Parliament In Review: September 27, 2011

Tuesday in Parliament saw another day taken up largely with discussion of the Cons' omnibus dumb-on-crime bill. But the tables were turned on them repeatedly, as several efforts by the NDP to reach unanimous agreement on the parts of the bill which aren't currently contentious were met with attempts to delay the Cons' own legislation so that more controversial provisions can stay lashed to ones which could have passed in a matter of days.

The Big Issue

The biggest development on the crime legislation front was a series of attempts by the NDP to deal with non-contentious elements of C-10 as a matter of unanimous consent, with Joe Comartin, Jasbir Sandhu and David Christopherson all trying to move motions which were rejected (presumably by the Cons themselves). And it didn't take long for Andrew Cash to start pointing out the Cons' lack of interest in passing their own legislation even as they accuse the opposition of obstruction.

Another regular theme involved questions about how the Cons could justify following failed U.S. crime policies, with the responses ranging from Larry Miller's blissful ignorance that even Republicans were repudiating their old policies, to a comical assertion from Stephen Woodworth that the Cons' push to eliminate discretion in sentencing and lock up more people for longer is completely dissimilar from the Republicans' strategy of doing the same, to a delightful talking point salad from Stella Ambler which managed to claim the Cons are increasing judicial discretion rather than eliminating it.

Meanwhile, Guy Caron and John McCallum both asked how a former "taxpayers' advocate" like John Williamson could justify backing a bill with massive costs which are being covered up by his government. Linda Duncan discussed the disproportionate effect of the legislation on aboriginal Canadians. Brent Rathgeber cited Edmonton's murder rate as reason to pass a bill which in no way deals with murder-related crimes. Kevin Lamoureux recalled the Cons' past advocacy for full debates which seems to have been long since forgotten. Ted Hsu asked how the Cons could keep a straight face about attacking terrorist financing after paying off Al Qaeda in North Africa - which was met with an embarrassing denial of the obvious from Parm Gill. And Libby Davies helpfully checked as to whether the Cons have any actual evidence for their crime policy. (Spoiler alert: the answer is "no".)

Your Economist Prime Minister

Long after his government started preaching the gospel of austerity and gleefully hacking away at the federal government, Stephen Harper managed to claim that Canada currently has a "very expansionary fiscal policy" - apparently suggesting that his government thinks it has plenty more to do to start limiting growth. If you weren't worried about our economic future yet, this would be a great time to start.

The Talking Point Replicator is Nearly Ready

One lousy comma is all that prevented Christian Paradis from providing the same answer verbatim to two questions about asbestos. But lucky for him, he'll likely have plenty more chances to avoid answering for the issue in the future.

In Brief

Jean Crowder raised adjournment questions about the Cons' lack of any interest in dealing with poverty. And Peter Julian challenged the failure of the Cons' research and development policy - with a particular focus on the connection between a lack of public funding and a lack of positive outcomes.