News this weekend that the President of Malawi pardoned a queer couple who had been sentenced to 14 years hard labour for “gross indecency and unnatural acts” after a visit by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was welcomed by human rights advocates everywhere. On Parliament Hill, there was positive reaction to the news as well.

“It clearly shows that international pressure on human rights issues is effective,” says Liberal MP Rob Oliphant. “Countries should stand up for the rights of gay and lesbian people around the world, and we do have an effect. Whether we do that multi-laterally or bi-laterally, either way it’s important for Canada and other countries who have a strong human rights record to make suggestions and comments to other countries because they do eventually change their practices.”

The President of Malawi pardoned the couple on compassionate grounds, but indicated he wasn’t changing his position on homosexuality.

“It’s a positive step, and it’s certainly better than the alternative,” says NDP MP Bill Siksay. “It shows that international pressure has had influence on the government of Malawi. Canada participated in that pressure, and I was glad to see that the President took that step.”

“The UN has been very clear on issues relating to discrimination and oppression based on sexual orientation, and I’m glad that the Secretary General personally intervened,” Siksay adds. “I think that we need to keep raising it, pushing countries about their anti-gay criminal law, pushing them about their lack of explicit human rights protection. We know that it takes some countries a while to do that. It took us a while to do that, so we should remember that we also went through a long process of getting to where we are today on these issues, and encouraging other countries to take those same kinds of steps. I don’t think there’s anything that is exclusive about our progress on those issues, that isn’t transferrable or doesn’t apply to other countries and other cultural settings.”

On CTV’s Question Period yesterday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews admitted it was a political decision to showcase the Huntsville area for the G8 meeting as well as Toronto for the G20. He also said that if they used the much less expensive troops to assist with security, rather than the RCMP, there would be a political firestorm of “Troops with guns! On our streets!” like the Liberal attack ad that never aired of yore. But do you know what else was a political decision? That they went over the heads of Toronto City Council and decided to hold it at the Convention Centre rather than at Exhibition Place, like City Council requested, because it was outside of the downtown core, had the facilities to hold it, and would have been easier to secure with far less disruption. Why no one has brought up this particular item since it was revealed that the security price tag would be over a billion dollars I don’t know, but it seems very relevant now. Had the Conservatives held both summits at Toronto’s Exhibition Place, I’m guessing the total security price tag would have been radically reduced, and everyone would be happier. Too bad they decided to instead shore up Tony Clement’s riding (and spend a disproportionate amount of stimulus money there to spruce up said riding for the G8) rather than, you know, be fiscally prudent like they keep claiming to be.

I am forced to wonder whether this has been deliberate. Harper has never been a fan of the G20 – too much of a Paul Martin idea, and all of that. Could it be that by staging the most expensive G20 meeting ever, he’s trying to leave a poison pill that will make it unpalatable for future summits? I wouldn’t put it past him, while he plays chess while the rest of us play Clue, and all of that. (Incidentally, the figures are that Harper’s planning on spending a billion dollars on maternal health – which sounds well and good, except it’s half of what’s needed to accomplish any meaningful goals, and likely to be reshuffled money, since he put a freeze on foreign aid in the budget).

Clement, by the way, sees this whole flap over the likely conflict of interest in his appearing in that infomercial bound for China for his friend’s company, as just “silly season” stuff. Right…

During Friday’s Question Period, NDP MP Libby Davies asked questions on a national housing strategy, per the big city mayor’s meeting that was going on in Toronto. The parliamentary secretary responded with the usual obfuscation about the government taking action while everyone else is just talking. Err, except there’s no actual strategy. That’s what Davies’ Private Members’ Bill is all about. Not that the government would ever admit that.

Jack Layton has staked his position on the “Trojan Horse” budget implementation bill, C-9, and won’t be supporting it because of all the hidden goodies in the 880-page omnibus bill. He says that since there’s “no way” Harper will let his government fall before the G8/G20 summits, the opposition can play harder ball. Really? Seeing as Harper will remain prime minister during the writ period, you don’t think he’d allow his government to fall, and then use the G8/G20 meetings as campaign props to look prime ministerial and like a statesman for the voters in the hopes that the optics will give his numbers a boost? Because I can see him doing just that.

What’s that? The Conservatives are trying to play silly games with the actual written agreement on the detainee document process that would allow them to use “solicitor-client privilege” to do an end-run around accountability? You don’t say! At least the opposition parties are balking at this latest round of nonsense.

The CBC takes a look into the bugaboo of many a right-winger, the issue of chauffeur-driven cars in the federal government.

Canada’s most intellectually bankrupt MP, Conservative Shelly Glover, is at it again. This time she’s claimed that Toronto police chief Bill Blair is silencing the rank-and-file officers that want to scrap the gun registry, and she aired this in committee without giving Blair a chance to respond or defend himself. Glover later said she never accused him directly, but said “chiefs like Bill Blair,” which I’m sorry to say, is more than splitting hairs. Blair points out that the gun lobby makes a habit of finding members who are cops or retired cops to appear as authorities to claim that most police want the registry scrapped, even though it’s far from the truth. But this is Shelly Glover, the woman who claimed no knowledge of who Tom Flanagan (Stephen Harper’s mentor and former chief of staff) was, claimed that the Liberals have a vested interest in being soft on crime because prisoners vote for them, and is famed for pulling nonsense made-up stats out to prove points that are contrary to logic or established academic thought. In other words, we shouldn’t be surprised that she continues to stoop to this level.

Speaking of the long-gun registry, the “open and transparent” government deliberately withheld a positive report on the registry’s performance until after the Second Reading vote on Hoeppner’s Private Members’ bill last year, Access to Information documents show. Not that it’s a surprise, considering the myriad tactics they’ve resorted to in order to force this bill through as it is.

Up today – the Oliphant Commission report on the dealings between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber is handed down.

Also, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu is in town, and I have to wonder if that doesn’t mean we won’t see protests on the Hill as a result.

It was a rare occasion in the House, having a foreign leader come in to give an address of a joint session of Parliament. Mexican President Felipe Calderon spoke of the deep friendship between Canada and Mexico – the visa issue aside – and he spoke highly of the RCMP helping train Mexican police as they wage a drug war. Outside the Chamber, red carpets and Mexican flags lined the halls of the Centre Block, which was a nice change of place.

A few hours later, when Question Period began, both Michael Ignatieff and Mark Holland raged on about the billion-dollar price tag for security at the G8 and G20 meetings, and John Baird – the designated spokesminister for the day – obfuscated by talking about security in the post-9/11 world.

Gilles Duceppe brought up the abortion issue again, but in his supplemental question, he brought up the connections to Opus Dei of certain policymakers, which sent Jason Kenney into apoplexy, calling Duceppe “disgusting” for attacking people’s religious beliefs. Rona Ambrose, meanwhile, gave the stock response about not wanting to reopen the debate. As Christiane Gagnon followed up on the same issue, Ambrose went back to her ready quotes from World Vision Canada, which isn't exactly an objective authority.

After Jack Layton returned to the question of the G20 security bill, he turned to the “save the banks” tour that Harper is going on (being his trips to London and Paris to fight the proposed global bank tax), the floor turned to Wayne Easter, who brought up the issues of Rahim Jaffer’s alleged misuse of his special passport, and Tony Clement’s infomercial for his friend’s company that was being marketed to China. Pierre Poilievre, predictably, resorted to obfuscation.

Questions later turned back to abortion, the national securities regulator, the long-gun registry, and moratoriums on offshore oil drilling and tanker traffic along the West Coast. Pat Martin got up to give his high-dudgeon take on the Tony Clement infomercial (comparing him to the Sham-Wow guy). There were a couple more questions on ministers appearing before committee, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities meeting, and the budget omnibus bill (and more on that in a bit). The final government suck-up question of the day was a shocking surprise – Conservative backbencher Nina Grewal asked after the jailed gay couple in Malawi. Lawrence Cannon gave a little speech about condemning human rights violations.

Sartorially speaking, I have to give snaps to Alexandra Mendes for the rather chiffon-like white top over an orange top and white trousers. It not only looked good, but it looked extremely comfortable in the heat wave we’ve been living through, and perhaps I was a bit envious while sitting in the gallery in a suit. I was also a fan of Martha Hall Findlay’s textured white jacket and skirt with matching top. Not so good was Judy Foote’s shapeless custard-coloured suit and top.

Elsewhere, there is a battle brewing over the budget implementation bill in both Houses, but it’s likely only to see real movement in the Senate. Why? Bill C-9 is a budget bill, and therefore a motion of confidence. While the NDP can oppose it all they want, the Liberals have decided they don’t want an election, so they have to let it pass – no matter how bad and how undemocratic it is. So it falls to Liberal senators – aided by some of the independents like Progressive Conservative senator Lowell Murray – to try and break the bill up. The actual finance motions would stay and get study in the finance committee, where the other non-finance bits that were shoved in to see them pass unopposed, would be returned to the House to be debated on their own. And because the Senate is not a confidence chamber, they can actually do this.

But Government Leader in the Senate Marjorie LeBreton is not pleased. She says that because it passed the Commons finance committee unamended it should be just fine, that the Senate should rubber-stamp it. Otherwise, it's an insult to the elected representatives and therefore democracy. Um, hello? Way to cut off your own constitutional legitimacy at the knees. The whole point of the Senate is sober second thought, which is what Liberal senators like Pierrette Ringuette, who first brought this up, are trying to do. The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the elected chamber, because the elected chamber will pass bad bills for political considerations, like they’re doing now. They’re trying to do their jobs! Heaven forbid!

LeBreton did have a point in calling out Ignatieff – if he thinks it’s an abuse of power, then why isn’t he flexing his muscles in the House? Why is he leaving it up to his Senators – and allied independents – to do that heavy lifting? But like I said – this is for political considerations. Is it worth bringing down a government over? Arguably yes, this is one more abuse of power that needs to be called out and stopped. But consider the political considerations, where the disengaged voters of this country would be more concerned about the terrible chore of having to actually get out to vote again after only 18 months, and it’s not hard to see why Ignatieff isn’t bringing down the government over it.

(LeBreton also said that the Senate is prepared to sit well into the summer in order to get the bill through, so that will probably mean that I’ll be spending some time in the Upper Chamber in the next few weeks).

Susan Delacourt posts a video that demonstrates just how selective Jason Kenney’s memory is when it comes to the issue of calling political staff before committees.

The Toronto Star talks to Rob Oliphant about his opening up his books for public scrutiny and takes him up on his offer to break down his expenses even further, which he does for them.

And the CBC crunches some of the numbers around MP expenses, for what it’s worth.

Update: I forgot to add Mario Silva’s Members’ Statement from before Question Period.

Mr. Speaker, on this day in 1955, the Portuguese ship, Gil Eannes, sailed into the port of St. John's, Newfoundland.
Four thousand Portuguese fishermen in beautiful costumes carried a statue of Our Lady of Fatima up the hill to the Basilica of St. John the Baptist where it was erected as a gift to the people of St. John's from the fishermen of Portugal in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the Basilica.
Those beautiful days in 1955 were a celebration of the close relationships that saw St. John's filled with Portuguese vessels and fishermen for six months each year for over 400 years.
The Portuguese fishing fleets and Portuguese fishermen who travelled across the Atlantic each year will continue to echo through history ever reminding the people of Newfoundland and all Canadians of this special period in their history and of their friends who lived just across the sea.

NDP House Leader Libby Davies has been very busy the past few weeks, and owing to her status as being a member of the House Board of Internal Economy, she has been at the centre of the storm over opening the books to the Auditor General for a performance audit. I caught up with Davies after Question Period to find out what else she has on the go.

Q: What’s up on your plate for the last five weeks before the House rises?
A: House business, primarily. It’s very, very busy – it’s a lot of things going on. It’s going to be pretty wild. In terms of my work, as opposed to House Leader work, my housing bill – obviously I’m trying to keep working on that. The support keeps coming in, I’ve started lobbying Conservative Members of Parliament – I have a little sheet that I’m handing out to them. I’ll continue doing that. For the NDP generally, the budget implementation bill is before us right now – we’re really worried about it, that this bill is going to go through. It’s a massive bill – nearly a thousand pages, and it’s got all kinds of stuff in it that shouldn’t be in there, so we’re fighting it. We asked a question about it today in the House, so that’ll be a major thing. The Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement – we want to try and stop that. If we do, that will be the third time that we’ve stopped it. We think it’s a bad deal. So we’ve got our plate full, but we’ve got a very energetic caucus, so everybody is fired up to take up what they’re going to take on.

Q: You put out a release today about a Charter challenge regarding housing. Tell me a little more about that.
A: It’s an intriguing case, that four individuals have taken the government of Ontario and the federal government to court over the lack of a commitment to providing safe, appropriate and affordable housing, and that they’re basically violating the international covenants that we’ve signed onto. It struck us as just so ironic that if the federal government were doing its job, and if we had my bill or they were doing it, then these people would not be forced to go to court and try to win something at that level. They’re being forced to do that, and we wanted to make that point. The government’s own consultation report on homelessness done last November showed that people across the country do want a national housing plan, so it’s just another example of where the system is broken. They’re not doing the job they’re meant to be doing. Why are we spending over a billion dollars on security for the G20 and yet there’s people homeless in this country? I had the same question about the Olympics as you know.

As part of our continuing series, I spoke with Libearal MP Mario Silva about what's keeping him busy after Question Period today, while Silva was waiting for his meeting with Mexican president Felipe Calderon.

Q: What’s on your plate for the last five weeks of sitting before the House rises?
A: There’s obviously still committee work that has to be taken care of. The Human Rights committee has a series of reports we’re still working on from the universal periodic review of the UN, to the Venezuela situation of human rights there. [With respect to] the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism – that report has not been finalised and it’s taking a lot of time. In addition to that, we’re still debating and hearing witnesses on the Colombia Free Trade Agreement at Trade Committee. Those are the things that are going to take up a lot of our time until the House rises.

Q: Your guess as to whether the sitting will be extended because of prorogation, or rise early because of the oppressive Ottawa heat?
A: I don’t know. There’s a series of things – I would imagine they’re going to keep to the schedule because you need unanimous consent, and it would be very hard to get. I also think that with the G8 and G20 taking place, that will take a lot of the government’s time I would say, and it would be very hard for them to have Parliament sitting at that time.