As previewed in OotD, NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen kicked off the week by continuing his party's proud tradition of decrying the dearth of decorum in the House of Commons. In presenting his latest pitch for a kinder, gentler Question Period, however, Cullen may have unwittingly confirmed that, once again, the Official Opposition appears to be more preoccupied by the challenge of providing camera-ready clips for the nightly news than in actually holding the government to account.  

We asked: How important are Canada's National Parks to you?

Here are the results:
Yes: 93%
No: 5%
Not sure: 2%

(Note: This survey is not scientific. Results are based on readers' responses.)

Newly minted NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen hits the Foyer to discuss the current state of affairs in the Chamber, and specifically, his plan to "engage the other parties" -- as well as House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer -- to "ensure that the decorum Canadians expect from parliamentarians takes root," an endeavour which would almost certainly involve exerting gentle, but firm pressure on the Speaker to enforce the existing rules by making use of the tools already available to him. 

Left unanswered, at least for now, however, is the somewhat cynical but still reasonable question of why, exactly, the NDP believes that the Speaker would be willing to start swinging the Mace now, given his reluctance to do so thus far. After all, it's not like he isn't fully aware of his powers. He just doesn't seem terribly keen on the idea of invoking them. Like his predecessor, Scheer seems more comfortable serving as parliamentary facilitator than disciplinarian. At the end of the day, however, he is the servant of the House, and if a majority of his masters -- or, at least, their respective parties -- were to demand that he take a more activist approach to laying down the law, he would have no choice but to comply. 

We asked: Should Enviro. MPs review enviro. changes in the budget bill?

Here are the results:
Yes: 90%
No: 9%
Not sure: 1%

(Note: This survey is not scientific. Results are based on readers' responses.)

Hit the jump for the full post.

International Trade Minister Ed Fast kicks off a cross-country blitz of Canada-EU trade-boosting ministerial appearances, at which various and sundry cabinet colleagues will "highlight the many benefits that an ambitious Canada-EU trade agreement" promises to bring to "hard-working" Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, Islanders, New Brunswickers, Nova Scotians, Quebecers, Ontarians, Manitobans, British Columbians and "residents of Saskatchewan." 

(Seriously, is "Saskatchewanian" not the correct term, at least in the minds of the denizens of that province? If that's the case, consider this an unreserved apology for all those times that my use of thereof may have unintentionally caused distress.) 

Meanwhile, in a competing series of synchronized events, New Democrat MPs fan out across the country to call for a national transit strategy, with scheduled appearances in Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto and Surrey

We asked: Should Parliament study when life begins?

Here are the results:
Yes: 16%
No: 84%
Not sure: 1%

(Note: This survey is not scientific. Results are based on readers' responses.)

When he first brought forward his proposal to set up a special committee to study how the Criminal Code currently defines "human being", Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth was adamant, if oddly elliptical, that he wasn't attempting to reopen the abortion debate, but simply wanted to "start the conversation," and judging from the impassioned response that his gambit has garnered thus far, it would be fair to declare that particular mission accomplished, despite the fact that the government has made it clear from the start that the motion itself is all but doomed to defeat. 

Before that day comes, however, the Woodworth motion will spend a couple of hours in the parliamentary spotlight, the first of which is scheduled to unfold this evening, when Woodworth gets his first opportunity to formally make his case for a "conversation" to the Chamber as a whole. Under the rules that govern private members' hour, he will have fifteen minutes to put his arguments on the record, which will be followed by five minutes of questions and comments. 

After that wraps up, it will be up to other MPs to fill the remaining forty minutes; when the clock runs out, the motion will drop to the bottom of the precedent list, with the second -- and final -- hour in debate likely to take place in June, at the earliest, and very possibly not until the fall, thus virtually ensuring that its presence on the Order Paper will continue to bedevil the Prime Minister's Office right up until it goes up for a vote, particularly if the powers that be persist in their apparent belief that repeating, over and over, that the government has no intention of re-opening of the debate is an effective damage control strategy. 

M-312 -- February 6, 2012 -- Mr. Woodworth (Kitchener Centre) -- That a special committee of the House be appointed and directed to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth and to answer the questions hereinafter set forth;

that the membership of the special committee consist of 12 members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair shall be from the government party; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

that substitutions to the membership of the special committee be allowed, if required, in the manner provided by Standing Order 114(2);

that the special committee have all the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in  the Standing Orders; and

that the special committee present its final report to the House of Commons within 10 months after the adoption of this motion with answers to the following questions,

(i) what medical evidence exists to demonstrate that a child is or is not a human being before the moment of complete birth, (ii) is the preponderance of medical evidence consistent with the declaration in Subsection 223(1) that a child is only a human being at the moment of complete birth, (iii) what are the legal impact and consequences of Subsection 223(1) on the fundamental human rights of a child before the moment of complete birth, (iv) what are the options available to Parliament in the exercise of its legislative authority in accordance with the Constitution and decisions of the Supreme Court to affirm, amend, or replace Subsection 223(1).

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

When he first brought forward his proposal to set up a special committee to study how the Criminal Code currently defines "human being", Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth was adamant, if oddly elliptical, that he wasn't attempting to reopen the abortion debate, but simply wanted to "start the conversation," and judging from the impassioned response that his gambit has garnered thus far, it would be fair to declare that particular mission accomplished, despite the fact that the government has made it clear from the start that the motion itself is all but doomed to defeat. 

Before that day comes, however, the Woodworth motion will spend a couple of hours in the parliamentary spotlight, the first of which is scheduled to unfold this evening, when Woodworth gets his first opportunity to formally make his case for a "conversation" to the Chamber as a whole. Under the rules that govern private members' hour, he will have fifteen minutes to put his arguments on the record, which will be followed by five minutes of questions and comments. 

After that wraps up, it will be up to other MPs to fill the remaining forty minutes; when the clock runs out, the motion will drop to the bottom of the precedent list, with the second -- and final -- hour in debate likely to take place in June, at the earliest, and very possibly not until the fall, thus virtually ensuring that its presence on the Order Paper will continue to bedevil the Prime Minister's Office right up until it goes up for a vote, particularly if the powers that be persist in their apparent belief that repeating, over and over, that the government has no intention of re-opening of the debate is an effective damage control strategy.  

But wait! There's more! Hit the jump for the full post.