Liberals denied sweep - Pity

As Molarmauler stated yesterday, winning all four by-elections would have likely spurred an election, since Her Majesty's Loyal Party of Abstainers might have finally amassed enough intestinal fortitude to vote for their own non-confidence motion.


Unfortunately now as the Globe suggests, "...the loss in Saskatchewan may have tempered any Liberal desire to take down the Conservative minority in the very near future..."


On the other hand, I can't imagine Bob Rae sitting on his hands very long. On the other other hand, as Stephen Taylor points out in this excellent analysis, it may well be in the best interests of all the current leaders to allow this government survive a while longer:

...Luckily for Harper and Layton, Dion's strategy is also to survive and the only way this can happen is for the government to survive. Liberals will be chomping a the bit in order to "get back to power as soon as possible" and most realize that this is impossible under Dion and much easier when they hold a leadership race and select a more capable leader...

So it may all boil down to the internal power struggle between all the Alpha males on the Liberal Dream Team as each one gauges his own best chances for leadership coup based on election strategies.

My money's on Bob Rae.

* * * *

Update - Pithy analysis from Molarmauler in comments:

The only way Harper will get an election before 2009 will be if they initiate an 'Adopt-A-Liberal' program... sort of a voting-buddy system.
He can assign a Con to each Lib and match abstention for abstention. If a Lib leaves the House on a vote, his Con buddy follows him out waving a chicken feather and clucking.

Force them to vote.

Hey, if SDA can do it...

* * * *

Bob Rae talked about a 'progressive coalition' on Canada A.M. this morning:

"...I think we need to build a progressive coalition of people in the country who believe in dealing with climate change, who believe that the search for jobs and justice need to go together, and who want Canada to have a stronger voice in the world," he said.

"We certainly pulled that coalition together in Toronto-Centre."

Update from National Post editorial board on election results here:

...The correct short summary of Monday night’s results is that the party may have gone three-for-four, but the leader batted .000.

WWMD?

Just like his big screen look-alike, Dalton McGuinty seems to have a complex relationship with his mother. He seems to value her opinion and yet ignores it at the same time.

The Legislature is opening this afternoon with the Lord's Prayer, but Dalton is still considering an alternative - in spite of Mother's displeasure:

...The legislature will begin this afternoon with Speaker Steve Peters reading the Lord's Prayer, but McGuinty has proposed a committee look at whether or not that is still appropriate in multicultural Ontario.

The premier admitted his mother "gave him hell'' for proposing the change...

That little personal admission reminded me of the FLICK-OFF campaign, when he was amazed that the sensibilities of so many Ontarians were offended, stating that it was something he might have expected his mother to complain about it...


Interesting dynamic there. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at a family dinner.

At the very least, I detect some latent hostility regarding Mommy Dearest.

* * * *

Tuesday Update:

What Would Mother Do about this? - These deals treat taxpayers poorly (Record):

...Taxpayers throughout Waterloo Region who are now paying police or firefighters such lavish bonuses have a right to feel frustrated and powerless. Such settlements are, in the private sector, virtually unheard of. In the private sector, bonuses are often based on performance. In the case of such public sector jobs, the bonuses are automatic. They are not so much an incentive to do well as to stay put. Nor is there evidence that, without these bonuses, the region's police and firefighters would leave for greener pastures. And what next? How long until ambulance workers get these bonuses?

Clearly, the spread of retention bonuses is soaking up millions of precious tax dollars across the province that could go to other priorities such as health care, improving universities or providing more public transit. And just as clearly, it will take intervention by the Ontario government to set things right. There should, without question, be tighter guidelines directing an arbitrator's decision so that bonuses of such sheer magnitude are forbidden. But don't hold your breath. The firefighters pay dues to a powerful union. They actively campaigned to re-elect Dalton McGuinty last fall. It will likely take a recession before McGuinty or anyone else acts...

Now I understand why all the unions were supporting Dalton during the election!

Oh well then!

No need for Liberals to worry. Bob Rae is confident they can win all four byelections.

No point in voting then, right? It's a fait accompli.

* * * *

Monday Update:

Sun - Even a Grit sweep could hurt Dion:

...Even if his party sweeps all four races, Dion will face unusual pressure, warns Kathy Brock, associate professor in the School of Policy Studies at Queen's University. If the Liberals take Toronto Centre, "Dion is going to have to look out, because Bob Rae does not know how to be the Number Two person," Brock says.

"It'll make it very tough for Stephane Dion: He's going to be sitting in the House (of Commons) with Bob Rae on one side of him and Michael Ignatieff on the other and with both of them getting the camera at different times...

YOU be the Blogger

I'm taking a few days off and may have Comment Moderation on, but I will check in occasionally to allow any non-profane, rational thoughts on anything you wish to discuss.

If any comments are especially noteworthy, I'll post them here.

In any case, have a great weekend!

* * * *

Saturday Update:

This is worth a read - Michael Coren: I do, I do, I do, I do.

Inside the mind of the CBC - National Post.

Stephen Taylor - Bob Rae leadership campaign staffers linked to Sponsorship scandal.

Beware the Ides of By-election Month, Stéphane!

So it would appear that the Government still has its carte blanche this week.

Stéphane Dion figures Canadians still don't want an election at this exact point in time. Next week - who knows? Perhaps Dion consults astrological charts to determine the precise moment when Liberal fortunes will align with rising moon of electorate unrest.

Judging from what still remains of Dion's leadership debt, that could be a while off yet.

Bob Rae is in much better financial shape and has been rumoured to be the primary force in stalling an election before his expected win in next week's by-election. Then he'll likely want at least a few weeks to jockey for the limelight in Question Period in the House of Commons, instead of merely relying on his blog and TV interviews for appropriate exposure.

I'm guessing this Conservative government has a free pass, oh, let's say until mid-April.

That should give the CPC war room plenty of time to amass an extensive ad-campaign of Stephane Dion emphatically castigating the government on one hand, while meekly allowing every confidence motion to pass unchallenged.

And lots of time for Bob Rae to try to expunge his NDP past. (Also of interest is Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman's level of participation in Rae's campaign! At least that keeps busy, with the Legislature not sitting for so long.)



My prediction: LPC Leadership review this fall.

* * * *

Update: No election just yet... - Ottawa Sun.

No bribes offered

This must be the article that James Moore referenced in Question Period today - No inducements to change vote, Cadman's politicial advisor says:

...Raymond Mol, who served as Mr. Cadman's co-campaign manager in 2004, said he asked Mr. Cadman specifically about possible offers shortly after he voted to keep the Liberal government in power.

After the vote, Mr. Mol says he met with Mr. Cadman when he arrived at the Vancouver Airport after his flight from Ottawa, and later went with him to his constituency office in Surrey.


"We definitely chatted about it. I have a fairly clear recollection of that time," Mr. Mol told the Citizen.

He says he first asked his friend about possible incentives offered by then-Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals.

"I said, "Did the Liberals offer you a spot?' And he said, 'They know better than that."

Mr. Mol then asked about Conservative offers.

"He said, 'They offered me the same support they offered me before,'" Mr. Mol recalled. "But, no, he said, 'They didn't offer me anything specific and I didn't ask for anything.'"

Later in the article, Mr. Mol gives a possible explanation for the seeming contradiction in various versions of the story.

Feminists in denial

In her Post editorial (Today's bullies - yesterday's feminists), Barbara Kay has some great comebacks for Antonia Zerbisias' argument against C-484 that "the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a woman and her fetus are considered 'one person.' That means there are no 'unborn victims' of crime."

Kay counters:

...But wait: Women were not "legal persons" until 1929. That didn't mean that before 1929 their husbands had the right to kill them.

And as for the other predictable moral laundering gambit -- that mother and fetus are one person because their biological systems operate symbiotically -- well, the same is true of Siamese twins, indisputably two human beings. If one is murdered, and the other dies in consequence, should only one charge be laid?

- And if someone is going to try to argue that the Siamese twins are symbiotic while the maternal-fetal relationship is parasitic, I'm sure we can come up with some Siamese twin examples where one twin was much more dependent on the other for use of major organs and blood supply.

On the other hand, I don't believe we need to prove personhood in order to be able to support a woman's right to complete her pregnancy.

Barbara Kay also references Suzanne's excellent op-ed in Monday's Post.

Should be interesting to see how Zerbisias responds.

This is just sad

I'm sure that whatever the truth is regarding Dona Cadman's disclosure to author Tom Zytaruk about an alleged million dollar life insurance offer, she likely never expected the story to cause her husband's memory to be used by a Liberal MP and CBC 'comedians' as the butt of jokes and satire.

I wonder if she regrets any of this?

* * * *

Update: Phantom Observer has MP Todd Russell's whole poetic offering here. Well, maybe that's how they get their jollies out there in Labrador.

Do ya think the Record favours the Liberals?

Duh!

My associate news-watcher spotted this little gem in the local section today - Committee ousts MP Goodyear for 'dirty tricks'. It centers around a story based heavily on the Hill Times article "Parliament's 'toxically political', MPs say..."

It would appear that Record reporter Greg Mercer has cherry-picked all the nasty bits about Goodyear, and made Karen Redman out to be some kind of Philly-smackin' angel. Is he trying to influence the good people of Waterloo Region?

Mr. Mercer conveniently forgot to mention in his 'news' report a few other items in the Hill Times, such as:

...Earlier in the week, Conservatives introduced a motion at the Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics Committee to study the Liberal election financing practices which they say are the same as theirs, but Liberal committee chair Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Ont.) ruled the motion out of order. Mr. Szabo's ruling was overruled by the committee with the help of the NDP and the issue came up as a point of order in the House and is now awaiting a ruling from House Speaker Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Isles, Ont.).

That would be the Liberal Speaker Peter Miliken, BTW.


Oh, and Joe Preston didn't merely take Goodyear's place, as reported in the Record. No, the Hill Times explains that this was decidedly against his will:

Chief Government Whip Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, B.C.) said what happened at Procedure and House Affairs was "pretty ridiculous" and that the committee has become more partisan because of the opposition's refusal to open their election financing books to scrutiny.

"I think what transpired is completely inappropriate," he told The Hill Times. "When they would not take [Mr. Preston's] stated intention of not taking the chair and they basically forced it on him, I don't think it was appropriate. That's the situation we find ourselves in at the moment and we'll have to see what develops from here."

But here in Liberal Land, Karen Redman can do no wrong. One wonders which came first - Did the Red media merely play back what they thought the population would want to hear, or did the editorial bent affect the Lemming brains here?

Mercer quotes her from the Times as saying, "I think it's dragging the House of Commons to a new low."

Lower than this, Karen?

Time for Canadians to boycott Mexico

I've been watching this Brenda Martin situation with a mixture of confusion, outrage and sympathy for the 51 year old Canadian woman who has been stuck in a Mexican jail for two years, and is now on suicide watch. She has been denied rights that we take for granted in Canada such as a timely trial and not being locked up with convicted criminals while awaiting it (for over two years).

Martin has been charged but not convicted with 'money-laundering', according to Helena Guergis who was interviewed yesterday on MDL. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade said that Canada doesn't have control over the legal process in a foreign country, although she assures us she is doing everything she can behind the scenes.

Of course, Dan McTeague is taking advantage of the situation to rip into the Government's seeming lack of action (Ivison - It's 'buyer beware going to Mexico):

Both Dan McTeague, the Liberal MP who performed the role of "point man" for Canadians in trouble abroad for the Paul Martin government, and NDP critic Paul Dewar are scathing about Ms. Guergis's performance--criticism that goes far beyond the usual partisan carping.

"This is a so-called Secretary of State who is given to condescending remarks and running away from cameras when she is asked to explain herself," Mr. McTeague said. "She didn't go to the prison when she was only 18 minutes away to see a woman who's been mistreated by a judicial system as random as the weather."

Ms. Guergis cannot be blamed for the Mexican justice system. In fact, the federal government states in large, bold letters on its Web site: "Under Mexican law, you are considered guilty until proven innocent."

But Canadians have a right to expect the government to go to the wall for them if there is a miscarriage of justice as blatant as in the Brenda Martin case.

"Is the government saying that when you go to Mexico 'buyer beware -- we can't help you there?' " asked Mr. Dewar. "I'm not sure I would book a flight to Mexico tomorrow."

Both Ivison and the Post editorial board (Try Brenda Martin or let her go) appear to be advocating for the Prime Minister to step in now.

I'm not going to take a stand on that one since I don't know all the diplomatic machinations that would surround such a move, but I do agree with the Post editorial on this point:

Ordinary Canadians can act, too, by boycotting Mexico as a tourist destination. Ms. Martin's mistreatment -- along with the suspicious deaths of six Canadians in Mexico in the past two years -- makes Mexico an unsafe place for tourists.

Support Brenda Martin by refusing to vacation in Mexico. It will become even more difficult to resist the 'great deal' of an all-inclusive dirt-cheap vacation if prices go down even further, but it's time to take a stand.

Whether innocent or guilty, she is a Canadian and as such deserves our support for justice.

* * * *

Update: Joe Warmington weighs in here:

...A court ruling yesterday that will ensure more time in that Guadalajara prison has her loved ones frantic. While CTV's Mike Duffy hinted last night more "muscle" might be coming from federal officials, officially the government of Canada indicated there really is very little it can do. "It's not appropriate to suggest a politician can influence a judge in another country," Helena Guergis, Canada's secretary of state for foreign affairs, said in an interview with Sun Media last night. "Believe me, if I could go down there and take her home I would..."

National Post - Ottawa sends diplomatic note over woman's imprisonment.

Wednesday Update: Peter MacKay on MDL - You cannot take your Charter rights with you when you leave Canada. The Mexican justice system won't tolerate political interference.

Kill the bill

Will the Liberal Party support their colleague's PMB or will they back down yet again?

The game of political chicken is about to reach a showdown.

However, perhaps this time it will be the NDP:

...Mr. McTeague said he would be prepared to fight an election on the issue and blamed Mr. Flaherty and the Conservative government for eroding what had been fat budget surpluses.

NDP finance critic Thomas Mulcair said making RESP contributions tax deductible would mainly benefit upper-income Canadians.

"We would have by far preferred to see some real action to help families, and all families of all income levels, because you're right; on the face of it, it's people who have the money to put into these programs that are actually going to be able to benefit from it," Mr. Mulcair said.

"It's better than nothing, but it wouldn't have been our first choice."

Better than nothing???

The NDP - Defender of high-income families.

Who knew?

* * * *

What the heck does this mean? John McCallum:

"I think we're accepting the leadership of our leader and we are happily but slightly uncomfortably voting the way we have been voting. Okay?"

Wednesday Update - Via SDA... A very disgruntled Liblogger - Wake me up when it's over.

Poor Stéphane

The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Party of Abstention may have to continue ducking votes.

* * * *

Update: I wonder how the Liberals will vote on this one!

CTV - Budget bill would resolve RESP impasse: Flaherty.

And here's a shock (not): Grits won't bring down Tories over Climate Change - CNews.

Via Dr. Roy - Star: Dion undermined by his reticence.


Tuesday Update - Steve Janke: That green scarf takes on a distinctly yellowish hue.

Bloggers in the Post

First it was Kathy, then Kate, and now we have a great opinion article in today's National Post by Suzanne Fortin - Canadian Women Need a Fetal Homicide Law.

Suzanne argues in favour of Ken Epp's Private Member's Bill C-484 which would make it a "separate crime to kill a fetus while committing an offence against the mother". Mary Talbot, whose daughter and grandson were murdered, has been a vocal supporter of this bill.


She dispels the slippery slope argument with the following:

...The most vocal opponent of Bill C-484, Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), has yet to acknowledge that losing a fetus is in itself an injustice. ARCC argues that Bill C-484 "does not protect women, only fetuses." ARCC wrongly believes any protection given to a fetus in law is objectionable. It believes domestic violence, not losing an unborn child, should be the "real issue."

ARCC's main concern is that C-484 would confer a type of personhood on the fetus and that would threaten the legality of abortion. Yet the reality is that C-484 does not in any way confer personhood or rights upon the fetus. It merely acknowledges that legally the fetus exists, and if damaged or destroyed intentionally by anyone other than the mother in an act of violence that the courts will punish the crime more severely.

( . . .)

The legal definition of human being would remain. A child would not become a human being until birth. Bill C-484 does nothing to change that.

Suzanne then goes on explain how the militant abortion-protectionists are really in the extreme minority fringes of female Canadian opinion:

...In an essay entitled "Let no fetus defeat us" on her blog posted in April 2006, Ms. Arthur claims that "fetuses are not that important" and are "none of our business." Yet a recent Environics survey found that 75% of Canadian women favour legislation such as C-484. Pro-abortion advocates would be more credible if they paid attention to women's attitudes and experiences with regards to the fetus, but they stopped paying attention decades ago, in order to promote their abortion ideology...

Well done, Suzanne! And kudos to all three ladies for their excellent op-eds in the Post.

* * * *

Update: ALW has an outstanding post on this subject today - Why Support for C-484 should be unanimous.

The Harper Government made one mistake

They banned the wrong light bulb.

Senate must vote down C-253

You may have missed this very important editorial by Finn Poschmann, because it was tucked way at the back of Saturday's Financial Post - Misbehaving MP's pass RESP bill.

Poschmann, who is director of research at the C.D. Howe Institute, was on MDL Friday and called the way Dan McTeague's private member's bill (C-253) was pushed through Parliament without the approval of the government an 'abuse of Parliamentary procedure'. (Sorry no direct link to that but I made note of it while watching the show).

In his Saturday FP article Poschmann follows the historical development of PMB's over the last several years, and the issue of whether or not those that affect the government's budget and bottom line should be considered votable.


C-253 may or may not contain solid policy, but that is not the point. The fact is that by pushing a financial bill through the H of C, the opposition parties have expressed a tacit lack of confidence in the Government.

...Hence Bill C-253 on RESPs. Presumably the committee looked at the bill, which passed on Wednesday evening--making contributions to an RESP tax-deductible -- and either did not look hard, did not recognize it was a money bill, or felt that because it represented a tax decrease rather than an increase, it was on side. Whichever the case, it was a mistake to let the bill arrive in the House as a votable bill.

With the mistake made, it was the House of Commons' duty not to pass it. For a group of MPs to band together to seek to override government policy is no small thing. The fact that MPs let it happen is a disturbing turn for those of us concerned about responsible government...

Poshmann calls for the Senate to scrap the bill:

As things stand, if the Senate passes the bill that the House has now passed, we will be in a position where federal budget policy has been set by parliamentarians, not by government. This would be problematic, as I said, because it is tantamount to an expression of non-confidence in the government's ability to govern.

The situation cannot be helped by passing countervailing legislation, say by way of an amendment to a budget implementation act. That would be a rearguard defence by government, rather than assertion of its authority to govern.

The more dignified resolution would be for the Senate simply to vote down the bill. Partisan sentiment will militate against this responsible course, but it is the route that will preserve the notion of responsible government.

Of course the Liberal-dominated Senate and the present government are involved in a never-ending spat so it's hard to say what might happen.

If the Senate does pass this bill then I think we need an election. This Parliament has become dysfunctional.

* * * *

Update: Via COTM - Great column by Angelo Persichilli: Afraid of the electorate? Keep throwing mud.

Hilarious!

Jonathan Kay opines on when Stephane Dion may actually make 'the move'.


You think it's easy to bring down a government?

While we were sleeping

Did someone go and make the three opposition parties a Coalition Government?

I guess I missed that one.

* * * *

The National Post Editorial board proposes an interesting solution - Let the bill go through the Senate, and then slash as many pet Liberal programs as necessary to fund it (like tax credits for porn and gratuitous violence?). If anyone complains, Jim Flaherty can simply say, "It's not our fault. Dan McTeague made us do it."

That will also crystallize the reality that allowing this dysfunctional minority Parliament to continue is untenable.

* * * *

John Ivison's column contains some great information - Liberals hit the political jackpot. Lots of procedural nuances for political junkies. At the end he points out that, "None of this [concern about how it impacts the budget] will be of great concern to the Liberals. They can reflect back on a banner week, having stumbled on the most-sought after goal in Western political alchemy -- power without responsibility."

And thus, the LPC seems to have joined the NDP and the Bloc as a party that thinks it can act irresponsibly because it doesn't see itself as ever having to deal with real life in government.

One can only hope.

* * * *

Globe - Senator urges Harper to apologize for denigrating upper chamber. Check out the comments!

Another one leaves the Dion Dream Team

Liberal MP Brenda Chamberlain steps down.

Well, that could partially explain her not voting on C-484.

* * * *

Update: Raphael - Liberal Faithful losing faith in Dion, the fallout begins.

Professor Dion teaches Quebec the best way to separate

Stephen Taylor illustrates why Dion is better suited to academia.

Not that we want him to go!

Will Stoffer be punished for defending fetal rights?

National Newswatch reports a rumour that Jack Layton is considering some sort of punishment for NDP MP Peter Stoffer because he voted in favour of C-484.

I thought this was a vote of conscience.

So much for the New 'Democratic' Party.

And so much for protecting a Woman's right to choose if that choice involves continuing her pregnancy.

* * * *

Update: Raphael - Layton will reprimand Stoffer for caring about Mothers.

When is a money bill not a money bill?

In my opinion, the Speaker pushed the limits of non-partisanship yesterday when he ruled that Dan McTeague's RESP bill which now heads to the Liberal-dominated Senate, "technically did not include a measure that would result in the government spending money." (H/T National Newswatch)

This could jeopardize the Finance Minister's attempt to not enter a deficit situation.

...Ted Menzies, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, lashed out at the proposal and suggested Mr. McTeague explain how the government will pay for it. In addition to costing the federal government $900-million, the provinces would also be out $450-million if the plan goes through, he said.

"This is ridiculous. It is irresponsible and uncosted and comes one day after the Liberals supported our budget. If it would have been a good thing for Canadians and we felt it was the right thing to do, we would have done it in our budget," Mr. Menzies said...

The Globe reports that "Liberal MP Garth Turner said the government wouldn't like Mr. McTeague's proposal because families would choose the immediate tax breaks over Mr. Flaherty's proposed tax-free savings account, the centrepiece of last month's budget, which is only for after-tax income."

In very sophisticated, Parliamentary language, Mr. Turner declared: “It beats the poop out of it.”


Time for an election. We need a majority government in Canada.

* * * *

Update: COTM - Whose fault Liberal "money" bill passes?

On CBC's Politics, an expert from C.D. Howe said that this education bill is tax overkill.

Finn Poschmann calls it an untenable situation and said that the real issue is that it is an abuse of Parliamentary procedure.

He said that Dan McTeague's RESP Bill could cost 900 Million a year!!


Poschmann said that the fact this money bill got passed without the approval of the government, shows that it does not have the confidence of the opposition parties.

ELECTION TIME!!!!

You think it's easy to be a politician?

Well, I think I could do it, if this is all it takes...



MDL tonight - on 'NAFTA-gate':

M.D. - "Well, Bob Rae is the Liberal Foreign Affairs critic and he joins us from Toronto. What do you make of the argument by Mr. Layton that this is a pretty serous matter?"


Bob Rae - "Well as you know Mike, uh I raised it on my blog as soon as I saw Tom Clark's report, I thought I smelled something..."

Oh well then!

* * * *

Speaking of Jack Layton, I just caught his performance on Lou Dobbs. He started out sounding quite impressive. Lou Dobbs fairly swooned when Jack mentioned the phrase "Fair and sustainable trade".

Then Dobbs asked about 'Obama-gate' as it's called there.

Jack: "Well, I asked the Prime Minister today in the House of Commons to apologize to the American people for, uh, this kind of interference in the democratic process of the US. It's not right. He didn't apologize and he hasn't yet fired the source of the leak. So we'll keep working on that at our end.."

Lou Dobbs looked like he had found his soul mate.

* * * *

Seems that Gerry Nicholls agrees with Jack - Fire Brodie Now.

More from the "What do I know Grit" - Jack Layton's New Best Friend - Lou Dobbs!

Just saw Rex Murphy opining on NAFTA-gate. He was absolutely brilliant! If anyone finds a link, please let me know. Thanks.

Update! Gabby comes through as always.

* * * *

Friday Update - Stephen Taylor has a multimedia post including the transcript of Layton's interview.

One step closer to protecting ALL women and children

Bill C - 484 passed Second First Who Knows Which Reading yesterday - 147 to 133. (Big H/T to BCLSB)

As Raphael points out, many Feminists and abortion activists apparently feel betrayed by the fact that more than 20 Liberals supported Ken Epp's bill, and that Stephane Dion abstained (surprise!). Red Tory calls the ones that didn't vote "spineless weasels". On that much, I suppose, we can agree.

I am deeply disappointed with the actions of the four Conservative MPs who voted against this bill, including cabinet ministers Lawrence Cannon, Gordon O'Connor and Josée Verner. I can only ask why?

On the other hand, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all MPs who voted in favour. Does anyone have a list? I think we need to acknowledge their courage in doing the right thing, and putting partisan politics aside.

These folks have demonstrated great integrity, which has been sadly lacking in Canadian politics lately.


Some feminists argue that this bill won't deter violence against pregnant women, but as Arthur Weinreb of CFP rightly points out in his article Crime and punishment: fetuses and the pig farmer,

...If the argument that it won’t stop violence against women is going to be used we might as well save the justice system some bucks and legalize wife beating...

Exactly.


There are two different scenarios that would apply to this bill. One is where the mother is attacked, for example with a sword plunged 15 times into her abdomen in a successful attempt to kill the fetus, but by some miracle she still survives.

In this case, a charge of murder of the unborn child could be laid, rather than simply the "attempted murder" of the mother. (And as Suzanne points out, the family needs to see justice.)



The second scenario would be if both are killed. (Please look at the photo of Olivia and Lane Talbot in that link and then tell me that the unborn child does not exist until the moment of birth.)

Weinreb refutes the argument that Feminists use when they say that "under the Criminal Code, any sentence imposed in addition to life must run concurrently and therefore imposing a sentence for injury or death to the fetus will not lengthen the sentence handed out to a killer."

He points out the logical inconsistency of that argument with the case of the infamous Robert Pickton trial:

...When it came to the Pickton matter, these same feminists argued the opposite of what they argued in regards to Bill C-484. It is seriously doubtful that any penalty that Pickton receives will do anything to deter future serial killers of women from carrying out their destruction. But you never hear anyone argue that the Crown should not go ahead with the other 20 counts because that prosecution won’t “stop” violence against women.

Assuming that Pickton’s sentence of life with no chance of parole for 25 years is upheld, any further sentences that are imposed have to be concurrent so in the end, as far as Pickton’s punishment or liberty is concerned, there will be no difference. But this truth, seen as a major argument against Bill C-484, is deemed to be irrelevant when it comes to Pickton...

You can't have it both ways, ladies.


This bill not only attempts to give the unborn child more protection, it also affirms the choice of a woman to carry her pregnancy to term.

To only protect women who choose to have an abortion is discriminatory.

Plain and simple.


More at Wudrick Blog - Bill C-484:Cue the insane hyperbole.

Climbing out of the Dark - Sister? You are not my sister!

And from the other side - Bill to protect the unborn is the wrong approach... according to Antonia.

* * * *

Update: Thanks again to the amazing Gabby, we now have the list. Be sure to find your MP's name on the list and contact him or her. Thanks.

From Hansard at the 1850 mark:

YEAS

Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Albrecht
Allen
Allison
Ambrose
Anders
Anderson
Arthur
Baird
Batters
Benoit
Bezan
Blackburn
Blaney
Bonin
Breitkreuz
Brown (Leeds—Grenville)
Brown (Barrie)
Bruinooge
Calkins
Cannan (Kelowna—Lake Country)
Cannis
Carrie
Casson
Chan
Chong
Clement
Comuzzi
Cullen (Etobicoke North)
Cummins
Davidson
Day
Del Mastro
Devolin
Dhaliwal
Doyle
Dykstra
Emerson
Epp
Fast
Finley
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Galipeau
Gallant
Goldring
Goodyear
Gourde
Grewal
Guarnieri
Guergis
Hanger
Harper
Harris
Harvey
Hawn
Hearn
Hiebert
Hill
Hinton
Hubbard
Jaffer
Jean
Kamp (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission)
Karygiannis
Keddy (South Shore—St. Margaret's)
Kenney (Calgary Southeast)
Khan
Komarnicki
Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings)
Lake
Lauzon
Lebel
Lee
Lemieux
Lukiwski
Lunn
Lunney
MacAulay
MacKay (Central Nova)
MacKenzie
Malhi
Maloney
Manning
Mark
Mayes
McGuire
McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood)
McTeague
Menzies
Merrifield
Miller
Mills
Moore (Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam)
Moore (Fundy Royal)
Murphy (Charlottetown)
Nicholson
Norlock
Obhrai
Oda
Pacetti
Paradis
Petit
Poilievre
Prentice
Preston
Rajotte
Reid
Richardson
Ritz
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schellenberger
Shipley
Simard
Skelton
Solberg
Sorenson
St. Amand
Stanton
Steckle
Stoffer
Storseth
Strahl
Sweet
Szabo
Thibault (West Nova)
Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest)
Thompson (Wild Rose)
Tilson
Toews
Tonks
Trost
Tweed
Valley
Van Kesteren
Van Loan
Vellacott
Wallace
Wappel
Warawa
Warkentin
Watson
Williams
Wrzesnewskyj
Yelich

Total: -- 147

NAYS

Members
Alghabra
André
Asselin
Atamanenko
Bachand
Bagnell
Bains
Barbot
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélanger
Bell (Vancouver Island North)
Bell (North Vancouver)
Bellavance
Bennett
Bevilacqua
Bevington
Bigras
Black
Blais
Bonsant
Boshcoff
Bouchard
Boucher
Bourgeois
Brison
Brown (Oakville)
Brunelle
Cannon (Pontiac)
Cardin
Carrier
Charlton
Chow
Christopherson
Comartin
Cotler
Crête
Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
Cuzner
D'Amours
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Demers
Deschamps
Dewar
Dhalla
Dryden
Duceppe
Easter
Faille
Folco
Freeman
Fry
Gagnon
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Gravel
Guay
Guimond
Holland
Ignatieff
Jennings
Kadis
Keeper
Kotto
Laforest
Laframboise
Lavallée
Layton
LeBlanc
Lemay
Lessard
Lévesque
Lussier
Malo
Marleau
Marston
Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca)
Martin (Winnipeg Centre)
Martin (Sault Ste. Marie)
Masse
Mathyssen
Matthews
McCallum
McDonough
McGuinty
Ménard (Hochelaga)
Ménard (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin)
Minna
Mourani
Mulcair
Murphy (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe)
Nadeau
Nash
Neville
O'Connor
Ouellet
Paquette
Patry
Pearson
Perron
Picard
Plamondon
Priddy
Proulx
Ratansi
Redman
Regan
Rodriguez
Rota
Roy
Russell
Savage
Savoie
Scott
Sgro
Siksay
Silva
Simms
St-Cyr
St-Hilaire
St. Denis
Telegdi
Temelkovski
Thi Lac
Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques)
Turner
Verner
Vincent
Wasylycia-Leis
Wilson

Total: -- 132

* * * *

Absent (Courtesy of Red Tory): Stéphane Dion; Bryon Wilfert; Joe Volpe; Scott Simms; Nancy Karetak-Lindell; Hon. Mark Eyking; Ujjal Dosanjh; Denis Coderre; Brenda Chamberlain; Gerry Byrne.

Total: - - 10 Spineless weasels.

Thanks, Jack!

What will Dion help Harper do next?

On MDL tonight - NDP to table several non-confidence motions next week. What will Dion do?

* * * *

Update: H/T to Molarmauler in comments for this one!

The Liberal Party is going to move a non-confidence motion against - wait for it . . . the OTHER TWO OPPOSITION PARTIES!!!!

You can't make up stuff like this.

The 'next logical step'

Dalton McGuinty announces that the Ontario government will ban smoking in cars with children present, in his 'next logical step' against smoking. Good plan.

And I hope that includes unborn children too, Dalton. Will anyone smoking in a car with a pregnant woman be fined as well?

* * * *

Update: Reid at CBL has a different perspective on this - Et tu Dalton?

Fire hazard alert

In the previous thread, reader Gabby alerted me to that fact that she almost had a fire in her home yesterday due to the new style lightbulbs:

I apologize, Joanne, I'm going completely off topic, but I think your readers should be warned about those twirly lightbulbs.

One I bought (@ about $7.95, not in a dollar store) almost burned yesterday after only a year and a half (?) of usage.
If I had not been home to turn it off immediately, who knows what could have happened to the lampshade?
Whenever I'm out in the evening, that lamp is left on. It did get regular usage.
Maybe it's not such a good idea to ban incandescent lightbulbs?

Wed Mar 05, 10:38:00 AM EST

Has anyone else experienced similar problems?

Why are holidays more important than PSA tests?

Jeff Allan is discussing the McGuinty government's election promise to fund PSA tests. Ontario men are still waiting. Jeff was actually instrumental in bringing forward this promise, which Dalton McGuinty announced on his show.

Local MPP John Milloy was interviewed and said that it will take some time to enact this promise, but that they are working towards it - obviously at a snail's pace.

How is it that a holiday, which is still having negative repercussions, can be decreed practically overnight, but the public funding of a potentially life-saving test takes plodding deliberation and consultation?

How many men are holding off getting this test done until the Liberal government actually fulfills its promise? How many men will die because of that wait? Making this promise and not carrying it out immediately is far worse than never having made it in the first place.

If covering the test would be too expensive, why did Dalton make this promise???

Perhaps the MPPs could vote to revoke their raises.

Or else use some of that notorious Health Tax, which mainly goes into 'general revenues'.

Stop the Presses!

In another strange twist we learn that some last minute changes are being made to the final version of Chuck Cadman's biography.

Perhaps it should be renamed as well... How about 'The Never Ending Circus'?

Sad, really.

...Mr. White said he "stopped the presses" to update the book with Mr. Harper's denial and to remove the May 17 date.

"Now Wallace has acknowledged a meeting and he's given a date for it, so we've had to take that into account," he said.

"We're just backing off on the date. We don't know how many meetings there were and when they were, so we're not going to hang our hat on either date" . . .

More from the Province.


Still planning to run with this one, Stephane?


Then don't forget to use this ammo in court.

* * * *

Update: Here's some legal mumbo-jumbo from the Ottawa Citizen. See what you can make of it.

If not at a University, then where?

Kelly Holloway, President of York's Graduate Students Association and vice-chairwoman of the student centre declares:

"This debate, over whether or not women should be able to have an abortion, is not acceptable in the student centre..."

Funny, but when I went to university, debate was welcomed and new ideas were encouraged.

...I think we should accept that the debate is over..."

Right then.

Because in Ontariostan, independent thought and debate are no longer allowed. We must protect the masses from disturbing pictures. In any case, the latest slash & trash film is much more interesting.

* * * *

Wednesday Update - York responds (Post letters):

A debate on the subject of abortion was cancelled at York University by the student executive of the Student Centre, without the knowledge or participation of the university. York encourages civic participation and open debate on issues of local, national and international importance. The fact that both sides of the debate wanted to proceed and were prevented from doing so makes the incident all the more regrettable. Consequently, York's administration is working on a request from one of the student groups involved, to arrange a suitable venue on university property where this debate can take place.

Robert J. Tiffin, vice-president students, York University, Toronto.

The irony here of course, is that Ms. Holloway's refusal to have the debate has focussed more attention on the issue than would have happened if she and her cohorts had simply allowed free speech to occur in the first place.

* * * *

Thursday Update - Jonathan Kay: The new rule on campus: Free speech for Israel-bashers — but censorship for pro-lifers.

$54 Million and counting

The Record pegs the cost of the Caledonia dispute at $54 million at the second year mark, with no end in sight.

All new land development along the Grand River watershed, including various Waterloo Regional bridge construction projects could be highjacked by the demands of the HDI, which has obviously been emboldened by the lack of consequences for law-breakers.

And the Post notes that this attitude appears to be extending into car-theft industries, and other illegal undertakings.

Yet the McGuinty government looks the other way when it comes to law-enforcement, which is under Provincial jurisdiction.

And then Dalton gets angry when Jim Flaherty tells him that Ontario is not the best province in which to invest?

Duh!

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Connecting the (alleged) leaking dots

This whole Cadman controversy still generates a lot of unanswered questions.

One of the biggest ones is why did the Liberals hang onto this so-called 'million-dollar bribe' story for at least a year? Paul Martin who wrote the forward, (allegedly) had the manuscript in his hands since Feb. 2007. If this was such an egregious offense, why didn't he immediately contact the RCMP?

Did the (alleged) leak come from Paul Martin who may have (allegedly) passed on the information to Liberal insiders? Or did it (allegedly) come from some friends of the author? (And who exactly were these friends? Anyone in MSM? Anyone in the LPC?)

...White said Zytaruk sent versions of the manuscript to a few friends, as well as Paul Martin...

Stephen Maher suggests various scenarios as to what may have happened:

...The Liberals were entering laughingstock territory, so what a welcome surprise it must have been for them that night to tune in to The National to watch Peter Mansbridge report that Mr. Harper was being accused of trying to bribe Chuck Cadman into voting against Paul Martin’s 2005 budget.

Suddenly, the whole focus of the media pack in Ottawa shifted away from the drab non-drama of the budget and onto the sensational (though unproven) allegation that the Tories sent a couple of heavies to offer a dying man a million-dollar life insurance policy for his vote.

The Globe and Mail had the same story the next day.

It turns out, of course, that this was not a surprise to the Liberals, since it looks like they helped leak the story.

The Chuck Cadman story is contained in the book Like a Rock, a forthcoming biography of Mr. Cadman. Former prime minister Martin, who wrote the foreword to the book, has had a copy of it for a year.

The Liberals seem to have passed the book on to the Globe. The rumour mill says CBC had been sitting on the story, perhaps because of an embargo agreed upon with the publisher. When the Globe moved to scoop them, they had to run with it.

Or not. Who knows? When you accept a leaked document, you have to promise not to tell where you got it!

By getting the Cadman story out when they were getting stomped in the media, the Liberals managed to change the channel to a program much more agreeable to them.

It is even possible that Michael Ignatieff’s people leaked this story to put pressure on Mr. Dion to vote down the budget after all, bringing about the election he is said to want. Or not. Who knows? It’s a leak. You never really know what’s going on with leaks...

If this is true, I think the LPC needs to explain why they sat on this so long. Is this about ethics or crass political opportunism?

* * * *

Update: CBL - Reid: Cadman assistant confirms only one meeting on May 19.



Via Albert Ardvark - Zytaruk worng, There was only 1 meeting. From March 2 statement by Dan Wallace:

“The May meeting date included in a soon to be released book about Chuck Cadman is inaccurate. Unfortunately, because of that error, some media are now reporting that there were two meetings, one on May 17 and another on May 19, 2005, between party officials - Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan - and Chuck Cadman. For the record, there was only the one meeting between my former employer, Chuck Cadman, with Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan and it took place in his private office on May 19th. As I have stated publicly last week, I was outside that room and not privy to the details.”

4 PM Update: The National Post editorial board has a podcast discussing the Cadman affair.

They discuss Don Martin's editorial - Time for an answer, Mr. Harper.

Dr. Roy - Grits can't afford to be sued.

We're not backing down! Except when votes are called

Reader Paul just pointed out that the Liberal website has changed. (07:38:00 PM)

Heh.

To refresh your memory, it looked like this earlier today.

Update - Headlines still there after all. This blogger obviously needs to get some sleep. Anyone else notice any changes?

* * * *

More huffing & puffing - Tories easily survive confidence vote. (Check out the wording of the Liberal amendment!)

Oh and what did PM Harper say earlier today? Something about this being the biggest mistake the Leader of the Liberal Party ever made or something to that effect? Check out Steve Janke. It's a bombshell.

* * * *

Tuesday Update:

Mike Brock - Parade of Incompetence.

O.K. Now please check out the Liberal website and tell me if the headline in question is still there (refer to Mike's link just above). I don't see it anymore.

Yet - "Liberals won't back off bribery allegations..." (Globe)

Star - Tories' support stays steady.

CTV - Harper Government easily survives final budget vote.

Curiouser and curiouser

Dona Cadman suddenly recalls an important event.


CBC spin = This doesn't mean it didn't happen - just that the PM didn't know about it.

Don Martin and another reporter are on CBC just now and are being very careful to use the word "alleged".

More - Cadman's wife speaks in support of Harper (CTV)

Stephen Taylor - Harper removed from Cadman related allegation.

Freedom in my Nationality - Maybe Dion jumped the gun eh.

Post - Dissecting the Harper notice of libel. (Note how they delete the offensive title)


Warren Kinsella weighs in - Cadscam gets complicated. Surprisingly supportive of the PM, for the most part. Now this guy knows from libel.


3:05 Update from Robert Fife at CTV - He said that Ken Dryden was overheard to have yelled at the PM in QP, "If this is true, you're dead! You're dead!"

Nice. Reminds me of this.


Good discussion going on at David Akin's blog.


Tuesday Update: Dona Cadman's website.

Province - Hard to make sense of this convoluted story.

Update: HARPER LAUNCHES LAWSUIT!!!

1:30 p.m. - Dona Cadman has a sudden memory jog - CBC. ("Dona Cadman recalls talk with Harper about insurance policy offer")

10:00 am - BREAKING: CTV - Harper files notice of libel over Cadman allegations.

Mike Duffy is talking to Jeff Allan right now! 10:30 Update - This segment is over now, but Duffy says things could get interesting in Question Period this afternoon. He predicts that the Liberals will abandon this line of questioning today. MDL should be a good watch this evening!


PM taking legal action against Dion, Liberals - Star.

Platty has the actual letter here - Care to repeat that outside?

CBL - Reid: Harper has served Liberals with notice of a lawsuit.

---------------------------------

Original Post: Opposition parties jockeying for face time...


The Globe's Brian Laghi reports today that the NDP is balking at the Cadman controversy being referred to either the Ethics committee or the RCMP. Pat Martin would prefer to have the matter referred instead to the newly-created Special Federal Prosecutor.

...NDP MP Pat Martin said he no longer wants the matter to be sent to a special ethics committee because the testimony given there is protected from being used in future prosecutions. Sending it to the RCMP is also problematic because of increasing unease with the national force, he said.

"After the dust settles, the ethics committee might want to look at the results and make recommendations to see if our ethical guidelines and standards are robust enough," Mr. Martin told CTV's Question Period yesterday.

The federal government has established the position of a federal prosecutor to look into such matters. The NDP and other parties are concerned because it is the role of the Justice Minister to decide which individuals undergo prosecutorial reviews.

But Mr. Martin said the Tories' reputation for transparency and accountability will be harmed if they don't forward the issue to the prosecutor's office. The Tories promised the creation of the office in the 2006 election campaign.

Some Liberals were surprised by the move and suggested that the New Democrats may be afraid that the Liberals would receive too much publicity if the committee were to look into the matter...

Meanwhile, some inconsistencies and questions continue to plague the story, such as whether there were two meetings or just one, and whether or not Cadman's assistant Dan Wallace was privy to the details - which Mr. Wallace flatly denies:

...Dan Wallace, Mr. Cadman's legislative assistant, was situated just outside the MP's private office during the meeting. Mr. Cadman met with senior Tories Doug Finley and Tom Flanagan just hours before the crucial vote. But Mr. Wallace has also said he doesn't know the details of any offers...

In any case, there is no doubt that the opposition parties are falling all over themselves in an effort to use this controversy as political ammo to discredit the current government.

The interesting thing will be to see how far they go trying to outmaneuver each other in order claim the glory for attempting to appear to be the more ethical alternative.

* * * *

Afternoon update: Afghan vote set for March 13: CTV.

While we're calling for investigations...

Diane Francis calls Shawinigate the 'Mother of all Scandals', and declares that it deserves a "full-blown Parliamentary investigation" - Ottawa: probe Chretien, Shawinigate:

...This one involved millions in government money in the 1990s spent by the Liberals in the riding, and to partners, of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
It’s timely again because on Friday the Ontario Appeal Court ruled in favor of the RCMP which has requested documents from the National Post obtained from a confidential source involving its Shawinigate series of stories.

The series dealt with potential conflicts of interest involving federal grants and loans to local constituents and a hotel called Auberge Grand Mere... (During Chretien’s tenure as Prime Minister there were years when his riding got more Ottawa money than did the Province of Alberta. Or half of Africa. That’s a scandal in itself.)

But the latest twist was reported on Saturday in the Post:
“The [court] ruling is the latest round in a nearly seven-year legal battle that began when the RCMP asked the National Post to turn over the material sent by a confidential source to reporter Andrew McIntosh.”
“The source alleged the document was a copy of a Business Development Bank of Canada loan authorization for a hotel in Mr. Chretien’s riding. The bank, the Prime Minister’s Office and a lawyer for Mr. Chretien were sent copies of the document and insisted it was forged.” That’s a scandal in itself.)

( . . . )

The press freedom issue is important but really a sideshow. Whatever happens on that front, Shawinigate has never been plumbed by an inquiry and the public deserves to know what went on inside the Chretien regime.

Something tells me Warren's not going to like this one.

* * * *

Update: CTV - Paper ordered to surrender 'Shawinigate' documents.

More at Jack's Newswatch.

And lost in all the uproar of various scandals was the passing of this important piece of legislation - finally: It took Canada long enough to raise the age of consent. (Winnipeg Free Press)

The Great Canadian Carbon Tax Swindle

Last week when David Suzuki rolled out his Amazing Carbon Tax Schticht prior to the Federal Budget, I asked Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein if he'd be doing a response. He replied, "All in due time..."

It was well worth the wait.

In The carbon cops are coming, Goldstein exposes the intellectual dishonesty of environmental advocates and politicians who try to woo us to the Green side with tales of how their schemes will be 'revenue neutral'. As a public service, Lorrie offers his three-pronged guide designed to help us sort through the hot air emanating from Suzuki Nation:

1) When any of them tell you "polluters will pay" to reduce greenhouse gases, they mean you and me.

Whenever they talk about a carbon tax, a "cap-and-trade" system, carbon credits or the regulation of industrial greenhouse gases by government, they are talking about the same thing -- higher taxes.

( . . . )

2) This brings us to the second point of our guide: Whenever a politician, or anyone else, claims a carbon tax will be "revenue neutral" nail them down on exactly what they mean.

Politicians and environmentalists like to toss around "revenue neutral" because it sounds as if even with a new carbon tax, you will pay no more in total taxes than you do now.

That's not what it means. Even if a government was considering a truly "revenue neutral" tax, it may well not be neutral for you. Say you need your car to drive to work because you live in one city and your job is in another. If the government imposes a carbon tax by hiking gasoline prices, it may claim it's "revenue neutral" because it's going to return an equal amount in tax incentives for people to take public transit. Problem is, if you don't have a realistic transit alternative for getting to work, your carbon tax is no longer "revenue neutral." .

( . . .)

3) Finally, when a politician or environmentalist tells you a carbon tax can be imposed with "minimal" harm to the economy ask them what assumptions they base this on.

In both the recent study on carbon pricing by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and in the one released by the Suzuki Foundation last week, the authors simply assume that while Canada is taxing carbon, the U.S. and our other major trading partners will be doing the same...

And that's a huge assumption.

Even the Toronto Star takes note of the fact that while this may be a desirable situation, it is clearly not going to happen anytime in the near future. Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty, brother of the current Federal Liberal environmental critic David, is not jumping on the bandwagon. He rightly realizes that such a plan would devastate the Ontario economy which is already facing huge challenges competing with China, etc.

As in all things, buyer beware.

More puzzling pieces

Check this out. And this.

* * * *

Saturday Update: Lots of press on this controversy. I'll give you the highlights.

Globe - Liberals float theory on Cadman compensation.

CBC - Daughter urges Dona Cadman to run as independent.

Jodi Cadman asks the question that is on everyone's mind:

...Jodi Cadman told CBC News she talked to her mother by telephone on Friday and asked, "Why are you running for the Conservative Party if you are accusing them of this?

"If it was such an indecent proposal, how are you in good conscience running for that particular party?"

I hear Jodi in an interview yesterday saying that she only heard of the fact that the "bribe" was included in the book a couple of days ago. I wonder why she didn't see the manuscript ahead of time and yet Paul Martin had it for a year? Or was that portion left out of manuscripts sent out for review?


Star- Cadman affair sparks election threat.


Star - Cadman's daughter wanted to go public:

Jodi Cadman said her mother was surprised at the furor raised by her revelations.

"She's probably a bit more naive than I am." As for why her father didn't go public about the issue, Cadman said he was tired and knew the controversy that would result.

Star - Terminally ill `uninsurable' for $1 million, experts say.


And here's the can of worms that Dona Cadman likely didn't count on opening - Chuck Cadman's ethics.

I wonder if Chuck had wanted this story to come out posthumously. Somehow I can't imagine it.

A good man's legacy and reputation is now being dragged through the mud and he's not here to defend it.

It's a shame.

* * * *

Sunday Update: Charles Adler: Questions that need to be asked about Cadmanscam - Post.

Garth Turner wants to bring down the government

Garth Turner thinks the Cadman affair may worth toppling the Government over (Globe):

“The questions have not gone away, and each day more evidence has come forward that this is a serious issue. So, unless the government refutes that very quickly, or comes out with a statement of clarification, then I think we ought to be thinking about bringing these guys down,” he said...

(H/T National Newswatch)


If so, I'm wondering how Mrs. Cadman is going to field questions as a Conservative candidate out on the hustings.

* * * *

Update: Great audio clip at the Globe - Cadman discusses Conservative overtures (June 12, 2005) Scroll down a couple of paragraphs to hear Chuck Cadman discuss the offers with Dan Cook.

What do you think?

Sunday Update: Liberals not ready to deliver knockout punch - Herald.