The LPC and KHS running out the clock
The Ethics committee will have KHS come to testify, however I couldn't help but notice that the chair made a big deal that if the Minister allowed his extradition to proceed he would be ruled in contempt of Parliament.
I get the message, but I wonder if the libs are getting to far ahead of themselves?
KHS lawyers have petitioned the SC to another appeal, so the minister can say its in the courts hands at this point.
We also have the fact that Karl is going to be coming before that committee before his 15 day deadline is over, the only tactic left in in bag at that point is that he will refuse forcing the committee to obtain the speakers warrant. This would no doubt push his appearance to a date after Dec 1. I've a suspicion this was the plan worked out in advance by the legal team of KHS and their contacts in the OLO.
My advise to the CPC is this.
Don't offer any opposition to KHS appearing before committee. As a matter of fact enthusiastically endorse it as well as having Mr Mulroney tell his side.
Why?
KHS appearance before the committee is not the goal of the liberals, their goal is to nail Harper with something.
Allowing these two, Mulroney and KHS to appear before committee will make it clear this issue has nothing to do with Parliament. It will be on the public record as tabled by the committee that this is a civil matter.
You can guess where it goes from there, and its not the front page.
Why do I predict the committee will decide this way?
Just as government legislation in the House of Commons needs only the support of one opposition party to pass, so too does any committee only need the combination of one party plus the government members.
The liberals may have an agenda but they seem to be ignoring the fact (made obvious by Pat Martin's outburst the other day) that the NDP are seeking to undermine the liberals at every opportunity. My guess is that at the end of the day there will be a motion that in some form or another determines that the issue between the two men at the middle of this are in a nasty civil dispute over 300 grand and it has no bearing on this or previous governments (like the one that settled out of court with Mr Mulroney for 2 million).
Such a motino would leave the liberals holding the bag on this and being the only party supporting the idea of KHS deportation being delayed.
The worst of all possible optics of course is that KHS is going to refuse to play hostile witness before committee which will only further depreciate Mr Schriebers credibility.
It all hinges on how well the liberals have covered up how often and how long they have been in contact with KHS.
If they got sloppy even once, Karl will use it to his benefit and throw them under the bus in a heartbeat.
This guy is not Chuck Guite.
Labels: useful idiots
Ciies crying poverty
Crisis, cry the cities and apparently the big bad federal government should be giving them a slice of the GST for a start.
Here's a reality check.
Here in London we have a number of item that hardly qualify as infrastructure that where built while the crisis in infrastructure was developing.
Centennial Hall (debate rages at city hall on whether to tear it down or renovate it)
Convention Center (was suppose to renew downtown but ended up over budget and was then sold to a private interest)
Aquatic center (was going to be a big draw for major competitions but needs fixing)
Stone Henge
John Labatt Center (supposed to be the newest lynch pin to save down town, still costing money and still not paid for)
The latest is a call by vested interests for the city to build a "performing arts center".
The irony is that on the eve of that debate a sinkhole developed at the intersection of Wellington and Dundas, yet to be fixed.
So now DiCicco-Best and the rest of the chorus is whining for more federal money to avoid a crisis in infrastructure.
Here's a suggestion to the feds. Any city that wants the funds has to submit in writing that the funds do not get used for special projects like a "performing arts center".
Don't allow these guys the opportunity to pull a Charet.
Labels: the free lunch crowd at it again
Quotes to hang on to
First:
"Mulroney sued the government and received a $2.1 million settlement and an apology
after the then-Liberal government wrote the Swiss government in 1995 and alleged that Mulroney and Schreiber might have been involved in a kickback scheme involving the Airbus deal. In defence of his government's settlement with Mulroney in 1997, Chretien said he had no choice but to accept his fellow former-PM's account of events. "The former prime minister swore that he never had any business with Mr. Schreiber. We could not prove the contrary, so
the RCMP looked like they made a mistake," Chretien told reporters. "
Odd the way Chretien recalls these events, his government wrote a letter accussing Mulroney of taking a bribe, but somehow its the RCMP's fault. Its also odd that during that same interview Chretien feels an inquiry is the wrong way to go. Wonder what it is he's got to hide? Or is it that he wants to avoid going on the stand and being cross examined by Mulroney's lawyers?
Second:"A Taliban commander in the district, reached by telephone, dismissed the government toll as lies but acknowledged that his men had suffered casualties."
Could we ask that if the G&M has information on the location of Taliban (such as a phone number that can be traced) that they reveal same to the people fighting them.
Its a bit troubling to say the least that unnamed Taliban are able to get quoted by a major daily down playing our success in the field. Guess the Globe and Mail didn't get the memo that these guys are the enemy.
Labels: MSM bias
Mulroney and Schreiber
I know I should be concerned over this but for some reason my gut is telling me there are a lot of major news outlets with pre-written templates ready to go .....some of them may have been sitting around for a few years.
And all of it based on the statement of a guy facing criminal charges in Germany.
Imagine the rage the media and the opposition liberals will go into if Harper rags the puck long enough for Schreiber's extradition to go through and then hands the matter over to the RCMP?
I think I'm going to enjoy watching this.
Here's why.
The only way there can be an election is if the liberals believe they can put Harper on the defensive. If they believe this business over Airbus has any traction you bet the liberals will find their testicles in time for the next nonconfidence measure.
Think of the timing.
Harper has said he's going to get an independent third party to advice the government on how best to proceed, but no timeline.
Today Harper is reintroducing his senate reform bill with the understanding that when the NDP introduces its referendum bill it gets the governments support, a bill that is guaranteed to be held up in the senate if not returned to the commons altogether (read liberal obstruction to change).
Harper then has his opportunity to put the question of confidence to the house on an issue the liberals will feel safe opposing if they believe the M-S issue has legs.
Going forward in speculation, I presume that the day before the nonconfidence motion, Harper will make a decision on the issue that will take it out of play. It could be an inquiry, handing the matter over to the RCMP to investigate, or saying this is Schreibers feeble attempt to stay in Canada to avoid prosecution and that no action by the government is neccessary as this has nothing to do with the current adminstration.
I'm betting on the last possible outcome as it would leave the liberals holding the deciding votes on whether there will be an election or not, and having made statements to the effect they would be bring the government down it would do irrepairable damage if they sat on their hands again.
The beauty of it is that unlike Adscam this issue has nothing to do with the current government, so the liberals chosing this issue (and certain media outlets) to run a campaign on will be responded to with "last time we checked Mr Mulroney was not on the ballot" read witch hunt.
The media and the liberals have made careers out of attacking Mr Mulroney, its time they gave it a rest....but I know they won't being creatures of habit and all that.
Labels: Conservative majority, senate reform, useful idiots
Liberal on the lam
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/CityandRegion/2007/11/09/4642092-sun.htmlH/T to AGWN
"A warrant was issued yesterday for the arrest of a former Liberal riding association treasurer who failed to appear in St. Thomas court.
Suzan Pawlak, 49, is charged with 42 counts of fraud and uttering forged documents. "
Do the liberals really want the Harper government to start investigating past PM's?
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
I for one would like to know the details of why if the liberal government of J Chretien had such a good case against Mulroney why they paid out a 2 mil of tax payers dollars as an out of court settlement?
Or which ridings got the dirty money from Adscam?
Or why did Martin say first that CSL only made a few million when it was actually in the hundreds of millions?
Labels: useful idiots
Duffy Live and At Issue
As I watched the two last night I have to remark on a couple of subjects.
First, Dion's remarks on raising the GST have caused more damage to the liberals than any CPC attack ad ever could. MHF's panicked response said more than the spin she was trying to put forth.
Second, to liberals the thought of having a referendum on the senate has them in full damage control. It became obvious when senator Baker couldn't answer yes or no to whether he was in favour of reforming the senate. As an aside, to those that think it can't be don't due to the amending formula, think again. If a referendum result went contrary to what certain premiers where advocating (yes Dalton thats you), would they suddenly be more favourable to reform instead of abolishion? Also, Quebec you are only one province, so saying it can't be done without your say so is only true in light of the amending formula? The whole story is that the 50%-7 province rule is what decides, not one province (like Quebec) alone.
Third, the only ones feeding the rumour that the government wants to fire Rick Hillier are the ones reporting it, coughCBCcough. Here's a rumour I'll start to counter your stupid story.
Harper wants to make Hillier the next GG, because he wants a Commander in Chief that has actually commanded the troops. Why? Because he wants the appointment to be less about political correctness, and more about legitimacy as a head of state. Of course unlike Mansbridge, I'm not pretending my story is anything but a rumour.
Labels: beer and popcorn
Dumont threatening an election?
Gotta admire the way this guy is operating.
While the whole debate on "reasonable accomodation" rages on, he throws out an issue that causes the government to defend the status quo, which is support a school board system that no one cares enough to vote (4% turnout?) and has disparingly poor attendance and frighteningly high drop out rates. Seems there is no mushy middle. So while the PQ is setting off its own traps by race-baiting and Charet can't seem to get ahead, Dumont decides to table a confidence motion.
But here's the thing.
I don't think his intention is to trigger an election.
What I think he wants to do is force the other parties to chicken out and show fear in the face of an electorate.
Think about it. Which Quebec provincial party actually stands the best chance of election right now?
The liberal brand is doa, and the PQ well I believe folks look at them and see a party that is inhabited by the separatist elitists, and communist kook fringe. That leaves the ADQ in striking distance.
But again its not about forcing an election, its about showing up the other guys as not ready to fight one.
I'll give a clue how this works.
Remember the last federal election when Martin said he would debate for Canada anytime, and then Duceppe took him up on it? Then when Martin backed down Harper said he would do it if the current PM wouldn't? But then the nail went in the coffin when Duceppe backed down on Harpers challenge leaving Harper on the high moral ground.
Something like that.
Labels: Quebec politics
Layton, abolishing the senate, and liberals walking the electoral plank
I see at least two advantages to this proposal to Layton getting this debate going in Parliament.
-1- He knows, as much as some might assume otherwise, that to eliminate the senate does require a consitutional change. Going to a referendum first rather than say to set up a constitutional roadshow, keeps the process from getting off the rails by being co-opted by every special interest group with an axe to grind. It keeps the scope of the change on reforming or doing away with the senate and once the people have spoken it will be very hard for any government to ignore that, or hide behind a group of experts that apply the golden rule. Those supplying the gold write the rules.
-2- This keeps the issue out of the mushy middle. The conservative party wants to reform that chamber, now the NDP is for doing away with it. That leaves the liberals with no position until they join the debate (an option they have seemed to be very adept at lately), but worse because the only position left, keep it the same appointed, unelected, unequal, not reflective of regional interests, is the only ground unclaimed in this debate. The side of this point that is dangerous for the liberals is that if they don't want to be seen defending a patronage system for party hacks, they have to join a parade that has already started with Layton out front, or the other parade that was started many years ago by reformers. The difficulty is that to go with Layton's position casts Jack as the liberal choice, and to go the other way to reforming the senate validates Layton's contention of a Conservative-liberal coalition, albeit without the tacit approval of the liberal leader. Again, the liberals not leading the debate, but instead playing Johnny come lately.
-3- Having this issue come out like this also gives credence to another couple of points. Coyne wrote right after Harper last spoke before the senate committee that this is part of the dynamic change that once it starts you cannot stop it. It also fits nicely into one of the conservative attack ads on senate reform that asks the question "who supports 45 year terms for unelected senators?"
Due to the above points I'm for this question being added to the ballot next election, but by all means have the debate on the framing of the question. This is sure to out the statists as laking any claim to being so-called "progressives".
Lastly, lets make it two choices, reform or abolish. Retaining a flawed system of prime ministerial patronage won't do.
And make it a confidence measure.
Addendum:
Jack might also have another objective in mind. If this gets through Parliament and then is sent on to the Senate, the senator will be faced with the prospect of fish or cut bait. They might just see the only way out as a nonconfidence motion before the debate can take place...you know force an election ASAP by not sitting on their hands. You can do it, all you have to do is rebel against a sitting leader......call it "walking the electoral plank".
Update:
Seems
its working already after one day.
Labels: senate reform
Its about policy
This is just to clear one misconception up.
The current troubles the liberals are facing isn't so much about Dion, he's the symptom.
Its about policy, you have none. Or at least none other than power at all costs and being the natural governing party.
As long as you tenacously cling to the first you will be ineffective in oppostion.
And because of the second you will now do everything to avoid an election including abandoning any principle you may have had or said you had.
Now the chickens come home to roost.
When you have no policy, no leader, and there is no issue you will go to the mat on, you basically have no reason for existence other than just another lobby group on Parliament Hill.
So here's some advise....
-1- Get rid of the delegated process of chosing your leader
-2- Policy, get some and then stand by them, no matter what.
-3- Ditch the "establishment" from the party, these guys are about power (see one and two).
-4- Move into the present, its not 1967 anymore.
but you won't listen, so look forward to many more conservative governments in the future.
The other choice is to pull the plug and leave Dion's legacy as the last liberal leader.
Labels: Conservative majority
