All things Canadian.....

Ed's column in the Globe yesterday contained a few streches but this one stood out:

In the 1980s, Pierre Trudeau made a mistake in key elements of the national energy program that negatively affected the attitude of many in Alberta and Saskatchewan not only toward him but to Central Canada in general. Although his policy had that effect, no one, including myself, who was critical of parts of the program accused Mr. Trudeau of deliberately alienating Western Canada.

Really?
Anyone know how to access Hansard from the 32nd Parliament?

You think Bourque's thoughts on Dion are pretty rough, I can't wait to see what Don says about the leaders on Saturday night.

I wonder if other Liberal leadership possibilities - say John Manley - are thinking it's an opportunity to come into the race now and not be tarnished with the debacle of the past week.

I'm sure you've seen the article about his reservations about the coalition.

He was one of the MPs that I mentioned yesterday to watch.

Keith Martin next?

I did not know that:

On CBC, Peter Mansbridge and Don Newman were quick to pour cold water on the Prime Minister's assertion during his televised address that "Canada's government has always been chosen by the people." Both cited the Byng-King affair, in which the Governor-General refused to grant Mackenzie King a dissolution after his government was defeated and called on Arthur Meighen to form government. This is the precedent the opposition parties rely on to justify their request to Governor-General Michaëlle Jean to hand them power without an election.

In fact, Mr. Harper is correct. Mr. Meighen won the most seats in the 1925 election and the Governor-General intended to call on him to form government. However, Mr. King demanded that he be given the chance to form a government, and the Governor-General acceded to the demand. When he was defeated, power was transferred to the winner of the 1925 election, Mr. Meighen.

List of MPs that won by less than 5%:

Party	Riding	MP	Lead over 2nd place
BQ	Ahuntsic	Maria Mourani	0.0089
BQ	Haute-Gaspésie--La Mitis--Matane--Matapédia	Jean-Yves Roy	0.0193
BQ	Brome--Missisquoi	Christian Ouellet	0.0241
BQ	Jeanne-Le Ber	Thierry St-Cyr	0.0265
BQ	Gatineau	Richard Nadeau	0.0303
CPC	Kitchener--Waterloo	Peter Braid	0.0003
CPC	Egmont	Gail Shea	0.003
CPC	Mississauga--Erindale	Bob Dechert	0.0071
CPC	Oak Ridges--Markham	Paul Calandra	0.0072
CPC	Kitchener Centre	Stephen Woodworth	0.0075
CPC	Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar	Kelly Block	0.0097
CPC	Saint John	Rodney Weston	0.0143
CPC	South Shore--St. Margaret's	Gerald Keddy	0.0233
CPC	Surrey North	Dona Cadman	0.0318
CPC	Edmonton--Sherwood Park	Tim Uppal	0.0339
CPC	London West	Ed Holder	0.0368
CPC	West Nova	Greg Kerr	0.0379
CPC	Roberval--Lac-Saint-Jean	Denis Lebel	0.0389
CPC	Saanich--Gulf Islands	Gary Lunn	0.0407
CPC	Beauport--Limoilou	Sylvie Boucher	0.0415
CPC	Vancouver Island North	John Duncan	0.044
CPC	North Vancouver	Andrew Saxton	0.0489
Ind	Portneuf--Jacques-Cartier	André Arthur	0.0147
LIB	Vancouver South	Ujjal Dosanjh	0.0005
LIB	Brossard--La Prairie	Alexandra Mendes	0.0012
LIB	Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca	Keith Martin	0.0012
LIB	Brampton West	Andrew Kania	0.0043
LIB	Brampton--Springdale	Ruby Dhalla	0.0171
LIB	St. John's South--Mount Pearl	Siobhan Coady	0.0276
LIB	Papineau	Justin Trudeau	0.0278
LIB	Guelph	Frank Valeriote	0.0304
LIB	Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe	Brian Murphy	0.033
LIB	Mississauga South	Paul Szabo	0.0464
LIB	Eglinton--Lawrence	Joseph Volpe	0.0474
LIB	Malpeque	Wayne Easter	0.0491
NDP	Welland	Malcolm Allen	0.0059
NDP	Edmonton--Strathcona	Linda Duncan	0.0098
NDP	Burnaby--Douglas	Bill Siksay	0.0169
NDP	Sault Ste. Marie	Tony Martin	0.0271
NDP	New Westminster--Coquitlam	Dawn Black	0.0299
NDP	Western Arctic	Dennis Bevington	0.0382
NDP	Sudbury	Glenn Thibeault	0.0495

Regarding not running candidates in certain ridings: "that is something that I would not do as Green Party leader"


Recap the Green leadership debate.

Excerpts.....

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.

....

David Chernushenko:
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.

....

Elizabeth May:
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.

570News:

The University of Waterloo Weather Station says its the coldest February they have ever tracked.
Frank Seglenieks says conditions in January also made it feel even colder.
He says all and all, it will likely go down as an average winter in terms of the temperature.

Thanks Bruce.

You can hear it here at the 20sec mark.

Khan:
Amid speculation that a Liberal MP is planning to cross the floor to join the Conservatives, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion told the CBC Friday he is confident there will be no such defection and that the MP is a "committed Liberal."
Contrary to reports that Mississauga-Streetsville Liberal MP Wajid Khan had been wooed over by the Tories, Dion said Friday, "in politics you hear many things and to me, Mr. Khan is a colleague. He will be part of the caucus; he will work in a positive way."

Kyoto:
I said that if Stephen Harper was in government for two years and then I took power, that we wouldn’t have a chance to meet our Kyoto targets. However, had our government not been defeated, or even if I got the chance to become Prime Minister in 2007, we could still reach our Kyoto targets.

I'm sure there's more that can be added to this. For example, he must have some quotes explaining why he felt it wasn't necessary for LIberals to discuss ethics during the leadership race or how Paul Martin was actually a good Prime Minister.

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.