All things Canadian.....

A comment to Andrew Coyne's column on income splitting:

Income splitting has been available to owners of Canadian corporations (i.e. small businesses) for some time now, whereby their spouses become shareholders of their businesses and receive dividends and/or actual salaries. In essence, if I have $100,000 in profits in my corporation, it is often more beneficial to pay that out in equal parts to a spouse and the active shareholder, or $50,000 each.
What is being proposed is much more far-reaching in its scope of course.
AC points out that there may be some concern over this potential move as being a tax-cut for the rich - in fact, the rich (the rich being incorporated small business owners) have had these opportunities for years!
If anything, this a devolution of the system back to the middle class so any argument that this will pander to the rich, is, in my opinion, dead in the water.

Great point.

Is he or isn't he? 4 or 5 seats are instantly lost in the Ottawa region if we find out he's a Leaf fan - bad enough his son is.

I really should just wait for Rick Mercer to skewer this one...

The article is up on the Globe and Mail and some other news sites but strangely in not seen on TSN.ca though Sportsnet is giving it a prominent location on it's site. I wonder why.

I love the following quote from the article:
Leanne Domi believes the relationship began when her husband started working on Ms. Stronach's political campaign, though, “Tie had little to no interest in politics, and in fact, had not the slightest idea about political ideology,” she says in the document filed in court.

A perfect match! Belinda doesn't the slightest idea about political ideology either. How cute.

Maybe the best lines though come from the Globe comments:

- careful big guy belinda will cross the floor and start cheering for the montreal canadians.

- I don't believe this article! Tie Domi has never been a star! A dwarf planet, perhaps.

- This gives new meaning to 'Tie one on'!

- Gotta hand it to Tie. Even off skates he punches well above his weight, so to speak.

- I wouldn't unpack my suitcase if I was Tie.

Ouch.

Yes, the Leafs and Sens played an exhibition game last night. I don't remember the result.

Go on over to the Battle of Ontario blog if you haven't checked it out before. Jay Jardine (Sens), The Meatriarchy (Leafs), Chris Selley (Leafs), and Greg Staples (Leafs) contribute along with myself.

Ret'd General Lewis Mackenzie was interviewed on Canada AM this morning and he made a great point when asked about the polls showing weak support for the Afghanistan mission.

You can watch the interview here.

He basically said that he'd like to see what the results of a poll would be if Canadians were asked whether or not they supported the Taliban returning to power in Afghanistan.

What do you think the results would be?

And further - what do you think the headlines in the paper would be? ONLY 5% OF CANADIANS SUPPORT NDP POSITION!

I've really enjoyed reading Selley's blog - if you haven't been, here are some of his posts over the last few months regarding Afghanistan. I suggest you read them all.

July 12, 2006: Mission: Unpopular

The Taliban as a government had to go after September 11. By the same token, building a functional replacement government was a necessary goal even without taking humanitarian concerns into account. It would have been nice to get the ugly possibilities out in the open early on, so people couldn't suddenly pop up and claim never to have been consulted.

August 04, 2006: Dispatches from Fantasyland

The first mention in the Canadian media of this "3-D approach" in relation to Canada's mission in Afghanistan was in the Winnipeg Free Press… on March 28, 2004.

September 02, 2006: The Loneliest Multilateralist, or, The NDP's Vision for Canada

Canada didn't go to Afghanistan to free its women and girls — that was just a happy side effect. Canada went to Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban. No one ever said it would be quick, easy, or painless. Indeed, Jean Chrétien said exactly the opposite right from the start. Of course it's difficult-to-impossible to pursue humanitarian work with Taliban insurgents running around, but that's not the point. The mission wasn't to rebuild Afghanistan; it was to rebuild Afghanistan after destroying the Taliban.

September 05, 2006: Not our kind of people (anymore)

It's the part about the "dubious" quality of the democratically elected Afghan government (and by extension its constituents) that really bugs me. It raises the same question I asked when people were so astonished to find that Afghanistan’s a little lukewarm on Christians: Can we really have been so naïve? We went to make a deplorable situation better, not to make Afghanistan safe for Canadian tourists and missionaries. Kandahar is never going to be "the next Prague".

September 07, 2006: Say it a thousand times and it's true

She must know that’s not true. Her boss never called it peacekeeping, nor did his successor. What is wrong with these people? Tell me it’s unwinnable. Tell me Canadians are too gentle to fight wars. Pitch me any kind of opinion and try to
back it up, but please, we have got to stop rewriting history — especially history that’s not even five years old. The Liberal speeches are all on the record: this will be a long war; it’s not peacekeeping; expect casualties. By the standards of the Chretien and Martin governments, they were remarkably clear on the nature of Canada’s mission in Afghanistan.

I saw some stupid comment on one of the Globe articles this week so I thought I'd look this up. The Afghanistan National Army continues to grow.

Also, I found that Wiki has a page on 'Canada's role in the invasion of Afghanistan' and includes these points:

- Canada has assisted in the collection, storage and decommissioning of 10,000 heavy weapons left in Afghanistan including artillery, tanks and rocket launchers, used in decades of conflict in the country.
- Canada has helped clear about one third of the estimated 10 to 15 million mines in Afghanistan.
- Canada has loaned money to over 140,000 people in Afghanistan.
- Canada has helped train the Afghan police and army.

Sigh.

Favourite subject: Art. ...
...
Memorable reading: Coles Notes were really big. ...

During the Green Party Leadership debate at the 1:19 mark…

David Chernushenko:
I do however have to ask a question of Elizabeth and she’ll be able to rebut when it comes. I’d like you to explain why you felt it necessary to call me and Jim Harris during the last election and ask us to consider asking Green Party candidates to stand aside in ridings where our running…

Elizabeth May interrupts:
That’s not what I did David.

DC:
…might have a chance to…

EM interrupts:
Ineligible

Moderator:
You’ll have a chance to rebut. Please continue and we’ll give Elizabeth a chance to rebut.

DC:
I’ve finished my question.

Moderator and Jim Fannon finish round before rebuttal.

EM:
No, I don’t like my actions being mischaracterized in a public debate and I apologize for interrupting David but I was a bit taken aback. What I felt at the end of the last election, and we were about a week from the vote, and I did talk to Jim Harris about it and I did call David as deputy leader because I felt the Green Party could take centre stage at that moment - we’d been denied the stage all through the election - to talk about putting principle ahead of power; to talk about what could happen if Harper was elected to all the platforms we cared about. Beyond that I didn’t have a very well formed idea at all. I was calling them in desperation to say ‘What could we do?’ Could you for instance interest the Liberals if they were interested in talking about proportional representation? Was there room for a coalition there? We had about a week. I admit I was desperate. I had no actual plan but I certainly didn’t call to suggest that people should stand aside for no reason. It was a question of what we could do to ensure the Green Party was front and center.

DC:
I do raise this here and I feel I have to because the same question was asked in the Montreal debate and I believe what was being asked of me and of Jim was – you posed the question; would I consider – would it make sense to ask Green Party candidates to step aside in riding where by doing so we would help to prevent a Stephen Harper government from being elected and I equally am very concerned about a Harper government but my response was no, I couldn’t do that. I did not believe that was a principled thing for the Green Party to do because in fact I could never – we are running on principle – not running to try to keep one government out. We’re running on trying to bring Green in and I as a candidate and one who has been a candidate several times could never ask another candidate; could never ask another riding association to have their candidate step down.

EM interrupts:
This is an odd situation.

Moderator and Jim Fannon finish round of rebuttals.

Moderator:
Was your position clearly understood Elizabeth.

EM:
No, I don’t think so. There’s elements of it of course. What David and I had a conversation; Jim and I had a conversation. At the time I wasn’t acting as anything other than the Executive Director of a national environmental organization watching what appeared to be, and which has proven to be true; 20 years of work about to go down the drain. I didn’t have an actual proposal. I said ‘What could you do? What could make a difference? Could you approach other parties?’ I had many more conversations with Jim in fairness than I had with David – certainly didn’t ask you to step down – I thought you were going to win in Ottawa-Centre. So, what we’ve got to do is, is… I’m glad to get it out in the open because there’s been rumours about this and they’re not really very helpful. It wasn’t a clear idea that I was putting forward. It wasn’t actually a proposition. It was a what could you do now if you stepped forward. Could you make a difference and that is something that I would not do as Green Party leader it was in my role as an NGO and it wasn’t quite as represented before so I appreciate the chance to clear it up.

Can we expect that Green logo to go somewhere between Orange and Red soon then?

I agree with Staples that picking May as the new leader of the Greens may be a big mistake.

She created the 'Think Twice' coalition (once would be a good start for most of those involved) during the last election campaign to stop Harper from winning and according to Chernushenko (the deputy leader of the party at the time) she called him and Jim Harris to convince them to ask Green candidates to withdraw in order to help Liberal or NDP candidates win.

Six months later she's the party leader?

I noticed yesterday that the Globe and Mail's online update on Judge Marshall's ruling didn't allow comments.

Today's update on the situation doesn't allow comments either. It's the only story without comments that I see from a glace at the others on the front page.

The day before saw 43 comments before further comments were closed.

It's ironic that Editor-in-Chief Greenspon wrote during an online chat less than a week ago:

D N from Whitby writes: Hello, Mr. Greenspon. I was wondering how the addition of comments to the website is going from the Globe's perspective. The fact that the comments are edited makes them somewhat more civilised than the typical blog, but I find that overall, the effect of all this online punditry seems to lower the public discourse into the equivalent of a bunch of people in a room shouting at each other. A few people comment, then people disagree, then everyone criticises everyone else and the whole thing seems to degenerate into name calling and attacks. How does online reader feedback fit into the Globe's future? And do you care to comment on the overall effect of the internet on public discourse and the role of the G&M therein?
Edward Greenspon: I guess this set of questions will get us off to a fast start! We see the Internet as a far more horizontal (or level) medium than newspapers or broadcasting. One of its great strengths is the immediate interactivity you can enjoy with your readers and they with one another. We've invited our readers to "join the conversation" and I don't think society can ever be worse for having more discourse. We don't edit comments per se. We either post them as they are, or we decide not to post if an individual comment is judged by our editors to be racist or defamatory or resorts to foul language or personal attacks. I don't think about it as "a bunch of
people in a room shouting at each other, as you state, but rather as a salon or
restaurant, where we serve up the food (the news), but we don't determine what
people discuss at their tables. The good thing about our salon, we hope, is that it attracts a more intelligent clientele than the other places on the street. I think this ongoing conversation is an important part of our future, but the most important thing about dining at Chez Globe is the quality of the food and service.

Fine.
It's not surprising that Caledonia Wake Up Call is getting so popular - the people still need to eat and if the Globe is now saying that you can't talk about this topic in their restaurant then they'll go somewhere else.

An interesting question from our Independent MP from Quebec:

Mr. André Arthur (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, during his inquiry, Justice John Gomery learned that federal judge positions in Quebec had been granted, in fact sold, in exchange for contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada, but he refused to investigate. Every citizen who will one day appear
before these judges should be worried about this.
Quebec's chief justice is the former president of the Liberal Party of Canada; a credible investigation will not come from the current judicial authorities and the government has a duty to reassure us about the integrity of those who are able to decide on the liberty of other citizens.
Does the government intend to investigate—
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question and for his work and his concern on this file.
Judicial advisory committees do operate at arm's length from the Minister of Justice in every province to vet candidates for judicial office. The committees include a variety of individuals from the legal and lay communities.
The government believes there is always room for improvement in the appointment process, as we did with the appointment of Justice Rothstein to the Supreme Court of Canada. The government remains open to examining ways in which the process can be improved.

ATC translation: No.

This material is gold!

Mrs. Susan Kadis (Thornhill, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (products made with dog or cat fur).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to introduce this private member's bill. This bill calls on the government to amend the Hazardous Products Act by adding all products made in whole or in part of dog or cat fur. While banned in countries around the globe, including the United States, dog and cat fur can be imported, exported and legally sold in Canada without any identifying labels. This practice is unacceptable to Canadians.

I think Paul Martin or Scott Reid should pull Susan aside and explain to her that the United States is our neighbour, not our country.
We are Canadians and importing, exporting, and selling dog and cat fur products without any identifying labels is part of who we are.

And enquiring minds want to know - why would a dog or cat fur product be hazardous? Furthermore, can you legally sell dog and cat meat here?

UPDATE: More proposed changes to the Hazardous Products Act - Bill C-230 put forth by that nutty Alexa - ban long display hooks!

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (prohibited product — hooks).
She said: Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill amends the Hazardous Products Act specifically to prohibit the advertising, sale and import of elongated display hooks that can pose a threat to the safety and health of persons. They are a particular threat to young children. This is a bill that I think of as Katie's bill, because of a two-year-old child in my own riding, but she is one of many in this country who have suffered either a total loss of vision or severe brain damage because of these unnecessarily dangerous hooks that we simply should not permit to be in existence.

Here is an old story from CBC Marketplace about these hooks.

I was enjoying flipping through Hansard today and found a few things that more people should know about.

First, did you know that the Judy and the NDP are proposing a National Breast Implant Registry?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North, NDP) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-312, An Act to establish and maintain a national Breast Implant Registry.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to reintroduce this bill, which I have tried in the past on numerous occasions to get before the House or to suggest to the government that it might want to take it and run with it.
Here I am again trying to convince all members of Parliament to support an initiative that would establish and maintain a national breast implant registry.

I guess this is a bit of a cause for Judy.

Next I found a couple of petitions introduced by NDP members. Alexa with one:

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce three petitions today.
The first calls upon the Government of Canada to establish peace tax legislation to recognize the right of conscientious objectors to not pay for the military, but to apply instead that portion of their taxes that would have been used for military purposes toward peaceful non-military purposes within the powers of Parliament.
There are some 40 pages of signatures, and I hope the Government of Canada will give it consideration.

Right - way to think this one through. 40 pages of signatures? I'm guessing those people write really big.
Lastly, a break in solidarity?

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my second petition calls upon the government to urge the CRTC to decline the application of broadcast public notice from the CRTC proposing 9 TV channels directly controlled by the Chinese government, the Communist Party, and not allow them to be broadcast here in Canada.

In his Globe and Mail 'chat', Jeffy Simpson wrote the following:

Mr. Harper will likely be credited with having fulfilled his promises — or at least four out of five, because Patient Wait Times guarantees is substantively foolish and politically unworkable.

Simpson on March 18th wrote about the "unbearable lightness of Harper's five vows" and of the wait-times guarantee he wrote it "reflects the shavings on the iceberg of the health-care system".

Can a promise be both unbearable light and politically unworkable?

His columns on Harper and the government have always been among the most shallow I've read. It's not surprising his conclusions are simply the shifting concensus opinion.

At the end of CalgaryGrit's interview with Stephane Dion:

I’ll give Dion marks for actually telling them that he thought this was a bad approach to take since tax credits don’t benefit the poor who don’t pay taxes. He told them instead that the government needed to build fitness centres and seemed to talk them around to his point of view.

Wait till Dryden gets a hold of this one! A new national endeavour! Federal government fitness centres from sea to sea to sea.

A very good chat at the Globe and Mail included this:
A. Guy, Toronto:
My question is more about how you are covering Afghanistan and communicating it to us. The English language is one of the world's richest. It has so many words, so many words borrowed from other languages, so many words capable of capturing every possible nuance. So, why do you have to reach in every column in our family newspaper for coarse, tasteless profanity, the language of boors and street thugs? Witness the word "shitshow," deployed by you that The Globe's editors decided to place on the front page three inches above the fold.

Christie Blatchford:
Well, I'm not covering a bridge tournament. This is how soldiers talk and — while you may rue it — I expect that if you were here, you might well find yourself doing the same thing. War is about death, blood, good and evil, all the big things. It's also loud and scary, and sometimes nothing captures that better than good old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon profanity. I confess, that's also the way I talk. We weren't called the "fucking Canadians" in WW2 for no reason.

Part of CBC's reaction to the report released today:

The Senate transport and communications committee released the report, which also advises that the CBC should stop covering professional sports and the Olympics.
That suggestion was met with criticism by CBC spokesperson Katherine Heath-Eves.
"Sporting events like hockey and the Olympics are nation-building events and ones that Canada's public broadcaster should be a part of," she told The Canadian Press.

I always suspected that Gino Reda, Bob MacKenzie, Rod Black, and the rest of those CTV, Global, TSN, and Sportsnet sportscasters where out to destroy the county.

It's funny really. CBC only recently started showing CFL games - one of our only national leagues - before Labour Day. They never showed soccer when Sportsnet was showing our national Women's side performing so well. Their curling coverage which was limited to championship games before has now been relegated exclusively to TSN starting in a few years and the Olympic games were bought by CTV. Our 'national game', lacrosse, can be watched only on Sportsnet.

Really, we are only talking about HNIC which can be seen to be CBC's only top 30 ranked show in the country in winter. In the fall, prior to hockey, they didn't have one in the top 30.

Here's an idea!

Sell the theme music to HNIC to a private network and let them pay Ron and Don their combined salary of over a million dollars a year. The country is saved!

And to think that somepeople might think $10 a year to be a member of the CPC doesn't provide value for money!

Check this out!

Came in the mail yesterday. Boo-yah! (It's a pin btw)

Have to say that I'm a little concerned with my interest in blogging politics of late. I suppose it's somewhat normal for a Conservative supporter to let his/her foot off the pedal in the aftermath of the election win but we all know how temporary a minority government can be and in less than a year we could be governed again by a party that thinks it's key role is to create daycare spaces like we have elementary schools or hospitals.

What made me write this at all was the Globe and Mail article from Canadian Press.

"Canadians pick Liberal child-care plan over Tory cheques: poll"

Normally, this article which is based on a poll commissioned by - SURPRISE - the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada would get me interested enough to blog about it. Instead, I'll just link to my post from the election.

Sigh. Go Holland!

Quick 2nd thought - maybe I'm still slightly depressed from the Senator's playoff exit. That's probably it.

My wife has started a photography business. She’s quite good at capturing the best of people – especially children.

You can see some of her work at her site jackiebrophyphotography.ca

Check it out and, of course, if you know someone who might be interested, pass it on to them.

The makers of Weet Bix will be rich, RICH! I say if the Socceroos have another couple finishes like today's game. 3 goals in the last 10 minutes to beat Japan.

Why Weet Bix - why it's the breakfast cereal of the Socceroos of course.


The Aussies real test will be against Croatia - if they can tie them on the 22nd then they could advance.

Playing soccer and watching it makes for a difficult time really getting into the other Cup finals happening. So, I read Colby Cosh.

It's a great time to be a sports fan!

I love the Globe's coverage of the Cup. Their interactive site and the blog are very nice.

They were pretty critical of Crouch this morning - I thought he was quite dangerous. All of the England passes went to his head and he consistently got the ball into a position for his teammates to do something with it.

Tomorrow morning sees Holland's first game - I'll be wearing my Orange Heiny Hat.

Following yesterday's pic, here's today's front page photo:
Note to self: Don't hire any Globe photographers for family pictures.

Here's the picture on the Globe and Mail's website right now:
Gotta love that lighting.
Or maybe that's how they got those kids to cough up 5 grand - give us your money or else this boogie man is coming to get you!

The always readable Chris Selley brings forth common sense into the passport debate.

I'll be adding a few soccer posts here over the next month and will be rooting for my Mom's birth country - I'll be rooting for England and the US as well.

This video is worth watching - during a World Cup tune-up game yesterday the goalie from Colombia scores on the Polish tender!

Wondering how Canada's program is doing?
Ranked 83rd. But - we are on a three game unbeaten streak - first time since 2000 I think. Two wins against Austria (ranked 79) and Luxembourg (ranked 152nd) and a tie against the US (ranked 5th).

Some Ontario Liberals have started a new website - http://www.proudtobeliberal.ca/

They say in the announcement:

The foundation of this initiative is reengaging people in the Party by highlighting the best aspects of it, and to encourage participation from both members at large as well as "people of profile".

On the site, they cover the history of the Liberal party - the last paragraph:

After 40 years in politics, Jean Chrétien announced in August 2002 that he would remain in office until February 2004. He is currently serving his third and final term as prime minister.

Couldn't come up with any Martin highlights I guess.

Our wonderful Senate:

but the proceedings turned particularly ugly when Liberal Senator Peter Stollery hurled an insult at Karzai, Afghanistan's interim president, who MacKay said would soon be visiting Canada.
"You know Karzai, he's a stooge. He was put there by Americans. Everybody knows that," Stollery said.
"First of all, I don't believe President Karzai is a stooge," MacKay said.
"He can't be anything else," Stollery interjected, before fellow Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, who was chairing the hearing, cut him off.
"With respect," MacKay replied in an even tone, "he was democratically elected, and having met him, I find him to be a compelling, charismatic, dedicated person that wants to help his country."

Of course, Stollery was that wonderful MP for 10 years including one illustrious year as a Parliamentary Secretary before Trudeau stooged him into the Senate.

Paul Martin before the 2004 election:

told his MPs they are about to embark upon the "most important" election in the country's history, one offering Canadians a choice between U.S.-style tax cuts and a caring society.

Rob Rae yesterday:

Rae said the next federal election is likely to come any time and be "the fight of our generation."

I'm guessing their will be a sequel to 'From From protest to power: Personal reflections on a life in politics'? Maybe 'From Provincial Joke to Liberal Leader to National Joke - the fight of our generation.'

We'll probably never know the truth about Saint-Lambert in 1997 but maybe if enough pieces like this come out we'll get close...

(Hat-tip to Spector)

The end of the presentation of evidence yesterday left an intriguing question unanswered. In an earlier hearing, the court was told that Mr. Brault's right-hand man, François Desjardins, had run errands to the home of Mr. Chrétien in the late 1990s.
"I went to the home of Prime Minister Chrétien, on several occasions. Once I drove Mr. Chrétien's brother, from Saint-Lambert, to Sussex Drive," Mr. Desjardins said in a statement to the RCMP that was read in court last fall.
Neither Crown nor defence lawyers could elaborate yesterday on that statement.

I've blogged about the Saint-Lambert riding before - focussing on the 1997 federal election. It was close and had some very big names providing money to the Liberals.
Loans:
Operating loan information
Gaby Chretien $5,000
Individuals:
A. Desmarais/Finance Chretien Desmarais $3,000

The Liberal candidate received 25% of her legally declared donations from the following companies and/or their employees.
Lafleur
Groupaction
Le Groupe Polygone Editeurs Inc.

It all makes this statement harder and harder to believe.

I'm sure you figured that out by now.

Senator Romeo D'Allaire is on my flight to Toronto this morning. Cool.

First Harper gives Quebec a seat at UNESCO and now this!

Menard's rink beats a struggling team from Ontario. Too many misses - way off draw weight early in the game.

When that final shot is made curling suddenly becomes like NASCAR - the skip doesn't have his gripper on and his front end is jumping up and down - you're waiting for the crash.

For you curling newbies, four teams make the playoffs and they use the "Page" system. 3rd plays 4th and the loser is out. We'll call the winner Nova Scotia (Mark Dacey) as he's going to beat Alberta (Kevin Martin) who clearly doesn't have any momentum (curled 50 some percent yesterday) going into the 2pm game.
The 1st place team (Ontario - Glenn Howard) plays the 2nd place team (Quebec - Menard). Howard's playing lights out so pencil him in as the winner - later tonight.
Menard will then play Dacey and will beat him.
The rematch between Ontario and Quebec in the final on Sunday will be won by Howard. The only unknown is whether Glenn will copy his older brother's trademark arm raised 90° clenched fist with a slight pump when he wins.

UPDATE:
Dacey won the 3/4 game as I had forseen. Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.
(Voice in my head): 'Your overconfidence is your weakness'
Me: Your faith in your friends is yours!
Co-workers: Don, who the $%^$ are you yelling at?

UPDATE2:
All the pieces are falling into place. Great game by Howard.

UPDATE3:
Menard wins and faces Howard again today. The dominos fall exactly as I had laid them out.

Sara from Choice for Childcare has called for people to stand up today if they support programs that give parents more choices - not the Liberal and NDP plan to only subsidize institutional daycare spots.

During the election I wrote this:

There are roughly 600,000* children in Ontario between 0 and 4 years. The Liberal plan is to create 25,000 spaces by 2008. Currently there are about 125,000 spaces*
in Ontario. The Liberal plan will not be subsidizing the cost to the parents of those spaces.
He compares his daycare program to Medicare. Imagine - his solution for Medicare would be to increase hospital spaces by 20% - to total 25% of the patients and then make them still pay for it.It's not a national program. It's a sound bite and a photo op.
The Conservative policy isn't a national program either - they don't claim it to be one. It's a small government solution to help address an issue that most Canadians agree needs to be addressed - helping parents.
We know that creating a real national daycare program would cost billions more than what either the NDP or Liberals have proposed. It would put more pressure, through increased taxation on the working parent and from societal pressure, to have both parents in the work force. Is that good? Is that bad? I don't know.
I do know that we don't quantify the benefit that a stay at home parent provides to our society. Helping out at our schools, helping the libraries and community centers, and helping to care for elderly parents are just a couple of the things that come to mind.
It doesn't actually matter as no party is proposing such a national program.
I think the Conservative plan is better, realistic, and more honest than either of the other parties are proposing.

If the Liberals and NDP think that the Conserverative party didn't get a lot of votes from traditionally non-Conservative voters because of their childcare allowance they are seriously out of touch.

Ridiculous.

Jeff Stoughton got fined $1,000 for slamming his broom after a bad end. He slammed it once then a CCA official told him not to do it again so Stoughton did it again.

I suggest they pass the hat around the Brier patch to raise the money - coins only - and dump it in the CCA's lap. They seem intent on continually alienating our top players and curling fans.

E-mail the CCA here if you disagree with them.

BTW - he won that game against Dacey so he's still in the hunt.

4 losses is most likely going to be the cutoff. The big games today will be:
2pm: NS (Dacey) needs to beat Alb (Martin) to stay at 4 L
8pm: Sask (Simmons) and BC (Windsor) both have 4L and if they both win their games against the bottom teams earlier in the day the winner of this game will advance
8pm: Man (Stoughton) plays Ont (Howard) - obviously Jeff needs to win

I find the interesting thing about the possibility of Bob Rae become the leader of the Liberal party is thinking how it would affect the strategy of the NDP.

On the one hand, they could go with a similar type of attack that they did when Martin was leading the Liberals. While they campaign that the Conservatives are wrong on the issues, they don't say the same about the Liberals. They would say that you can't trust them and that they have broken their promises time and time again.
They would modify it only slightly with Rae. Painting him as untrustworthy would be key. His legacy is one of broken promises and deficits.

On the other hand, how can they say this while avoiding the fact that his legacy is also the legacy of the NDP in Ontario?

Manitoba has now lost 4 games in a row. Quite the turn of events when it looked earlier in the week like the battle was for the fourth spot behind Alberta, Ontario, and Manitoba.

He's got a huge game against Dacey at 3pm who's sitting with 3 losses.

Standings here.

After last night's defeat at the hands of Mexico, Canada just needs South Africa to beat the US.

Right.

For trade deadline reaction, be sure to check out the Battle of Ontario. Arnason is going to look nice between Havlat and Smolinski on the 2nd line. Fisher will center Schaefer and Niel and the fast fourth line will give lots of teams fits with Vermette, Eaves, and Kelly.

If Canada beats Mexico they will advance to the next round.

If they lose to Mexico then, assuming the US beats South Africa, all three teams will have 2-1 records.

The first tiebreaker format in this tournament is:

Ties shall be broken in the following order of priority:
- The team that defeated the other tied team head-to-head in a given Round shall be ranked higher in the pool standings for such Round.
- The tied teams shall be ranked in the standings for that Round according to fewest runs allowed divided by the number of innings (including partial innings) played in defense in the games in that Round between the teams tied.
- The tied teams shall be ranked in the standings according to fewest earned runs allowed divided by the number of innings (including partial innings) played in defense in the games in that Round between the teams tied.
- The tied teams shall be ranked in the standings according to highest batting average in games in that Round between the teams tied.
- Standings shall be determined by the drawing of lots, conducted by WBCI.

Currently the runs allowed for each team are:
Mexico: 6
US: 8
Canada: 14

So - it's basically a must win game for Canada. 8pm EST.

UPDATED after discussion with co-worker - didn't notice this part of the tiebreaker:

The tied teams shall be ranked in the standings for that Round according to fewest runs allowed divided by the number of innings (including partial innings) played in defense in the games in that Round between the teams tied.

So...

Currently the runs allowed for each team are:

Mexico: 2
Canada: 6
US: 8

So this means that Canada has to hold Mexico to 1 run if they don't win.

If Mexico wins 2-0 then the next tiebreaker comes into effect - earned runs. I don't know... but the WBC site does I guess:

Canada advances:
• If it wins Thursday in its game against Mexico, finishing Pool play with a perfect 3-0 record.
• If it loses Thursday against Mexico, but allows two runs or less.

Click on the baseball diamond beside the games to get wicked pitch by pitch updates.

Canada's up 2-0 in the 2nd against the US while Panama just tied Cuba in the bottom of the 9th.

We squeaked past South Africa in our WBC opener last night - yes, squeaked - South Africa.

Anyway, we'll cut the team some slack as they head into this afternoon's game against the Yanks. It's at 4pm.

Mexico only lost to the American's 2-0 which tells you something about how these games aren't predictable.

On another note, Chris Selley of Tart Cider fame has joined the Blue team over at The Battle of Ontario. Check it out.

So, Korea beat Japan 3-2 meaning they win their pool and will face the number 2 team from Canada's pool - expected to be either us or Mexico.

Korea has one of the best pitching staffs in the tournament and in a tournament like this it is key.

Our first game (schedule) is tomorrow against South Africa. Wednesday against the US and then Mexico on Thursday.

Cool - I didn't know about this until today.

Canada starts pool play next week.

Our roster is here. We've got some talent on the lineup and need to finish 2nd in our pool to advance. That means beating out 2 of the US, Mexico, and South Africa.

Here's a CTV article about Harper the hockey dad. Video here. From the story...

One small irony of the team is that Ben plays left wing, while Nathaniel Dewar -- son of local NDP MP Paul Dewar, who represents the Ottawa Centre riding -- plays on the right wing.

Good one.

CTV made a mistake though - it's the Sandy Hill Cougars - not the Chargers which I think are the Ottawa Centre team.

Because frequent commenter Real Mike keeps asking....

From CTV:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's first and perhaps most controversial Senate appointment has been confirmed by the Governor General.

The Prime Minister's Office has announced that Montreal lawyer Michael Fortier, a Conservative party organizer who was named Harper's unelected Public Works minister, has been called to the Senate.

The mighty Sens play their first three games against non-playoff teams - a nice way to get back into the groove after the break. They start with the Pens and the Capitals on Wednesday and Thursday and then get to pad their stats with a Saturday night game against the ninth place Leafs.

In the Globe:

Meanwhile, the NDP is calling for a full debate and parliamentary vote on the mission. NDP critic Dawn Black said MPs owe it to the members of the Canadian Forces to ensure that all the right questions are being asked about how long
they will be expected to serve in Afghanistan and under what conditions.

The Liberal critic, Ujjal Dosanjh, also wanted to know "what the exit strategy is."

First off - what was the exit strategy?

Dosanjh - perhaps you should ask your interim leader - he might know something about it. Did you skip that cabinet meeting perhaps when the issue was brought up?

Tomorrow's comment from Dosanjh - "why is the Canadian military still flying Sea King helicopters?"

That sucked.

At least I got the Sweden call right.

I'm spent.

All the quarterfinals are today - here are my predicitons:

Quarterfinal - Switzerland vs. Sweden - 10:30am et
Sweden. 'Nuff said.

Quarterfinal - Finland vs. United States - 11:30am et
I'm predicting the US will 'upset' the Finns. The US played the Russians well yesterday in a physical game while the Finns will have lost some of their earlier edge and will be less comfortable as the favourite.
If it goes to a shootout - NHL ranking:
RK Goalie Team W L SA GA Sv %
6 RICK DIPIETRO NYI 4 3 27 8 .704
25 ANTERO NIITTYMAKI PHI 2 4 20 9 .550

Quarterfinal - Russia vs. Canada - 2:30pm et
I'm scared.
When I look at the Russian team two things stick out - the skill up front and the names of their defence. Russia let in 5 goals against Slovakia and 4 against the US. They also scored 5 against both the Swedes and the US.
Canada will win.
If it goes to a shootout - NHL ranking:
RK Goalie Team W L SA GA Sv %
2 MARTIN BRODEUR NJD 5 1 23 3 .870
68 EVGENI NABOKOV SJS 0 4 13 8 .385

Quarterfinal - Slovakia vs. Czech Republic - 3:30pm et
Slovakia will take it for these reasons - surprisingly better goaltending in this tournament, better top line with Gaborik, Hossa, and Demitra, and the Chara/Meszaros tandem can keep Jagr's damage somewhat limited.

It wasn't a conscious decision to stop posting - just worked out that way.

Regarding this move...
I wasn't impressed with Stairs whenever I watched him but was impressed with Buckler when I watched her on the CBC Politics panel.

Regarding Team Canada...
This game against the Czech Republic may give the team some focus. Having a game plan that includes shutting down Jagr's line will draw the teams attention away from their scoring problems.

Over at the Battle of Ontario site, there has been a truce as both Sens fans and fans of the 9th place Leafs rally behind Team Canada.

Are the Senator's equipment manager and one of Ottawa's sports columnists doing their parts too?

Updated with a beautiful quote below.

He met with his riding board and blogged it.

I found these paragraphs important:

At the end, they agreed one person should speak for the group, so that the message would be consistent, so that people would know they supported their member. Despite his predilection for trouble. Despite his refusal to be cowed last week in Ottawa. Despite all.
Of course, listening, it was not lost on me at all that what they were doing was providing me with a mirror of national caucus – a group of different individuals, all agreeing on basic points after sharing many divergent views, deciding to speak to the outside world with one voice. That way, they concluded, their message would be safely delivered. Without freelancing.
I reflected on that – how could I do otherwise? I was the prime minister in microcosm, and they were acting as one group to assist me. For this I was grateful indeed. And I am sure Stephen Harper – at the end of this challenging and surprising week – is reflecting as well on the group that he counts on, of which I am one. Have I done enough for him?

So does that mean that there isn't going to be one member of the riding board going on CTV five times a day saying that they disagreed with what Garth was doing and that they might have to consider leaving the riding executive?

Garth concludes:

Of course, I told them in person I am not leaving the Conservative caucus. I will fight from within, speak out when it’s called for and do all I can to truly represent the people who gave me their authority to go to Ottawa.

I thought this post from Angry was pretty good. If Turner did leave the Conservative caucus would he resign his seat and bring about a by-election where he could seek 'ratification' from the voters by running as an independant?

UDPATE: A comment in Garth's blog had this quote:

It was typical media tactics and it made me think of a comment Brian Mulroney said one day. The Tories were about to bring in the GST. The country was in media haos. Protests were everywhere. The polls were a disaster.
Mulroney stood erect and impeccable at the podium in the caucus room. Outside, just beyond the double doors that sound-roofed the room, a phalanx of media waited, convinced some MPs would buckle under all the pressure, walk up to the forest of microphones, criticize their besieged leader and open the floodgates of party dissention. Just what any good reporter would want, of course. Blood.
And Mulroney said: “If you want to be a media hero, just walk out those doors right now, go down the hall and do it. I guarantee you’ll be on the front page of every newspaper tomorrow and the lead item on the CBC tonight. Go ahead. I’ll still be here. But if you want to be a hero for Canada, then you will stand by me.” He stared into the eyes of everyone in that room. Anyone who harboured the remotest thought of mutiny felt it evaporate under his gaze. Leadership.
Being a media hero is easy, fun and has instant rewards, I thought. Belinda Stronach. Carolyn Parrish. Scott Brison. Getting on the front page of the Globe and Mail and the National Post is a breeze. Just say what they want.
Of course, I told the reporter Harper is our leader. We have only one leader at a time. The leader leads – it’s his job. A candidate’s highest job is to get elected.

The writer? Garth.

Garth replied to the the person that left the comment with this:

Ron: I defy anyone to read my very words that you have quoted and say Garth Turner does not support Stephen Harper. Who’s the hypocrite, my Conservative friend? — Garth

First off - You Garth. You've made your point how many times? You were on CTV again on Sunday - is that about a dozen appearances on that network alone? "Being a media hero is easy, fun and has instant rewards, I thought."
Secondly - Don doesn't like people who talk about themselves in the third person.

With Glenn Howard's win over Wayne Middaugh yesterday in the KIA Cup final, every member of Russ Howard's 1993 Canadian and World winning squad (they also represented Ontario at the Brier from 91 to 94) will have skipped an Ontario team into the Brier.

Third Glenn in 2006.
Second Middaugh in 1998, 2001, and 2005.
Lead Peter Corner in 2000.

Russ himself skipped Ontario in 80, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, and 94.

This Liberal blogger wrote the following on Liberal leadership contender Martha Hall Findlay:

Martha will be a strategic candidate. She is the only one who has earned the right to attack Belinda. She will serve the Liberal party by bringing the dirt of Belinda to the table and making the grits aware of her. She will be supported by Liberals who want to stop Belinda if she plans to run.

On Martha's front page you can see her first shot at Belinda:

But I view 46 years of experience, substance and accomplishment, in various aspects of life, as counting for a lot.

And, also wrt the Liberal leadership race - from Coyne:

Party organizers can only hold their breath, because they do not want Mr. Martin to lead them into another election...
[T]o block an emergency comeback by Mr. Martin with the same tired crew of counsellors, executives are examining ways to select delegates well before the
convention. That way, the executives could rapidly organize an electronic leadership vote by those delegates, ensuring the party would have a new leader even if the government fell unexpectedly over the next few months. It's that bad.

I thought the entire Liberal party was going to rally together in the Emerson/Fortier aftermath?

It's Jesus - not Muhammad - repeat - it's Jesus, not Muhammad!
And it's worth way more than $500 in my opinion.

UPDATE: Hide the children! There's an evil version too!

Devil Pancake Not Jesus Unbelievable!!!! You Judge.

Hebert's column ends with this:

Given the current lay of the land, there will be probably be more Emersons than Stronachs in the future.

I don't see many happening in Ontario unless the Liberals really swing to the left - which might actually happen during the leadership campaign. Most of these MPs have been Liberal for 3 or 4 elections now - unlike Emerson.

Should we come up with a pool or something?

Read on the Shotgun:

This just in from Ottawa: B.C. Conservative MP James Moore has been named parliamentary secretary to the minister of public works. This means Moore -- a top House performer who is bilingual, has a good grasp of policy and is quick on his feet -- will act as the Commons mouthpiece for the Tories' unelected cabinet minister, Senator Michael Fortier.

A smarter move would have been to name him the Minister? Not qualified? Would putting Fortier in cabinet only as a political minister for Montreal been unacceptable? So many questions.

Jay Currie:
On an intellectual scale or an accomplishment scale it would take roughly 925 Belinda Stronachs to equal one David Emerson.
This is possibly the smartest thing I have ever seen Harper do.

Spector:
--The smartest thing said about David Emerson
Mr. Emerson said he was never a political partisan and only entered politics in 2004 because of former prime minister Paul Martin’s persistent urging.
“I nearly didn’t run in the last election. Mr. Martin encouraged me to run. I did so. Mr. Martin has now made his decision to move on and I was approached by Mr. Harper.”
National Post
--What I would add, the morning after, about a guy I've known for 25 years
David Emerson has a political tin ear and hasn’t a political bone in his body.

Just getting over my headache from dancing on the tables with Emerson at the clubs here in Ottawa last night. Right.

This shady manouver by Harper will now give his government new life as he clings to power. Right.

Hebert writes:

Emerson has never run a government department. He has no hands-on knowledge of the inner workings of the bureaucracy and even less so of its interaction with the political side of government. He is unfamiliar with the day-to-day running of business in general and international trade in particular. On the face of it, knowledge of some or all of the aforementioned would seem to be prerequisites to oversee the International Trade portfolio. Without it, Emerson might as well be wading blind in a
minefield, at the mercy of the potentially self-interested guidance of partisan and bureaucratic handlers. ... If anything, he has spent his relatively short time in political life levelling the field to his own advantage, using his considerable wealth to offset his inexperience by buying the best mercenary advice money can buy.
But then, that is an approach to politics Harper would be hard-pressed to quarrel with!

No - doesn't sound right. Oops - it was about Stronach and Martin.

My posts on the Stronach defection are here and here.

The point of this - I wish I had more time to write it - is that I do believe the context of Emerson's switch compared to Stronach's is important. You cannot compare the value of the two in cabinet. The situation of Harper and Martin need to be considered.

When he thought of his potential new leader....

1.
2.
3.

The Angry one:

So if grabbing Emerson has no consequence in terms of voting or the balance of power, why do it? Unlike Belinda, who became a cabinet minister in a portfolio for which she was not suited having spent her few months in Parliament in opposition, David Emerson spent the time since being elected in 2004 in cabinet as Minister of Industry. He holds a doctorate in economics, compared to Belinda's, well, nothing. He will be one of the only people on Stephen Harper's team with any experience in cabinet. So while putting Belinda in cabinet probably lowered the average quality of Paul Martin's cabinet, David Emerson potentially improves it.
In other words, all Emerson can offer to Stephen Harper is experience and representation in one of Canada's major cities, both things in short supply in Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Increasing both makes for a better government.
What Emerson doesn't offer is power. And I think that makes a difference.

Harper today outside of Rideau Hall:

"During the last parliament as I sat across from the government benches, I was consistently impressed with David Emerson," Harper told reporters after being sworn in as Canada's 22nd prime minister.
"He is a man of great intelligence, a man with a stellar record in the private sector, who is clearly committed to public service.
"I asked Emerson to join Canada's new government and he accepted. For this I am grateful and I know Minister Emerson looks forward to continuing to serve the people of British Columbia and all new Canadians in the next parliament."

Didn't realize Emerson's resume was so impressive:

David Emerson ... Bachelor of Economics degree ... Master of Economics degree ... Ph.D. in Economics.

... researcher for the Economic Council of Canada ... became Deputy Minister of Finance.

... President and Chief Executive Officer of the Western and Pacific Bank of Canada ... Deputy Minister to the Premier and President of the British Columbia Trade Development Corporation.

... President and Chief Executive Officer of the newly created Vancouver International Airport Authority

... President and Chief Executive Officer of Canfor Corporation

.... directorships included: Terasen Inc; Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada; Vice-Chairman of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives; Chair, British
Columbia Ferry Services Inc.; and Chairman and Director of Genus Resource Management Technologies Inc.

A question for you - did Vancouver Kingsway vote Liberal or for David Emerson?

Did Coyne out somebody?

DIVERSITY SCORECARD:
Quebec 5, Ontario 8 (plus LeBreton?), B.C. 4, Alberta 4, Man/Sask 2, Atlantic 3
Women 6, Vizmin 1 (Oda. Chong? Clement? How viz is a min?), Gay 1, Disabled 0

From the CBC's Your Turn with Stephen Harper:

Colleen Belisle:
Hello, my name is Colleen Belisle and I have a question for Stephen Harper regarding the accountability issue. In the past 18 months, I have noticed a number of MPs crossing the floor after the election. This makes me wonder why I should, as a voter, go and vote when my MP can change parties after the election. Mr. Harper, are there any policies that you plan to enforce after the election regarding this issue? Thank you.

Stephen Harper:
My short answer is no. And I understand the voters' frustration. You can imagine I feel that frustration as much as anyone. I was the victim of a number of the particular incidents that the voter is referring to, that Colleen's referring to, but the difficulty, Peter – I know that many members of Parliament have put forward various proposals that would restrict the right of MPs to cross the floor, force elections, or whatever. I haven't seen one yet that convinces me that it would create anything other than a situation where party leaders have even more power over the individual members of Parliament. And, as you know, I've said that, of course, I've said that for a long time that I think our members of Parliament need more authority, need to be able to represent their constituents' views, and they may make very bad decisions in crossing from a good party to a bad party or, more particularly, a winning party to a losing party. But that all said, I haven't seen one yet that I'm convinced creates a bigger problem than it's actually trying to fix.

Peter Mansbridge:
Do you think voters are as uncomfortable as Ms. Belisle points out when these kinds of things happen? Because if they are, one assumes that they are looking for direction from their political leaders to prevent this from happening. As you pointed out, some parties, the NDP has said it would force an immediate election. Do you think something has to be done?

Stephen Harper:
Let me give a concrete example of an alternative situation. The Conservative Party of Canada, the new Conservative Party was created because people left actually no less than three separate old caucuses, two old parties, and joined with a new party, and I think there is widespread consensus among not just members of the old parties, but members of the public as well that this was a good thing to create a stronger opposition, to end the fragmentation of the conservative movement in the country.
Now, you know, this kind of law could have forced us into a situation where we were having 75 byelections. So, you know, that's a problem with any of these proposals. We understand, I understand why people want them, and, believe me, there's a couple of cases that have happened where I'd love to have a law like this, but there's also a lot of downsides when you think it through. As I say, in a practical matter, I could see how party leaders could really abuse that particular provision to make it even more difficult for members who may disagree legitimately with their party to operate within the party.

At a scrum following the last Liberal cabinet meeting today Stronach said she is considering a run at the leadership.

She answered the third question this way...

En anglais s'il vous plais.

Right.

UPDATE: Somebody needs to update her Wiki entry...
She speaks English, French and German fluently.

UPDATE2: Wiki updated by 70.80.24.176

Also, the Globe reports the question this way:

However, Ms. Stronach was not off to good start, unable to answer a reporter's question in French. The reporter asked her whether she was considering a leadership bid, and she had to stop and ask him to repeat it in English. He walked away.

UPDATE3: Because it's such a joke

It reminded me of what Paul Wells wrote after the first french debate in December:

Dozens of ambitious politicians and aspiring politicians will watch the French debate tonight and tell themselves that if they only learn really good French, then one day they'll have a golden chance to win a prime ministerial debate. Then they'll put off doing their French homework yet again.

Stronach announced her intention to run for the Conservative party leadership over two years ago. In her very first speech she said a few lines in french and said she would learn.

This was a very funny comment:
The funniest thing was the WAY she said it, followed by the word “Ya”. It was as if she didn’t realize the meaning of the phrase she was saying, just the approximate meaning.

People were wondering whether the solibs were going to play a huge part in the Liberal leadership race?

The Young Liberals will play a big part in the convention - and I would expect the Quebec wing to be very vocal. Here is one of them:

As VP Policy of the JLCQ, I can give you some insight that absolutely no executive would ever possibly support.
First off, our leadership candidate would HAVE TO support the rights of same sex couples to get married civilly. To all those who have opposed this in the past, they will have to be accountable.
Secondly, our leadership candidate MUST be in favour of a woman’s right to choose. This is one of the most protected values amongst us liberals. We ran attack ads against candidates who opposed such rights. Why would we ever support a candidate to lead our party who had a different position?
Thirdly, our leadership candidate must be an ARDENT defender of the Kyoto Protocol. No province loves Kyoto as much as Quebec does, and we here at the JLC(Q) believe we must support a candidate who will adopt Canada’s action plan in waging a war on global warming. That war we will accept!

Welcome to the new Liberal party - the big tent is getting smaller and smaller.

No - but they can actually talk abortion without the extremists on both sides dominating the debate.
Regardless, I suppose according to Paul Martin, the country must be far to the right of the US Conservative movement I guess:
Increased awareness of the realities of abortion, and the impact of ultrasound images of a 23-week-old foetus smiling and grimacing, have made people change their views, said Ivereigh. The latter 'very dramatically showed that what had been depersonalised in many people's minds as a foetus was clearly seen to be a baby, a human being in formation, and that has come as a shock to many people', he added.
Abortion became a key issue in last year's general election campaign when Michael Howard, then the Conservative leader, said he wanted to see the maximum time limit cut to 20 weeks.
Former Liberal leader David Steel, the architect of the pioneering 1967 Abortion Act which made abortions legal for the first time in Britain, wants the upper limit reduced to 22 weeks.
The limit was originally set in 1967 at 28 weeks, because that was then taken to be the age at which a foetus would not be 'viable', but it was reduced to 24 weeks in 1990. Around 200,000 women a year undergo an abortion in Britain, although between 85 and 90 per cent occur within 12 weeks and only about 1.5 per cent after 20 weeks. Abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland.
David Cameron, Howard's successor, backs a new limit of between 20 and 22 weeks. 'He thinks because of the advances in medical science there's now a case for it being lowered, although not dramatically. He would support it being reduced. That is his personal view,' said his spokesman.
Moves to reduce the time limit are now beginning to win the support of liberal-minded MPs who support the right to abortion. Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP and a former GP, called for an in-depth parliamentary inquiry to examine the scientific evidence about the survival rates of babies born at under 24 weeks, and then recommend any necessary changes to the law. 'The question has been raised about whether we are going to base the limit on viability - that was the basis under the existing law - and if it's on viability then viability is subject to change based on medical advances,' he said.
'The longer we don't debate this, the less confidence the public will have that Parliament is doing its job which is reviewing and keeping in mind how scientific advances impact on public policy.'
Abortion law has always been altered through private members' bills tabled by backbenchers rather than by government in the past, with MPs voting according to their conscience. However the tacit support of the government is vital to get private members' bills through, making the views of the Prime Minister and Health Secretary crucial.
Hat-tip to Spector.

Lysianne Gagnon's column today in the Globe captures some of the same thoughts as I posted last week:

Actually, the election results might even force the sovereigntists to renounce their dream of holding a referendum on sovereignty right after a provincial election victory.
Moreover, the prospect of a PQ victory over Jean Charest's Liberals is not as probable as it seemed only two weeks ago. The Conservative victory is providing much-needed fuel to the embattled Quebec Liberals, who greeted the Conservative win with unabashed joy. (Some provincial Liberal organizers discreetly gave a helping hand to the new Conservative MPs around Quebec City).
If Mr. Harper delivers on his promise to solve the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces, and allows Quebec a voice in cultural international forums such as UNESCO, the Quebec government has a greater chance of being re-elected, and such a scenario would instantly send the sovereigntist movement into limbo for four more years.
.....
If Mr. Harper plays his cards well -- and of course this remains to be seen -- Quebec could propel him with enough seats, next time, to a majority government. For this scenario to become true, though, he will have to govern from the centre, refrain from pushing socially conservative policies and act on his promise to decentralize. For now, Quebeckers are favourably disposed toward the new government, but Mr. Harper will be under close surveillance.

This was at the end of a Globe and Mail article:

In fact, the Montreal business community from which Mr. Mulroney received much support isn't too sure yet how to handle Mr. Harper. According to one source, they are at a loss to understand how the 10 newly elected Conservatives, all of whom are from outside the Montreal region, were able to win without their financial clout.

The Montreal corporate community understands that the party's power base has shifted to the West and if its members are to have any influence on the party, their ties to Mr. Mulroney will not be enough to increase that influence. Many are beginning to prepare now for the next election where they intend to play a much more significant role in a party that they believe has the potential to once again become a force in the province.

Financial clout isn't the force it once was - with Chretien's election financing changes that limited personal and corporate donations and Harper's new plan to eliminate corporate and union donations and restrict personal donations even further - it's ideas that matter. You get money for votes and from grassroots supporters. That's why the power base has shifted.

This search (ignatieff abortion) landed someone to my blog here for some reason.

Of course, this type of issue is going to be key for running for the new Liberal party. Paul Martin has made it a fundamental part of the party and its leader.

Maude, Buzz, and the people shown to the left are who Martin spoke to in the last weeks of the campaign and will undoubtedly be attempting to influence the outcome of the leadership race.

Maude herself wrote:

We will also be watching the Liberal party and its search for a new leader. After all, it is under the Liberals that Canada has agreed to continental harmonization and the creation of a "Fortress North America." Will the Liberals choose a right-winger such as John Manley or Frank McKenna, both supporters of deeper integration with the United States? Or will the Liberal party undertake the soul-searching it needs and help build a real opposition inside Parliament to the Harper agenda?
....
The moment is ripe for renewed cooperation of progressive forces inside and outside Parliament to protect decades of social progress. There is not a moment to lose.

Potential leaders like Stronach and Brison will probably even try to use it as a wedge issue much like Martin did - 'does McKenna support abortion? - yes or no? - YES OR NO?' It doesn't take long in Google to find this:

Premier Frank McKenna promised Dr. Morgentaler “the fight of his life” if he
opened a clinic in New Brunswick.

People have been so concerned about 'social conservatives' in the CPC causing problems. I think 'social liberals' in the Liberal party are going to cause just as big a problem during this leadership race and the convention that might follow.

It's not like the solibs didn't cause a stir in the last Liberal convention where they passed a resolution calling for legalized prostitution and proposed the legalization of marijuana.

This CTV Toronto piece on Harper's Toronto roots is pretty entertaining.

Also from CTV is an interview Duffy had with Manning and Harris. It's very good.

I was just at Stronach's campaign site. On the front page there is a description of how she won the debate. To emphasis how badly the Conservative candidate did, it says the following:

She also expressed her respect and admiration for what Harris did to Ontario.

Riiiiight.

“I believe Mike Harris made the most significant mark on Ontario and I did go to
him seeking advice.” — Belinda Stronach, Toronto Star, January 25, 2004.

If you have a second, read 'A Message from Belinda on Why this Election is also about National Unity'. The start:

This is one of those times in the life of the nation when we must apply smelling salts to clear the air of congestion.
I come from a part of the country north of Toronto where we cannot conceive of a Canada without Quebec. So, when my personal discomfort at the readiness of Stephen Harper to cut deals with the separatist Bloc Québécois reached the crisis point last May, I crossed the floor and joined the Liberal Party.
Now with an election looming my apprehension for the good of the country is stronger than ever.
Any future Conservative government could only logically be held in power in a coalition with the Bloc Québécois. The image is both surrealistic and unnerving – a federal government propped up by the will of the separatists.

Yeah - pass the smelling salts. Logically, the Liberals will be 'propping' up the CPC as Belinda takes a run at the leadership. Logically, a person discomforted by the thought of cutting deals with the Bloc wouldn't be so happy to receive the endorsement of Buzz while he is endorsing the Bloc. Logically, the best thing for Canada is to have Belinda switch parties whenever necessary to ensure she never is able to cause long term damage to it by actually being in government for more than a few months.

What's going to happen? I'll tell you.

Cabinet will be much smaller.

Accountability Act first - before any budget.

The budget must contain the GST reduction and childcare allowance. The other measures - defence spending, capital gains tax, transit/sport tax credits - will be negotiated with the Liberals/NDP/Bloc. Harper will not work with only one party - he might shut out the Bloc somewhat though during discussions in order to show their 'impotence'.

Crime bill and Patient Wait Times Guarantee will come after the budget. The guarantee will need to be negotiated with the provinces - over the summer?

I'd guess they'll want to bring the SSM vote before the house in the spring. It won't be close.

Considering the Quebec election in 2007, I expect that Harper will want to give Charest some ammunition to stop the PQ. I'd guess that in the fall they'll start working on the fiscal imbalance issue and have something to sign in the first half of 2007.

The Bloc won't want a federal election before the provincial one - they can't risk another loss of momentum. That means Harper will get two budgets in if he wants.

The Liberals will have a new leader for the fall session. Harper may, I think mainly depending on the Quebec situation, engineer his governments defeat next winter. Neuter the Bloc prior to the Quebec provincial election and campaign on his key promises that he's delivered.

A majority Conservative government will follow on the strength of 40 Quebec seats and a few gains in Ontario. Charest will be re-elected in Quebec a couple of months later.

Harper starts constitutional talks in 2008 and Quebec signs later that year.

Wells:
That was a dynamite victory speech. On second thought, it's worth repeating: Who would have thought he could become prime minister? Who would have thought his party could beat Paul Martin's in Quebec? And who doubts he accomplished it, at every step, through diligence in the face of long odds? The odds are going to stay long. One presumes he will remain diligent. He has already accomplished extraordinary things.

Pretty close to what I expected.

Nice to see the Bloc down to 51. It will never be that high again btw.

One question - is the charter burning party tonight or tomorrow? Ha, ha - just kidding.

One quick thought - Ontario disappointed me. I was confident that we would give the CPC 50 seats - if we did it would have been a strong minority as opposed to the slender one it is.

This parliament will last some though - the Liberals will need some time to rebuild. That means Harper will be PM during the next Quebec provincial election. That will be one of the most key issues during this mandate.

Anyway, looking forward to hearing from our new PM - it's almost 1am now.

I was invited to my neighbour's place tonight for the election viewing / Leafs-Sens tilt on the picture-in-picture. They're calling it the Paul Martin Retirement Party!

Sounds good to me!

I'd like to know what my readers think will happen tonight.

My prediction when the campaign started:

Liberals 94
Conservatives 117
NDP 37
Bloc 60

My prediction today:

Liberals 97
Conservatives 119
NDP 31
Bloc 60
IND 1

UPDATE: A co-worker, who I haven't heard say anything about the election before, told me today that there is a Chinese saying - When a wall is falling, everyone pushes.

UPDATE2: At work here there is a little pool going on - the average currently stands at:
Liberals 90
Conservatives 130
NDP 32
Bloc 54
IND 1

Until I see the numbers from Ontario here I will not presume that the CPC has survived the disgusting Liberal attack ads and Martin's baying of all abortion all the time in order to scare the uniformed.

CTV story and video can be accessed here.

Here is something else he said during the press conference:

It's the Liberals now who are making this absurd and hypocritical attack on the NDP. They of all people. Trying to say that they are standing up for "progressive" Canadians.

I was furious when I saw Paul Martin last night on television saying this.

I saw Paul Martin during the 1990's - after we had surplus after surplus - building up surplus' while a million of our kids went hungry to bed every night, while thousands of Canadians went homeless and we were the only G8 country without a housing program. Doing nothing on the environment. In fact, George Bush doing more on the environment than Paul Martin and this man now, hypocritically in my view, has the nerve to suggest that they - these Liberals - these cynical manipulators who appoint - continue to under Mr. Martin - appoint a Manitoba bagman of their party to the Senate - a political hack as ambassador to Costa Rica

These are not progressive people. The only time they talk about being progressive is in the dying days of an election campaign - it's the only time they use the word! - is in the dying days of an election campaign when they try to go after the votes of ordinary Canadians - people who are indicating they are going to vote for the NDP. Well, I can tell you that this time it's not going to happen.

This guy has more credibility and integrity in his baby finger than Paul Martin has left in his entire body....

Good morning. I expect this will be my final press conference and I want to speak about the opportunity that Monday’s election presents to working people.
I’ve been in politics a long time. I entered in the election that elected Pierre Trudeau as Prime Minister. I worked with Mr. Trudeau on the Charter of Rights and I’m appalled at Paul Martin’s treatment of it as if it is a prop.
I know many long-time Liberals are looking at the Liberal Party they see and concluding they cannot in conscience vote for it. They are right.
No matter how unethical, undemocratic and unprincipled the Liberal Party becomes, the team of insiders at the top can simply not imagine people choosing to take power away.
It should be taken away. The Liberal Party thinks about itself more than working people. Its conduct in office has not been ethical. Its contempt for Parliament is rivaled only by its manipulation of voters.
In this election, Mr. Martin is asking voters who find Liberal behaviour unforgivable to vote for them all the same. And to those who choose a better option, he dares equate that with supporting the Conservatives. He should be ashamed.
I sat in a caucus with Tommy Douglas. With David Lewis. And with Jack Layton. For 40 years, I’ve seen New Democrats work for working people in Parliament. And we have the medicare system, pension system and a new budget to show for it.
Yet Mr. Martin accuses the New Democratic Party of partisanship. Were it not for the NDP putting its interests aside and putting working people’s interests first, the Liberal Party would have been fed to voters last spring.
It now is. And it has run a campaign that at best is incoherent, and at worst is deeply offensive. To women. To members of our armed forces. And to people who long for intellectual honesty in politics once more.
It is clear the Liberal Party no longer has the moral authority to deserve people’s votes. It is, simply, not the party it used to be or the party it portrays.
Mr. Martin’s team is running a campaign based on intellectual dishonesty. Cynical manipulation. And recklessly using significant issues for the sole purpose of continuing Liberal entitlement – which we know is used to benefit Liberal insiders, not working people.
For those reasons, I urge people to look at the option presented by Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party. And this once, vote for the kind of change you want. Vote NDP, for the kind that puts working people first.

When asked about his vision of Canada in the CBC Your Turn special last night, Harper started his answer had this line:

I guess it began when my mother handed me a puzzle when I was about 4 years old, a map of the country, and I built it and I've taken a keen interest in All things Canadian ever since.

It's at the 1:13:30 mark - video can be accessed here.

Reality Check time: This blog has only been active for 2 and a bit years and since Mr. Harper is 46 his numbers simply do not add up. He's got a 42 year hole in his numbers!

UPDATE: Michael Moore made a statement today on our election - he starts...

Michael Moore is currently in production on his next movie. As an avid lover of all things Canadian, he has issued the following statement regarding Canada's upcoming election on Monday

What an ass. The 'a' in All things Canadian... should be capitalized.

I read this on Babble:
There's a Radio-Canada story out of the the Lac-St-Jean area about a Liberal organiser in Jonquière-Alma (where the LPC is polling in the single digits), who has defected to the CPC. The Liberal candidate refuses to take offense. In the radio clip, he stops just short of saying that he's going to vote CPC himself.
The web story is here.

UPDATE: The Globe expands:
A Liberal candidate in the heart of Bloc Québécois country has conceded defeat with four days left in the election and is urging his supporters to throw their support behind the Conservative candidate in the riding.