Parliament In Review: October 19, 2011

Wednesday, October 19 saw plenty of discussion of the Cons' legislation to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board - both in the second-reading debate on the bill, and assorted procedural moves surrounding the legislation.

The Big Issue

Not surprisingly, Pat Martin was at the centre of the Wheat Board debate - challenging Gerry Ritz to present some costing as to the price of demolishing the Wheat Board, noting that the evidence he's seen suggests the Wheat Board has plenty of value for farmers that the Cons are determined to destroy, and moving that the House decline to give second reading to the Cons' bill.

Meanwhile, Niki Ashton labeled the bill as part of the Cons' pattern of taking the West for granted. Frank Valeriote pointed out that the pasta plant the Cons are citing as an example of the economic development that will be facilitated by the elimination of the CWB is basing its assumptions on being able to drive down the prices paid to grain producers. And Alex Atamanenko wondered why Gerry Ritz has turned his back on his previous promise to respect the will of farmers.

As for the Cons, Peter Van Loan justified shutting down debate at second reading by talking about "(letting) a committee get on with its job of studying this bill in detail". But we can expect the Cons' usual spin that the right time for actual discussion of what they're imposing on Canada is anytime but the present to take over once the committee starts its work. And that's particularly obvious since David Anderson claimed laughably that the bill needs to be rammed through by the new year - and without the transition planning the Cons have refused to countenance - for the sake of stability for producers.


Step Away from the Table

One of the most obvious areas of dispute between the Cons and the NDP since the May election has been the parties' relative view of free trade agreements. And the NDP (joined now by the Libs at some points) is pushing back strongly after the Cons' first set of spin, highlighting both the questionable deals they've signed and the effect of poor foreign relations on areas the Cons haven't been able to address.

On that front, Robert Chisholm criticized the Cons' missteps in dealing with China and the U.S. And Frank Valeriote got into the act by labeling Stephen Harper as the "head chef and bottle washer for the United States of America".

Meanwhile, the Cons offered a clear signal as to where they draw the line on foreign actions: while they see democracy, privacy and consumer interests as fully expendable, a U.S. proposal was deemed unacceptable by Jim Flaherty as soon as it had the potential to impose costs on Canadian banks.

In Brief

Lise St. Denis noted that the parliamentary schedule may make it difficult for female MPs to maintain a reasonable work-life balance. Jamie Nicholls and Brian Masse questioned the Cons' lack of a response to a report showing the value of high-speed rail. And Linda Duncan's adjournment questions on First Nations relations - including both residential school compensation and conditions on reserves - produced a conspicuous failure by Greg Rickford to address the latter point.