Parliament In Review: September 26, 2011

Monday's session in the House of Commons was dominated by the debate over another military extension in Libya.

The Big Issue

Once again, the Cons were able to win a vote for perpetual military action with the support of the Libs and Bloc. But it wasn't for a lack of trying - and indeed some success - by the NDP in pointing out the gap between the Cons' explanation for an extension and what Canadians expect from their government.

Indeed, in response to Jack Harris' question, Peter MacKay made it clear just how open-ended a standard the Cons have to apply in order to convince themselves that military action is still needed:

Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to make a speech shortly but I want to ask the minister whether he agrees that the situation today is far different from what was facing the United Nations on March 17 in the House? It passed the first resolution when Colonel Gadhafi was the regime in power in Libya and was actively threatening to effectively massacre civilians. We now have the opposition, the National Transitional Council, having taken Libya's seat at the United Nations. The regime no longer exists. Therefore, Canada's role can be entirely different from what it was in March of this year.

Hon. Peter MacKay:

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that the conditions have improved. However, the work that is yet to be done remains. We need to be clear. Civilians are still being attacked by the Libyan regime as recently as this weekend. There is still capacity in place that permits Gadhafi to control a certain element. There is a certain following in the country who have access to weapons that can be used against civilians.

Which of course leads to a pop quiz: what countries on the face of the globe don't have some armed "following" that could conceivably harm civilians, such as to demand Canadian military intervention if the same standard were applied?

But the Cons would look worse before the day was out. Philip Toone went a step further and caught Nina Grewal with no clue what purpose there could be in maintaining a no-fly zone as a means of an enemy without an airforce. And Dean Allison contributed a double dose of embarrassment: completely whiffing on Pierre Nantel's seemingly simple question about the current capacity of Gadhafi forces, then making the statement that the Cons' sole idea of democratic development is freezing and unfreezing oil money.

Meanwhile, NDP speakers including Paul Dewar and Charlie Angus pointed out that Canada and others helped contribute to the Gadhafi regime which is now being pointed to as an enemy which demands military intervention. Jack Harris noted that Norway for one has already transitioned away from a military role, then pointed out that the Cons' supposed commitment to the prospect of popular emancipation raised by the Arab Spring hasn't been reflected in actual nation-building work. And Rathika Sitsabaiesan spoke from her own experience in a war zone in pointing out how humanitarian development matters far more than military intervention.

Unanswerable

Of course it's an embarrassment that the Cons are continuing to treat Tony Clement's G8 porkfest (the steady stream of new revelations included) as beneath anything approaching a reasonable response. But one could hardly blame them for being too frightened to move beyond nonsensical talking points in the face of some of the biting questions which met them yesterday. Here's Thomas Mulcair:

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the Prime Minister released an important documented entitled “Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State”. Could the Prime Minister tell us if it is within the guidelines for a minister to run government funding out of his constituency office? Is it within the guidelines to have inaccurate and incomplete information provided to the Auditor General? Also, is it within the guidelines to have ministers interfere in spending reviews?

Mulcair again:

Mr. Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, NDP):

Mr. Speaker, according to the minutes from meetings on the G8 legacy fund, the President of the Treasury Board told local mayors “...budgets in addition to the basic G8 Summit Management Office Budget must first be determined by the Prime Minister's Office”.

Can the Prime MInister tell us how his office was the one determining budgets for a local slush fund? How was his office involved in diverting money from the border fund to help the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka get re-elected?

And Charlie Angus:

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Muskoka minister had many schemes for funnelling money into his riding under the pretext of the G8.

One scheme involved building a massive hockey arena and then telling everybody it would be used as a media centre. When the OPP raised questions about this pet project on security grounds, what was his reaction? The minister told local mayors that it was good news that the Prime Minister was filled with fury at police for daring to raise questions about security at an international summit.

Will the member explain why the Prime Minister was so furious at officials who were not willing to rubber-stamp his every whim?

In Brief

Charlie Angus made a statement on the Cons' continued failure to ensure that children on First Nations reserves receive anything approaching the educational opportunities their fellow Canadians enjoy elsewhere. Laurin Liu commented on the environmental dangers of the Keystone XL pipeline. Peggy Nash asked why Canada's economic policy shouldn't be based on actually rewarding job creation, rather than giving away free billions based on the desperate hope that they might someday result in economic development where previous decades of the same policy have failed. And Wayne Marston questioned whether Canadians want to gamble their retirements in the stock market rather than being able to rely on a stable CPP.

[Edit: fixed typo.]