Deepak Obhrai’s French made a lacklustre appearance at the January 17 debate in Quebec City, featuring a lot of finger-stabbing, repetition of poorly pronounced words (“bonsoir, bonsoir, bonsoir”), and using the Englishequivalent of “pea” (pois) instead of “dot” (point) while announcing his website address. Following the debate, French language experts at CBC promptly gave Obhrai a failing grade for his attempts.

Kellie Leitch released her “Screening for Canadian Values” video in February—and had Twitter in an uproar. Some even speculated that the countless cutaways and over-dramatic pauses were signs that Leitch was actually being held hostage.

Will you choose the red pill like @Dfildebrandt ? #cdnpoli #ableg pic.twitter.com/m2cjwbo4v7

— Maxime Bernier ?? (@MaximeBernier) March 6, 2017

In March, Maxime Bernier tweeted a Photoshopped image of himself as Morpheus from The Matrix, holding a red pill and a blue pill, suggesting his supporters are as enlightened as the film’s Neo. But, as many on Twitter pointed out, The Red Pill is also a men’s rights activism forum that describes itself as a “discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.” Maybe stick to the Mad Max memes in the future, Bernier.

On March 22, the Globe and Mail’s Leah McLaren wrote a column detailing her attempt at breastfeeding a stranger’s baby during a party 10 years ago, “just to see what it felt like.” That baby’s father turned out to be leadership hopeful Michael Chong, who called the situation “odd.” The Globe has since suspended McLaren and removed the column, though not before it could go viral. Many are now questioning the validity of McLaren’s story and wondering if #lacgate was a failed attempt at humour or simply “fake news.”

Photo courtesy of Rona Ambrose.

Not even interim party leaders are safe. In January 2017, Rona Ambrose took a Caribbean vacation on a billionaire’s yacht. At that same time her caucus, with her support, was calling for the ethics commissioner to investigate Justin Trudeau’s vacation on the Aga Khan’s private island in the Bahamas.

The Conservative Party of Canada’s leadership race, scheduled to conclude in May 2017, is off to an inauspicious start. Between fights in the name of “Canadian values” and hot takes on same-sex marriage, the candidates appear to be competing to see who can advocate the most regressive policies, with a few notable exceptions.

This takes a look at the five frontrunners—Kellie Leatch, Brad Trost, Maxime Bernier, Michael Chong and Lisa Raitt—and their respective proposals for immigration, social issues, the environment and the economy.

Kellie Leitch

Leitch’s signature proposal is “screening immigrants, refugees, and visitors for anti-Canadian values.” Her website boasts, “Kellie is the only candidate who will ensure that those coming to Canada believe in the equality of women, freedom of religion, and equality under law,” but is short on details on how she plans to achieve this.

According to a recent interview with Toronto Life, the Simcoe Grey MP opposes the legalization of recreational marijuana, supports gay marriage, and identifies as anti-abortion.

She vows to repeal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s national carbon tax if elected, insisting that carbon pricing should be left to the provinces.

Leitch vows to balance the budget by instituting a cap on government spending. Her website hints at mass privatization when it says that the government must “find new ways to get things done—new ways that don’t involve increasing taxes or borrowing money.”

Brad Trost

Though critical of Leitch’s vague “Canadian values” test, Trost (Saskatoon-University) said in an emailed statement that he wants to distinguish between immigrants who “Choose Canada” for its values and those who “Use Canada” for its public services.

Trost is staunchly opposed to gay marriage, wants “legislation to protect pre-born victims of crime,” and supports tough on crime legislation. “Catch and release is great for fishing, but not so great for criminals,” he said.

“I don’t think the uncertain science around climate change should be leveraged to force producers to leave oil and gas and coal in the ground,” he wrote, contending that the negative of job losses from reducing fossil fuel dependence outweigh the positives.

Trost aims “to keep corporate and income taxes LOW (sic),” which he said would be his main priority as prime minister.

Maxime Bernier

Bernier “plans to make an announcement on immigration later in the campaign,” says spokesman Maxime Hupe.

The Beauce, Que. MP supported the removal of the party’s “definition of marriage as being the union between a man and a woman” at its May 2016 policy convention in Vancouver, according to his website.

However, he vowed to reopen the abortion debate if party members request it, allowing a free vote. This is despite the vehemently anti-abortion Campaign Life Coalition rating him as consistently pro-abortion and therefore “not supportable.”

“Our prosperity is, and will remain for decades to come, dependent on fossil fuels to a large extent,” his website reads. He calls advocates of national carbon taxation “extremist green activists” who “want to see their standard of living significantly reduced to contribute in a negligible way to the global fight against climate change.”

Bernier advocates leaving the issue of carbon taxation up to the provinces and allowing the private sector to develop green energy of its own accord.

In a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto, Bernier called for a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 10 per cent from 15 percent and the outright abolition of capital gains taxes.

Michael Chong

Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills) seeks to maintain the status quo on immigration, noting in a statement that immigrants and refugees are already “screened for criminality, war crimes, terrorism, health, and economic reasons.” Leitch’s proposal to vet newcomers for “Canadian values” is thus “not workable.”

He also vows not to “reopen divisive social issues,” namely those that have already been decided by Parliament, like abortion, same-sex marriage, and assisted suicide.

An outlier amongst the leadership candidates, Chong advocates a carbon tax, albeit one that is revenue neutral, to discourage fossil fuel consumption and reach the international target for emission reductions by 2030. 

To make up for the carbon tax, Chong vows to slash personal income taxes by 10 percent and corporate taxes by 5 percent.

Lisa Raitt

The Campaign Life Coalition rates Raitt as “unsupportable” due to her participation in the 2016 Toronto Pride parade and pro-abortion voting record. However, the group notes her opposition to assisted suicide, which she attributes to her Catholic faith.

In parliament, she vocally opposed the federal Liberals’ carbon taxation plan, advocating corporate solutions to what she acknowledges as the reality of man-made climate change.

During the party’s November leadership debate in Saskatoon, Raitt hinted at a reduction of inter-provincial trade barriers as a central tenet of her fiscal policies.

As the most recent addition to the leadership race, the Milton MP has yet to outline specific proposals on most issues, nor did her office respond to requests for comment. 

Compiled by Dylan C. Robertson & Victoria Salvas

This election means death. Not only have Ottawa scrums, filibusters, and drawn-out committees been killed, pieces of legislation making their way through parliament have all met a harsh end as politicians take to the campaign trail.

Before a bill becomes law, it is introduced in either the House of Commons or the Senate. Subsequently the bill goes through readings where it is introduced, given a number code and debated. It can be read again, amended then passed, from the House to the Senate but only becomes law if it is given Royal Assent by the Governor General.

But bills are stopped in their tracks when an election is called. We tracked down the people who pioneered five of the most important bills that died on the order paper when the writ dropped. We asked what they thought of the abrupt death of their projects and if they’ll attempt rebooting them.

While government bills (titled C- with a number under 201) can be reintroduced at an advanced phase with the consent of the House, private members’s bills and motions are entered in a lottery to determine their Order of Precedence, meaning the order in which they can be re-introduced. Only 30 members per session have their motions considered, although the list is replenished if all motions are dealt with.

Here’s a look at the five bills that may or may not rise again:

1. Cheaper HIV Drugs:

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes), was introduced by then NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis in May 2009. After she left to run for mayor of Winnipeg, the bill was adopted by another NDP MP, Paul Dewar.

The bill, which came to be known as “the AIDS drug bill” would’ve allowed generic drug makers to supply their products to developing countries, so they could fight diseases like tuberculosis and malaria, and help the world’s 15 million AIDS victims. Apotex Inc. had promised to make much-needed antiretrovirals for children, should the legislaiton pass. The bill, which was passed earlier this month by the House of Commons, was sabotaged by its review committee and then by the Conservatives’s attempt to effectively whip the senate, feeling it would hinder Big Pharma.

“It’s pretty outrageous,” said Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. “This bill had a lot of potential, and we pushed really hard to get it to pass. We had a lot of support from MPs in all parties.”

Dewar said he plans to reintroduce the bill. “We have to abolish the senate though, first,” he laughed. “That’s my plan. Well I’m just joking… but not really.” Dewar noted the bill was lucky to be successfully transferred after Wasylycia-Leis’s leave, as it is not an automatic process. “It was revived when actual co-operation broke out in the House of Commons,” he said. “Through unanimous consent, I was able to pick the bill up. “I’m ready, able, and willing to carry it forward after the election,” said Dewar, who hopes it ranks high in the order or precedence. “There’s so much public support for it. I don’t think they could get away with this again.”

2. Civilizing parliament:

Private Member’s Motion M-517 proposed a reform of Question Period. Conservative MP Michael Chong’s pet project aimed to civilize parliament’s most savage — and ironically unproductive — 45 minutes each sitting day.

The motion sought to strengthen how much discipline a speaker can give, lengthen the alloted time for each question and answer, and aimed at “examining the convention that the minister questioned need not respond.”

“Parliament needs to be reformed and I think the reform of parliament should begin with the reform of Question Period,” said Chong. If passed, the motion would have also stipulated who should be asked questions, most notably dedicating Wednesday exclusively for questions to the Prime Minister, and requiring ministers be present for two of the other four days. Chong noted that he was listed in the Order of Precedence for the first time in six years, and said he would re-table his motion in the rare chance he was listed for the next session. “I’m disappointed that the committee didn’t have a chance to deal with it before the election.”

Chong explained that while many members add motions and bills to the order paper solely to generate publicity for an issue, he fully intends to enact this reform. “I’ll continue to work on this issue through whatever mechanisms are available to me after the election,” said Chong. “Because this problem isn’t going away and I think Canadians want it to be addressed.”

3. Protecting trans rights:

Bill C-389, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code (gender identity and gender expression), was a private member’s bill sponsored by NDP MP Bill Siksay. Introduced in early 2009, the legislation would have make it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity, and aimed to protect transgender individuals by amending the Human Rights Act.

These amendments would have also been made to the Criminal Code, rendering these acts of discrimination hate crimes. The House passed the bill in February, against Stephen Harper’s wishes. However, the fact that it received “unanimous support from the Bloc, several Conservatives, and the Liberals bodes well for the next parliament” says Siksay. The MP is confident in the future of the bill; passing it again will demonstrate the governments’ “commitment to human rights.”

4. Improving First Nations’ water:

Bill S-11 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, was introduced in May 2010 and would have developed federal regulations for governing water provision, disposal and quality standards in First Nations communities.

An issue that has received much attention recently is the issue of providing First Nations reserves with safe drinking water. An assessment from 2001-2001 found that three quarters of the drinking water systems in First Nations communities were at risk.

Despite the dire situation on many reserves, many First Nations leaders criticized the bill, feeling they were left out of the creating of the legislation and not offered funding to get it off the ground. The Assembly of First Nations felt that the bill presented lofty goals but sparse plans for financial investment and support, which in the long run, could leave reserves in worse condition.

5. Copyright reform:

Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, was the third attempt at copyright reform killed by an election call, dragging on a 14-year effort.

The bill sparked controversy for attempting to criminalize the use and promotion of software that circumvents digital locks, generating high-profile criticism, a minister’s comment that critics were “radical extremists,” and an indutry-led astroturfing campaign. But the bill also aimed at tackling online piracy, and making it legal to transfer music from CDs to iPods.

MP Tony Clement, who introduced the bill as Minister of Industry, told us he plans to reintroduce the bill if re-elected. “It’s just another example of important legislation that has now been discontinued because of the opposition parties passing a motion of non-confidence,” said Clement. “This is a very necessary piece of legislation to help regularize certain habits of consumers and also protect artists from wealth-destroying pirates. “I’m hoping that if we get a majority government, we can actually concentrate on the issues like C-32 and privacy protection and other aspects of the digital economy.”

Peter Milliken has had it made for almost ten years. He lives just down the hall from work, gets to throw lavish parties at a country estate, and makes a whole lot of money every year.

Such is the life of the Speaker of the House of Commons—according to the image propagated by most news sources, anyway. Canada’s parliamentary journalists love to play up the apparently extravagant lifestyle of whichever Member of Parliament is lucky enough to be elected to sit in the big chair.

They play up the Milliken’s Centre Block apartment, which is apparently actually quite cramped. They love reporting on the parties he throws at the Gatineau Park mansion, because most of them are guests at those parties. And they always make sure to note that the speaker earns almost $230,000.

What they don’t always report is the reluctance of many MPs to actually want the job.

Milliken recently announced that he won’t seek re-election as Kingston’s MP. That means the Commons will need a new speaker. So what does it take to be speaker?

First, the speaker has to be an MP. Second, they should be bilingual. And third, they need to earn the respect of their colleagues. After all, the speaker is elected by a vote of the House. Beyond that, there are some important intangibles.

In an interview, Liberal MP Glen Pearson said that the job takes moral courage. He respects what Milliken has done in the role, but said the next speaker has to be tough with each party and take no prisoners along the way. Political scientist Nelson Wiseman said the job takes patience and collegiality, along with a sense of humour to offer some relief to MPs during tense debates. NDP MP Denise Savoie, currently a deputy speaker (officially the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole), said it takes a profound respect for parliament and a flawless understanding of procedure and practice.

In sum: It’s a complicated job.

What we’ve also seen over the past few years is that minority parliaments, which are apparently becoming the norm in Canada at the federal level, force the speaker into the spotlight more often than during lazy days of majority governance.

During his tenure as speaker, Milliken broke a tie vote that saved Paul Martin’s Liberal government in 2005, and he also forced the current government to disclose secret documents to opposition MPs. Those decisions never would have seen the light of day in majority parliaments.

Although it might be more than a year before Milliken is officially retired, the race for the speaker’s chair is, according to Pearson, already in full swing. Given that our elected representatives are thinking about these kinds of things during the summer months, it’s only fair we give them some material to consider.

Below is a list of MPs who might be worth considering as speaker (even if they don’t want the job). It’s by no means exhaustive and, in the spirit of fairness, presented in alphabetical order:

Michael Chong (Conservative)

When MPs speak about parliamentary or electoral or democratic reform, it’s often not very substantive. But Chong has pushed for very specific reform to the operations of parliament that have been applauded by his peers across party lines. He has introduced a motion in the House, M-517, that looks to reform Question Period. Chong suggests that questions and answers should be longer; a certain day of the week should be devoted to questioning the Prime Minister; and remaining days of the week should be devoted to certain ministers of the Crown.

Chong seems committed to improved decorum in the House. If his motion passes, someone will need to enforce it. He didn’t return our calls, so his interest in the job remains unclear.

Joe Comartin (NDP)

The experts say a speaker has to earn the respect of their colleagues. Well, Comartin has twice been chosen by his peers as the Hill’s most knowledgeable MP in annual polls published by Maclean’s. He ran for speaker in 2008, finishing fourth after enduring four rounds of balloting (Milliken won on the fifth round, over two Tory MPs).

Kirsty Duncan (Liberal)

Duncan has only been an MP since 2008. She probably hasn’t been approached by anyone about running for the job. The job takes an intimate knowledge of the parliamentary system that takes time to develop, and Duncan is part of a class of MPs that is still learning the ropes. But for all the learning she would have to undertake, Duncan has some credentials that might pique the interest of more than a few progressive political observers.

She’s already won a Nobel Prize. It’s the same prize that Al Gore won, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, back in 2007. Although she wouldn’t be able to use the speaker’s chair as a pulpit—after all, the speaker could never get away with favouring issues or parties or people—it would be something of a coup for environmentalists to have one of their own in that chair. That most climate deniers would never trust her, though, means Duncan is a long shot.

Glen Pearson (Liberal)

When the news broke that Milliken was retiring, Pearson was approached by a group of Conservative MPs who took him out for a drink. They said they thought they could work with him as a speaker. After all, Pearson is known as a non-partisan MP who gives credit where credit is due (especially on his blog).

But he doesn’t want the job. He says his command of French is not sufficient, and he’s too much of an advocate to be speaker. He didn’t get elected to be impartial, and as speaker, he would leave it to his colleagues to pursue his interests. That’s not something that interests Pearson. He certainly spoke passionately about the position, though, and he seems to be trusted by his colleagues across the floor. His endorsement of a candidate could hold a lot of power.

Denise Savoie (NDP)

Savoie has experience sitting in the speaker’s chair, and in an interview, she didn’t rule out aspirations to take over for Milliken as speaker. If Savoie were elected, she would be the first speaker who didn’t hail from either the Liberals or Conservatives. She would also be only the second woman to sit in the chair (the first was former governor general Jeanne Sauvé, who was speaker from 1980 until 1984. And she would be the first New Democratic speaker (as would Comartin).

Michelle Simson (Liberal)

The speaker does more than sit in front of rowdy MPs every day. They have various other duties, including the chairmanship of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. It’s an all-party committee that meets secretly, far away from cameras and tape recorders, to set the budget of the House. Recently, the committee was thrown into the spotlight because it initially refused to allow auditor general Sheila Fraser to scrutinize MPs’ expenses.

MPs were mostly tight-lipped about their expenses, deferring to their masters on the Board of Internal Economy. But one came out ahead of the pack and fully disclosed her expenses online: Scarborough Southwest MP Michelle Simson. If Canadians want a champion of parliamentary transparency in the speaker’s chair, perhaps they ought to look in Simson’s direction.