And on the third Question Period, the NDP discovered building a narrative, but the Liberals showed them how to use it. So say we all.
Jack Layton kicked off Question Period by asking about corporate tax cuts and subsidies to oil companies, to which Harper responded by touting the country’s job creation record. Layton carried on, taking all five opening slots, moving to the topic of service cuts arising from the budget – to which Harper said that they would not cut “key services.” And in his last spot, Layton asked about Laurie Hawn’s statement about hoping for unemployment to drive Canadian Forces recruitment – to which Hawn shouted a classic “Nonsense!” before suddenly looking sheepish that he’d broken the heckle-ban. Harper simply gave a bland statement about supporting veterans. Bob Rae then asked about whether Harper had plans to meet with the premiers over the Healthcare Accord, and Harper said that they had some time to go before they expired, but did look forward to discussing the issue. Hedy Fry closed off the round keeping up the topic, shifting to the pharmacare aspect of the 2004 Accord, and the lack of federal leadership on it. Colin Carrie, the parliamentary secretary, gave a bland response about working with the provinces.
Round two kicked off with Alexandre Boulerice asking about budget cuts, to which Jim Flaherty responded with a clear fiction that there hadn’t been a strategic review in 15 years – they started one in 2006, just as Paul Martin’s government started one. Fin Donnelly brought up World Oceans Day, and brought up Fisheries and Oceans cuts (Keith Ashfield: Prudent spending!), and then new gay MP Phil Toone, followed by Ryan Cleary and Jack Harris pressed on about the search and rescue distress centres being closed in their regions (Ashfield: A central call centre will save costs). New gay MPs Dany Morin and Randall Garrison, as well as Élaine Michaud, then brought up DND cuts and the impact of jobs to military bases in their ridings (Chris Alexander: Overall we’ve spent lots of money on the military!). Massimo Pacetti brought up the Champlain Bridge (Denis Lebel: We’re investing in it!), Lawrence Macaulay returned to the DFO cuts (Ashfield: Strategic review!), and then Scott Simms finally brought some life to QP by passionately rebutting Ashfield’s remarks, taking exception to the minister calling search and rescue centres “call centres.” Megan Leslie brought up emissions targets (Peter Kent: Yay oilsands!), and Romeo Saganash asked about the Keystone Pipeline (David Anderson: The NEB is a strong regulator!).
Round three saw questions on getting the army to help clean up after the Quebec floods, the costs imposed by the HST, the mandatory plebiscite on killing the Canadian Wheat Board, the market imbalance favouring rail companies for transporting grain and timber, the oil spill in Alberta affecting First Nations there, a Mackenzie Basin agreement, stability for the ecoEnergy programme by extending the programme past a single year, a deportation case, and whether the government is doing anything about the Canada Post strike (Lisa Raitt: I’ve met with both sides, we have mediators at the table).
Sartorially speaking, snaps go out to Scott Simms for his grey pinstripe suit with a purple shirt and tie, and Lisa Raitt for a fitted indigo dress with a black sweater. Style citations go out to Joy Smith for her rather awful pastel pink top with a powder blue jacket and pleated skirt, topped off with a sparkly belt. Citations also go out to Alex Atamanenko for his powder blue jacket, as well as to Pierre-Luc Dusseault for his eye-searingly bright blue shirt from Simons under his grey suit.
On the whole, it was good that the NDP started to use their numerous question slots to start developing a narrative with their questions, but they’re still trying to put as many faces up as possible, so there’s no momentum. They’re all still reading off scripts (which a lot of veteran MPs still do), but in this new, sanctimoniously decorous QP, it needs some dynamism to keep us from all nodding off. Scott Simms pulled it off today, going with no script, taking the minister’s words and holding him to account for them – like an opposition party should. When the NDP keeps putting up as many faces as possible, each with their own script, it’s not allowing for follow-up questions, and the government can rattle off their talking points without being challenged. The opposition needs to start thinking of some particular strategy to keep the pressure up, rather than diffuse it to the point of being meaningless.
