I spoke with Liberal MP Dr. Keith Martin today after Question Period as part of this article on the IAVI cuts, but I wasn't able to get everything into the piece. Nevertheless, I thought some of the exchange was particularly relevant to both the topic at hand and in the news lately, so I thought I'd post those parts here.

Q: I know you’ve mentioned in the past few weeks on how the contraception issue is related to the spread of HIV in the third world.
A: It’s the missing picture in this. If the government goes ahead and does not pursue access to a full array of family planning options, this will be the most disastrous public health decision this country has ever seen and will result in the deaths of thousands if not millions of people. Not only that, but to not pursue family planning as part of the G8 will clearly be the most disastrous, misguided, offensive, appalling decision by the government in the battle against HIV and AIDS.

Q: It seemed to me when I was going over these particular cuts, they were trying to shift the funds to their own initiative with the Gates Foundation – but that’s now on hold because they’ve quashed the vaccine production facility. What does that say to you about all of these pieces of the puzzle we’ve seen?
A: I think we need to separate a few things out. I think we need to separate the vaccine issue out, because the government has a responsibility to put the limited public resources into that which it can make the most profound impact, and there are other places to make the most profound impact to reduce the spread of HIV. I mentioned what they are. However, the government, in the maternal and infant morality issue, has taken a blatantly ideological approach that flies in the face of science and good medical practice. They in fact will be committing manslaughter if they choose not to allow family planning to get onto the table. They can square this frankly – and I have a piece in The Mark about this – they can get the job done is they can get family planning and child health on the agenda. Each G8 country should take the lead on each of the inputs required to reduce maternal and child mortality – health care workers, diagnostics, meds, water, power, nutrition, and of course access to a full range of family planning options. One country can take a lead on each of those areas, and in doing so we can get the job done. But that is the way that the Canadian government can have an effective, implanted plan to improve the population health of the world’s poorest. And that’s what I’m proposing that they do.

Shortly before Question Period, a group of prison farm advocates brought that donkey to the Hill, seen here posing with the NDP’s public safety critic Don Davies. Davies suggested the cut-line – “Which one’s the ass?”


(Dale Smith photo)

What’s that? Charles McVety has the ear of the Prime Minister? You don’t say! (Caution – French link). And what do you know? The Bloc was bringing this up during their Members’ Statements.

When Question Period began, Michael Ignatieff asked after the American request for us to stay in Afghanistan – surely the government knew it was coming, so why did they say it wasn’t? Harper reiterated that we would be pulling out in 2011 – conveniently not answering the question. When Ignatieff asked just what our Afghan plans were post-2011, Harper remarked that not every G8 country had a military presence in that country, while Laurie Hawn was yelling that it was a matter for the committee. (Hawn later sent out a snide release saying that he wanted to bring up said matter at the special Afghan committee, but the dastardly opposition was too busy playing political games and wanted to keep on the detainee inquiry).

Liberal member from Yukon Larry Bagnell then got up and asked about why the Inuit were excluded from that Arctic summit – hence earning our rebuke from Hillary Clinton. Peter Kent got up to explain that only coastal states were invited, and that the minister briefed the Inuit before and would do so shortly again. The Bloc’s Francine Lalonde and the NDP’s Jean Crowder would later return to this point. (Clinton has been blunt on our positions on Afghanistan, that Arctic conference and our position on safe abortion and contraception with that maternal and child health commitment.)

Gilles Duceppe returned to the topic of the QST/HST negotiations, and Jack Layton asked just why it was that the budget implementation bill had, hidden in its depths, provisions that would remove the triggers for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to do environmental assessments. Harper insisted the regulations were developed last year to simplify the process between the federal government and the provinces – this was just formalizing it. But – and this is a big but – the federal government has SEPARATE AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY when it comes to environmental assessments. It’s a big red herring to say this is just “streamlining.”

Other points included the upcoming increase in EI premiums, the potential sale of AECL to foreign investors and the government’s new refugee legislation, which will bar claimants from so-called “safe countries of origin” from certain avenues of appeal. Olivia Chow also asked after this issue. (For more on this, check out my story on Xtra.ca).

At the end of QP, Wayne Easter got up to return to the question of Helena Guergis – this time because it turns out that one of her assistants has been writing letters to local papers in support of Guergis, but under her maiden name. (Some examples here). And later, it was revealed that another assistant has been doing the same! Guergis stood up to say the staffer apologized to her and promised it wouldn’t happen again. But once again, Guergis takes no responsibility and didn’t fire the staffer (let alone discipline her). But also? The Liberals not engaging in this kind of juvenile point-scoring after last week’s attempt at being too clever by half didn’t last a week.

Sartorially speaking, there really wasn’t anyone worthy of snaps. But there was plenty of bad – like Alex Atamanenko’s powder-blue suit jacket (didn’t powder-blue suits die in the 70s?), Lisa Raitt’s yellow top with her black suit (yellow and black should almost always be avoided), and worst of all, Cathy McLeod’s busy, multi-coloured sparkling jacket, which looks like it emerged from some 70s casino. So. Very. Wrong. The Megan Leslie outfit watch reports a perfectly acceptable black suit and shoes, with a black-and-white striped top. And a pink kerchief-type scarf tied tightly around her neck. Right idea, wrong execution.

Senator Elaine McCoy (who is made of awesome) reminds us of why the government’s current plans for “Senate reform” are hollow and ultimately bad for democracy in this country.

PS – I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m really enjoying the way some of We the Media are finally taking a look at ourselves after some of the fallout from the Liberal conference over the weekend. While Susan Delacourt derides the journalists and columnists who wrote about the conference without bothering to attend, Andrew Potter and Adam Radwanski challenge the snide anti-intellectualism that has infiltrated the establishment.

Liberal trade critic Scott Brison made the news last week by proposing an amendment to Bill C-2 - the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement - that would see human rights monitoring as part of the agreement. It was something both the Liberals and the Conservative government could support, which has become an example of cross-party cooperation in the current Parliament. I caught up with Brison after Question Period today.

Q: Your amendment on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement – how is that coming along?
A: The government has stated in the House that it will support the amendment at the committee, and we already have attained an agreement from the Colombian government. As such, this will be a game-changer in terms of international free-trade agreement negotiations in that it will ensure that on an ongoing basis, human rights will continue to be on the table and part of the discussion for the duration of free trade agreements, not just during the negotiation of them.

Q: I’ve read about how this has come about because you have made these relations with your counterparts, and the Conservatives haven’t. Has this made you more effective as a critic than the minister has been?
A: I’ve known the minister of trade for Colombia for several years through the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders programme, and that relationship has certainly helped. We had started discussions on this several months ago, going back to late August in Bogota, in China in September, some discussions in the fall, and then in January, I actually approached the government – I approached Minister Day with the idea broadly. The Harper government didn’t think that the Colombian government would approve of this approach. I formally approached President Uribe at a bilateral meeting, with President Uribe and Minister Luis Plata in January at the World Economic Forum, and President Uribe almost immediately broadly expressed support for the initiative, and encouraged his ministers – foreign minister Bermudez and Trade Minister Plata – to continue and to finalise negotiations on it. We were able to achieve it – we concluded the negotiations with the Colombians around March 10th and took it to the Conservative government after that.

Q: There’s a new bill for free trade with Jordan now. Would you push to have a similar agreement there?
A: We’ll see what happens at committee. I’ll be interested to see how this proceeds to committee, and certainly the committee – we’re not ruling anything out, we’ll be asking tough questions as we do on all free trade agreements, but I do think that it has the capacity to become standard with free trade agreements as we go forward.

The Conservatives, no doubt looking to change the channel yet again from the most recent Afghan detainee revelations, are bringing up the per-vote subsidy that political parties receive. Woo, we’re funding politicians – scary! Except that gee – they were awfully supportive of it when it was supposed to keep the Liberals from no longer getting corporate donations. Now they want to eliminate the subsidy to hurt all of the opposition parties.

Not surprisingly, the Greens are denouncing this, and on Power & Politics last night, Scott Brison called this out as a political game and pointed out that the Conservatives have spent more than any previous government on partisan advertising using tax dollars. But here’s why it matters, what the Conservatives will never tell you – by having a per-vote subsidy, it not only restricts corporate and union donations from entering into the political process, but it also makes your votes count that much more. Not only do you participate in the political process, but you make sure the party of your choice gets the $1.95 per year that your vote entitles them to. It has a dollar value attached to it. Not that the Conservatives want to talk about that, because they’re only interested in populism, which is not democracy.

During Members’ Statements, Rob Oliphant got up to talk about the Project Hero program that provides scholarships to the children of fallen soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the efforts of Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel Kevin Reed, for his tremendous exercise in citizenship in the establishment of Project Hero.
In honouring the sacrifice of Canadian men and women killed in military service, Project Hero not only remembers the past, but looks to the future. By providing scholarships to children of fallen soldiers, Project Hero ensures their legacy will not only be captured in stone memorials and solemn commemorations, but will be a living legacy through the opportunities afforded their children by receiving higher education.
Mr. Reed, and the colleges and universities that have joined in this fitting tribute, deserve commendation from every Canadian who reaps the benefits of safety, democracy, human rights and dignity – those things the parents of these young adults fought to establish and preserve.
To the recent critics of the program, quite simply, you are wrong.  To the founders of the program, thank you, for both honouring our soldiers and recognizing the critical importance of higher education for the success of a nation.

When Question Period kicked off, Michael Ignatieff mentioned the things they heard about over the weekend and asked whether the government would consider cancelling the corporate tax cuts. (Sorry, I just had a Jack Layton flashback right there). John Baird stood up and accused them of wanting to raise taxes. Ignatieff called him on the logic of that statement, but Baird came back with more of the same. (Incidentally, a bunch of economists gave the plan a thumbs down).

Gilles Duceppe brought up the topic of tax havens, and Christian Paradis responded by talking about all the tax havens they closed – even though Duceppe was asking about new havens and loopholes opened up in the budget. Jack Layton stood up to crow about how the Liberals have come around to their position on tax cuts – and then asked about them. (Of course, he omitted the part where the Liberals were just going to pause those cuts rather than cancel them, but no matter). John Baird returned to talking points about the scary coalition.

Liberal Siobhan Coady asked after the way Diane Finley’s communications director intervened in a media request about advertising spending. Diane Finley claimed they were always open and transparent. Also, the chocolate ration has been doubled to four grams from two. Doubleplusgood! Bill Siksay later asked after this issue and got the same non-answer from Finley.

Ujjal Dosanjh asked after the Afghan detainee documents and got more accusations that he was slamming the public service as a reply. The Bloc’s Francine Lalonde asked after nuclear proliferation and our nuclear agreements with India and got a platitude about engaging India from Peter Kent. Ève-Marie Thaï Thi Lac asked about those new immigration changes, noting that women, gays and lesbians would be hardest hit by it. Jason Kenney gave some bafflegab about the Charter and said that no one would be prevented from filing a claim – but that’s not the point.

Rob Oliphant asked after the benefits that modern veterans are calling for, framing it in the mention of the recent passing of our last WWI veteran. Jean-Pierre Blackburn simply spoke about the planned memorials for the WWI veterans. He gave it a second attempt, but Blackburn spoke about the ombudsman’s looking into the matter.

Note to Peter Kent – when you’re answering a question in English, the form of address is “Mr Speaker” not “Mr President” (as it would be in French). Remember, you’re in a Westminster-style Parliament, and we don’t have a president in this system (no matter Stephen Harper’s presidential envy).

On the sartorial front, snaps go to Ève-Marie Thaï Thi Lac for her black jacket and skirt with big necklaces – she pulls it off without looking trashy. I also liked Ruby Dhalla’s black top with the red and white striped patterns. I wasn’t a fan of Tony Clement’s square-patterned shirt with the black-and white polka dot tie, which was a bit clashing in its busyness. And the Megan Leslie outfit watch reports a black jacket with three-quarter sleeves (which I’m somewhat undecided on) but I couldn’t quite tell the rest of the outfit, so I can’t form a coherent opinion on it.

Elsewhere, it’s official – the dreaded 10 percenters sent to opposition ridings are now officially scrapped as of April 1.

The Conservatives announced their plan to reintroduce their eight-year term limits for the Senate to increase the “democratic legitimacy” of the Senate. But how exactly does that limit do that? Hint: it doesn’t. He’s also not going to refer it to the Supreme Court to determine its legitimacy, and surprise, surprise, the Liberals aren’t going to support it, because they’re still firm on a 12-year limit at minimum. Which is far more in keeping with the essential characteristics of the Senate (one of which being institutional memory) than eight-year terms would be.

And Hillary Clinton made an early departure from the Arctic conference that Canada was hosting and quite rightly criticized us for leaving out legitimate interests – including the Inuit – from the conference. The Harper government? Trying to game these meetings? Never!

Up today – the group advocating to keep the prison farms open are holding a demonstration on the Hill, which will include bringing a donkey for show – which should fit in just perfectly with all the other jackasses around there. (Sorry, it had to be said.)

PS – From the “isn’t America absurd” file, we are once again reminded: when they’re Christians, they’re “right-wing extremists,” but when they’re Muslims, they’re terrorists. Funny, huh?

Of course the big news over the weekend was Michael Ignatieff’s big Canada 150 Conference, where he got all these great minds together to talk about the future of Canada, and what we need to do by the 150th anniversary, a mere seven years away. And honestly, what’s been lacking in this era of minority governments has been any kind of foresight, or big picture, or anything other than just managing the day-to-day, and the horserace poll numbers of who’s up and who’s down, and when is a good time to call an election. Because as anyone who’s been paying attention for a while knows, there’s not a whole lot in the vision cupboard lately to draw from, unless of course you count Stephen Harper’s incrementally trying to move the centre more to the right.

Over the course of the weekend, they were warned of a declining Canada, and that the government is ignoring the Inuit. Most of all, however, they were given a thorough thrashing by former diplomat Robert Fowler, who let them have it about their foreign policy (or lack thereof), and how Canada has basically become irrelevant on the world stage thanks to the current government. Which of course puts Ignatieff and the Liberals in a delicate position as well – how do they respond to his criticisms without falling into a new series of Conservative talking point traps? Especially given Fowler’s criticisms of the way Canada is handling the Israel file (though why people still aren’t calling out Harper for pandering to his Christian Zionist base is beyond me).

And in the end, Ignatieff gave a speech and outlined some of his plans, which also look to me like a way to counter the Conservative assertions that this was a “spender’s conference.” Until of course they conveniently ignore that part of the message. And given that Ignatieff now has freezing corporate income taxes until Canada can afford to lower them further, I have no doubt the NDP will be crowing about how that was their idea that he’s now stolen.

(To get some flavour of the event, I recommend Aaron Wherry’s snarktastic observations, day one, day two and day three).

On the Afghan detainee front – in case you think it’s been forgotten – those new documents show that the troops were worried about abuse – some of them genuinely worried, especially because the Afghans don’t have our same standards of care for prisoners. The government, of course, says that any allegations are unfounded. Because you know, anything that doesn’t fit with their talking points must be wrong. (Meanwhile, the CBC is crowd-sourcing examination of those 2500 pages of redacted documents by putting them online.)

And in case you’ve missed it on the main page, I have a piece about just what’s been happening with that bill on reforming Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR).

Up today – Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is set to announce the legislation he’s introducing on Tuesday in order to reform the Immigration and Refugee system. Also, his compatriot Stephen Fletcher will be making an announcement about Senate reform – or rather what I’m sure is going to be another unconstitutional stab at it.