highlight the government’s emphasis on training young people for jobs the economy needs, but things went awkwardly off-script at the start as Ashfield sampled baked goods and chatted with eldest daughter Grace Moreno, a local high school student leader. “Grace, you’re a great cook,” Ashfield said. “You’re going to make a wonderful wife for somebody.”

This afternoon in QP, Megan Leslie—who seemed to tweet a reference to Mr. Ashfield’s remarks this weekend—asked the minister to account for his comments.

Megan Leslie: Monsieur le Président, vendredi dernier, le ministre des Pêches et des Océans a affirmé, et je cite: « Grace, vous êtes une excellente cuisinière. Vous allez faire une merveilleuse épouse. » Le ministre des Pêches et des Océans peut-il confirmer ces propos tenus dans le cadre de la promotion du budget?

Keith Ashfield: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite is following the newscast and our talk about the federal budget. It was indeed a great day to promote our budget on Friday. We had significant interest in it.

Megan Leslie: Mr. Speaker, leave it to the Conservatives to encourage young women to get married as part of their economic action plan. When the member said, “Grace, you’re a great cook. You’re going to make a wonderful wife for somebody”, his comments were disrespectful. In other words, it is like saying: there, there, stop planning for your future. Is this the kind of response that women can expect from the Conservatives with their economic action plan?

Keith Ashfield: Mr. Speaker, obviously the opposition members have little fault to find in our budget if this is the only type of question they can ask in this House.

Update 5:28pm. A statement from Mr. Ashfield.

“I would like to thank the Moreno family for taking the time to discuss Canada’s Economic Action Plan 2013. The family’s insightful comments and feedback are valuable to me and our Government as we continue to build a strong and prosperous nation.

“My comments to Grace Moreno have been taken out of context and were simply meant to compliment her on her genuine hospitality.

“Ms. Moreno is a gifted and active young member of her high school and our greater community. And she has a great future ahead of her.

“I am proud of our youth and I appreciate the contributions that she and other youth continue to make to our community and country.”

Update 11:24am. Via Facebook, a comment from Grace Moreno.

In regards to what Honourable Keith Ashfield said, I feel that it was a compliment. On the day that he visited, our family welcomed him as our guest and treated him with Filipino hospitality. I personally made him a FIlipino bread called “Ensaymada” (a delicacy that my mother taught me to make). He complimented me on the bread, and I appreciated the thanks. I was not offended whatsoever and it is unfair that the Minister’s comment was taken out of context.

The Commons: Stephen Harper is very sensitive

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 5:57 PM - 0 Comments

Shortly after Conservative Brian Jean had stood to accuse the New Democrats of advocating for a “job killing carbon tax” and Conservative MP Scott Armstrong had stood to say that “the policy of the NDP is to go south to recruit foreign criminals to come to Canada” and Conservative MP David Wilks had stood and claimed to possess “a long list of attacks on Canadian interests from the NDP” and Conservative MP Robert Sopuck had stood and ventured that the NDP leader “leader rejects sound science and works hard to kill Canadian jobs” and Conservative MP James Bezan stood and said Thomas Mulcair had “attacked Canadian jobs, attacked Canada’s national interests and took up the cause of a convicted cop shooter” and shortly before Justice Minister Rob Nicholson stood and declared that “New Democrats are never on” the side of victims of crime, Stephen Harper stood and declared himself quite disappointed with Mr. Mulcair’s tone.

“Mr. Speaker, Peter Penashue broke… the… law,” Mr. Mulcair had enunciated, now pausing for effect. “If our law and order Prime Minister considers Peter Penashue, a known lawbreaker, to be the best Conservative MP, what does that say about the rest of his caucus?”

In fairness, Mr. Harper had not said that Mr. Penashue was the best member of the Conservative caucus, rather that he was the best MP that the riding of Labrador had ever had. Though perhaps that description too raises questions about how the Prime Minister measures quality.

Regardless, Mr. Harper was now profoundly saddened. “Mr. Speaker, obviously, I disagree with that categorization,” the Prime Minister sighed. “I am sad, but not surprised, to hear that kind of negative campaign from the—”

He could not finish because the New Democrats had burst out laughing.

The Speaker called for order and returned the floor to Mr. Harper.

“Mr. Speaker, in Labrador, Minister Penashue,” the Prime Minister continued, apparently still struggling to come to grips with the reality of Mr. Penashue’s resignation, “will be able to point to a record of respecting his promises, working against the federal long gun registry and for such things as the Trans-Labrador Highway, the Lower Churchill project and obviously for the strong record that he has presented to the people of Labrador.”

So Mr. Penashue might not have rightfully won a seat in the House of Commons, but at least while he had it, some things happened that the people of Labrador might have reason to be happy about.

The House proceeded to other matters, but after Rob Nicholson had declared his concern for the victims of crime, Bob Rae detected a segue back to Mr. Penashue.

“Mr. Speaker, the victims of the latest Conservative crime are the people of Labrador. Those are the victims we need to stand up for,” Mr. Rae ventured. “It is now clear that there was a completely orchestrated-from-central-casting resignation by the minister. Peter Penashue held press conferences. He used government money to hold press conferences. He placed ads. The Conservative Party transferred money to the riding association in Labrador. The entire thing was orchestrated by the Prime Minister of Canada and orchestrated by the Conservative Party of Canada.”

There was not a question here, but the Prime Minister stood anyway.

“Mr. Speaker, the member for Labrador has taken the correct action,” Mr. Harper said. “The people of Labrador will decide.”

But, once more, the Prime Minister was besmirched.

“They will have the difference between that kind of negative, ugly campaign,” he said, drawing laughs from the Liberals, “and, on the other side, a record of positive achievement for the people of Labrador by minister Penashue and, obviously, we will respect the decision of the people of Labrador.”

Mr. Rae saw another segue.

“Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to see ugly, he and his cabinet colleagues should simply look in the mirror and assess their own conduct—”

The Conservatives groaned their displeasure. The Speaker called for order.

“I do not think we need to make those kinds of personal characterizations,” Speaker Scheer suggested. “It is certainly not adding to the debate today.”

Mr. Rae pleaded innocence. “Mr. Speaker, if looking in the mirror produces unacceptable results,” he offered, “it is hardly the fault of the people who are asking the questions.”

The interim Liberal leader again failed to register a question, but the Prime Minister stood again nonetheless.

“Mr. Speaker, I think the real problem is the positions that the Liberal Party of Canada has on issues that matter to the people of Labrador,” Mr. Harper ventured. “The people of Labrador value the seal hunt; they value investments in their infrastructure and in their Internet; and they certainly value the Lower Churchill hydroelectric electric project.”

It is a well known fact that the Liberals despise the Internet, but at last check they did support both the seal hunt and the Lower Churchill project.

The questions about the former minister persisted and it was Pierre Poilievre who took up the cause of defending his honour.

“Mr. Speaker, in anybody’s mind, writing cheques for nearly $50,000 is a clear admission that Conservatives broke just about every law in the book during the Labrador campaign and that they knew they broke them,” Liberal MP Gerry Byrne charged. “With that said, the Prime Minister also knows that sanctions with serious consequences remain inevitable against Mr. Penashue and his party. With absolutely nothing left to lose under those circumstances, a byelection is about to be called to try to dull some of that reality. Does the Prime Minister really feel that holding a byelection could ever trump the rule of law in Canada and that the process of justice might actually be able to be turned off for a byelection?”

Somewhere in this distance, or perhaps only in Mr. Poilievre’s head, a string quartet began to play the national anthem.

“Mr. Speaker, there they go, launching a nasty, negative campaign full of slurs,” he sighed. “Never did a slur create a job. Never did a slur protect a traditional aboriginal way of life that Peter Penashue has fought for.”

The anthem swelled. Watching at home, mothers gathered their children to listen. In office towers, business halted. In the fields, plowing ceased. Tears trickled down the cheeks of grown men.

“Never did a slur help a school child in a remote community have access to the world through high-speed Internet, the way Peter Penashue delivered. Never did a slur protect CFB Goose Bay,” Mr. Poilievre continued. “Slurs do not do that, but Peter Penashue did.”

And lo was the nation stirred and lo did all who heard Mr. Poilievre now rush to Labrador, cheques in hand and the Elections Act in mind, to donate the maximum allowable funds to Mr. Penashue’s re-election campaign.

For sure, Mr. Poilievre was so very right. And thus it is to wonder why so many others waste so much of their and our time with such empty words.

Peter Van Loan objects to name-calling, proceeds to name-call

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 11:56 AM - 0 Comments

After Question Period yesterday, the Government House Leader rose with the defining point of order of our time.

The approach employed by the NDP not only personalizes debate, but it does so in an offensive and inflammatory fashion. Consider what we might expect to hear if the NDP position became the accepted practice in the chamber. If this kind of name-calling is allowed, it would apply not just to ministers and parliamentary secretaries, of course, but to opposition shadow ministers. For example, the hon. member for Halifax, the NDP’s environment critic, could well be referred to as the NDP spokesperson for creating a crippling carbon tax.

According to the NDP, this would be parliamentary language. I do not believe it is. Instead of the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park described as the NDP finance critic, she could instead be called the NDP spokesperson for bigger government and higher taxes, or perhaps the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay could be the spokesperson for unethical interference with independent electoral boundary commissions or, since he changed his vote on the long gun registry, maybe he could be the spokesperson for betraying rural Canadians.

The complaint goes back to March 8, when the New Democrats made reference to “the minister responsible for butchering employment insurance,” which the Conservatives interpreted as an attempt to suggest that was Diane Finley’s actual title. This presents a fairly tricky parsing for the Speaker, I suspect—certainly less obvious than, say, NDP references to Tony Clement as the “Muskoka Minister.” Parsing parliamentary insults is always fun. For instance, I suspect that if the New Democrats had referred to Ms. Finley as “the minister who has been responsible for the butchering of employment insurance” or “the minister who butchered employment insurance” there probably wouldn’t be grounds for a complaint here.

I’m not sure Pierre Poilievre has apologized for referring to Charlie Angus as the “gerrymanderer-in-chief over there.” But perhaps an apology could be part of some kind of armistice agreement between the government and official opposition.

Thankfully, such rules of civility do not apply to parliamentary sketchwriters.

The Commons: Keystone XL and Peter Penashue are both great

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 19, 2013 at 6:46 PM - 0 Comments

Thomas Mulcair wanted to talk about tax havens and about how Kevin Page had been blocked from studying the issue and how the Canada Revenue Agency has apparently identified more than 8,000 “offshore tax cheats” (to use Mr. Mulcair’s phrasing). The Prime Minister wanted to talk about what a terrible thing Mr. Mulcair had done.

“I am rather surprised to be getting a question like this on the economy from the leader of the opposition after he travelled to Washington to fight against Canadian jobs,” Mr. Harper pleaded with a shrug and a shake of the head after offering a perfunctory sentence in response to the actual question asked.

“Shame!” called a voice from the Conservative side.

“The NDP can oppose Canadian jobs,” Mr. Harper concluded, “but on this side we are for Canadian jobs.”

The Conservatives stood to applaud their man’s clarification.

Mr. Mulcair ad-libbed a retort. “ Mr. Speaker, his project includes the export of 40,000 Canadian value-added jobs,” he declared, proceeding then to jab his finger toward the ground. “We will keep standing up for Canada.”

The New Democrats stood to applaud.

So we are split on the precise value to Canada of the Keystone XL pipeline—one of these men is categorically in favour, the other has his concerns; about half of the country sides with the former, a little less than that sides with the latter. Perhaps cap-and-trade, which both of these men have supported at one time or another and which the American president also happens to prefer, truly is the reasonable solution to this concern. If only Republicans didn’t control the House of Representatives and Mr. Harper hadn’t decided that what he once supported was the same as what he once opposed.

Instead, we come to what seems a defining fight for these two men.

Mr. Mulcair, now en francais, returned to his concerns about tax evasion. According to the main estimates, he noted, the budget of the Canada Revenue Agency was due to be cut by $100 million. Mr. Harper, in response, managed two sentences in French, before switching back to English, his preferred language for haranguing. Continue…

The Commons: Vic Toews’ real world

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 18, 2013 at 6:37 PM - 0 Comments

The NDP’s Randall Garrison stood and declared the country to be taken aback.

“Canadians across the country are shocked that he personally approved filming immigration raids for reality TV,” Mr. Garrison reported, referring to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. “This is not some episode of Cops. These are real people and real officers doing a dangerous job. Filming is exploitative and can put individuals in danger.”

The producers of Border Security might rather Mr. Garrison describe their show as “a dynamic documentary series that offers viewers a front row seat to high stakes, bizarre reveals, and comical conflicts that are part of everyday life for border security officers,” but “real people and real officers doing a dangerous job” might easily be clipped for the next promotional poster.

“How could the minister be so reckless?” Mr. Garrison wondered. “Will he take responsibility and put an immediate end to this dangerous and offensive PR stunt?”

The New Democrats stood to applaud this query.

The concern here involves the presence of television cameras during the recent arrest of eight migrant workers in British Columbia—part of a reality TV show on the National Geographic channel (home as well of Wicked Tuna and Doomsday Preppers), as formally endorsed by Mr. Toews. Continue…

The Commons: Think of the F-35 as a Senate with wings

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM - 0 Comments

Perhaps the F-35 is best understood as a Senate with wings. Or perhaps the Senate is the F-35 that we mistakenly assigned to guard our democracy.

Either way, they are both now easy jokes.

“Mr. Speaker, yet another report from the United States is raising disturbing questions about the F-35,” Thomas Mulcair reported at the outset this afternoon. “Serious problems have been identified with the aircraft’s radar, helmet and cockpit design. Pilots report that the plane is actually incapable of flying through clouds.”

The New Democrats laughed.

“Who knew that this was one of the requirements,” Mr. Mulcair quipped.

The New Democrats laughed again.

“Worse yet, the former head of the U.S. Navy is now suggesting that the F-35A, the model Conservatives plan to buy, should be scrapped entirely,” the NDP leader concluded. “Will the Prime Minister give a straightforward answer? Will he admit that he has made a mistake and agree to full, open and honest competition to replace the CF-18, yes or no?”

The Prime Minister would do no such thing.

“Mr. Speaker,” Mr. Harper declared, “the government has been very clear.”

Indeed. Mr. Harper’s government has been very clear. And not just once on this file, but twice. Continue…

The Commons: What if we all just refused to be appointed to the Senate?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 6:16 PM - 0 Comments

And so, inevitably, we reach the point in our grand democratic experiment at which the deputy leader of the government in the Senate feels compelled to take to Twitter to clarify that another senator is no longer in a romantic relationship with an employee—this much being an issue that had come to the fore shortly after questions were asked about the senator’s decision to claim housing expenses despite no longer living in the Sherbrooke condo where his estranged wife currently resides. All of which became an issue because Mike Duffy’s residency was found to be something of an existential riddle.

The senator now in question, Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, would seem to have both an impressive resume and a heartfelt cause, but here we apparently are.

Meanwhile, in no-less-silly but potentially more consequential news, the Senate is still thinking seriously about the possibility of challenging the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s actions and authority. Which would not only put senators in the odd position of questioning someone else’s mandate, but might also raise questions about the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches.

The Senate is best which is noticed least. It is most easily appreciated when it is merely being ponderous and double-checking bills and otherwise only existing. Presumably it will eventually get back to being so unremarkable. If only because it seems likely to be here for awhile yet. Continue…

And now a word from Scott Clark and Peter DeVries

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 9:20 AM - 0 Comments

I asked the two former finance officials if they had any response to the comments made in reference to them yesterday in the House. They’ve now sent along the following response.

We have never been members of any political party. We have both served under Conservative and Liberal governments and were never accused by them of being partisan. We provide independent advice to anyone or any organization/party who seeks it.

To date, there are over 100 articles on our blog. The article for Inside Policy brings together observation made in previous blogs – none of which received any reaction from the Government.