What was the Question? - Dec. 1, 2010

One of the most hilarious-if-it-weren't-so-frustrating features of Question Period is when the answer given has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked. "What was the Question?" will feature the most ludicrous non-answer from the latest QP, if only to highlight the fact this nonsense goes on every day.

QUESTION (Mark Holland, Ajax—Pickering)

Mr. Speaker, we know that the decision to stop Taseko's Prosperity mine involved five cabinet ministers. Each must answer for the cabinet leak that left Taseko's shares plunging and insiders getting rich.

I ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, when did she sign off on the Taseko mine rejection? Who in her office knew about the decision? Has her office handed over any and all information about the deal to the RCMP and the PCO?

ANSWER (John Baird, Minister of the Environment)

Mr. Speaker, there the member for Ajax—Pickering goes again, speculating, making wild accusations.

It was only on October 8 that he had to stand in his place and apologize and retract statements on other smears that he has made. We will await those similar apologies in the future.

h/t: openparliament.ca

OF NOTE

Question asked of: Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Question answered by: Minister of the Environment

Question topic: possible cabinet leak/insider trading

Answer topic: vague insults about the person asking the question.

ALSO OF NOTE

The next three questions were all on this topic. One was asked of the Minister of Indian Affairs; one was asked of the Minister of Natural Ressources; one was asked of the Minister of Finance. All were answered by the Minister of the Environment.

Recall, one of Conservative MP Michael Chong's very sensible recommendations to fix Question Period is that the person who is asked a question must be the person to answer it.

Click here to Help Fix Question Period

What was the Question? - Nov. 30, 2010

One of the most hilarious-if-it-weren't-so-frustrating features of Question Period is when the answer given has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked.

Today I am pleased to begin a new, regular installment: What was the Question?

WWTQ? will feature the most ludicrous non-answer from the latest QP, if only to highlight the fact this nonsense goes on every day.

Here then is your WWTQ for Nov 30, 2010.

QUESTION (Larry Bagnell, Yukon)

Why did the current government find $130 million for partisan Conservative advertising, but cannot find the $9 million it owes its aboriginal broadcasters? Will the minister send emergency cheques this week?

ANSWER (Hon. John Duncan, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Mr. Speaker, it is very nice to hear the member for Yukon talking once again, pretending to represent his backyard, when he spent his time this summer saying, when I was there, that we should be listening to Yukoners. We did. What did the member do? He voted against the removal of the gun registry and he voted for the anti-mining legislation in the House, against the wishes of his own constituents.

OF NOTE

Question asked of: Minister of Canadian Heritage

Question answered by: Minister of the Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Question topic: Funding for aboriginal broadcasters

Answer topic: Question-asker's position on the gun registry and mining legislation

Oh yes, this is going to be fun.

How politics affect policy (or Remember the humans)

You may have heard about the Winnipeg Free Press/Iggy/by-election/Filipino-vote-splitting fiasco.

If not, real quick: Ignatieff was asked a leading question from a journalist about whether he believed the Conservatives were running a Filipino woman in a Winnipeg by-election in order to carve off some of the Liberal candidate's strong Filipino support, allowing the NDP to come up the middle and win the thing. 

Ignatieff basically answered that this was a stupid question, but the paper ran with a story (and an editorial) as though Ignatieff had actually agreed with the questioner. (I won't bore you with the originals - just read the retraction.)

Luckily, a transcript of the exchange has been released, proving just how irresponsible the Free Press's article and editorial were.

(Reports from Liberal Glen Pearson, Conservative blogger Stephen Taylor, and always-objective-neutral-observer Alice Funke at Pundit's Guide.)

So that's pretty much settled - all agree Ignatieff said no such thing. The paper is red-faced, and the truth is out.

No harm done - all just part of the game, right?

I'm not so sure.

A part of Pearson's account caught my eye. As has become customary, a Conservative MP, in this case Joy Smith, took the opportunity to get up in the House and condemn Ignatieff (for these comments he never made) in an overtly snarky, partisan fashion. As Pearson points out, this little display was probably not her idea, but rather a directive from the PMO. Again, what else is new.

But here's the thing: Joy Smith is currently trying to garner all-party support for an important motion on human trafficking. Whthere or not her specific ideas are bang on, it's certainly an issue in need of proper public debate.

Here, it's important to remember that the House is filled with human beings. And one thing I know about human beings is that, even if you have the best idea in the world, they won't help you if you're an asshole to them.

Which brings me back to the part of Pearson's comments that jumped out at me: "In her statement, [Smith] referred to how poorly it all reflected on politics and democracy. Sadly, in the end, it was her very own words that were proving the point. It will hardly assist her in creating cross-party support for her trafficking file."

So what does Joy Smith get for her juvenile, misinformed, PMO-directed tirade at Iganatieff?

She gets less chance of finding support from opponents for tackling human smuggling. Even if she tries to launch a reasonable debate, the human beings across the aisle will have a tough time forgetting that indulged in a such gratuitous attack.

And what do we get? No movement on an important policy issue. All because they can't play nice in the sandbox.

We tend to dismiss the political shenanigans as funny, or stupid, or useless, or juvenile, or all-part-of-the-game. They are all those things, but they are also destructive. They unnecessarily poison an atmosphere where important work is supposed to be going on. 

In a minority House, cross-party cooperation is crucial. But that can't happen, policy-wise, if they treat each other like shit, politics-wise. They're human, after all.

Dept. of Things I Never Thought I'd Say: Great Job, Preston

So Preston Manning, a great example of how a person's thinking can and should evolve as their life experience grows (read: kinda-kooky-prairie-populist-turned-sensible-voice-on-policy), has published a brilliant article in yesterday's Globe & Mail.

In it, he decries the dismal state of political discourse in this country. Basically, Politician A gives their sensible opinion on a matter of policy. Politician B then pretends Politician A said a very extreme version of what they actually said, and proceeds to respond as though Politician A had said the crazy thing they never said, adding their own (likely sensible) position on the issue. But Politician A then answers in kind painting Politican B's position as an extreme caricature of itself, so that the two sides end up arguing against extreme positions no one ever argued for in the first place, wrongly painting their opponents as wingnuts, and leaving the rest of us to feeling like idiots for ever having hoped to see a substantive discussion that might have actually brought about some manner of progress on the policy issue in question.

The point is this: the hysteric, partisan left/right red/blue tone of political debate does not reflect what citizens are thinking, as such is not what people want to see from elected officials, and is a big reason people are tuning out.

The even simpler point is this: political polarization is a myth.

We are not neatly divided into 2 camps at opposite ends of some spectrum. Reality tends to be a little more nuanced than that. The only people perpetuating the polarization myth are those who benefit from it: wedge politicians, self-interested people whose ambitions require outrage where there is none, and those in the media more interested in shock value than truth.

Dan Gardner nailed it in an excellent column recently, citing research out of the US showing the exact same thing - that Americans are nowhere near as polarized as they are made out to be (and if they're not polarized, we certainly aren't). Anyway, here's what Dan wrote:

"For years, political scientists have been insisting that the image of an America divided into two warring tribes is nonsense. It's the political class -- politicians, journalists, activists, and zealots -- that has polarized. Not ordinary Americans."

Right. But they do it because we let them get away with it. For this, Manning has some useful advice for Citizen X (I'm paraphrasing...you really should go read the article):

1. When Politician A says Politician B's position is extreme, don't believe it. He's probably lying. Even if you are a big fan of Politician A, have the respect to find out Politician B's real position on the issue. Even if you disagree with it (and agree with A) chances are it's not nearly as bad as A said it was, and it may even help you refine your own position.

2. Call others out on it when they do this. Manning suggests this if you're chairing a debate, but I think it applies when you're "chairing" the water cooler discussion. If someone calls someone else extreme, tell them to explain in more detail. Ask for sources.

3. Don't believe the media when they report on policy positions or cover debates. Go to the source and see for yourself, and decide for yourself just how extreme those positions are.

What might happen if we start exposing the polarization myth? More reasonable policy discussions = more reasonable policy = a better country in which to live. Simple enough.

Merci! (and my speech)

Sorry for the delay in writing about the nomination meeting - I've been real busy with regular work this week.

Nous avons malheureusement perdu cette ronde, mais nous avons mené une très bonne campagne et plusieurs l'ont remarqué. Un GROS merci à ceux et celles qui ont offert leur aide et leur appui. I learned a lot about all that is good and all that is bad in politics, and rest assured there will be a next time.

In the meantime, please check back here often as I will use this blog to talk about important issues in Jeanne-Le ber and Ottawa, including how we can clean up politics and get more people involved.

En attendant, SVP visitez ce site souvent car je vais continuer à utiliser le blogue pour parler d'enjeux importants à Jeanne-Le Ber et à Ottawa, ainsi que de comment nous pouvons rendre la politique un peu plus propre, et convaincre d'autres à s'impliquer avec cette cause.

As for Sunday's nomination meeting, I don't want to bore everyone with the details, but feel free to contact me to hear more; n'hésitez pas à me contacter pour plus de détails sur mes impressions de l'investiture et comment on peut améliorer ce processus.

Aussi, je vous invite à cliquer ici pour un article intéressant sur l'investiture.

Voici aussi le texte de mon discours de dimanche. Je mets en italiques la petite partie que je n'ai pas eu l'occasion de livrer, faute d'un manque de temps:

For those of you interested, here is the text of my speech on Sunday. In italics is a small section I did not have a chance to deliver, as I was running out of time:

Discours du dimanche 3 octobre - Speech from Sunday October 3

Pourquoi sommes nous ici aujourd’hui?
Why are we here today?
On est ici parce qu’on a une tâche importante à accomplir, une responsabilité même.

We’re here to choose the person who might represent us all in Ottawa, so if you think what happens in Ottawa matters, then this matters.

On doit y penser sérieursement. Heureusement, vous avez des bons candidats devant vous.
Comme de raison, je parlerai plutot de moi-même aujourd’hui.

I am Pascal Zamprelli
It’s a bit of a strange name.
Pascal. Ma mère vient du Lac Etchemin, en Beauce.
Zamprelli. That’s italian; my father’s from the Bronx in New York City
Beauce-Bronx...it's a long story

Une histoire passe éventuellement par St. Boniface au Manitoba, ou je suis né, et ensuite j’ai habité longtemps en Acadie, in Halifax. I then did a business degree in Alberta and then came here for law school.

I went to law school not to be a lawyer, but because i want to help make better laws.
Pour moi l’idée étudier le droit ce n’était pas d’être avocat, mais d’aider à créer des meilleures lois.

Et ca nous ramène a la première question.
Nous sommes ici pour choisir quelqu’un qui va aller à Ottawa, et parler en notre nom lorsque les lois sont écrites.
We’re choosing someone who is going to go and make laws on our behalf.

A l’école, et au travail, c’est ça que je pense. Quelles lois devraient-on améliorer, ou créer? Quelles politique aideraient les citoyennes et citoyens. What problems need to be solved? What policies are best for the people of my neighborhood, city, province, country?

Il me semble que la Chambre des Communes devrait être pleine de gens qui pensent à ces choses.

But that’s not how people see politicans these days, is it? They’re not convinced we’re looking out for their best interests. The trust is gone. Everyone is cynical.

Je sortais essayer de vendre des cartes l’autre jour dans la rue.
- “Bonjour Monsieur, je me présete à l’investiture libérale dans...
- “VOOS ÊTES TOUS DES Ô...”
- “OK, Monsieur, bonnne jounée.”

Ce n’est pas facile!

Mais d’une façon, ils ont raison les cyniques.
In a way the cynics are right. They’re right to be suspicious

Notre parti a commis de graves erreurs. il faut être capable de l’admettre, d’en parlé.
Les Conservateurs, cest pas mieux.
But the Conservatives are no better.
Big cheques with party logos, cutting off funding to political opponents. That’s our money!
There’s an old expression out East - well there are many but most you can’t repeat publicly, but this one goes like this: you can paint a pig blue or you can paint him red, but it’s still a pig.
Well, we’ve got to kill the pig.
We’ve got to earn that trust back.
We have to mean it when we say enough!
Il faur le croire quand on dit, ça va faire!

Donc de quoi avons nous besoin comme député?
De nos jours, au parlement, vous voulez quelqu’un de propre, qui suit les règles à la lettre.

Vous voulez quelqu'un qui comprend les enjeux locaux, qui comprend aussi Ottawa, et qui comprend comment ce qui ce passe là nous affecte ici. Quelqu’un qui connaît bien nos communautés, qui célàbre leur diversité, et qui comprend ce dont elles ont besoin.

Je parle des petites et moyennes entreprises parce que j’ai des amis dans le comté qui en ont, et je crois sincèrement qu’elles sont bonnes pour l’économie locale.

Si je parle souvent du logement et de la sécurité alimentaire, c’est parce que j’ai vu de près la différence qu’un jardin collectif peut faire dans un quartier défavorisé.

Je parle souvent des projets d’infrastructure parce qu’ils sont parout autor de moi. You want someone who knows how an M.P. can be involved in Canal redevelopment, in Turcot and Bonaventure;
who knows how to make sure historic Griffintown is not in danger, nor the NCC Este cultural centre
Well the canal is Parks Canada, Griffintown and the NCC should be Heritage Canada, there are bridges, highways, Canada Lands Corp...the federal government is everywhere.

You want someone you can challenge to make this a better place to live, who’ll rise to that challenge, and who’ll challenge you to do the same.

Enfin, soyons un peu pragmatique: vous voulez quelqu’un qui va battre Thiérry St. Cyr St et le Bloc Québécois...we need someone who can beat the Bloc.

You know a lot’s been said about age in this campaign.
But we can’t hold it against my opponents that I’m the only one who’s same age as the MP. It’s not their fault...but it does help.
So you have to think a little pragmatically....

Oui, j’ai le même age que Thiérry. Qui va allez chercher ces votes?
Qui peut changer l’idée des souverainistes qui n’ont jamais trop pensé à leur cousins francophones hors Quebec?
Qui va aller chercher le vote des Néo-démocrates et des Verts.
You know the Greens are polling at almost 25% among 18-25 year olds.
I’ll get those votes back, and the old Progressive Conservatives too.

I’m ready. Ready to debate Thiérry St. Cyr
Je suis prêt à débattre Thiérry St. Cyr.

Il a plein d’idées sur sur site, lui, et bien moi aussi j’en ai des idées.
En plus, je sais qu’elles ne sont pas parfaites.
Je veux en parler; je veux collaborer.

Je veux en parler a vous - et entendre les vôtres
Je veux en parler à Michael Ignateiff - il en a lui aussi des idées, et des bonnes!
Je veux parler à Michael ignatieff de vos idées aussi.

I want to talk to you about my ideas, and hear yours.
I want to talk to Michael Ignatieff about them -  and he’s got some good ones too!
And I want to talk to Michael Ignatieff about your ideas.

Idées + collaboration = progrès.
Ideas. Colaboration. Progress.

That’s the new politics I’m talking about.  
C’est ça la nouvelle politique.

En mettant toutes nos idées et nos expertises ensemble, on arrive a ce qui a de mieux.
And we have the tools. It’s how we can make society better.
Locally, nationally, internationally.

A more open society, a more just society, a greener society, a and cleaner one, including politics.

Une société d’idées, qui considère comme valeur première l'égalité des chances. Une société où l’on prend nos droits et nos responsabilités au sérieux. Où on est libre d'être soi même. Où on est libre de penser ce qu’on veut, et de le dire. Où on est libre d’être heureux, tant et aussi longtemps que l’on ne cause aucun tort a autrui.

C’est possible
Oh yes, it’s possible
Ensemble
Nous pouvons transformer la politique
Nous pouvons transformer Jeanne Le Ber
Together we can tansform Canada
And that, my friends, is why we’re here today

Merci!
Vive Jeanne-Le Ber!