It may as well have been a Friday in the Commons, as there were a number of notable absences – Harper, Ignatieff and Layton were all gone, leaving the b-team in charge.

Harper was off in Vancouver, talking about the spate of gang violence there after handing over infrastructure money for rapid transit. Never mind that the Conservatives’ “tough on crime” legislation they unveiled that morning is pretty much a re-packaging of existing laws, and is unlikely to actually deter crime. Never mind that all of the moneys allocated toward crime prevention haven’t actually been spent by this government. It was all about making them look tough.

Also an attempt at looking tough was the way Harper defended a $3 billion slush fund unveiled in the main estimates that morning either. The spending provisions had the fund buried within them under a nebulous term of “budget initiatives” – money the Conservatives said they need to spend right away in order toe stimulate the economy, but rather than saying what they’ll spend it on, they say they’ll get ministers to come up with projects over the next three or four months and then inform Parliament afterward, so please approve this now. Harper threatened to make it an election issue. Wait – the government of “transparency” and “accountability” is asking Parliament to just trust them with $3 billion in spending, no questions asked. Oh, like that’s going to end well…

This fact, along with an admission from Jim Flaherty in the media that “mistakes” would likely be made in unrolling the fiscal stimulus, set much of the tone in the House, from John McCallum’s lead question for the Liberals (with his fetching pink tie), to Thomas Mulcair’s lead question for the NDP (where he accused the Conservatives of learning the Liberals’ old tricks now that they were in bed together).

Only Gilles Duceppe – the only party leader in the House for the day – dared to ask anything different, which was about the now-infamous article on the Alberta tar sands in National Geographic.

There was some other bits of excitement – Vic Toews blaming the public service for the poor Access to Information report card, Tony Clement inviting Liberal defence critic Denis Coderre to repeat allegations that Clement’s chief of staff was from the lobby firm that represented certain defence contractors, outside of the House and away from Parliamentary privilege so that a lawsuit could be filed. (Coderre did). Two Bloc MPs got in a shouting match with Josée Verner over the Plains of Abraham issue, while Verner’s hand shook as she thrust out some document in her answer.

When Bill Siksay asked about the Information Commissioner’s report and all of the failing grades contained therein, Vic Toews touted the fact that crown corporations were now subject to those laws. When Nicole Demers said pay equity was not a family issue, but an issue about women able to be autonomous, Toews only talked about the stimulus bill.

There were no sartorial snaps to be had either. It seemed like everyone was off their game. Of note were items like Government House Leader Jay Hill’s rainbow-striped tie, and Lisa Raitt’s short-waisted tailored jacket (which was a commendable choice). But the style citation would have to go out to NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis’ rather unfortunate shiny shirt that looked like it should perhaps belong in an 80s discotheque, and not the House of Commons.

I caught up with NDP MP Bill Siksay after Question Period today, who directed me to the statement he’d posted on his website about the death of gay author Scott Symons.

Scott Symons died on February 23rd in Toronto.
Scott Symons was a writer, artist and curator. A biting cultural critic, his books were always controversial.
His novel, Combat Journal for Place d’Armes: A Personal Narrative, published in 1967, was significant for its critique of Anglo-Canadian culture and in how directly it dealt with gay sexuality.
To say Place d’Armes was controversial is putting it mildly and it evoked a reaction that was also homophobic-one commentator of the day called Symons “the most repellant single figure in the recent history of Canadian literature”. Some believe that the reaction to his novel was one reason Symons fled Canada and went into exile, in exactly the same way gay and lesbian authors in other parts of the world still have to leave their home countries. Others recognize Symons as a major influence for a generation of new authors in Canada.
Scott Symons helped me appreciate the reality of my incarnation and the relationship of my sexuality to culture and politics. My personal coming out was shaped by his story. His political critique helped form my views, even when I disagreed with him. His courage to write honestly from his experience changed my life and the lives of many others.
Thank you Scott Symons.

Siksay said that he’d hoped to have a chance to rise in the House to make a statement to the fact, but that the timing just didn’t happen.

“It was really sad for me when I heard that he’d passed away on Tuesday because he was someone for who, even though I’d never met him, was really influential in my coming out. His novel Place d’Armes, it was sort of his coming out story, which he wrote in 1967 – I read it in the mid-seventies. It was very controversial for its day, lots of homophobic reaction to it, but he was a very sharp critic of Anglo-Canadian culture from an old, almost Family-Compact, old Tory kind of perspective, but I found it incredibly insightful, and his stuff about coming to terms with his sexuality was just the stuff I needed to hear when I was coming out.”

Siksay also told me that he tracked down a first edition copy of Place d’Armes, which he now proudly displays on his end table.

Bill C-10, the budget implementation bill, has now passed the committee stage, and is being reported to the House for third reading. NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis, in her rather smart purple jacket and turtleneck, wasn’t about to let that fact pass by as she castigated it during her Member’s Statement. Her biggest concern is the pay equity provisions contained within the bill, which now look like they’re going to come to pass.

Question Period was quite entertaining. Ignatieff started off by baiting Jim Flaherty, referencing a “spectacle of synchronised deterioration” of the economy. Harper, incidentally, let it be known that every Conservative announcement gives hope to Canadians. Because he’s the Canadian Obama, don’t you know?

Up next was Bob Rae, who asked about a lack of references to credit in the aforementioned C-10. This managed to unhinge Flaherty. Red-faced with outrage, he waved his copy of the budget in the air while stepping out between the desks on the front row, looking like he was about to cross the centre aisle while jabbing his finger in Ignatieff’s direction. (Ignatieff, in his seat, gave the universal sign of “whoa!”). And in his supplemental, Rae poked more fun, imitating Flaherty’s move toward the aisle. (Those of us in the Press Gallery had a good laugh at this particular bit of spectacle).

When Marlene Jennings – in her unfortunate dusky rose jacket – got up to ask about why zero infrastructure dollars went toward building new childcare spaces, Diane Finley said that their party believes that child care isn’t a women’s issue because they believe both parents are responsible for child care. Not long later, Treasury Board president said that pay equity isn’t a women’s issue, but rather an issue of family rights in order to provide for children. Huh?

Mario Silva asked about job losses, Hedy Fry (in a double-breasted pink jacket) asked about violent gun crime in Vancouver (Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said that he was going to put the Liberals “on probation” for being “born again crime fighters”), and Justin Trudeau demanded the minister responsible for the Francophonie respond to the changes made to CIDA funding, which saw four francophone African countries dropped from the list of priority countries. Bev Oda, responsible for CIDA and not the Francophonie, talked about the Francophonie. But her lavender outfit was far better than her lime green monstrosity the day previous.

Toward the end, there was one final telling exchange. Bloc MP Paul Crête asked the foreign affairs minister his definition of a child soldier, since Omar Khadr apparently didn’t qualify. And Lawrence Cannon stood up and refused to answer – twice.

Sartorial snaps went to Martha Hall Findlay for her black-trimmed pink jacket, and Bonnie Crombie, who can pull off a lapel-less jacket. Lisa Raitt was also doing pretty good with her chocolate brown suit paired with a red shirt – but her jacket was too long, and when undone, it looked like a smock or a lab coat. Now, given that Raitt has her Master’s degree in chemistry, I’m sure she’s comfortable in lab coats – but they don’t belong in the House.

There were two distressing cases of wrong shades of orange being worn in the House – Yasmin Ratansi’s creamsicle-coloured jacket, and Jack Layton’s nearly fluorescent tie. Neither worked – but then, orange is a very tricky colour. After two good days, Kristy Duncan resorted to a turquoise-blue jacket, which wasn’t so good on her. But the true style citation goes out to Helena Guergis, who decided to wear a large scarf with some cause’s logo on it, in a very conspicuous manner so as to highlight said logo. Isn’t there some rule about props in the House?

Elsewhere, over in the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee, Bill Siksay was one of the deciding votes for the decision to re-open the committee’s investigation into the “In and Out” affair. I think his work on the committee just got a lot more interesting.

Up tomorrow - a Liberal opposition day, and it looks like it'll be Gerard Kennedy's motion on municipal infrastructure to be debated. Sadly, not a confidence motion.

During the Members’ Statements that precede Question Period, NDP MP Bill Siksay got up to speak about the links between drug prohibition and gang violence in BC.

Mr. Speaker, people all over greater Vancouver are deeply concerned about gang violence. While tough on crime measures always top the list of potential fixes there is a growing realization that drug prohibition policies are making the situation worse.
Alcohol prohibition did not work. Many of the same problems now associated with the drug trade were experienced in the United States during its period of alcohol prohibition. Gang violence that often caught innocent citizens, impure and dangerous alcohol sold in black markets, home stills and underground production, untreated addictions and family dislocation were all serious issues.
It took ending prohibition and implementing alcohol control policies to restore respect for the law and make progress on alcohol related social issues.
We must apply what we know to be true. We must move from prohibition to drug control regimes modelled on the experience of alcohol prohibition and control. Bold steps to confront our drug use hypocrisy and end the profitability of illegal drugs will make our communities safer.

A couple of minutes later, Hedy Fry got up to rail about the Op-Ed that Harper’s mentor Tom Flanagan wrote in the Globe and Mail, where he called the issue of pay equity to be a sham. Unfortunately, her decision to say “Harper government” in her first sentence had her shouted down twice – one isn’t supposed to use a member’s name in the House. Oops. (Incidentally, Hedy was wearing an orange-and-brown toned knitted jacket, and these fabulous brown boots).

As Question Period proper began, and Harper obfuscated around a yes-or-no question that Michael Ignatieff tried three times to ask, it wasn’t until Gilles Duceppe’s question on 1990 as the reference year on carbon emissions targets that Harper pulled a rather egregious – and utterly transparent – manoeuvre. During his answer on a supplemental question, he abruptly switched to English to decry that the question wasn’t really about the environment, but rather was an “attempt to divide Quebeckers from Albertans,” while the Liberals made chants of “firewall!” from their benches. No, mister Prime Minister – we couldn’t tell that you were setting up a perfect little clip for the English language media. Not at all. (By the way, I will say that Harper’s weight loss is becoming visible, and he actually looks like he’s got a waistline again).

When Jack Layton’s turn came around a minute later, he accused Michael Ignatieff of opening the door to extending the Afghan mission past 2011 – to which Ignatieff could be seen making a rather incredulous “What?” gesture.

More trouble at the Chalk River nuclear facility meant that Natural Resources minister Lisa Raitt was on her feet again to say that she was assured the leaks posed no danger to human heath, and to Carolyn Bennett’s supplemental question, our medical isotope production is just fine, thank you very much. Raitt’s jacket today was better, fitted and had appropriate lapels, worn over a brown turtleneck, but she could have stood just a touch more tailoring.

Toward the end of Question Period, Liberal Status of Women critic Anita Neville stood up to ask why it is that Helena Guergis, the Minister of State for the Status of Women, can’t answer questions in committee as everything put before her is not her responsibility. Guergis – who looked like she was wearing a black bathrobe over her daytime clothes – simply pointed out all the ways in which the Conservatives increased funding to Status of Women.

Sartorial snaps again go out to Kristy Duncan for her repeated use of a black suit jacket over a low-cut top, in this case, a green one. Let’s hope for continued adherence to these baby-steps to better style.

Fashion citations go out to Helena Guergis for her choice of bathrobe, but also to Lois Brown, the Conservative successor in Belinda Stronach’s former riding of Newmarket-Aurora. Brown apparently feels that it’s appropriate to wear a Persian rug across her shoulder. (Hint: it’s not really).

While bitter, cold winds blew across the Nation’s Capital, the Prime Minister was out of town. Instead of basking in the reflected glory of the Obama visit in the House of Commons, he was capitalising on the brief bit of American exposure by taking his message to New York, to visit the UN and a number of American media outlets.

Back in the House, Michael Ignatieff led off Question Period by highlighting the latest sign of our financial crisis – poorer than expected retail sales numbers for the month of December. And what did Jim Flaherty have to say in response? That we’re in a “synchronised” global recession. Synchronised, I tell you! (This has become his favourite word, it seems – and the opposition loves to repeat it back to him).

When Gilles Duceppe asked about Harper’s assertion that the difference between “hard caps” and “intensity targets” for greenhouse gas reductions as being simply two different ways of measuring it, Jim Prentice said that Canada’s twenty percent reduction targets were more robust than the States’. But when pressed in a follow-up question on the baseline year of 1990 (which the rest of the world has adopted), Prentice’s response was to say that all the talk about 1990 meant the Bloc was dwelling in the past, when they should be looking to the future. Oh, Jim Prentice! I can see your credibility fleeing out the Chamber doors. It’s a pretty sad sight.

Jack Layton – wearing a snappy green tie – took his turn to give a laundry list of ways in which Canada is being criticised at the UN for areas it is falling behind in. But when Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl rose to take the question (almost inexplicably), touting progress on aboriginal issues, Liberal Anita Neville heckled him about refusing to sign the UN declaration on aboriginal rights.

Any other questions on the economy were met with cries by the government benches of “expedite the bill,” or “stop delaying,” even though it is being rushed through the committee stage, and no one I know of is actually delaying it. Oh, right – this is just the partisanship talking. My mistake.

Other bon mots: When Bob Rae stood up to point out that David Emerson, the Liberal-turned-Conservative former Minister is now criticising the government’s handling of the China file, Liberal MP called out “Tell us he’s a Liberal!” During Rae’s supplemental, when he started saying how we’ve been engaging China since the time of Diefenbaker, the Conservatives chanted “Dief! Dief!” until the Speaker calmed them down, to which Rae gave an “I knew Diefenbaker. None of them are a Diefenbaker.” When NDP MP Irene Mathyssen asked about pay equity changes, the Liberal benches all joined Treasury Board president Vic Toews in a rousing rendition of “fifteen years!” during his stock answer. International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda made an announcement during her answer to a government suck-up question, but you wouldn’t know it through all the Liberal calls of “send a limo!” referencing Oda’s penchant for limousine rides on taxpayer expense.

Sartorial snaps in the House went to Kristy Duncan for a change, who found an outfit that works on her – a black suit over a low-cut plum top. Let’s hope she can keep this up.

The Lisa Raitt jacket-watch today reports that her black jacket was of a good shape on the sides, but its lack of lapels and meant it was one solid block of black from hips-to-neck, and that wasn’t doing her any favours. Also, the two Dianes in Cabinet, Ablonczy and Finley, apparently decided to coordinate outfits, each wearing an orange turtleneck under a brownish suit. Oops.

Elsewhere on the Hill, NDP MP Bill Siksay did his part to interrogate the Privacy Commissioner in the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee, asking about Olympic security, “enhanced” drivers licences, RFID chips, and the legal challenges to the no-fly list.

Up today: A Bloc opposition day motion on securities commission and equalisation.