Parliament In Review: September 22, 2011

Thursday was another fairly short day of debate in the House of Commons due to the visit by UK Prime Minister David Cameron. But that doesn't mean there was any lack of perfectly telling content as MPs continued to debate the Cons' omnibus crime bill.

The Big Issue...

...was once again the Cons' crime bill. And one of the main opposition critiques discussed at several points yesterday looks to be one with some legs, particularly since it nicely parries the Cons' excuse for slashing the federal government.

Here's the concise form from Don Davies (which was followed by the extended version from Paul Dewar):

I hear the Minister of Finance repeatedly attack the Liberals about downloading costs to the provinces in the nineties. That is exactly what the current bills will do as well. They will download costs to the provinces because many of the people who go to jail will be in provincial institutions.

Of course, the fact that the costs of the Cons' crime bills will be borne largely by the provinces isn't exactly news. But it's still a point well worth emphasizing - particularly when it figures to mean lining up all but the most sycophantic of provinces on the right side of the issue.

Meanwhile, Vic Toews offered a couple of memorable if painful interventions - not only taking responsibility for the return of the "unreported crime" canard, but making the stunning statement that we should be concerned rather than proud about having more a humane prison system than the U.S.' mess (where Toews delights in inmates serving "real time").

And yet, somehow Toews managed to avoid contributing the most jaw-dropping statement from a Con MP. That honour goes to Joyce Bateman - who contributed this gem in response to Kirsty Duncan's mention of a study by the Canadian Paediatric Society criticizing (that's *criticizing*) the bill:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question on her comments.

I understand from her comments that the Canadian Paediatric Society has approved our bill, the bill that is front of the House as we speak. I am very concerned that she is worried about that, because these are the front-line doctors. These are the people who see children hurt. These are the people who see the ravages of abuse. They see the ravages of sexual abuse on young children.

I am thrilled that the Canadian Paediatric Society is supportive of this bill, because their members are the first line and are able to see that.

Could my hon. colleague please explain why she is concerned with their support?

Now, it seems fairly obvious that Bateman must have mis-heard Duncan's statement. But surely anybody with a modicum of sense would have at least considered whether it made any sense for Duncan to contort her speech into a criticism of the Canadian Paediatric Society before choosing to ask a question focused on the point. And once again, all indications are that anything of the sort has long since been drummed out of the Cons.

In Brief

Peter Julian slammed the Cons for failing to enforce the terms of approval for foreign takeover deals, using Stelco as a prime example. Peggy Nash pointed out that the waste of two million unemployed Canadians is making our economic picture worse for everybody. And Christine Moore chose the occasion of David Cameron's visit to ask why the Cons won't follow his lead in taking commercial flights rather than using personal jets and helicopters.