No coverage, yes. So things haven't changed that much for Toronto members from when I first arrived on the parliamentary scene in 1990. It's tough.
I'm going to say this because my dear friend Jack Layton used to say this publicly from time to time. Trust me, it was far more in sorrow than in anger. He would often say that the Liberals should have to declare the Toronto Star as an election expense. It is just that feeling by New Democrats that no matter what happens when it comes to the Toronto Star, we always have this feeling that we're being wronged every time the Star hugs the Liberals. Historically, that's where they've been comfortable—with some exceptions, I must say. During my time at least a couple of times they have endorsed the NDP.
I just thought it would be interesting to show it, and I only mention that to show that this is not a paper with a normal gut reaction to go after Liberals. It's not that at all. If anything, it has some sympathy for the direction and balance of the Liberals, I guess, to try to see it the way they do. Yet, boy, it's hitting hard. It's not pulling any punches. And why is that, Chair? Is it because this is some insignificant little thing and all of a sudden the Toronto Star has decided it doesn't like the Liberals anymore and it's going to go hugging the opposition? No, that's not what's going on.
The reason it's hitting so hard in a paper that is often supportive of the Liberal approach to governance is that it's so important. The reason we're filibustering is that this is so important, and that's why the government refuses to adjourn the meeting, and that's why we're 24-7. On the principle, histrionics and all, the Toronto Star is taking a real run at the government in a significant way, as you will see as I continue to read it.
There's that last sentence:
And the anti-democratic manner...
Think about it. This was the government that ran against Stephen Harper, who was the anti-democratic demagogue.
Here we are not even two years into the government mandate, not even halfway, a little over 18 months probably at a quick calculation, and it's being called anti-democratic in terms of how it's approaching wanting to change Parliament, by an entity that is not afraid to support the Liberals more than time to time. That's quite something. It might suggest that maybe, just maybe, the opposition might have a point. At the very least, the opposition may have a point.
To continue:
The potential changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, laid out in a “discussion paper” last week, are a mixed bag. A few are for the good. A measure that would allow the Speaker to hive off portions of omnibus bills, for instance, would weaken one of government’s most powerful shields against scrutiny. A proposal to dedicate one day a week of Question Period to interrogating the prime minister, as the British Parliament does, would also be welcome, as long as the PM showed up on other days, too.
It's interesting— not a single opposition member and so far neither editorial has let go of the fact that the concern is that the Prime Minister will come only one day a week.
In addition to accountability, that focus also diverts attention away from the importance of question period. When the Prime Minister's not there, we can look up into the media galleries, and there is a pretty consistent correlation between the number of media.... I see the chair nodding his head; you can see this from where we sit. When the Prime Minister is there, it tends to be a more fulsome.... It's not that they aren't watching, because they are covering it: they're in their offices and things. Nonetheless, when the Prime Minister's there, they seem to make a bigger effort to actually be there in person so that they can see the whole dynamic and feel the mood of the House. It's just that there are that many more of them when the Prime Minister's there. Conversely, when the Prime Minister's not there, there are fewer.
One of the things that make our parliamentary system so different from the congressional system is the day-to-day accountability of the executive council, the cabinet, in the name of the Prime Minister.
I won't go on, because I can't, but as I mentioned, in terms of wanting to answer every question on a Wednesday, the rules already allow it. The Prime Minister did it yesterday—his big, secret surprise, which they didn't think through, because it also pointed out that they were able to do it without changing anything.
Wow! That really harmed their case.