News

After a five-month break, the House of Commons resumes sitting Tuesday.  Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives return with an enhanced minority to face a Liberal Party mired in an internal battle over who will succeed Stéphane Dion as Opposition Leader.

The first order of business is the election of a Speaker to bring order to what was, in its last incarnation, an increasingly unruly bunch.  On Wednesday, the government lays out its agenda when Governor-General Michaëlle Jean delivers the Throne Speech. Then the real fun begins.

Economic collapse and related matters will dominate.  The Group of 20 has agreed to spur growth through spending, giving Mr. Harper an "umbrella to protect himself with" should he opt to break his promise and send Canada into deficit.  Newly have-not Ontario and its ailing automotive sector will also come calling.

Then there's the matter of making another minority Parliament work .  Having sent Canadians grudingly to the polls in 2004, 2006 and again this fall, no right-thinking party is eager to topple the government and take to the hustings again.  But how long will it be before the Tories dare their opponents to vote down a confidence measure?

Will the mission in Afghanistan vault back to the fore as Canada's death toll nears 100?  And what will president-elect Barack Obama's inauguration mean to that file, to climate change policy and to our trading relationship with the United States.

To help you navigate these issues, Ottawa Bureau Chief Brian Laghi takes questions Tuesday at noon ET.

Join the conversation at that time or submit a question in advance.  Questions and answers will appear at the bottom of the page when the discussion begins.

Mr. Laghi began his journalistic career 25 years ago as a reporter for a small daily newspaper in Fort McMurray, Alta., and also worked as a reporter in Saskatoon before moving to The Edmonton Journal, where he covered politics and served as that paper's legislative bureau chief.

He moved to The Globe and Mail in 1995, covering Alberta and the Arctic for the paper until 1998, when he moved to Ottawa.

Mr. Laghi spent much of the next six years covering the conservative movement in Canada and the merger of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance. He became The Globe's bureau chief in Ottawa in October, 2004.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Stephen Wicary, globeandmail.com: Welcome, Brian, thanks for joining us as Parliament picks up again today. Let's start at the beginning, with the election of a new Speaker. 

Adam Radwanski, also of globeandmail.com, asks: Is it really fair to blame Peter Milliken for letting the last Parliament sometimes slide into chaos? And how much can the new Speaker really be expected to change things on his own?

Brian Laghi, Ottawa bureau chief: Hi Adam. Great to be here.

While it's true that the house has become increasingly loud and impolite over the past couple of years, there a number of reasons for this that go beyond the performance of Mr. Milliken. First off, the government was — and is — in a minority situation which will always lead to more tensions because you never know when an election will be called. Therefore, government and opposition MPs seek to find advantages everywhere to further their electoral prospects and that often means more pointed and more negative questions and answers. A government is also more likely to fall at any time during a minority, ratcheting up the tension even further.

Finally, opposition parties have a lot more power in a minority government, so you will often see them launch and the like, while the government will try to resist them.

So, in a way, I think that getting rid of Mr. Milliken is a little like getting rid of a coach of an undisciplined and badly-performing football team. The best a new coach can do is set a new tone, maybe call for a few suspensions and bring in a few new ideas. You can't, however, get rid of the players. They just have to get better at their jobs. Or not.

Jerry Kitich from Canada writes: I think the speaker needs a bullhorn or buzzer or bell or something, all she or he have now is the ability to stand the loudness of their own voice, hardly effective against an out of control mob of MP's

Brian Laghi: Hi Jerry. True enough. But speakers can exacerbate problems too.

For example, I think the reason the government isn't upset with the fact that a Liberal has been speaker for so long is that he's more likely to be able to keep the lid on things. A Tory speaker who is a disciplinarian would be accused of partisanship by the opposition, and would likely invite even more catcalls and accusations of unfairness. An opposition politician, on the other hand, is less likely to invite as much disorder because he's from their side of the house.

Gavin Charles from Halifax Canada writes: Mr. Laghi, thank you for taking questions. I am curious to hear your opinion on whether Keynesian deficit spending in these economically traumatic times would be politically advantageous, neutral, or damaging to the Harper government.

Brian Laghi: Howdy Gavin. I think deficit spending is a tricky one for the Conservatives — not because Canadians cannot live with a deficit (in fact, I think they might just welcome the idea), but because of the reality that it underlines. Namely, a deficit means that Canada is not doing particularly well on the economic front, and every time it's mentioned in the media, a deficit will remind voters of this. Governments that rule in tough economic times often have difficulty with the electorate because, at some point, voters will strike out at whoever is overseeing the country — whether the be Tories, Liberals or New Democrats.

Second, the Tories may be susceptible to charges that they helped cause the deficit because their cuts to GST have left them with fewer revenues. I think this issue bears watching.

Dan Zenderman from TO Canada writes:I believe the tories cut the rug out from under the Liberals by calling the fall election ahead of the approaching financial meltdown and the Obama win in the US.  I believe the Liberals might have won an election had it been called about right now , instead of earlier in the fall.

Could the Liberals try to topple the government in a confidence vote , possibly by the next budget vote, to try and take back their righteous place on the Obama bandwagon that Harper stole from them?

Or are they too broke and disorganized to be relevant for a couple of years?

Brian Laghi: I agree with you that Mr. Harper was nimble in calling the election when he did.

Most economists, including Mr. Harper, were pretty convinced even one year ago that things were going to get bad. I think, frankly, that's one reason why the opposition wouldn't have minded leaving the Tories in office a little longer. Stéphane Dion was just so personally damaged by voting to keep the government in power — and was under such pressure from his party — that he had little choice but to roll the dice.

While the Liberals are disorganized and lack money, I think the age of the two front-runners for the party leadership (Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff are both in their early 60s) suggests the Grits may try to pull the plug sooner rather than later. If the economy REALLY gets into trouble, then the Liberals might try to do what you've suggested above; take advantage of the faltering economy force a vote next fall or in the Spring of 2010. Of course, they'll have to get help from the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois and that may easier said than done.

A younger leader like Dominic LeBlanc might be more willing to wait and to do the spadework of policy renewal and fundraising that the party does need to get at.

Adam Radwanski: Jim Prentice is generally viewed as one of the government's strongest ministers - perhaps the strongest. Was his move to Environment a demotion, given the relatively low priority the Tories assigned those files in their last mandate? Or is it a sign that they're now taking their environmental responsibilities more seriously?

Brian Laghi: There are some in Ottawa who think that Mr. Prentice's move is a demotion that keeps his leadership hopes at bay. I'm not one of those.

Mr. Prentice is a strong minister from Calgary and, as such, a good candidate to deal with the oil patch as Canada grapples with climate change. He can both give assurances to the patch as it is forced to come into line with new greenhouse gas regulations and give it a push in that direction because he has such high credibility.

Mr. Prentice is the government's Mr. Fix-it, and his transfer to the portfolio demonstrates that the government is serious about grappling with the issue. The job of Mr. Prentice's predecessor, John Baird, was to tear down the credibility of Stéphane Dion on the environmental issue. Mr. Prentices's job is to build.

Viktor O. Ledenyov from Kharkov Ukraine writes: Do you think that a new Canadian Parliament would be able to introduce the new policies and strategies in 2009?

Brian Laghi: Yes I do, but not too many of them, and even fewer if those policies and legislative initiatives have little to do with fixing the economy.

This government is going to have a tough enough time in the next few months responding to the pink slips, reduced hours and general anxiety that a recession brings without unveiling controversial measures. Generally speaking, governments start with a certain amount of capital that gets eroded away as new policies offend certain sectors of the electorate. It probably wouldn't be wise to spend that cash on issues that are considered external to the current debate.

Stephen Wicary: That's about all the time we have.  Many thanks to Brian and Adam, and most importantly to all our readers who tuned in a submitted questions.  Brian, any final thoughts?

Brian Laghi: Because the economy is creating so much worry, and because Canadians really want something done about it, I think you will see a fall sitting during which the Tories will do their best to seem co-operative and positive. I don't think Canadians will countenance a government that spends more time attacking its opponents than working on a problem that its electors want solved. Moreover, the election of Barack Obama in the United States suggests we may be moving towards a post-partisan political.

So, I'd guess we'll probably see a little bit of warmth in the House … at least for a short while.

Thanks for having me.