If you believe, as one Liberal MP mused during Members’ Statements, that Stephen Harper has missed the digital revolution – what with his ominous mention of all of his “tapes” on Ignatieff on Wednesday – then his government is certainly trying to cash in on the nuclear age.

Yes, nuclear energy is back, and Natural Resources minister Lisa Raitt spent the morning trying to tell the press (and by extension Canadians) that the government’s plan to hive off and sell the portions of AECL that might actually make money was a good thing (never once uttering the word "privatisation"), and would make us competitive in the global market in this era of a “nuclear renaissance.”

(Of course, much of what Raitt was talking about made little sense, like getting private sector management in for the Chalk River reactor, when it’s really mechanical problems relating to an aging reactor that are the issue, not management).

By Question Period, the attention was once again focused largely on the deficit, though there were forays once again into EI reform, with detours into just why it is that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board got some $8 million in bonuses when the fund lost money.

Incidentally, the Toronto Star is becoming Jim Flaherty’s favourite newspaper, in case you were wondering, and Flaherty also enjoys hearing from the “expert on deficits,” Bob Rae. Rae, by the way, claims that when it comes to deficits, he was just the amateur, and that Flaherty is the real expert – possibly expert enough to win a Nobel Prize in deficits.

Near the end of Question Period, Liberal Martha Hall Findlay got in some very interesting questions about testimony before committee the previous day from an official in the Public Works department. Essentially, it was said that there would be no forthcoming sale of government assets, as any such sales in the current market would be a fire sale. (One wonders if the CANDU portion of AECL would count as part of that assessment?) Findlay then asked a very serious question – if they weren’t going to sell assets, then what about that $10 billion line item in the budget? Where was that $10 billion in revenue supposed to come from? Neither Flaherty, nor the Parliamentary Secretary for the minister of Public Works, had an answer other than the fact that they wouldn’t be engaging in any fire sales.

Sartorially speaking, there were a couple of fantastic suits on display, but Lisa Raitt was proving her newfound glamazon credentials with the powder-blue suit and skirt, both tailored to perfection, with the black v-neck top beneath. By George, I think she’s got it! Olivia Chow’s cranberry suit-and-skirt was similarly a good look for her. Marlene Jennings’ exploration of her summer wardrobe continued with a decent green striped shirt under a green linen jacket, which as one of her smarter ensembles of late. But style citations go out to both Diane Ablonczy and Bev Oda for the fact that each was wearing big, boxy, bright red jackets, Ablonczy’s going so far as to having big brass buttons along it. I’ve seen you both do better – shape up! The Megan Leslie outfit watch reports a dark grey pantsuit, paired with dull mossy-green shoes. So close, and yet so far away. And yes, that was Peter MacKay’s right arm in a sling – he broke it Wednesday night in a charity rugby game.

Meanwhile, Her Excellency the Governor General continues to defend her seal-eating, and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council has finally made their ruling on CTV’s decision to air the false starts to that infamous Dion interview during the waning days of the election, and they found that the network – and most especially Mike Duffy – violated industry codes and were “discourteous and inconsiderate.” We could have told you that – but it’s nice to see that there’s now some independent validation for that kind of behaviour.

As I continue my attempt to track down as many of the queer Parliamentarians as possible this week, I managed to catch up with Liberal MP Mario Silva after Question Period today, before he dashed off to his next engagement.

Q: It’s the last stretch before the summer, so I’m wondering what you have planned to do before the House rises?
A: We still have a series of committee work that we’re doing, both at the Human Rights and the International Trade committee. There’s a possibility of our Trade committee going in the next couple of weeks to Brazil, so that’s on the table. We also have a visit from [Colombian] President Uribe in the next couple of weeks as well, so that’s going to be part of our committee, so we’re going to be dealing with that as well. So there’s a few issues left. We’re dealing right now with the Colombia free trade agreement – we’ve finished with Peru, there’s a possibility of engaging countries like Brazil in the future with free trade agreements, so those are things that we’re working on as a committee.

Q: This bill right now on the free trade deal with Colombia – I take it the committee is looking forward to getting that?
A: Yes, although I think that’s going to take a long stretch – there’s going to be still a lot of work to be done, even in the fall. It’s not an easy issue because it’s not a question of just trade, it’s also a serious issue of human rights that people are raising are raising on this, and we’re listening to the various opinions that there are on this issue.

Q: Any other pet causes or issues that you’re still looking to raise before the summer comes?
A: That would be it for now.

Of course, I think that Silva was being coy about that last answer, because not half an hour later I got a press release announcing that he and another MP would be launching a Parliamentary initiative to combat antisemitism, so I'll bring you more on that as it develops.

As MPs filed into the Commons, they found bright, dollar store bags on their desks. Inside were bags marked with biohazard symbols, along with packages of flavoured tobacco products next to a similar candy package – all about the push to limit flavoured tobacco products that are targeting children. Throughout Question Period, a few of the MPs could be seen eating the candy, though I thankfully didn’t witness anyone trying any of the tobacco products.

About two-thirds of the way through Members’ Statements, Liberal Brian Murphy stood up and sounded off about the Conservatives’ “plan” to raise taxes, including the way they already raised income taxes in their first year in office (actual fact), and the traditional lines of demanding to know which taxes they intended to raise and by how much. When Conservative Larry Miller stood up immediately following to read his prepared statement on how Ignatieff wanted to raise taxes, the absurdity of it all was quite rich.

Question Period focused largely on the deficit revelations from yesterday, and it only took Ignatieff’s second question before he demanded the resignation of Jim Flaherty for his utter lack of credibility on the file – especially as a mere six months ago he said that we would be in surplus, despite all indications to the contrary.

Now, while demanding the resignation of a minister is pretty customary theatre in these parts, one has to wonder what good it would really do, as we all know that this is a government of one, and that individual ministers are just window dressing. It’s highly doubtful that Flaherty has had control on his portfolio since, well, most of the time Harper has been Prime Minister. He’s a straw man, so firing him will have no real effect.

That said, there is also the fact that ministerial responsibility has been sorely lacking in this government, and a minister of the crown that blunders so badly in their math skills is suspect to begin with, and for the sake of their own credibility, they should at least offer to fall on their swords. The Prime Minister, of course, can always refuse to accept it, but symbolism counts for a lot in politics, and it is being ignored.

Much later in Question Period, Bloc MP Réal Ménard asked about the bill the Conservatives tabled just before the break week which would allow police to photograph and fingerprint suspects before they’ve been charged, and pointed out the basic civil liberties problems with this. Standing in for the Justice Minister, MP Rob Moore simply stood up to give a stock answer about how they were standing up against criminals. But! Civil liberties! Right – those are apparently for people who are “soft on crime.”

There was one very telling sign as to just how raucous the day really was, which was the way in which Ignatieff stood up for another go-around near the end of Question Period – something that almost never happens. This time, he demanded to know that, since Flaherty said the deficit would be $50 billion or more, how much more it would be? Harper – again rising to respond this late in the game, which was unusual – gave a talking point about the manageability of this deficit in the face of a global recession.

Sartorially speaking, there wasn’t really anything snap-worthy, though Lynne Yelich gets a nod for improvement, with her white jacket with faded greenish-brown foliage printed across it, paired with brown trousers. Style citations go out to Stockwell Day, whose tan suit was too light for his skin tone (which looks like he’s spent too much time in a tanning bed), while Olivia Chow’s gold jacket over pink shirt with popped collar wasn’t too pleasing either. The Megan Leslie outfit watch reports a bubblegum pink sweater worn over her greige dress, paired with grey shoes. It didn’t exactly clash, but it didn’t exactly go well together either, but at least it didn’t sear my retinas.

If you’ve been wondering what’s going on with Ruby! The Musical, then it seems that one of the former employers of one of the caregivers in questions has cast all kinds of new doubt on her credibility, including the fact that she made similar (and also apparently baseless) accusations against him and his family, for which the facts don’t stand up. Not that I’m saying the Dhalla family is blameless, but this does continue to cast more doubt into the accusations.

Over in Alberta, they’re pressing ahead with Bill 44 with only minor revisions – clarifying that parent’s can’t take them before the Human Rights tribunal if the offending discussions on sex, religion or sexual orientation come up in an “incidental” manner. Ooh, because that’s going to really stop the hard-core nutcases out there.

It looks like the timeline for the shutdown of the Chalk River reactor is more along the lines of three months, as they’ve now discovered the source of the leak, though they’ve also identified other areas of corrosion that need repair. And after all Janet Napolitano’s moronic bluster about the threat of terrorists in Canada, the Ottawa bureau chief of Maclean’s gives the most deliciously sarcastic blog post about how apparently the real front in the war on terror will be the maternity wards that give birth to the “home grown” terrorists.

After a rather animated Question Period, I spoke to Bill Siksay in the foyer of the House of Commons about the last stretch of the spring sitting of Parliament.

Q: We’re in the final five weeks. What are you looking to accomplish before you rise for the summer?
A: I’ve tabled my Private Members’ Bill on adding gender identity and expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect trans folk, so right now I’m trying to get some seconders for that bill. I’m organising to have folks from as many different political parties as I can to sign on as a seconder for that bill, so that’s one of the things I hope to see. Pursuing a number of other projects, I’m looking at the whole issue of criminalisation of AIDS/HIV, and how the courts are dealing with those folks who have been charged with “reckless endangerment” or whatever the exact word of the charge is – but exploring with folks of the community about how we might proceed, how we might clarify the law so that it can’t be used in a way that undermines public health goals and personal liberty goals around folks who live with HIV and how we deal with AIDS/HIV in the community.

Q: How about things that you’re doing in the [Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics] committee right now.
A: The committee right now is working on a report on the Privacy Commissioner’s twelve quick fixes to the privacy legislation, so we should finish that shortly I hope. We’re also getting to the point where we’ll probably write a report on the Information Commissioner’s suggestions for quick fixes to the Access to Information law in Canada, so those are two projects that are before the committee that we’re working on there.

Q: This isn’t your first time around the “Silly Season,” so what are your techniques for avoiding insanity during it?
A: It’s funny you say insanity – I walked into the House today just as Question Period was about to start, as Statements were wrapping up – the energy of the place hit me like a tonne of bricks. It was like walking into bedlam. The animation of the people through the place, and we certainly saw that through Question Period.

Q: It was certainly one of the more raucous Question Periods of late.
A: And sometimes you feel like it’s people getting very excited when they’re on the ropes about something, so maybe that’s something of what’s going on. I think people are tired – people who’ve been through minority governments get exhausted, so it will be very interesting to see what this place is like after a four-week stretch or a four-and-a-half week stretch, which we haven’t done so far this Parliament. And especially at this time of year.

Q: And just wait until the Ottawa summer kicks in too.
A: When we’re all hot, humid and sweaty – or “glowing” as the case may be. [laughs]

Oh, the cruel ironies. After spending the past couple of months trotting out a quote out of context about Ignatieff musing that they would have to raise taxes, the tables turned today.

Question Period had, until this point, been chugging along at its usual clip, with an even bigger focus on EI reform from all three opposition parties, with forays into the new deficit numbers and Jim Flaherty’s problems with math (as he also ran deficits under the guise of “balanced budgets” when he was the Finance Minister for Ontario). And for the most part, the answers were all pretty stock (to the Liberals – you said we’d have to raise taxes; to the Bloc – you’re irresponsible; to the NDP – you voted against these measures in the budget). And on it went.

But then, nearly at the end of the day, Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale stands up and declares that they have it on the record – that during Question Period that very day, Harper stood up and said that they wouldn’t bring in a new budget until they had to raise taxes. Which of course meant that Harper should stand up and declare which taxes he would raise and by how much – the very same questions they mockingly pose to Ignatieff every single day.

Turnabout is, after all, fair play.

Harper stood up and denied knowledge of such a quote, and said that they wouldn’t raise taxes, unlike the Liberals. And after Question Period, a Conservative flack was handing out photocopies in the foyer with the quote in question which said “What we are not going to do is, every two or three months, come up with another economic policy, another budget until we need to raise taxes.”

But funny thing – if it’s perfectly fine for the Conservatives to continually take quotes out of context, then why not the Liberals? Is what is good for the goose also not good for the gander? I fear that this is only the beginning of a whole lot of tit-for-tat coming.

On the sartorial front, it was a pretty good day in the Commons, with almost no horrible ensembles to be seen. Okay, so Albina Guarnieri still needs to burn that boxy yellow jacket of hers, and perhaps the NDP’s Peter Julian should rethink the shiny gold jacket, but overall things weren’t eye-searingly horrible today. On the positive side, the Bloc’s Johanne Deschamps once again proves that she rocks the androgynous suit look, and it was a fantastic combination of the tightly tailored navy jacket, the black trousers and a grey vest, all with a crisp white shirt. The only thing missing from complete androgyny was the tie (though she has rocked those in the past). Also noteworthy was the off-white suit and blue tie of Conservative Brian Jean, and Marlene Jennings’ long dark denim jacket, which looked far less casual than Monday’s outfit. (For those of you wondering, the Megan Leslie outfit watch reports an aqua blue ruffled top under a darker grey pantsuit, with shoes that were of a lighter grey tone – so not wholly inappropriate for a change).

Her Excellency is getting flack from the animal rights crowd for her publicly eating the raw heart of a freshly killed seal as part of a protest against the European Union’s decision to ban seal products. (To see the footage of Jean helping gut the seal, click here and selected the “Gov. Gen eats seal heart” video).

Elsewhere, the environment commissioner says that the government’s estimated cuts to greenhouse gasses are off by as much as half – kind of like the way they grossly miscalculated the deficit. I’m starting to wonder if Conservative ministers might have problems with numeracy. And over in the Senate, the Liberals have introduced a bill to limit political advertising in the non-writ periods. The Conservatives, predictably, are calling it “undemocratic” and an “assault on free speech.” The Liberal senators’ argument is that it closes a loophole in this era of (supposed) fixed election dates – and that it makes them accountable for their advertising spending. But given that it’s a Senate bill in a minority Parliament, I doubt this bill will live long enough to see the light of day.

And in case you were wondering about the medical isotope shortage, former CNSC Chair Linda Keen – yes, the same Linda Keen the Conservatives fired during the last shortage – says this time around it’s not a regulatory issue, but an issue of an old reactor, and that it’s worse than the last shut-down. And I’m also betting that she’s revelling in the fact that now she can actually speak out about the issue.