Hello citizens,
I'm reporting in
after the first five days of the fall parliamentary calendar, finally
posting this blog Monday morning. Our proceedings were dominated by
two pieces of legislation, and book-ended by an all-party tribute to
Jack Layton and the visit of UK PM David Cameron.
Question
Period floats above (or more accurately, below) the legislative
calendar with most questions focusing on "scandal de jour".
Of course, there are perennial favourites. NDP MP Charlie Angus goes
after Tony Clement with glee and rhetorical flourish. The minister
seems to be incapable of shame for the outrageous way in which tens
of millions of dollars were funnelled into his riding - although the
slurs in Angus's question almost make you sorry for Clement.
(Almost).
Last week's QP faves were Peter MacKay using a search
and rescue helicopter as a limo service, with serious questions about
the health of our economy and the planned deeper integration with the
US (NextGen).
My question focused on letters to key scientists
at Environment Canada, who run various aspects of ozone monitoring,
telling them they may be terminated (or as Peter Kent puts it
"separated from Environment Canada"). Both NDP and Liberal
Environment Critics (Megan Leslie and Kirsty Duncan) were also
attempting to get clear answers from the minister. I like them both
enormously and shared whatever information I had with them. It
was a good joint effort. The threat is to the Global Ozone and
Ultraviolet Radiation Monitoring and Data Collection Centre, the
Ozonesonde programme (in which balloons in multiple locations are
released every week to take ozone measurements at different
altitudes), and to a senior scientist who analyzes all data as part
of the ozone reporting system. Kent says none of those
programmes are at risk. Yet, the three scientists who received the
letters run those elements. There are not five managers for the
global data centre -- there's one. And he got a letter.
Kent says
it is a Treasury Board guideline that requires people who are not
going to be fired to receive a letter that says they might be. I
am checking that out as Kent honestly seems to believe that is what's
going on. I have another theory....
Meanwhile, most of
my time was devoted to fighting two very bad pieces of legislation.
The first, Bill C-4, the so-called "Human Smuggling Act,"
should be titled the "Refugee Internment Act." It sets out
to treat "irregular arrivals" to Canada, primarily by ship,
and some form of "group" of political refugees to a
different kind of treatment. All must be kept in detention for
a year, without benefit of judicial review. Men, women and
children must be jailed for a year if they arrive by boat or any
other way the minister determines to be an irregular arrival.
The
Refugee Internment Act is opposed by the Refugee Lawyers Association,
the Canadian Bar Association, Amnesty International, and other human
rights groups. But government members have their talking points from
PMO and ignore the substantive problems with the Act. In
debate, any questioner of the bill's outrageous impacts is attacked
as "giving comfort to human smugglers."
Similarly,
to find fault with the mandatory minimum sentences of the omnibus
crime bill is to be met with taunts that the MPs in opposition favour
criminals over victims.
Canadians need to speak out and urge
Conservative MPs to push back. They have the votes to pass each
and every bill over the next four years. Only if the government
benches work to change the bills will we avoid some very draconian
legislation. Eventually, if passed, and after huge expense, these
bills will not survive a Charter challenge.
This week we have
the Libya mission vote (again I will vote "no"), and
continuing debate on C-4 and C-10.