The Commons: Shame, shame, shame

The Scene. The theme of the day would be shame - a common and popular currency in this place.

By Aaron Wherry - McLeans

The Scene. The theme of the day would be shame - a common and popular currency in this place.

"Where is Canada?" wondered Michael Ignatieff, opening Question Period with an existential query for the ages. "Canada is walking away from the global campaign to abolish the death penalty, voting against the International Convention on the Rights of Aboriginal People, staying silent as the UN begs member states to save its mission in Darfur and, finally, fighting against climate change agreements in Bali."

The Prime Minister, as is his wont, rejected the member's premise. But never ones to take no for an answer, the opposition pushed forward with their parade of disappointments - their potpourri of condemnation.

For the sake of the television audience, all 37 of you, it was likely Glen Pearson who struck the most meaningful blows.

On the issue of Sudan, Pearson is generally beyond reproach. Never minding even his work building schools in the troubled African nation, there's the fact he and his wife have welcomed three young Sudanese children into their home. By most objective standards such acts make Pearson a prince. And, in corroboration with his dour appearance in the House and earnest way of speaking, he seems all but untouchable when addressing the likes of Darfur amid the otherwise giddy furor of Question Period.

So it was that Maxime Bernier, the uneasy Foreign Affairs Minister, spared the Liberal backbencher much of a rejoinder when Pearson rose to ask what the government might be doing to address the Sudanese conflict. Even when pressed with the most dramatic of language from Pearson—"I heard the Prime Minister earlier today talk about what they have been doing in Darfur. I want to believe them, I really do, but the cries of the children of Sudan continue to ring in my ears."—Bernier begged off.

No, the Foreign Affairs Minister, ever a sharp strategic mind, saved his scorn for Irwin Cotler, the Yale-educated former justice minister who is acclaimed for his work on behalf of Nelson Mandela. This, Bernier smartly concluded, was a reputation begging to be besmirched.

"Mr. Speaker, this is a new interest for my colleague in opposition," Bernier sneered when Cotler further pressed the government on aid. "When he was in government, he didn't have the same passion and energy for the defense of human rights."

"Mr. Speaker," Cotler shot back, a little furious, "I have been speaking about Darfur even before I became a minister."

The Liberal continued with his demands, one Conservative backbencher appearing to mouth to himself a certain curse pertaining to the excrement of male bovine. Bernier, fiddling with the papers on his desk and tripping over his English, mumbled something of a response: "We have a good report because UN Watch said that we have a 100 per cent note on the promotion and protection of human rights in the world. It is not us. It is UN Watch who told us that and I believe them."

Fair enough.

But what of the climate change talks in Bali? Seems to us, said the opposition, that you're proving a stubborn negotiator bound for failure. Perhaps, the Conservatives countered, but we've only just begun shaming this country's good name, the previous government was allowed 13 years of shameful inadequacy.

Furthermore, argued the government members, it is the Liberals who are most disappointing, what with the opposition choosing of late to reject human rights for natives. Objection, shouted the Liberals, it's not us, but you who do not want aboriginals to enjoy the basics of human dignity.

"Mr. Speaker, I must say the honourable member has guts like Dick Tracy to raise this here today," Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl shot back at this suggestion.

This was cute. But for sheer fury, there was no better exchange than that of baby-faced Liberal Mark Holland and acid-based Peter Van Loan.

Holland, standing and stepping forward like a cowboy striding into the saloon, was terribly concerned about the Environment Minister's alleged involvement in a scandal currently surrounding Ottawa's mayor. Said minister, Holland humbly suggested, might consider stepping aside for the duration of a police investigation into the matter.

Thoroughly shocked, Van Loan wondered why anyone would now ask such a thing, less than a week after the House was left shamed by accusations of laptop porn. "You owe an apology to that member for continuing these smears!" he shouted at Holland. The government benches rose to applaud, the Prime Minister staring unhappily at the Liberal.

But Holland would not be deterred, raising the level of sarcasm, if not the level of rhetoric. "Last election, the Prime Minister praised Brian Mulroney for not tolerating scandal in government and for being quick to 'pull the trigger' when it came to asking ministers to step aside," he explained. "Well here is the test. Will the Prime Minister rise to Mulroney's ethical standard and ask the Minister of the Environment to step aside?"

The Prime Minister would not. In his place, Van Loan suggested that the leader of the opposition, presently sunning himself in Bali, would be "ashamed" to hear such discourse in the House.

Of course, if anyone is ever truly shamed in this place, they seem keen to give their pain a brave face.

The Stats. The environment, 11 questions. Sudan and natives, five questions each. Manufacturing, Larry O'Brien and nuclear energy, four questions each. Equalization and copyright, two questions each. Electoral reform and Brian Mulroney, one question each.

Stephen Harper, seven answers. Maxime Bernier, Peter Van Loan and Chuck Strahl, five answers each. Mark Warawa, four answers. Gary Lunn, Lawrence Cannon and Jim Prentice, three answers each. Tony Clement, two answers. Jean-Pierre Blackburn and Rob Nicholson, one answer each.

Heckle of the Day. From the Conservative backbenches, when Liberal Bernard Patry rose to query the government, came the question, "Who's that guy?"