The day’s business began with the house leaders of all four parties discussing just how they were going to manage to come to some kind of an agreement over how they’re going to comply with the Speaker’s ruling and release the Afghan detainee documents to the House. It was, by all accounts, a cordial first meeting, but nothing has been decided yet.

During Members’ Statements, Liberal Anita Neville decried the hollowing-out of funding for women’s groups in Canada, which is an alarm bell that too few people are ringing. Judy Wasylycia-Leis did, but she is on her way out.

Question Period was minus three of the four party leaders, and as a result seemed to lack the air of adult supervision. I say this because leading off was Dominic LeBlanc asking about – you guessed it – Rahim Jaffer and his lobbying efforts. (Oh, look – the civil service bristled at having to treat Jaffer as a priority). But wait – it gets better.

Gilles Duceppe got up to denounce the appointment of Jacques Leger to the Quebec Court of Appeal, seeing as he’s a past Conservative party president, and he once represented the Hell’s Angels. And no matter that Christian Paradis assured the House that there is a rigorous merit-based appointment process, it didn’t stop the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair from drawing links between Leger’s Hell’s Angels connections to Rahim Jaffer’s business contact’s, and those of Maxime Bernier’s ex-girlfriend, Julie Couillard. But no bites – just assurances of a rigorous appointment process.

More questions about Jaffer, followed by questions about abortions in third world countries and the forestry sector. Ujjal Dosanjh asked about missing documents needed by the Military Police Complaints Commission, while Bob Rae asked whether we would even have a civilian process in Kandahar after 2011, especially as NGOs had told him their funding was not to extend past the troops' pull-out date. Mark Holland and Don Davies each asked about the facts surrounding the costs of prisons in this country (and got no answer – just assertions that they were soft on crime). Right at the very end, Liberal MP Rob Oliphant asked a question about an Allied veteran who had since become Canadian, but was denied a bed at a veterans’ hospital and subsequently died. Jean-Pierre Blackburn assured him that Allies could get access and that all those bed closures was because they simply didn’t need them. (I don’t think Oliphant was convinced by that answer).

Oh, and the “culture of deceit” drinking game was a mere three shots, and John Baird’s constant non-sequitur rejoinders of “$39 million!” were a mere four shots’ worth.

Sartorially speaking, there was nothing really deserving of snaps, but again a polite round of applause for Diane Finley for continuing to explore colour, in this case a pale green ensemble with a modern cut jacket. Style citations go out to Sylvie Boucher and Royal Galipeau for their insistence on wearing hockey jerseys into the House under their jackets. And the Megan Leslie outfit watch reports a nice black suit with a ruffled fuchsia top and black heels.

Elsewhere, the Ethics Commissioner released her report on the government’s (mis)use of novelty cheques. Basically, using them is a bad thing, but oh, there’s a loophole in the legislation, so it’s not illegal for them to do so. Well, glad we got that cleared up…

Up today – It’s Stephen Harper’s 51st birthday today! But funnily enough, I’m not sure I really want to know what his birthday wish is.

PS – Ottawa-Gatineau has been named Canada’s most liveable city.

There was a mixed bag of Members’ Statements yesterday in the House: Ève-Marie Thaï Thi Lac remarking that it was Vietnam Day, as the first Vietnamese-Canadian  elected to Parliament; Judy Wasylycia-Leis talking about women in Parliament and the rollback in pay equity; and all-party statements on cystic fibrosis and the national day of mourning for people who died at the workplace (also the reason the flags were at half-mast). At the end of Members Statements, the Speaker called for a moment of silence.

Michael Ignatieff kicked off Question Period with a trio of questions about the Prime Minister’s understanding of the Speaker’s decision the day before, and Harper made vague mutterings about recognizing the decision and their legal obligations with regards to national security, but he was open to “reasonable suggestions,” even though he once again raised the bogeyman of not jeopardizing the troops. Lise Zarac followed up by pointing out the unanimous declaration of the Quebec National Assembly for maintaining Canada’s established policy with regards to access to safe abortions for women in developing countries, again raising the very real problem of rape as a weapon of war in places like the Congo. Jim Abbott had the requisite lines about the government funding a variety of options.

Gilles Duceppe brought up the Jaffer affair in the context of the Speaker’s ruling, the loss of transparency, and when was the Prime Minister going to realize that he was in a minority situation? Harper, bafflingly, got up to deliver the lines about their position regarding safe abortions in the developing world. Carole Freeman followed up on the Jaffer allegations (four ministers and counting, and as we later found out, he was treated as a priority by the government), while Jack Layton returned to questions on the Speaker’s ruling, and demanded to know if Harper was planning on calling a snap election because he kept using the word “confidence” in his replies.

More questions on the Jaffer affair saw John Baird trot out the old talking point of the Liberals giving “bags of cash” to lobbyists, and demanding they repay the $39 million they stole from the treasury. Further questions on the policy on safe abortions in Africa had Ashfield remarking that it was sad the opposition kept coming back to this question, when they had all kinds of support for their position.

The remainder of questions involved questions about the proposed national securities regulator, judicial appointments, the accessibility funds, worker safety and the costs of prisons, which is what I’d been waiting for. Vic Toews responded to that one by declaring that protecting Canadians came first, so we apparently shouldn’t care about the ballooning costs. And right near the very end, the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair asked the government a suck-up question about campaign loans, to which Steven Fletcher replied that he had an announcement coming up, which was their third attempt to pass a law to limit political donations to $1,100.

Following Question Period, Judy Wasylycia-Leis gave her farewell speech, followed by members from the other parties talking about her 13 years in Parliament (and my own interview with her should be up on Xtra.ca later today).

Oh, and the “Culture of Deceit” drinking game only saw four shots. The more apropos drinking game might have been “bags of cash” or “$39 million” from John Baird.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go to Ève-Marie Thaï Thi Lac for a lovely pale green long coat with black trim, and Maxime Bernier did have a very nice lavender shirt and tie. I should probably give Diane Finley credit for her continued exploration of colour, this time with a teal blue jacket and top with a white skirt. Style citations go out to France Bonsant for the couch she was wearing, and Mark Eyking for his mom jeans. The Megan Leslie outfit watch reports a rather nice black jacket over a black-and-white patterned dress with black heels.

Elsewhere, the Commons voted to pass a Private Members’ Bill that would see a formal apology to Italian-Canadians for their internment during the Second World War, and to put a bit of money behind it. The Conservatives – the very same party who was all about redressing all these historic wrongs – voted against it. Also, emergency room doctors and nurses, as well as suicide prevention workers, testified before committee that the long-gun registry is a useful tool for suicide prevention. Not that it will sway the government’s position.

Up today – more debate on Second Reading of the refugee reform bill. How can you tell this government is treating it like the priority, as opposed to all those crime bills languishing on the order paper?

Liberal MP Scott Brison's friendship with Colombian Trade Minister Luis Plata was one of the crucial parts in securing his amendment to the Canada-Colombian Free Trade Agreement, which now goes before committee. Mr. Plata was in town to meet with the Trade Minister earlier this week to discuss the agreement. As well, Brison and fellow Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett are co-hosting an A Taste For Life event in Ottawa tonight. I spoke to Brison after Question Period today.

Q: Your friend Luis Plata was in town yesterday – did you get a chance to show him around town?
A: We had a lot of meetings. He met with my leader, Michael Ignatieff. He had dinner with Bob Rae and I on Monday night, and we had dinner with the Liberal caucus last night. Very fulsome discussions – in fact, if you check the transcripts from committee, you can see where he reads into the record where he describes in great detail the proposed agreement between Colombia and Canada on human rights. He’s enthusiastic about that agreement and its potential to strengthen and deepen Canada-Colombian bilateral relations on human rights. That’s been a significant step forward.

Like I said, we had dinner last night with the caucus and then a few beverages at the martini bar, and he’s off. I just talked to him a few minutes ago – he’s on the plane to Bogota.

Q: Now, you’re co-hosting an A Taste For Life event tonight.
A: It’s at Chianti [Ristorante Italiano].

Q: Tell me why these kinds of events are important for MPs to show up at.
A: It’s important in terms of awareness. It’s obviously important in terms of a fundraising perspective, but also from an awareness perspective. I’ve participated in these A Taste For Life events in the past, and it’s a novel and fun way to raise awareness and money.

The Speaker of the Commons, Peter Milliken, has ruled, and Parliament, not the government, is supreme. He has given the parties two weeks to work out a compromise for the delivery of those Afghan detainee documents, or else he’ll declare it an issue of breach of privilege. But will the government bring the House down over it, declare an election, or challenge it any way? I doubt it. Their pattern tends to be to sulk about it for a while, grumble about coalitions and generally be bullies, but I’m sure they’ll comply in the bare minimum way.

But first the business of the day. During the Members’ Statements for the past few days, the Conservatives have been doing an awful lot of bellyaching about the Liberals’ whipped vote on the long-gun registry vote. You’d almost think they’ve never had to deal with a whipped vote. Oh, wait…

When Question Period began, Michael Ignatieff hammered Harper on Monday’s comments on not funding safe abortions as part of their G8 commitment to maternal and child health. Why a different policy for Canada compared to abroad? Harper was clever in his answers, however, and brought up Ignatieff’s failed vote in the House on the topic, accused him of dividing his own caucus and starting a “culture war.” When Bob Rae asked if this policy similarly applied to women who are raped as a means of waging war in places like the Congo, Harper talked about the “range of initiatives” that are available to be funded, but Canada was only going to fund those that united the country. Erm, helping rape victims is divisive? Really?

That left it up to Gilles Duceppe and his MPs to bring up the whole Jaffer affair (four cabinet ministers implicated and counting now!). Layton was back to the abortion issue, and then it was back to Jaffer and the lobbying questions – Anita Neville, David McGuinty, Pat Martin, and – oh, wait. That’s it? Fewest Jaffer/Guergis questions in weeks!

Then it was on to questions about the forestry industry, pine beetle infestations, agro-stability funding, drilling “relief wells,” consulting on EI for fishermen in New Brunswick, detainee documents, funding status of women programs – all kinds of substantive and not-salacious questions. Amazing!

For those of you keeping score, the “Culture of Deceit” drinking game was at either nine or 10 – I wasn’t sure if Bob Rae repeated it twice, or if that was an issue of translation.

Sartorially speaking, snaps go to Lisa Raitt’s long white jacket over her black top and trousers. I was a little unsure of Diane Finley’s coral pink top and jacket with the black trim, and Bryon Wilfert’s black leather jacket (though snaps for the effort). The style citation again goes to Chris Charlton for another of her fluorescent jackets. The Megan Leslie outfit watch reports a chic grey military-cut jacket, which I was a big fan of – and best of all, nothing that clashed!

Elsewhere, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has tallied the costs for all those “tough on crime” measures the government is proposing, and he’s come up with a price tag that’s between $7 and $10 billion dollars – and most of it will be on the backs of the provinces. Suddenly I’m looking forward to today’s Question Period…

Up today – it’s an NDP opposition day, with a motion on the Investment Act, followed by third reading debate on Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, which we’ve heard a fair deal about.

Then it’s the famous “All Party Party,” hosted by the NDP’s Peter Stoffer, which I’m looking forward to attending before A Taste for Life.

In my discussion with Bill Siksay for my story on the debate on Second Reading of C-11, I asked him several things that never made it into the final story because of space limitations. I’ve included them here.

Q: You mentioned in your speech that you were cynical about the process of the Refugee Appeal Division going forward. Why is that?
A: It’s in the current legislation – it was passed as part of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in 2001, and it came about after real compromise discussions in committee about how to make-up for the loss of a two-person refugee determination hearing going down to one person, and how you maintain fairness in that. So the Refugee Appeal Division was added as a compromise to ensure fairness, and then Liberal and Conservative governments refused to follow the law and implement the Refugee Appeal Division. We’ve worked for nine years now to see that become part of the refugee determination process in Canada, governments have always given it the cold shoulder, refused to follow the law that they voted for and was passed, it got Royal Assent, the whole shebang, and here it is again, coming forward from a government that refused to follow the current law.

Q: You were mentioning the Pre-Removal Risk-Assessment, and how it creates a second structure. Could you fill me in a little more about that?
A: The Pre-Removal Risk Assessment is done in the department, whereas all of the other refugee determination is done by the IRB, and that’s always been a problem because there’s been a real disparity of resources and disparity of opinion between those two systems. That’s been a flaw with the current system. The current bill really doesn’t undo that – it still maintains the two possibilities, although it limits who gets to go through the PRRA, so I think if there had been more attention paid, there may have been a solution found to that. Again, some extensive consultations done beforehand, not dismissing the suggestions of the pre-eminent refugee advocacy organisation in Canada, the Canadian Council of Refugees, might be helpful in this circumstance, and that’s one of the other things that might have been addressed if we’d had that more open process.

Q: Was it my imagination, or was Kenney slamming the Canadian Council of Refugees, referring to an organisation that only puts out press releases?
A: I don’t know which organisation was referring to, but it was interesting that he never specifically mentioned them, and I don’t know how you can look at refugee policy in Canada without looking at the Canadian Council of Refugees. In my experience, they’re diligent, they’re extensive, [and] all of the organisations that are key players are part of the CCR. I don’t know how you can dismiss their work or not take their ideas seriously. That’s the place I would start rather than get around after I’d made a proposal.