Monday, May 31, 2010

At Times Like This

It is really, really hard to be on Israel's side.

Update: Since all of the dead appear to be Turks, will Turkey invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter? Does it apply here? Thoughts.

Update 2: I suspect that no matter who Israel kills, Harper will back Israel.

Update 3: Glenn Greenwald conducts a thought experiment:
Just ponder what we'd be hearing if Iran had raided a humanitarian ship in international waters and killed 15 or so civilians aboard.
Recommend this Post

Shorter Jack Mintz

I guarantee that if business taxes were zero percent, the government would have all the money it needs and I will cherry pick statistics to prove it!*

*NOTE: Not a guarantee.
Recommend this Post

Question For Jack Layton

Are you going to let the government get away with this kind of douchebaggery, or are you going to crack the whip and save the long gun registry?
Recommend this Post

Friday, May 28, 2010

Jesus On A Crutch

The guy who told us that we wouldn't even have a recession, is now telling us, despite a crisis in Europe (and the definite threat of a double dip) that now is a good time to stop spending. The guy is a fucking genius.

Update: Krugman's view.

Update 2: It is criminally stupid to be worried about inflation in the middle of a deflation crisis.
Recommend this Post

What Caplan Said

Besides, there are culture wars within culture wars, some of which actually unite conservatives and their mortal enemies. For example, our politicians in Ottawa seem to live in an impermeable bubble of their own. The quite extraordinary spectacle of almost all members of Parliament indignantly refusing to make public their expenses speaks volumes about the distance between the political world and the real one.

The fact that the NDP has been the most intransigent in its righteous determination to keep the public's nose out of its accounts has bewildered the faithful across the land. What are they thinking? What are they hiding? Have they learned nothing from the Labour Party's humiliation caught charging the state for personal expenses? Has the culture of "The Hill" corrupted (with a few honorable exceptions) the entire caucus?

It's hard not to see the NDP position on this issue as a betrayal of what the party stands for. Add to this that about a third of the caucus may for the second time vote against the long-gun registry. This would, of course, confuse the culture warriors because the NDP would then be standing with the Harper government and its supporters – Canada's own equivalent of the National Rifle Association. These positions will surely test the loyalty of the 14 per cent to 18 per cent of Canadians who faithfully vote NDP, knowing it will not form a government.

On both counts, frantic efforts are being made to make this rogue NDP caucus come to its collective senses. But the fact such efforts are necessary at all tells its own dismal story.
Recommend this Post

Chantal Hebert Shouts At The Moon

Tells Liberals to "wise up" about electoral reform. [Liberal]Why should they do that? Soon, the people of Canada will wise up and we will have a Liberal majority government again[/Liberal]!

Seriously, there are Liberals who are for electoral reform, but they are not in control of the party. In fact, the opponents of reform in Ontario who did the most damage, were Liberals, some of whom reside in the editorial pages of the very Toronto Star, within which Ms. Hebert is writing. So, until Liberal reformers take control of the party, the idea of the Liberal Party, as an institution, getting behind electoral reform is a pipe dream.

Update: As if on cue, we see the "Just wait and the Liberals will control all, once again" wing of the Liberal Party pop up.

Update 2: Ok, so it looks like BCL does support the idea of electoral reform, but I still hold that hanging on to the idea that a Liberal majority is just around the corner is a zombie that just won't die, in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is this zombie that is holding the Liberals back from truly embracing reform.
Recommend this Post

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Liberals Suicidal Or Colluding With Conservatives

Warren does not provide a link, so I am not sure where this is coming from. But, if it is from Liberal HQ, I would say it either means the Liberals are delusional about their chances to form a majority government, or the faction in charge of the party likes things as they are, with the Conservatives in charge (my preferred theory). Such a strategy confirms my suspicions that the blue Liberals have a defacto coalition with the Conservatives, but want to pretend otherwise so as to protect their own positions with their party and ward off civil war with the reds.
Recommend this Post

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Soon Come The Color Codes

Tories warn of renewed 'coalition risk'. I swear these guys can't make a move without looking at the Republican Handbook. Inferring that coalition=terrorist attack is sadly, becoming just another day in Washington Ottawa.
Recommend this Post

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

It's His Nature

The progressive blogosphere is all a twitter about the government's latest move to keep political advisors away from parliamentary committees. Me? I just have to ask, what did the opposition think was going to happen, after they "compromised" on parliamentary supremacy? Harper is doing what any good bully does, he senses weakness and he is exploiting it. If the opposition had the balls to say no to Harper and stick to it, he would back down, or, even better, we would have an election. As long as the opposition keep dropping their pants and bending over, Harper will continue to rape them with a beer bottle.

Update: I suspect the Speaker will again rule that the parliament is supreme (lol), but beg for a compromise and throw it back into the laps of the hapless opposition, who will then limbo their way to the PMO's way of looking at things.
Recommend this Post


Crown Attorney Kryptonite?
Recommend this Post

Monday, May 24, 2010


From the Globe:
The Harper government turned its back on advice from its own civil servants when it excluded abortion funding in its G8 maternal- and child-health initiative, The Canadian Press has learned.
I am sure Minister Oda would be glad to go in front of a committee to defend ignoring the advice of her officials. Bev? Bev?
Recommend this Post

Red Liberals Pay Attention

Your blue masters are an unhappy lot:
Liberals, who hit 25 per cent in public opinion last week, are not happy with Grit Leader Michael Ignatieff, but his leadership is surviving on life support because as things stand there is no viable candidate who could take his place, say Liberal sources.
Really? No one, or just no one acceptable to the blues? H/t to the Jurist.
Recommend this Post

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Humor For A Sunday

Kady writes some funny stuff:
Given the example set by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley -- who made a surprise appearance at the very same committee a few weeks back, during which she made an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to field questions on behalf of her director of communications, Ryan Sparrow -- would it not be reasonable and logical to expect the prime minister to do the very same thing on Tuesday morning, when -- by sheer coincidence, I'm sure -- Soudas himself is -- or was -- supposed to go before the Ethics committee to discuss alleged interference in Acess to Information requests?

It was, after all, Stephen Harper, not his communications director, who, as the latter explains it, "ran for office/accepted the role and responsibilities of being [prime] minister, including being accountable to and answering questions in parliament." He wouldn't want to send the message that he is less willing to take responsibility for the actions of his staff than his own minister, would he?

There are, of course, some annoying parliamentary traditionalists out there -- including the one behind this keyboard -- who will point out that, although this latest tactic may get full marks for procedural chutzpah, it is, alas, completely unenforceable, since Parliament has the power to send for persons, papers and records. We just went through all that with those soon-to-be-delivered detainee-related documents, so really, there's no excuse for this apparent outburst of cabinet-wide amnesia forgetfulness. (emphasis mine)
Kady is so cute, "soon to be delivered detainee-related documents". We should live so long. Maybe the opposition will "stand up" to the PM again and have a group of "eminent jurists" vet any potential list of witnesses. I am sure the PM will "bend" to another show of "parliamentary supremacy". Really, the PM knows the opposition is composed of wieners and is acting accordingly. He knows when push comes to shove -- well it never does come to shove, does it? The opposition always runs away, screaming in terror of an election.
Recommend this Post

Friday, May 21, 2010

Shorter Jeffrey Simpson

You all know I hate the idea of anyone but the two big parties getting anywhere close to power in this country. Well, listen to my latest scheme to cut 30% of the population out of decision making.
Recommend this Post

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Shorter Margaret Wente

Yes Stephen Harper was stupid enough to open up the abortion debate overseas,but believe me, he is not stupid enough to open up the debate in Canada. So, go back to sleep, women of Canada. Harper doesn't have a hidden agenda. It's all in your mind.

The PMO must be really afraid of this issue if they are sending Margaret out as their champion. If this doesn't work, they will send out Christie Blatchford. God help us all.

Update: I guess the PMO felt it had to do something, when faced like columns like this one from Chantal Hebert:
By their own admission, pro-choice Conservative MPs voted against the Liberal motion on the basis of its wording, not its intent. A number of pro-choice Liberals were also absent for the vote on their party’s motion.

But in a future Parliament dominated by a Conservative majority, the outcome might be different. And if a prime minister is to be judged by his deeds rather than by his words, one should not count on Harper to stand against the anti-abortion tide of his caucus.

While the Prime Minister continues to maintain that he has no desire to wade back into the abortion debate, his government’s actions on the maternal health front are rightly seen by the Canadian anti-abortion lobby as its biggest victory in decades.
So, as usual, the message from the PMO is "Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?"
Recommend this Post

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Musical Interlude

Fabulous Secret Powers. Great video or the greatest video.

Recommend this Post

More Listeria In Ontario's Future

Did Tim Hudak just promise to scale back food inspections in Ontario?:
“We’ll get government out of our personal lives, our homes, our fridges, our backyards and, yes, our wallets,” said the rookie PC leader, who took the party helm last June, succeeding the more centrist John Tory. (emphasis mine)

Update: Also, given the proximity to the date of the 10th anniversary of this triumph of Conservative ideology over common sense, Hudak should have held his tongue.
Recommend this Post

On Coalitions

Jeff Jedras has an interesting post about coalitions today. For what it is worth, I think the Liberals would be wise to float the possibility of creating a "grand coalition" with the Conservatives, or vice versa, if the Liberals get more seats in the next election. It would dampen the Conservative attacks and it is a much more plausible scenario, given who is running the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP. Such a strategy would show that somebody in the Liberal Party is actually thinking about things, as they are, rather than wishing their lives away, praying for the return of the good old days. It would also show that the Liberals are putting country before party and who knows, it might prove to boost the party's popularity.
Recommend this Post

Did The Military And The Government...

Throw a brick through Iggy's window with a note attached, written by David Bercuson? It sure reads like a threat to me. To me, it reads "Drop the snooping into the Afghan detainee issue and rein in those two commies, or else.
Recommend this Post

Monday, May 17, 2010

File This Under So What

So what, a majority of the population (58%) wants Harper to fund abortions overseas. Harper is ruling for his 30% base and no one else. In fact, everyone else can go fuck themselves. 30%, as long as Harper can slice the remaining votes the right ways, gives him minority government forever. God bless FPTP.
Recommend this Post

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Why Malcolm Gladwell Will Never Be On CBC Again

I am sure the government's political commissar, Kory Teneycke, has already added him to the list of "unreliables". I mean, Gladwell actually had the nerve to speak at a Liberal think tank. Doesn't he know that disqualifies him from ever appearing on the CBC? Malcolm has been away too long.
Gladwell, who was raised in southwestern Ontario, spoke at the “Imaging Ontario's Future” conference at the Blue Mountain resort here.

“I was very grateful this invitation came from you and not the Tories,” he joked. “Otherwise my mother would have disowned me.”

Gladwell, whose books include The Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers, is a graduate of the University of Toronto's Trinity College.

He spoke of making the case for a “new kind of liberalism” and the importance of a proactive government with a clear message and agenda.
Recommend this Post

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Saturday Evening Pondering

Can you really call yourself "Supreme" if someone else gets to make the final decision? Do we have responsible government if an unelected body has a veto over what our elected representatives can see? I don't think we do. Our country is in a mess and there is sweet diddly I can do to help it. So, I think I will get up AND MAMBO!
Recommend this Post

The Agreed Upon Narrative

Here is the new agreed upon narrative by our overlords, nicely summed up by the Winnipeg Free Press:
The all-party agreement tabled Friday implicitly recognizes that both sides of this war of words have real merit. The agreement is that an all-party committee of four MPs -- one for each party in Parliament -- and four designates will be sworn to secrecy and given access to some 10,000 pages of documents. They will review them and decide which should be released to a parliamentary committee and which remain secret. Where disputes occur, disputed documents will be submitted to a panel of three jurists, to be agreed among the parties, who will then make a final decision.

The opposition, of course, could have demanded absolute control of the review and releases -- Jack Layton, in fact, blustered that he would settle for nothing less -- but they didn't. That they didn't was a sign that, more than anything, they didn't want to be seen as overplaying their hand and triggering an election that nobody wants.
Both sides of the argument have merit, regardless of what the Speaker's ruling said. The opposition parties were wise to back down from the position of the Speaker's ruling and bend to the will of the government. Everyone is happy there is no election over something as stupid as the idea of Parliamentary supremacy. These are now the official truths of our betters. Anyone who disagrees with this narrative does so at the peril of being ridiculed as "not serious".

Update: Another lonely voice suggesting that the emperor has no clothes, joins in. My only disagreement with him is his blaming of the Liberals. I see it as a joint failure by all of the opposition parties.
Recommend this Post

Friday, May 14, 2010

The Most Unintentionally Funny Headline Of The Day

Goes to the Globe and Mail for its Parliament takes another step toward being a true arm of government masterpiece for John Ibbitson's achingly wet kiss to the geniuses behind today's deal.
Recommend this Post

Opposition Look Like Fools

Standing around whining about how the mean Conservatives aren't living up to the spirit of their agreement on ten percenters:
It was revealed this week that she [Candice Hoeppner] is sending letters to individual homes in the ridings of the eight Liberal MPs who voted in favour of scrapping the registry. “Dear Friend,” she begins, and goes on to explain that Mr. Ignatieff is “forcing” their MP to support the registry after they did the “right thing” on second reading by voting with her.
Her letter is a clever way around the recent ban on the use of taxpayer-funded partisan flyers called “10 per centers.”

In mid-March, MPs – with the exception of the Conservatives – supported a Liberal motion to abolish the practice of mailing the partisan pamphlets to voters outside of their ridings.

It was deemed too expensive, the flyers too aggressively partisan; estimates were the practice cost up to $10-million each year.
There is a view among some opposition MPs that her letter-writing campaign goes against the spirit of the ban.

She disagrees: “I have completely complied with the rules of the House.” She says she has sent between 500 and 800 letters to people in the eight Liberal ridings who have indicated to her they are interested in the issue. (Taxpayers are picking up the tab for the postage – 57 cents a letter.)
And yet, these same whining losers are expecting this government to live up to the spirit of the agreement on the detainee documents. As P.T. Barnum once said, "There is a sucker born every minute". To which I would only add, "When they grow up they graduate to the opposition benches in Ottawa".
Recommend this Post

The Dry Turkey

I am a bit dismayed by this paragraph:
The Harper government and opposition parties have agreed in principle to use a panel of outside experts to referee disputes over whether secret Afghan detainee records can be made public after being shown to select MPs.
How much do you want to bet the Harperites will challenge every document that comes before them, as a means to drag this process out for, well, forever? It is their way. They will live up to the letter of the agreement. Period (and only if they feel it gives them political advantage). With the Harperites, there is no such thing as the "spirit" of anything. Opposition beware, you are being suckered, again.

Update: If what Kady is saying is true, then it is a win for the good guys. But, I will keep my powder dry until the details emerge. The bottom line, I don't trust the Harperites as far as I can throw them.

Update 2: After reading this, it is much harder to say it is a win for democracy. Again, it is the details that matter. Can the government simply say that everything needs to be referred to the panel of experts? If so, the opposition has signed on to a slow motion cover-up. The next few days will tell.

Update 3: Ok, this section is really troubling:
Where the Committee determines that such information is both relevant and necessary, or upon the request of any member of the Committee, it will refer the document to a Panel of Arbiters who will determine how that relevant and necessary information will be made available to Members of Parliament and the public without compromising national security - either by redaction or the writing of summaries or such techniques as the Panel find appropriate, hearing in mind the basic objectives of maximizing disclosure and transparency.(italics mine)
It seems to me that the opposition has given the government a suspensive veto (which it will use with wild abandon, mark my words) and has allowed the government the opportunity to move the final decision away from elected members to an unelected "panel of experts". This is a shocking capitulation by the opposition.

Update 4: Ok, in looking at the text again, I have it wrong. It looks to me as if the "panel of arbiters" gets to see all the documents and it is they and not the committee of MPs who get to decide what is redacted. The single member clause is there to allow MPs to appeal to this body in the case where the committee does not agree with them about whether a document should be released. Still an unelected body is going to have the final say as to what the Parliament and the public as a whole get to see unredacted. To my mind this is just plain wrong and a loss for our democracy.

Update 5: The fact that Stephen Harper is happy with this deal tells me all I need to know about it.

Update 6: Curiosity Cat agrees this stinks like dead fish. I watched Power and Politics and the talking heads all basically framed this as a way for the opposition to avoid an election. So, how do you feel about Canadian democracy tonight? Me, I think it has been sold out by a bunch of cowards, to a bunch of authoritarian thugs.
Recommend this Post

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Memo To Canadian Political Leaders

Ignore Chantal Hebert. She is making way too much sense. Continue to treat Canadian voters with contempt. It is doing wonders for your reputations.
Recommend this Post

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Go Kory Go!

Kory Teneycke called Helena Guergis "Honey", on Power and Politics. Way to go Kory! That kind of "pat on the head" language is sure to appeal to the girls ladies.
Recommend this Post

Jeffrey Simpson Argues Against Evil Coalitions. Harper Smiles

Mr. Simpson, let me set you straight. First, the election was just last week. The people of the U.K. created the present configuration of the House of Commons through a democratic vote (however grotesquely warped the voting system).

This democratically elected House of Commons is now in the process of deciding who will form the government, based on who has and can keep confidence. If it is the will of the majority of this democratically elected House of Commons that the electoral system should be changed, it is a democratically arrived at decision on its face. So, please spare me the whining about referenda. Referenda are one tool of democratic governance, but not the only one and indeed, in my opinion, not the best one. The people of the U.K. elected their MP's to lead and pay them pretty well to do so. Let the will of the House of Commons, as created by the people, do its job and stop trying to Americanize the Westminster system. God knows that route has done nothing to enhance either Canada's democracy, or the reputations of our legislatures.

Update:Let me just add that for all his appeals to "democracy", Mr. Simpson seems quite willing to accept a system whereby absolute power is handed over to a single party that enjoys less than fifty percent support from the voters. It seems that Mr. Simpson's democratic tendencies are more sham than real. He likes the trappings of democracy, as long as the trains run on time.
Recommend this Post

Saturday, May 08, 2010

Where Have I Heard This Before?

Polly Toynbee in the Guardian:
If not now, when? For the first time the prize is within grasp. The people have spoken – and none of the above won. Radical reform to an electoral system that has fallen apart is at last on offer. The deadly duopoly between two moribund parties has broken. But will it be cobbled together again as if nothing had happened?
I won't get too excited about this. I have seen this movie far too often for that. I will just say that I hope electoral reform does come to the U.K. No one (except us) deserves a functioning electoral system more.
Recommend this Post

Of Gay Pride And Slush Funds

I have a couple of instant thoughts after hearing about the Harperites' decision to defund the Toronto Gay Pride festivities. First, I wonder how John Baird feels about all this and second, why is no one making the connection between this and the Sponsorship Scandal? As it is reported in the Star:
Industry Minister Tony Clement insisted Friday the decision has nothing to do with anti-gay sentiment among some members of the ruling Conservative caucus.

Rather, he said the government decided to fund fewer events in major cities this year so it can spread the money around more equitably to smaller centres. (emphasis mine)
Everyone with a brain knows that "smaller centres" means Conservative ridings. Why is no one asking why this money is being used as as a Conservative slush fund, much as the Sponsorship Fund was by the Liberals?
Recommend this Post

Friday, May 07, 2010

Support The Long Gun Registry

These folks are on board. All that is needed now is for the NDP to grow a pair, realize they have been had by the Conservatives and stand up for the principles they say they stand for. Drop Jack Layton a line here and let him know the NDP needs to support the registry in order to get your support.
Recommend this Post

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Welcome To The Enemies List Folks

I welcome the police of Canada to the vast conspiracy plotting against the government. I am sure you will be denounced by the "right thinking Canadians" in due course. Now, if only the NDP would join.
Recommend this Post

Narrow That Message, Bev

The "Eye of the Needle Award" goes to Bev Oda. Yesterday in the House, Minister Oda said this about the U.S. policy toward aid and abortion:
Mr. Speaker, this government wants to ensure that the G8 initiative is actually going to get results.

What I want to ensure is that that side of the House has done its homework. If members go to the U.S.A. website, they will find that the U.S.A. does not support the funding of equipment, the training of people who perform abortions, and neither does it support research into abortion.

They should do their homework. We know the facts and we know how to really make a difference in the lives of mothers and children.
I noticed how narrowly and carefully the Minister framed her response. That always gets my bullshit detector flashing red. I went to the website as she suggested and found this page which outlines the U.S. policy on abortions overseas. I draw your attention specifically to the rescinding of the Mexico City Policy. The U.S. government allows USAID to fund organizations that carry out abortions, as long as the funding for abortions comes from non-U.S. government sources. So, unlike in Canada where it appears our government is cutting off any agency that provides abortions for any reason, regardless of the source of funding, the U.S. is going a different route. Canada is going the Mexico City Policy route which, like all things Republican, is more in line with the thinking of the Conservative Party's base.

I am sure Ms. Oda wasn't trying to suggest that Canada was onside with the Obama administration's general aid aims on maternal health. I am sure she was just trying to give the PMO's crack Propaganda-Abteilung research team a shout out.
Recommend this Post

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Keep Kory Teneycke On CBC

With due deference to Charlie Angus, I think the CBC has done the nation a service by putting Kory Teneycke on Power and Politics. Watch his contribution to the "Power Panel" here. Anyone who can, as Kory does starting about the 43:00 minute mark, argue that the groups heretofore funded by the government are merely sops to the Liberal base and that Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth should not sit with the Conservative caucus, because she is not a conservative by his definition; should be encouraged to speak out daily. Kory Teneycke is the voice of the smirking frat boy wing of the Conservative Party and in my opinion, of Stephen Harper. If you want to know what the real Conservative vision for Canada is, you need to hear from people like Kory Teneycke.
Recommend this Post

Monday, May 03, 2010

Charm Offensive

Conservatives to the women of Canada: "Shut the fuck up', or else. I thought, as a country, we were past the point of threatening women with violence, even metaphorically .
Recommend this Post

Negotiating With The Harperites

A quote from Homer Simpson illustrates the problem. If you remember, on one of the Halloween episodes, Homer had the ill fortune to be granted some wishes, but each wish did not turn out to his liking. In fact, he kept getting screwed. So, in frustration and with his last wish, Homer says:
I wish for a turkey sandwich on rye bread with lettuce and mustard. And... and I don't want any zombie turkeys, I don't want to turn into a turkey myself, and I don't want any other weird surprises, you got it?
And so it appeared that Homer got his way, but upon tasting it, he found the turkey was dry! Homer was screwed again. That is what I imagine the opposition is up against during their negotiations with the Harperites. You just know that the opposition will come out with what they think is a agreement from the government to disclose the documents, only to discover that the Harperites have found a loophole allowing them to screw them again. With the Harperites, there are no "good faith negotiations", only battles of wits. I just hope the opposition has the sense to see that.
Recommend this Post

Sunday, May 02, 2010

Seeking The Truth?

Dear Christie Blatchford and Tim Powers,

If you wanted to know whether or not Richard Colvin is a liar, all you needed to do is urge the government to release the unredacted documents. That neither of you did that tells me you are not interested in the truth, but only in smearing Colvin on behalf of the government. Thank you and have a pleasant Sunday.
Recommend this Post

Saturday, May 01, 2010

Opposition Poison Pill

Amir Attaran offers an interesting way of forcing Harper's hand:
And what if the Harper government rejects both of these options? Simple: the opposition should bring a motion holding it in contempt of Parliament and Canada's Constitution. Since that could trigger an election, the opposition needs to design its contempt motion to benefit at the polls, while communicating the government's untrustworthiness and incompetence in the war itself.

In March 2008, Harper sought Parliament's conditional consent to extend the Afghanistan combat mission to 2011. Parliament gave consent, but only because Harper's motion contained a requirement that "the government must commit to a policy of greater transparency with respect to its policy on ... detainees."

Now, with Harper breaking his own condition and hiding the detainee documents from Parliament, he is inviting Parliament to place the combat mission back on the table. Thus when the opposition introduces a motion finding the government in contempt, that should also recall Harper's March 2008 motion, and revoke Parliament's consent to the combat mission extending through 2011. Harper will howl, but he linked "greater transparency" to the combat mission's continuance in the first place.

Done this way, Harper will fear making the contempt motion a confidence matter, because if he precipitated an election, the Conservatives would be isolated as the only party backing an unpopular war. This they cannot afford: over half of Canadians polled oppose the war. And more will soon oppose it, once the summer fighting resumes, bloodier this year because of more aggressive American tactics in Kandahar.
Not that Harper cares about breaking his word. The man is a pathological word breaker, but it would be interesting to see how he would handle the idea that since he did not live up to his word on the mission in Afghanistan, the agreement is null and void.

Attaran also does a nice job of summing up a coherent opposition strategy:
In sum: negotiate, as the Speaker asked. Aim for compromise on a public inquiry or secret House session, but rule out lesser options, because the underlying issues -- Canada's Constitution, and mismanagement of the war -- are too serious. If negotiation fails, bring on the contempt motion, and tie it to Harper violating his own conditions for extending the combat mission. If that triggers an election, fine, then confront Harper on his record of risking Canadian soldiers' lives, under an appalling detainee policy he stubbornly defends.
Recommend this Post

The "Legal Obligations" Smokescreen

The Conservatives have no intention of complying with the Speaker's order. Coyne lays it all out for us here. Parliament has the constitution on its side. If one part of Parliament wants to see documents and they are not categorically excluded from seeing them in legislation they themselves passed (which they are not), then the government has no choice but to comply. This whole "legal obligations" nonsense is nothing more than a framing device for an upcoming election Harper will call if the opposition doesn't bend to his will. The bottom line, Harper is stretching the truth to beyond the breaking point and we would be better off as a country if he was retired and writing papers about flat tax schemes at the Fraser Institute.
Recommend this Post