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.