With Harper away, and indeed, several key ministers away from the front bench, it was very likely to be Tony Clement’s chance to shine, and he was in the line of fire. The announcements regarding the auto sector reorganisation plans being rejected were the top questions from the opposition benches, but Clement said little of substance.

Where is the coordinated strategy to save the North American car industry as a whole? The American companies have leveraged all their assets for their American loans – does that mean that our loans would be unsecured? Where is the credit facility announced back in December? Could we have an auto summit to discus the future of the industry?

Clement replied to most of these with vague generalities, and when he didn’t, he went on the attack. With Ignatieff, he took a quote from his weekend BC tour wildly out of context, claiming the Liberal leader didn’t support the auto sector (neglecting to mention the part where Ignatieff said he didn’t like bailouts but preferred refundable loans). And with Layton, Clement accused him of saying that back when Layton was a city councillor in Toronto, he wanted to ban cars from the city. (This was later refuted during the Points of Order after Question Period).

The other big issue for the day was Ontario’s plans to harmonise its provincial and federal sales tax, and the federal government’s decision to offer it compensation for the transition period. The Bloc have been mighty upset about that since Friday, saying that Quebec was being treated as second-class as it didn’t get any compensation when they harmonised years ago. Even Thomas Mulcair joined in on this fight, being the NDP’s sole Quebec MP.

Both Christian Paradis and Jim Flaherty took turns explaining that the circumstances were different, that it was the Liberals who were in charge back then, and oh yeah, Quebec kept the administration of its own taxes, so that apparently makes all the difference. Or something like that. Suffice to say, neither the Bloc nor Mulcair were pleased.

Ujjal Dosanjh asked why the government was delaying on introducing new wiretap provisions that police in BC were demanding to deal with the gang violence plaguing the Greater Vancouver Area, and Peter Van Loan lauded the government’s “success” with mandatory minimum sentences, how their two current bills (C-14 and C-15) were going to make such a big difference (hint: expert opinion is that they won’t have any measurable impact), but capped it off by saying that they needed to strike a balance with regards to privacy rights. Which I think speaks volumes about this government’s approach to justice and crime in this country – that their answer is plenty of useless legislation that looks tough but will have no impact, while they don’t spend the allotted funds on actual crime prevention programmes (which would be “soft on crime” apparently) and they’re reluctant to delve into the murky waters of what police and people on the ground say needs to be done. Well done, guys. Well done.

Bill Siksay finished off Question Period today asking about a new survey of pipeline locations across BC after there was an accident involving a pipeline struck during construction because the survey it used was out of date, or something as such. John Baird said that he’ll look at the TSB report.

Sartorially, it was a pretty neutral day – nothing standing out as either brilliant or hideous, which I suppose isn’t such a bad thing. I did notice that Bev Oda’s gold-tinged cream leather jacket was a nice fit, and she paired it with a rather interesting leopard-print scarf. And that her seatmate, Rona Ambrose, chose to spend the early minutes of Question Period, showing Oda pictures on her digital camera rather than paying attention to the questions being asked. But I’m sure they’ll totally check the Hansard later.

I’ve also noticed that Conservative backbencher Chris Warkentin (who seriously looks like he’s still in high school), has been a designated seat-warmer on the front bench the past couple of weeks, often filling in for an absent cabinet minister (not in a speaking capacity – that’s left up to that minister’s Parliamentary Secretary – but rather just to make it look more full for the cameras). I’m not sure what that’s about, since I haven’t seen any other backbenchers filling in – just him.

Late last week, I caught up with Liberal MP Mario Silva to talk about some of his work on the Subcomittee on International Human Rights. On that particular day, they had just heard about a particular rights issue in India.

“Right now we’re doing a study on India,” Silva said. “We had a fellow by the name of Dr. Joseph D’souza who heads the Dalits Freedom Network, who came before the committee, and he was very specifically talking about the Dalits, which is the “untouchables” and their situation, and the committee was just hearing about that. I think we’ve got into a broader topic of human trafficking and child trafficking and so forth, and so those are issues that we’ll want to look at in a broad-based in terms of human trafficking and so forth.

“The Dalit situation is a unique situation – there is some information provided by Dr. Joseph D’souza, but there is also another side too that I think needed to be brought forward that wasn’t brought forward at the committee, number one that India is a democracy, that in fact the Dalits do have a right to vote and that they are very active in politics, and they also do occupy positions in government as well in India. Those are issues that needed to be addressed within the balance and context of the statements made by Dr. D’souza. I don’t agree with them that the situation is similar to apartheid – I quite disagree with them on that – however I do understand that there are issues of concern with human rights that we should all care about, that we need to listen to, but I think it needs to be done in the balance.”

The subcomittee is currently in the midst of a study on human rights in Iran, and I plan to check in with Silva periodically to see if he is addressing GLBT issues as a part of that study.

For anyone interested in the committee hearing on the Dalits in India, the webcast is available here (as Meeting 9, with feeds available in both official languages).

Don’t expect the Prime Minister to be in the House all week – he’s currently off to New York to go on CNN in advance of his trip to London for the G20 meeting on Tuesday, and then off to a NATO summit from there. This after he was in Washington on Sunday to go on Fox News along with a few other mostly American news outlets (though he did meet with CanWest’s Washington bureau), while Canadian media was told not to bother tagging along. So why is he suddenly so friendly with the American media?

While it was suggested on the Sunday that his getting notice in the States can help to stem the tide of protectionism (and I say good luck with that), I’m more inclined to agree with what was in the current issue of Maclean’s – that the foreign media has been a lot friendlier to him than the Canadian media, especially given that our banking system hasn’t collapsed in the light of this recession, and it also helps Harper to look like more of a statesman. Of course, he doesn’t exactly offer much in the way of substance to any of his answers, but it’s the thought that counts, right?

I’d also like to think that there’s another subtle game being played, which is the appearance of legitimacy. Given the way that our particular inferiority complex with regards to media seems to grant our talent pool more legitimacy if they can make it in the States rather than if they stick around home (which is a self-loathing and toxic attitude that I utterly detest), this habit that Harper has developed of now taking his message to Fox News and CNN strikes me as much of the same thing. If he can look good on American media, then it seems like he’s trying to get the Tim Horton’s crowd to be more wowed by his ability to play in the supposed “big leagues.” Never mind that he has no actual substance to offer them, and that under his leadership, we’ve lost far more international clout and prestige than ever before. He’s on the Situation Room with Wolf Blizter, and that has to be a mark of coolness!

(Note that Maclean’s also showed that his American media appearances haven’t actually moved the polls in Canada much, so the strategy doesn’t appear to be working).

Meanwhile, Michael Ignatieff took to the road as well this weekend with stops in British Columbia, and footage from his stop in Victoria is online. And while a lot of people have been complaining of late that he’s been really vague on policy decisions, he was pretty clear with several points in this presentation.

The Coles Notes version: On voting for the free trade deal with Colombia despite their human rights abuses – it is better to engage with them than not. On his policy plans for the environment – cap-and-trade with hard caps and a 1990 baseline, more energy conservation, and a water strategy. (There was some talk recently about his officially abandoning a carbon tax because the voters in “mature” consideration – though I wouldn’t exactly call it that – rejected it). On the Wheat Board – “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” On speaking up about the withdrawal of tax credits on windmills – perhaps he’d better start. On universal childcare – an “emphatic yes.” And finally, on reforming our first-past-the-post voting system – it’s not perfect but he’s not convinced other systems will provide stability, and he doesn’t to turn us into Italy, and hence, the jury is still out.

On the topic of the environment, there was some talk about how the Liberals may be pulling their support from the NDP’s “climate change accountability” bill, which is a re-launch of Jack Layton’s bill from the last Parliament. While Layton’s bill died because of the election, it had the support of the Liberals the last time, and now it may not. It seems that, according to the party’s environment critic, David McGuinty, the bill contains no plans for how to achieve its climate change targets. “We might as well be sitting at a table with Monopoly money and Tidley Winks,” McGuinty said. Of course, the NDP are pretty much daring the Liberals to vote against it now, hoping that the Liberals will look even more like a Conservative “coalition partner.” Because wow, that’s a responsible approach to legislation.

Remember the talk about protection for incumbent MPs? Well, it looks like the challenge to Conservative MP Rob Anders’ seat is going ahead, no matter that he tries to style his challenger’s supporters as “closet Liberals.”

Up today – the public hearings into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair get underway today, so expect a lot of media attention to any potentially salacious revelations that come out of it – and knowing the way Schreiber has been playing these events, I’m sure he has plenty of juicy little tidbits up his sleeve that he’s just waiting to start dropping.

When I first arrived in the Press Gallery, I noticed that Rob Oliphant’s purple striped shirt and tie looked pretty sharp. A minute later, I saw Justin Trudeau wearing something awfully similar, only his shirt was minus the stripes. Martha Hall Findlay had a really cool purple jacket that looked like it was made of brushed suede. Hell, even Jim Flaherty had a purple tie, and he always wears a green one. Something had to be up.

Sure enough, just before Question Period was due to start, Liberal Geoff Regan stood up to talk about a nine year-old constituent of his that started “Purple Day,” to raise awareness of epilepsy. There was my answer.

Of course, being as what followed was Question Period and not “Answer Period,” it was the only substantive answer to a question not even asked, and what we were left with was talking points and bafflegab. Lots and lots of bafflegab.

The two distinct narrative threads this time around were the independence of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, given his latest round of dire economic predictions while government MPs whinged that he was being too negative and didn’t talk about the “good things” going on; the other was the CBC cuts, to which James Moore’s tactic today was to point out just how much the CBC suffered cuts under the Liberals all those years ago – which of course is beside the point given that the issue in the here and now is bridge financing and a minister who doesn’t seem to grasp the ways in which a national public broadcaster is not supposed to be treated like a private broadcaster.

In fact, Moore tried some of these tactics during an interview on CBC Newsworld, and I don’t think I’ve seen him lose his cool like he did this time around – especially as Suhana Meharchand started cutting through his spin. And what was worse? When Moore told her that if she wanted to get more funding for the CBC, she should vote Conservative, and get her family and friends to do the same. Seriously! Who does that?

I should also mention that during several of Moore’s replies in the House, someone from the Liberal benches was catcalling “More is less!” It seems an apropos sentiment.

Diane Finley, in her brown-and-gold realtor outfit, was on her feet a lot to answer more questions about EI (one of them from Mario Silva about a constituent in his riding), and at one point she said, “let’s not quibble about statistics” when presented with numbers that contradicted hers. So, we should just take your word for it then? Because this government’s ability to give us the straight goods (pardon the expression) during this recession has been so bang-on already? Riiiight…

One of the government’s daily suck-up questions came from Donna Cadman (widow of the late Chuck Cadman), and she asked about Bill C-15, which is the justice bill on drug offences. The Minister of Justice replied that he wants to see the bill passed in one day. One day? Because again we should just trust that the government hasn’t put in any poison pills or other cute measures into the bill, or that it’ll be perfect and not hopelessly flawed by inept drafting of the language. And because apparently Parliament is now a rubber-stamp for the court of King Charles I Stephen Harper? Can one actually charge the Minister for contempt of Parliament for statements like that?

Bloc MP Thierry St-Cyr (in a bright green-on-green shirt and tie) asked about appointments to the IRB, including that of Doug Cryer, and was told by the Minister of Immigration that he simply accepted the recommendations of the IRB appointment process. Right.

And to wrap up for the day, Bill Siksay got up to ask about the latest revelations in the increasingly suspicious election of Gary Lunn, only for Jay Hill to once again say that the question should have been disregarded, and that no, the government had no plans to remove Lunn from his Minister of State portfolio pending investigation.

Sartorially, it was an above-average day, but maybe I’m biased to all the great purple looks in the House. Libby Davies was ahead of her usual game, and looked really great in a white suit jacket with a black top and skirt underneath (and in a rare occurrence, she was without a scarf). But for all the good must come the not so good. Maxime Bernier was wearing a curious robin’s egg blue jacket with a square pattern printed across it, and paired it with a tie that was a colour that lay somewhere between pink and orange, that just didn’t work well together. But most disappointing was to see that after several days of style reform, Megan Leslie slipped back into old habits with a coral pink dress paired with dark blue tights and shoes.

(On a related note, there was a staffer in the foyer who I’m quite sure worked for an NDP MP, who was totally rocking the Ugly Betty look – including the hair. All she needed were the glasses and the braces to round it off).

Early on during Member’s Statements, Liberal MP Keith Martin stood up to talk about harm reduction programmes like Insite and Naomi. Martin is a former emergency room doctor, so he knows his stuff when it comes to treating drugs as a medical issue and not a justice one.

Mr. Speaker, the government's drug policy is exacerbating crime, violence, the illegal drug trade and substance abuse.
The World Health Organization supports harm reduction strategies. The U.S. has even appointed a prevention focused national drug policy chair, but our government is refusing to listen to the facts and is actively blocking life-saving harm reduction strategies, like Vancouver's Insite program and the NAOMI program. The government is even trying to block these programs through the courts.
If we are to be serious about addressing gang violence, the illegal drug trade and even reducing the harm for our troops in Afghanistan, the government must see substance abuse as a medical problem, not a judicial problem. It should cut the link between users and organized crime through supporting NAOMI, Insite and other harm reduction programs that have been proven to work and save lives.

But what got the House laughing was Liberal whip Roger Cuzner’s statement on the supposed new Conservative “poverty plan,” which was a riff on queer Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth’s statement in a Finance committee meeting that perhaps the government should cull some Canada geese and feed them to the poor, as the overabundance of geese – and their faeces – is a health hazard at her summer home. Cuzner said:

Mr. Speaker, we read in today’s news that Conservatives have finally come up with a plan to address poverty. The Conservative senators have a truly novel plan. They suggest that we simply shoot all the Canadian geese that are becoming a nuisance at their summer homes, and feed them to the poor. Given that this is a Conservative plan, I am surprised they have not suggested to raffle off handguns, let them shoot, and then let the poor people have the geese.
We all know that Tory times are tough times, but where will it stop, squirrel burgers, pigeon McNuggets, gopher burritos, maybe beaver tails made from real beaver tails?
It may surprise Conservatives to learn that the Canada goose is recognized internationally as a national symbol of our country; it is not an anti-poverty plan. It is high time the Conservatives came up with a real plan to address poverty and unemployment during this recession.
Stop the silly goose games. The Conservatives have to get their ducks in a row and stop goosing Canada’s poor.

Question Period began shortly thereafter, and there were two major themes – EI, and the 800 job cuts announced at the CBC. To the former, Harper said that the Liberals should have brought forward suggestions before the budget passed and not after, and to the latter, he said that the budget provides $1.1 billion to the CBC. Never mind that Liberal heritage critic Pablo Rodriguez later said that the increases to the CBC’s budget were Treasury Board allocations to cover salary increases but not programming – so far as the Conservatives seem to be concerned with any questions on any budget allocations that result in cuts, the fact that the numbers appear to be going up is all that matters.

Libby Davies was standing in for Jack Layton, and she not only targeted the Conservatives over EI, but also their Liberal predecessors for bringing in eligibility changes in the first place.

Scott Brison got up to ask once again about the challenges around venture capital in this country, where innovators are being sent to the States to get funding. Stockwell Day accused Brison of getting false information from blogsters. When Brison asked his supplemental – impugning that Day didn’t seem to know what he was talking about as the day before he said it was an EDC file, which apparently it’s not unless EDC stands for “Endorsing Delaware Corporations,” Day simply repeated that Brison was getting his information from blogsters. Brison shook his head at that answer, while other Liberals shouted that it’s not where the information came from.

Bloc MP Réal Ménard stood up to ask a sort-of question, where he basically asserted that the government was adopting a Bloc proposal on eliminating the two-for-one credit on pre-trial time served (for which the Justice Minister thanked him for his support).

NDP MP Bill Siksay gave his questioning of Gary Lunn’s election spending another go, this time framing the question so as to ask the Prime Minister if Lunn should keep his Secretary of State portfolio in light of the allegations. (Government House Leader Jay Hill stood up to say that the question should have once again been disallowed, as the issue was the jurisdiction of Elections Canada).

There were neither any sartorial snaps nor style citations to be handed out, but I will make note of a few things – Liberal John McKay has been wearing some more creative ties the past couple of days, and this time it was rainbow stripes. Diane Ablonczy continues to prove that she can wear orange correctly (whereas most can’t), and Marlene Jennings got a new pink jacket that actually works on her, unlike her unfortunate dusky rose one.

Speaking of sartorial icons, Belinda Stronach is back in the news, this time talking about her breast cancer surgery two years ago. Stronach is raising money for breast cancer reconstruction in this country, so that women won’t have to go to places like California like she did in order to save their nipple during the reconstruction process.