QP: Catching the Speaker’s eye

The press gallery was full at the very start of Members’ Statements, hoping that MPs would take the Speaker’s advice yesterday and start standing up to catch his eye, in order to bypass the dreaded Whip’s list. And no, nobody tried to catch the Speaker’s eye, and the list carried on unabated, with Warawa on said list to talk about a local talent show. Breathless anticipation, all for naught. When QP got underway, Thomas Mulcair read off a gimme question about meeting with Rehteah Parsons’ parents, and the need for cyberbullying legislation. (Funnily enough, the NDP voted against a bill to do just that by Liberal MP Hedy Fry, ostensibly because it was poorly drafted, yet not offering amendments). Harper agreed that there was a problem that needs to be addressed, and that they need to make it clear that the Internet was not a free pass for criminal behaviour. Mulcair moved onto the topic of the Federal Court decision regarding the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to which Harper replied with the implication that the previous PBO, Kevin Page, was partisan. Mulcair changed topics again, and moved onto the issue of privacy breaches, to which Harper assured him that they take those issues seriously and have developed action plans when breaches happen. Charmaine Borg asked the very same again, to which Tony Clement gave her the same reassurances, but with an added gratuitous shot at the former Liberal government. For the Liberals, Joyce Murray asked about the topic of the week — youth unemployment. Harper assured her that they had all kinds of programmes in place to help youth find jobs. For the final questions the round, Bob Rae asked whether Canada would try to get the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting moved here, and to take over the chair from Sri Lanka given their human rights abuses. Harper agreed that they were concerned about the Sri Lankan situation, and would be monitoring the situation. Elizabeth May and Bruce Hyer stood up for pretty much every question in this round, trying to catch the Speaker’s eye, to no avail.

Continue reading

Roundup: MPs behaving like MPs

After much anticipation, the Speaker delivered his ruling on the whole Warawa privilege complaint. The verdict – no prima facia breach of privilege, but MPs need to grow up and behave like MPs. In other words, the lists the whips provide are just suggestions, and the Speaker can choose to ignore those lists if he sees fit, but that means that MPs need to want to participate in the debate, not simply assume that they have that spot and that he’ll wait for them to use it, or that someone else won’t be interested instead. Some MPs responded here and here, Aaron Wherry parses the meaning of the ruling, and John Ivison gives his own take of the ruling.

This all having been said, let me offer my own two cents – that this is a good first step, but that it really does fall on MPs to make the change they want to see. And unfortunately, because there is such a reliance on scripts, that we’re unlikely to see too much uptake on this invitation by the Speaker for MPs to behave like MPs. We’re going to see almost no uptake by the NDP, because in their need for uniformity, nobody wants to speak out be anything other than unanimous, as that would be unseemly. The Liberals already have far less of a firm hand on the whip, which means the real test of this change is going to come from the Conservative backbench – how many of them will want to do their actual jobs as an MP and hold the government to account rather than just suck up and support blindly, how many of them want to ask questions of substance during QP rather than deliver a fawning tribute or a thinly veiled attack on the opposition in the form of a question, and how many of them will want to eschew the “carbon tax” talking points and the likes while still ensuring that they have their say and are not being punished for not following those talking points. We will have to see how many of them are prepared to take that step and show that integrity and respect for parliamentary democracy.

Continue reading

Roundup: Security and intelligence day

Apparently it was security and intelligence day yesterday. An anti-terrorism bill being debated, shuffling the Director of CSIS, appointing a new member of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee (which the NDP are opposing), and oh yeah – a foiled terror plot on Canadian soil. So yeah – busy day. And in case you’re wondering, no, there was no prior knowledge of the terror charges before today, so it was nothing more than a coincidence that they were made on the day that the government set aside to deal with the anti-terrorism bill.

Continue reading

QP: The war on the environment

After a series of Members’ Statements on the occasion of Earth Day, one might have wondered what particular Earth Day shtick would lead off QP, or if we would be back to Canada-China FIPA histrionics, as there is a vote on it tonight. But no, Thomas Mulcair began by reading off a litany of sins that the government has committed against the environment. Stephen Harper, in response, listed off the many ways in which his government has protected the environment, with such things as national parks and protected marine areas. Mulcair then moved onto the issue of soldiers having their hardship and hazard pay being clawed back, to which Harper explained that this was an administrative error, and they wouldn’t force those soldiers to repay those funds. Justin Trudeau was up next, and after paying mention to the tariff issue, he switched to the issue of youth unemployment. Harper answered solely about tariffs and didn’t mention the youth unemployment. Trudeau was reading a little more obviously today than he was at the beginning of last week — but still not as obviously as Mulcair does with his mini-lectern.

Continue reading

Roundup: Assessing Mulcair’s QP performance

PostMedia takes a look at Thomas Mulcair’s QP performance, and the kinds of topics that he ends to cover – in particular, that he tries to focus more on economic issues than shying away from them. That said, I’m not sure that “Why won’t the government adopt the NDP’s plan” is really a question on the economy… Included in the analysis is a critique that Mulcair doesn’t seem to have grasped the way that the Liberals could set the agenda for days while they were the Official Opposition through careful use of QP, which the NDP haven’t been able to master. Indeed, they haven’t quite mastered actual debate as they simply give the same question to several MPs in both official languages, as though there wasn’t a response given that could embarrass them down the line when they asked the very same question again and again. Also, nowhere is it mentioned that he continues to read his questions from his miniature lectern on a daily basis.

Continue reading

Roundup post: Citizenship guide preview unveiled

The government is updating their citizenship guide, and while people are going to criticise it, I’m going to say that it’s a good thing that they actually devote a page to the fact that we’re a constitutional monarchy, and that they talk about the fact that Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada. Not enough people realise what living in a constitutional monarchy means, even though it’s at the very heart of our political system. It would also be nice if we could stop acting horrified every time this government points out that basic fact because guess what – we’re a constitutional monarchy, and it’s actually a pretty good system. (It’s also too bad that the reporter in this story referred to Elizabeth II as the “Queen of England” – never mind that there hasn’t been a Queen of England since 1707). As well, they’ve done a pretty good job with the paragraph on the rights of gays and lesbians in this updated guide. Of course, it’s too bad that they’ve also included other bits of politicking with their references to human trafficking, polygamy and marriage fraud – current bugaboos of the government.

Continue reading

Roundup: Kevin Page’s final battle

After two days of arguments at Federal Court, the judge there will deliberate on whether he should be providing clarity to the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer – and no, it’s not a cut-and-dried question. As lawyers for the Speaker asserted, it is a matter for Parliament to decide upon – and remember, Parliament is actually the highest court of the land – and Parliamentarians should not be going to the courts every time the government doesn’t turn over its numbers. And while Page’s request for clarity was just that – clarity – there are some inescapable and fundamental issues at the heart of the matter, and that is that MPs themselves have abdicated their role as guardians of the public purse. While journalists and the public hail Page as being a hero, what’s missing is that he has been saddled with the role of “watchdog” because MPs have decided they’d rather have him do their homework for them, because math is hard, and they can then invoke the magical talisman that is his independence to prove that the government is in the wrong with its numbers. That Thomas Mulcair sent along his own lawyer as an interested party is part of what muddies this issue and makes it look partisan – because Mulcair and company want Page and his successors to do the dirty work for them. This is not really an issue about the government arguing against the fiscal oversight position that they created, but about Parliament itself, and whether or not MPs on both sides of the aisle can take their own jobs seriously. That they are placing all of the emphasis on Page and his office to do their work for them is an indictment that they continue to refuse to.

Continue reading

Roundup: Budget madness!

So, that was the budget – or Economic Action Plan 2013™ – A Responsible Plan For Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity© as the government would otherwise brand it. And there’s not a whole lot to it, with little in the way of new spending, little in the way of tax cuts or measures, extending a few of their existing incentive programmes, and one particular measure for First Nations, tying training dollars to making it mandatory for those receiving income benefits (which Thomas Mulcair dubbed as “workfare” and a slap in the face). It’s also going to fold CIDA into Foreign Affairs as a whole, but it’ll still keep its own minister, so Julian Fantino’s job is still safe. (Scott Gilmore considers this a good move because it will enhance the coordination of our foreign aid, which is often met with the two departments not speaking to one another). Canada Day, Winterlude and the Tulip Festival are being wrested away from the more independent NCC and being handed over to the Department of Heritage, which could be worrying if you hear the horror stories that I do about the competence of the staff in that department. Justin Trudeau predicts the budget will create friction with the provinces after it declared it would create the skills training program and that the provinces have to pitch in – while the government has consistently removed itself from a productive relationship with said provinces. And as if on cue, Quebec calls the budget a “frontal attack” on its economic interests, and “economic sabotage.” iPolitics gives you the nine most inane pieces of wisdom out of the budget. And if that wasn’t enough budget madness for you, iPolitics also has an e-print edition of budget coverage.

Continue reading

Roundup: Happy Budget Day, everybody!

It’s Budget Day, everyone! And in what looks to be an otherwise stay-the-course budget, it appears that the big shiny object is going to be…cheaper hockey equipment. Because that matters more than anything else, and Stephen Harper must solidify his credentials as the Hockeyest Prime Minister in the history of ever! Okay, so it’s actually lowering one specific tariff, but still. Meanwhile, Les Whittington gives the five myths of Conservatives budget making. Scott Brison finds a “leaked” copy of Flaherty’s budget speech.

MPs of all stripes – including a few Conservatives – were criticising Flaherty’s move in calling Manulife Financial to stave off a mortgage war. More surprisingly is that one of his own cabinet colleagues, Maxime Bernier, was publically critical. It remains to be seen if this will be treated as a case of “Mad Max” being a maverick, or if this is a breach of cabinet solidarity, Bernier not being a “team player,” and he’ll be bounced out of cabinet – yet again. Andrew Coyne finds the irony in Flaherty lecturing people about taking on too much debt considering how much he added to the national debt.

Continue reading

QP: Selective rate regulation

Being both Budget Day Eve and caucus day, the excitement was palpable. Thomas Mulcair led off QP by reading off a question about how Peter Penashue broke the law, and wondered what it said about the rest of the caucus. Harper rejected the characterisation, and touted ALL THE THINGS that Penashue did for Labrador. Mulcair then turned to the issue of Flaherty’s haranguing banks to not engage in a mortgage war when he wouldn’t regulate credit card rates. Harper insisted that mortgage rates were at the lowest rate in history, and Flaherty was trying to ensure market stability. Françoise Boivin was up next asking about the PBO’s latest report on crime legislation spending, but Rob Nicholson mostly deflected by bringing up Mulcair’s meeting with Gary Freeman while in the States. Bob Rae returned to the question of Penashue, to which Harper considered Rae’s characterisations to be negative campaigning. For his final question, Rae brought up the Competition Act with respect to Flaherty’s calls to the banks about mortgage rates, not that Harper’s answer about market stability changed.

Continue reading