Ahead of the Curve: Ignatieff lays out Senate ideas first

It's a good thing that QP is on CTV, or else I wouldn't (be able) to link this story and blog my thoughts.

Reforms that Ignatieff could get behind:

• Twelve-year term limits
• Limits on a Prime Minister's power to appoint

Senate elections are not on the table for Ignatieff for one of two reasons (or both) that I can imagine: first, an elected Senate would be an explicitly partisan Senate and would not serve as the purpose of sober-second thought that it is designed to do.

Now, everyone might yap about how partisan the system already is with the PM appointing persons of his own political party, but I remind you, that the MOST partisan PM regarding the Senate is Stephen Harper, with 33 appointments - all CPC - over four years.

Martin, on the other hand, appointed 16 in his 3 years - twelve Liberal, three Conservative and one Progressive-Conservative. But, that is not to deter the obvious appointments of Chretien, 32 over 13 years - all Liberal.

Secondly, Senate elections would be a constitutional nightmare. It would effectively change our electoral system and changes to our electoral system would mean a nation-wide referendum with all the bells and whistles, just like Meech Lake and Charlottetown.

Now, a limit to the Prime Minister's prerogative to appoint could be, say, making it the mandate of the PM to choose Senators-in-Waiting from provinces where fair elections are held.

However, Ignatieff suggests that we ought to set up an independent public service appointment commission so that the Senate gets the best possible candidates instead of ideologues.

The question remains: what is the point of the Senate and what are we to do about it if we are unhappy? Changing the function of the Senate is a huge mess that no PM wants to get into and I don't think the electorate wants to get into.

Therefore, trying to remove the partisanship of the Senate ought to be the goal of any reform package. I think Igantieff's idea of a public service commission is right on the money, yet, I'd also instruct the committee to look at Senators-in-Waiting first from provinces who elect them over other PM candidates.

The rest of the interview with Craig Oliver details the Canadian plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan in 2011, the environment (on which Ignatieff backs a cap-and-trade plan over a tax...), and international economics and the state of the domestic economy.

It is refreshing to hear Oliver ask Ignatieff questions that are framed with him as being the leader of the Government-in-Waiting -- which he is!

Ignatieff is proving to be more of a leader every day and is getting the Liberal message out. While they might be a little shadowy on where they're plans actually lie...but that is another story. Remember, Harper went 3/4 of the way in the last election without a platform and look where that got him. Maybe that's not such a bad idea...

Khadr: It's about Citizenship

Now, I'm just as appalled by today's ruling as everyone else on Pro-Blogs, but I think that at the heart of this issue is not the violation of Khadr's rights unless we take them into context of what it means to be a Canadian. Ultimately, this should be a citizenship issue.

On this front, there are two schools of thought: the first, is that whether or not Khadr was engaged in terrorist activity his rights as a Canadian are inherent to his very being and ought to be upheld no matter how he conducts his life outside of the Canadian state. The second, hinges the rights inherent to Canadian citizens on how one conducts their life.

In one corner, rights are an inherent and indivisible part of what it means to be a Canadian citizen. In the other, rights can be, and ought to be, divisible from Canadians who do not act, for lack of a better understanding, properly Canadian. For some, Khadr's alleged terrorist activity (he has not faced a fair trail yet to date) and his detainment by the American armed forces in Guantanamo Bay are enough for the state to dismiss his citizenship and the rights that are inherent to being Canadian. My question is: what does it mean to be Canadian?

My problem with our contemporary notion of citizenship is that its origins are bound up with the Westphalian concept of the nation-state. Citizenship in Canada is defacto if you are born within the borders of the State. Khadr, therefore, is a Canadian citizen and entitled to full and equal rights as enshrined in the Constitution. However, there is a simmering attitude among many Canadians that his actions in Afghanistan are inherently un-Canadian and that his alleged participation in a terrorist organization ought to be enough for his rights/citizenship to be stricken; essentially, he should no longer be considered a Canadian.

If our rights are indivisible from our persons as free and equal citizens of Canada -- then today's ruling has essentially erased Khadr's citizenship by refusing to uphold his rights.

Where does this leave us potential un-citizens? It leaves us with two options. The first is to protest the Supreme Court's ruling and pressure the government to uphold our Westphalian-structure of citizenship and demand that the country has a duty to preserve Khadr's rights. The second is to engage in a dialogue with one another about the very nature of what it means to be a citizen in light of the Khadr controversy.

Does merely being born within the borders of this state suffice to be entitled to full and equal rights under the Constitution? Or, is there something about the way one conducts themselves that ought to have implication for citizenship? Should citizenship be tied to outward expressions of Canadian-ness (like military service, community service, pledging allegiance to the flag, playing hockey, taking a standard test, etc.), which could range from something formal and bureaucratic (like test-taking or military service) to the fulfillment of an unwritten social contract?

Clearly, the image of Khadr as a terrorist makes people uneasy to embrace him as "one of our own." But lest we forget that he is not only a Canadian citizen, he is a human being with rights as outlined in the UDHR. To what extent are the rights of Canadian citizens merely a localized reflection of the universal rights? If we are all born free and equal, to what extent does it matter where we are born? Whether or not the Canadian government calls for the United States to repatriate Khadr, does not the US have a responsibility to uphold his universal rights -- which have also been dismissed by detaining him for years without trial?

I'm not suggesting that using Khadr as a case we ought to overhaul the requirements for Canadian citizenship. What I am bringing to the blogosphere is a debate over what it means to be Canadian given the Khadr context and the Supreme Court's ruling today.

What responsibility does the Canadian citizenry, at home and abroad, have to Khadr? What responsibilities have been ignored by the government and what can we do to prevent this from happening to anyone? Rights and citizenship are not a match-made in heaven like French Fries and Ketchup, they're indivisible from one another like the roots of a tree and its trunk. When one breaks down, the other is under threat of dying.

"Liberal" Judges no more: Policy trumps Constituional Rights

How 'bout them liberal judges, eh?

What does it matter if Khadr's rights were violated if we're not going to do anything about it? If we're not going to rectify the situation, if we're not going to restore his rights, if we're not going to treat him like the citizen that he is... then why acknowlege them at all? To whom does it benefit? What "victory" is this for Khadr?

[While] the Supreme court has ruled unanimously in a 9-0 decision that Khadr's rights were violated by the Canadian government...the court is saying they are not about to interfere in the Crown prerogative of the government to make decisions in foreign affairs in this case. In other words, they’re reversing a lower court order that said Canada had to ask the United States to send Omar Khadr back to Canada.

This is a frightening ruling for every Canadian citizen - be they of any political stripe. No partisan can argue that the court did it's job. The Supreme Court has let down the constitutional rights of one of our citizens because they didn't want to "interfere" with the policy of our Foreign Affairs department. Essentially, they yeilded to the perogative of the PMO -- since this is the place where the DFAIT gets their orders from.

What kind of a country is this? Where judges pass up their responsibilities and defer the rights of one of our own to the "policy" of the ruling political party? I cannot even begin to envision how damning this precident could potentially be on the liberties of all citizens in the future.

The true North strong and free, huh?

Not anymore.

"Three Cups of Tea" author Greg Mortenson asks the question...

Greg Mortenson, author of the NY Times Best-seller "Three Cups of Tea" and "Stones into Schools" came to KW tonight to talk about his experience doing development in central Asia for nearly the last two decades.

He was an honest man who openly shared his dilemma between his military background and the current situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His main point: education is the key to a peaceable world. By listening to the elders of Afghanistan, respecting the traditions of Islam, and making strangers into a global family, democracy will grow in the region.

Democracy cannot be plugged into another part of the world by an outsider. Democracy is the process of listening to one another and building something together.

To preface these inspiring and honest words, he asked the audience the question: "Is parliament still suspended?"

Strolling across the stage at the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium, he didn't use the word "prorogue," he didn't say "in recess," and he certainly didn't ask if parliament was "recalibrating."

He genuinely wanted to know what was the current state of Canadian democracy. And to those who replied with groans he said, "Huh..." Which was followed by a number of claps and a rink-wide chuckle.

Make no mistake HarperCons, this prorogation is an international blemish on our country. And while Tony Clement might dismiss a guy like Mortenson as a member of the "elite" because he wrote a book or two, he should be aware that Mortenson began his professional career in the military and takes exception to any kind of special treatment. He's that guy from Minnesota who loves football and hockey and just wants to make his mark on the world -- which just so happens to be an awe inspiring record of humanitarian relief and participatory development.

"Is parliament still suspended?" Yes, Greg, it unfortunately is. Canada is closed. Unless you consider Davos (speaking of elites) the forum of the people -- the forum of democracy, Canada isn't there. Taking the worst humanitarian disaster in Haitian history out of the equation, or should I say; making it the bar for government (not parliamentary) attention, Canada is closed to those who need Canada the most.

Hopefully next time you're in the country, we'll be able to shout-out the answer "NOT ANYMORE" from the rafters of the Aud.

EKOS: Government Up, Conservatives Down

Two polls out today: a voter intention poll and one in regards to the Canadian Haitian response. As suspected, Canadians approve of the Canadian government's response to the disaster in Haiti. And kudos is deserved for the Cabinet minister's who put their best foot forward during their local "economic recalibration" consultations to deal with the 7.1 earthquake.

Yet, approval for the governing party did not see the same boost. The prorogation stink has not washed off of Harper and his cronies, even though they are taking all the credit they can for the swift Haitian response.

To be clear, Canadians expected our government - be it Liberal or Conservative - to act swiftly to help out others who are in need of suffering. Period. That's the job we expect them to do and by simply completing this task, voters are not particularly inclined to reward them with votes.

I applaud Harper for lifting the donations matching cap. (Although, I'll remind you that PM Paul Martin never imposed a donations cap which he would later revoke during the Tsunami, but, cest le vie.) I'll applaud the Immigration Dept. for fast-tracking adoptions of Haitian children. I'll applaud the money that was coordinated and the multilateral talks in Montreal this week.

But...

But what else were they going to propose? As easy as it would be for a guy like me to imagine, I cannot envision the government actually doing less than what they did? Anything less would be beyond irresponsible (not that irresponsibility on the international stage necessarily alludes the Harper Conservatives).

Meanwhile, Team Iggy and the NDP are on the Hill conducting the work that they were sent to parliament to do. And voters are watching and paying attention. Was it the No Prorogue rallies? Is it growing dissatisfaction with Conservative representation and leadership - despite the Haitian response? Are everyday voters - from Joe Six-Pack to Edward the Elitist - starting to raise the bar for accountability, transparency, and good governance? (Albeit something they believed Harper was going to do four years ago...)

Iganieff is starting to make the right moves and the CPC should be weary going forward from here on out. The Liberals are making policy announcements nearly every day, with new soundbites critiquing the government's every move. The media is paying attention to everything CPC MPs are not doing. And an emboldened citizenry is continuing their march against prorogation through blogging, flash rallying, writing letters to the editor, or chatting around the water-cooler.

From Tom "I Don't Know Him" Flanagan to Adam Daifallah - former Conservative cheerleaders are coming out of the woodwork and openly questioning the integrity of their own party. And oddly enough, no one of any national repute is stepping up to go to bat for prorogation. (Yet, Daifallah implies that Harper will survive this social outburst and might suffer real consequences "next time." Which I can only imagine is some sort of weak endorsement of Harper's latest action.)

What will it take to turn the ReformaTory fortunes? An 8.6 earthquake? The sky raining fire?

May I suggest keeping their promises and going from there.

Worst. CD. Ever.

When I saw this advertised on TV, I was speechless. After a second look, I'm disturbed by the sexualization of the Mini Pop Kids and the promotion of this CD to a young audience.

Consider these kids singing the following lyrics from Lady Gaga's hit "Poker Face":

I wanna roll with him a hard pair we will be,
A little gambling is fun when you're with me, I love it,
Russian Roulette is not the same without a gun,
And baby when it's love if it's not rough it isn't fun, fun

Oh, oh, oh,
I'll get him hot, show him what I've got,
Oh, oh, oh
I'll get him hot, show him what I've got....

I'd say "shame on WalMart" for peddling this crap, but those words are not really strong enough to articulate who bad this CD looks and sounds.

The people who I really feel sorry for are the kids who will get this CD as a hastily-bought birthday gift. I just hope they're good at pretending to be happy.

"Fiscal Responsiblity" Myth

Greg Weston of SUN Media (via HarperBizarro) says it so perfectly,

Shrinking government won't trim deficit
Doing unpopular things like hiking GST will

By GREG WESTON, QMI Agency

[Paul] Martin had successfully turned a $36-billion deficit into a $3-billion surplus.

But the big myth of the day was it all happened from ruthless cost cutting.

A big part of the deficit was eliminated from raising taxes, raiding the Employment Insurance fund, and reducing federal payments to the provinces for health care and education — all the things the Harper government is now promising not to do.

In 2006, the Harper government won power from the Liberals and inherited a healthy $13-billion annual surplus. Three years later, the Conservatives posted a $5.6-billion deficit, in large measure created by politically popular cuts to the GST and other tax revenues, while increasing spending on government programs by $32 billion, or 18%. If the Harper government were serious about rebalancing the nation’s books, it would start by reversing the GST cuts and other goodies the country clearly can’t afford. Instead, poor Stock Day is being sent forth to convince Canadians the deficit can be cured by digging in quicksand.

Digging in quicksand. An excellent analogy for the Harper government's non-plan to get our economy and country out of deficit and back into the 21st Century.

I overheard two people talking on the bus the other day about the recent proposal for merger talks to begin between the City Council's of Kitchener and Waterloo. One friend turned to the other and asked, "As a Kitchener resident, how do you feel about the proposal?" The Kitcheneran replied, "Well, I don't like big government so I would have to say that on principle I oppose the idea."

What a mook. There are plenty of real reasons to oppose a merger proposal between Kitchener and Waterloo without going down the ideological road of tomfoolery.

The same can be applied to our economic crisis and massive deficit. The principle of "smaller government" won't solve our problem because our problem does not rest on the SIZE of government.

This is the classical problem that many armchair policy-wonks and e-politicos make: not asking the right question. What are the key questions we need to be asking? I'd start with: as a nation, how did we get into this deficit and what we must do to get out of it? I'd begin by looking at the books. I'd begin with looking at history. I'd begin with our 2006 surplus and trace back to today.

Was it massive government bureaucracy that wasted our tax dollars? Was it poor management? Was it throwing money at programs that didn't have social relevance? Were we trying to fix problems that weren't broken and ended up in the hole?

The cycle is painfully clear: Conservatives (be they PC or CPC) come into power claiming to take care of "fiscal imbalance" or to ease the burden off the taxpayer and the country ends up worse off than they began. Then, we elect a Liberal government who does exactly what needs to be done, and we bitch for a while, until surplus' are posted and we feel good about ourselves. And then, some conservative rears his head and claims that we're being taxed too much and we're then we get all swept up into some sort of frenzy and we elect "change" that ends up short-changing us.

This myth that conservatives are fiscally accountable, or responsible - pick whatever synonym you want - is ridiculous and I'm tired of hearing it.

In fact, I'm beginning to believe that no party can claim to be fiscally wise or prudent - let alone responsible. Which makes the Red Tory in me all crazy inside!

In 2006, barely 35% of the country gave Harper the power to go on his "Slash and Spend" rampage - a virtual economic Shock and Awe - in retaliation to a misappropriated 250 million. Then, of all things, that same 35% decided that this man was the guy we needed to dig ourselves out of a recession! A RECESSION! That's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.

Nay, that's like dropping a nuclear bomb on a fish farm.

What will Harper's committed 30% read if SUN Media knows the score and starts to get wise as to his economic fluff? Who will lead them if not the economist (in-name-only) cannot be the Fiscal Champion of our times?!

The No Prorogue rallies may have ended, but the march continues against Harper's war on economic sensibility and politically opaque government.

No Prorogue Rally - Waterloo Edition

Blogosphere! The Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament (CAPP) rally in Waterloo was a huge success! A crowd of 350+ citizens (the majority of whom were over the age of 30) gathered at Waterloo Town Square to celebrate democracy and protest the proroguing of our 40th parliament of Canada. (However, other KW sources are reporting higher numbers of 500+)

Speakers included the always-eloquent GPC candidate for K-W Cathy MacLellan, former LPC MPs Karen Redman (Kitchener-Centre) and Andrew Telegdi (K-W), as well as a former NDP candidate (whose name escapes me), a professor from the University of Waterloo, and a very inspiring 12-year old named Jennifer.

The rally was fun and exciting - people came and left in high spirits. While the event showcased two former Liberal Members of Parliament and a prominent Green candidate, the non-partisan spirit of the event was held in the highest regards. Some signs were funny, except one idiot had to bring a "Stephen Hitler" poster which crossed all sorts of lines.

My favourite poster had a picture of a pie on it and read, "Fascism is a dessert best served prorogued!" and another that asked, "Should Braid get Paid?" in reference to the allusive Member of Parliament for Kitchener-Waterloo, Peter Braid.

In all, this rally was a success due to the efforts of the Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament (Waterloo Chapter) on Facebook. I only saw a few posters on the WLU campus this week and the inter-generational representation reflected that it wasn't a student rally only - it was truly a moment for democracy in KW.

Kudos to everyone who came to the rally. But today is only the first step.

Dammit Janet! The country isn't ready for a Coalition Government!

As Fern Hill over at Dammit Janet! laments that her e-question didn't make the cut on Ignatieff's facebook town-hall I cannot help but lament the reality of the Canadian electorate: we are not ready for a coalition government. While I have become very fond of DJ, I am struck by the obvious rejection of Fern's question to Iggy.

No, he won't commit to an NDP-LPC cabinet with written support of the Bloc. So going on a tirade about how his political spine is made of rubber is a waste of time. Let's get real, there are better reasons to say "FUCK YOU" to Ignatieff than that.

That said, no one on this blog is going to disagree with your position on a coalition government. It is my view that that press conference was one of the boldest moves this country has seen in a long time - perhaps the most brave and democratic in our history. But the voters of Canada vehemently rejected the idea. It was so bad, the CPC was polling in the low-to-mid 40s. If the government was not prorogued and we (Liberals/New Dems/Greens) faced an election, the Harper government could have attained a Mulroney-sized majority. A MacKenzie King sized mandate!

The reality, the real reality, is quite clear. Ignatieff won't endorse the idea of a future coalition government until he comes to that bridge. And even if the LPC does come within a dozen seats of forming a majority coalition government, will he approach Jack to go with him to petition the GG? Will Jack accept?

Layton can say yes because that is what the NDP base would love to see. That's why Harper can pledge to reform the Senate with a mere vote in the House (convienently leaving out the pesky reality of that thing... whatcha call it... the constitution), because he knows it's a safe thing to say to his committed 25%. Jack can call for a coalition because he won't lose that 12%.

Don't read me wrong Fern, I'm not telling you what to blog on DJ. I'm saying that the coalition horse is dead.

Thompson & Toews: Not willing to face the prorogation music.

Two cabinet members, amidst the rumors of another cabinet shuffle, have decided they'd rather leave politics for "other" opportunities than face the post-prorogation music. First it was Veteran Affairs minister Greg Thompson (CPC - New Brunswick Southwest), and now there are conflicting reports that senior CA/CPC Manitoba MP Vic Toews (Provencher) is going to either: a) be shuffled, or b) quit politics altogether.

However, Toews says that neither reports are true. He won't be shuffled nor will he relinquish his throne in Steinbach.

After the 2002 Canadian Alliance coup-de-etat on then-leader Stockwell Day, I cannot see too many CPC members of parliament actively dissenting against Herr Harper. What we will see, though, is a slow exodus of veteran parliamentarians and cabinet members for "other" opportunities that are just too good to pass up in the private sector.

I'm predicting that, if Toews does end up resigning, we could see another 2 or 3 CPC parliamentarians leave before the next election. It will also be interesting to see how many current Harperites will not seek re-election whenever the hammer drops.

Thompson is leaving "on a high note" which one can translate to "while I'm still in the government" rather than "staying too long" which can also be translated to "before I go back to the Opposition." It's not as if he is in any danger of losing his seat - Thompson was elected in 1988, was defeated in 93, and then successfully won back his seat in 97 and hasn't seen any real competition since. Perhaps life in the government under Harper isn't what it was all cracked up to be.

Thompson, Toews, don't let the door hitcha on the way out.

EKOS would have made my day...

Except I've seen this movie before.

Asked which party they would support if an election were held tomorrow, 30.9 per cent of those polled chose the Conservatives, and 29.3 per cent backed the Liberals.

The poll found 15.3 per cent of respondents supporting the NDP, 11.9 per cent the Green Party and 10.2 per cent the Bloc Québécois.

The EKOS poll found that almost 64 percent of respondents felt suspending Parliament was "anti-democratic."

About 47 per cent told EKOS the government was moving in the wrong direction — a sentiment expressed for the first time since June 2009.

EKOS president Frank Graves said the results show the issue of prorogation isn't as obscure a topic as many people might have thought.

"Canadians have noticed, they do care and this is having a very negative impact on Conservative fortunes," Graves said.

The poll was conducted from Jan. 6 to Jan. 12 and involved a random sample of 3,730 Canadians. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.6 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

While this gives greater clout to the Strategic Counsel poll we saw earlier this week, I am hesitant to believe that any of these current numbers will translate into electoral results for the Liberals and (my pals) the Greens. However, it does point to a trend that progressives can be happy about. Specifically, I feel that Canadians expressing that the government is moving in the wrong direction is a good signal that change may be a comin'.

I have been pondering the semantics of most Conservative propaganda that shows up at my door in KW. It's usually a pamphlet that highlights some area of "policy" (if you can call it that) that the Conservatives are working on. Then, there's this "poll" on which you can cast your vote as to the party in which you believe is "on the right track" to address whatever issue that pamphlet outlines. Chiefly, I am interested in their use of the words "on the right track."

I've noticed that most of the "policies" and ideas touted by CPC candidates and members of parliament always are about getting Canada either back "on track" or keeping the country "on track" to success. It's a clever way to say that while the policy/platform/idea might not get the job done it will move us in the correct trajectory towards a goal that may, or may not, solve a problem. While Liberal voters and progressives, in general, want to know about what their candidates and representatives are going to do, it seems that the message from the Conservative camp is that they are primarily concerned with going somewhere else. The destination is what we're not told about.

While 47% is not a majority of Canadians, the breakdown of who thinks the government is heading in the wrong direction does not bode well for the CPC. More respondents in BC, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada felt that the government was going in the wrong direction (45%, 46.5%, 56.8% and 48.6% respectively). The region with the most respondents that declined to answer the question was Sask/MB. The province with the highest approval rating was, you guessed it, Alberta with 49.9%.

Among undecided voters, 51.2% said that the government was headed in the wrong direction compared to 21.7% who felt the government was going in the right direction. However, 27.1% of undecideds chose to skip that question.

But who are these people who believe the government is headed in the wrong direction? Well, of male respondents, 48.1% didn't like the direction of the government. 46.6% of females felt the same way. The all important age groups of 25-44 and 45-64 both believed that the government was going in the wrong direction by 51.1 and 47.9 respectively. The only age group to believe the government was headed in the right direction were those 65+.

I hope Tony Clement likes to eat crow, because respondents with some post-secondary education (be it a college/trades program or a university degree or higher) believed the government was on the wrong track by 44.5% and 54.2% respectively. Only those who had less than high school education approved of the government's direction 42% to those who oppose at 41%.

Female voters and those with post-secondary education were two groups that helped Harper gain more seats in 2008. Now, a majority of those in both groups seem to be unimpressed with the actions of this government. That being said, those groups are not necessarily destined to vote Liberal in their ridings in the next election.

I think Ignatieff is playing the right card by going on his cross Canada university tour. It will make local news, which I believe is important to voters' feeling that their community is important to political leaders. In short, it's positive campaigning.

24 Sussex is Harper's to lose since it seems that Canadians will become "undecided" in their next vote as opposed to jumping onto the Liberal bandwagon. Iggy has a lot of room to grow, which is good, as it does not seem to be the case that the Conservatives have succeeded in entirely defining his character. But more work needs to be done.

This movie does not need to end in the same way as previous polls. This statistical tie does not need to end up in a 15% lead for the CPC in four months. You can help! Join/donate to your favourite opposition or third party. One way to keep up the momentum is to join the NoProrogue rally in your area. Keep the pressure on your MP (if they are Conservative) and email the Opposition + Green leader with words of support. Ideas are important, engagement is critical. Now is not the time to slow down.

Oh No He Di'int! Jack speaks out against prorogation

Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party have finally joined the Great Progressive Canadian Horde in calling for the return of democracy to parliament on January 25th.

“Canadians are tired of the partisan games. We hope Mr. Harper will consider seriously our offer. People of Canada want Parliament to do its work; they want the Prime Minister to be accountable. With so many pressing issues facing the country, from the war in Afghanistan to job creation to climate change, Mr. Harper has an obligation to take up our offer and unlock the doors of Parliament.”

This is what I like to see. Stephen Harper has an obligation to preside over parliament. He, as Prime Minister (read: first among equals), has a duty to ensure that the voice of the people is heard in their forum - parliament. While Jack has extended an offer to Harper unlock the doors of parliament, he stops short of pledging to round up his Members of Parliament and return to Ottawa on the 25th. I wonder why?

One reason might be, he doesn't want to appear too partisan by actively trying to shame the Harper Conservatives. Another could be that he doesn't want the atmosphere of a Liberal, NDP and Bloc faux-parliament to resemble a "coalition" which could be disastrous to everyone involved. So far, only the Liberals are willing to resume business as usual with or without the Conservatives; and now they'll have to do it without the NDP.

That said, considering the two polls released today the status quo might be best for everyone, well, almost everyone. Iggy goes on the offensive and his public image improves. The NDP remain out-of-sight & out-of-mind and their popular polling shoots up 4 points. Well, almost out-of-sight. Libby Davies and Thomas Mulcair have been side-by-side Liberal Ralph Goodale and a whole host of CPC talking boxes on the CBC and other MSM outlets.

A few nights ago Davies repelled the half-truths of Pierre Poilievre. And last night Mulcair took aim at the audacious talking-points of Conservative party's own legally blonde MP Shelly Glover. Mulcair reminded Canada that during the fall sitting the Standing Committee on Finance had met with 400+ groups and individuals on issues surrounding the Economic Action Plan and the future of the Canadian economy. Their findings and recommendations can be found here. All this begs the question: for what additional purpose would proroguing parliament serve in consulting the Canadian people given that the Standing Committee, made up of MPs from all parties, clearly has their ear to the ground about the state of the Canadian economy and is soliciting the advice/ideas/policies of leaders from the business community and social advocacy groups? For what purpose was all their work in 2009?

Alas, talking the talk means people will expect you to walk the walk. And if Jack wants Harper to come back to Parliament Hill to do the work of a Parliamentarian, then Jack is going to have to think of something to do in Ottawa besides making long distance cold-calls to his constituents in Toronto-Danforth. Furthermore, he'll have to expect (read: instruct) his MPs to do the same.

I don't think this prorogation calls for an official alliance between the NDP and LPC to act like they are the government-of-the-day while Harper is touring the country with his hat in his hands. That said, Canada needs leadership from parliament and if Harper isn't going to give it, we have to put our faith in the Opposition to work together. Unofficially, yet, in coordination.

The LPC isn't going to fight a two-front war in the next election. They won't be too concerned with the NDP because their sights are on 24 Sussex, not keeping the NDP out of Stornoway. Therefore, the ball will be in the New Democrat's court to smear both the CPC and LPC hoping to capitalize on the "Liberal/Tory same old story" crowd that might come out to vote instead of staying at home. Can Jack inspire that kind of action given his rhetoric has not changed since 2003? Time will tell.

Chiefly, I'm interested in how the NDP will respond to the NoPorogue rallies on the 23rd, given the large number of Dippers who will be in attendance. I know the Liberals have been highlighting the popularity of the group "Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament" on Facebook, and I'm hoping to see Andrew Telegdi and Karen Redman at the Kitchener-Waterloo rally. Will other New Dem. candidates show up to rallies in their areas? Will Jack attend the Ottawa rally like he did the Coalition Rally in 08? Those are the kinds of moments in which Jack looks and sounds his best - and right now we need more voices for democracy than ever.

Tom Flanagan's clout: Prorogued

It's really too bad that the Conservative party brass and their membership base will forever know their colleague from Manitoba Shelly Glover (MP - Saint Boniface) as the woman who doesn't know who Tom Flanagan is.

I'm all for the CPC nominating cardboard cutouts to represent them in federal elections, but you've really got to wonder if this gal even knows the (short) history of her own party.

Apparently, for a person to appear on Shelly Glover's radar they need to be: a Canadian, present on parliament hill, and to have been formally introduced to her.

Who is Tom Flanagan? She might as well have asked the question: who is Preston Manning? Does she know Deborah Grey is? Maybe former Manitoba premier Gary Doer?

Shelly. Shelly. Shelly, do you take an interest in your party at all? Did you hear of the Conservative Party of Canada before you were courted in 2007? When Stephen Harper, or whoever it was at the CPC Deathstar, phoned you up and said, "Hey! Shells! Wanna run for the Conservative party in the next federal election?" did you respond with, "Who is this? I've never heard of you. We've never met before?! Alas, you probably are a Canadian (I can tell from my call display) and you are entitled to your opinion that I should run for office. I'll do it!"

It is hilarious how Evan Solomon literally does not comprehend that she doesn't know who Tom Flanagan is. Goodale can hardly keep himself from laughing and then he goes on to chiffonade everything Shiela... err.... Shelly, said.

Did you watch this Tom? How does it feel to be snubbed on national television -- nay, thrown under the bus, by a rookie Conservative backbencher? This would make my blood boil.

It is not like Tom Flanagan is the prime minister, or the premier of Alberta, or Barack Obama or anything; but gimmie a break! He's someone you might want to know about before you go onto national television to address the comments he made towards you boss 24 hours ago.

Did she do no homework whatsoever? Who told her to say that she doesn't know who he is? Harper? Pierre Poilievre? Stockwell Day? MacKay!? Who told her to embarrass and ignore Tom Flanagan.

Ha! Listen to me, defending Flanagan and actually feeling a slight bit of sympathy for the man. Check that: I feel bewilderment at this woman's ignorance.

Goodale was the shining star on Power and Politics. Issues are not prorogued.

Yet, for Tom Flanagan, his influence and importance in the CPC certainly is.

Let the "Games" Begin: April Election Announced on BNN

Stephen Harper on the Business News Network (BNN) announced to the Canadian public that as soon as parliament resumes "the games begin" and they'll be a vote of confidence "every week" until the session ends. Looks like shades of 2006. Here's what Harper said, replayed on CBC's Power Panel:

The games begin when parliament returns and the government can take it's, uh, can take time now to do the important work to prepare the economic agenda ahead. That said, as soon as parliament comes back, we're in a minority parliament situation, the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence. And there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year. That's the kind of instability I think the markets are actually, uh, worried about.

Even more amazing, Tom Flanagan said that the Harper government isn't defending their decision to prorogue the Afghan detainee inquiry (err... parliament) like adults but rather like children.

I want to know what about the economy Harper is planning to "recalibrate" since there isn't going to be any new stimulus funding and there apparently aren't going to be any tax cuts. Seems like we're sticking with the status quo, so, why did we shut down the House of Commons?

Flanagan said it like it is: Harper shut down parliament to try and kill momentum on the calls for an inquiry into the Canadian transfer of Afghan detainees to abusive prisons.

He's so confidant that Canadians are going to forget about the issue that he's even willing to sacrifice his own bills on crime, free trade, and consumer protection! He's so confidant -- so arrogant to think that Canadians will forget about the issues that he's willing to write-off this 40th parliamentary session and rig his own downfall after the Olympics because he believes that he has a majority in the bag.

I'm not going to forget about Afghan detainee abuses. I'm not going to forget about climate change. I'm not going to forget about chalk river, or the sabotaging of consumer protection bills! And believe it or not, some people actually celebrate this prorogation. Exhibit A: Bob Schulte from Kitchener-Waterloo.

Bob doesn't think that an inquiry on Afghan detainee abuses is worth the time of our elected officials. Apparently, no one cares how Afghanistan treats their prisoners - despite the fact that we're over there trying to make it a "better" place to live (I guess that means everywhere besides the torturous penal system). Additionally, as if you didn't know, the "work" of the Prime Minister isn't conducted when the House is in session - it is done behind closed doors and when there's no one around to ask pesky "questions."

This pro-democracy movement is aimed at people exactly like Bob Schulte who do not believe that parliament is the forum of the people. Apparently, the PMO is his forum. Well, Bob, I didn't vote for a prime minister - I voted for a parliamentarian and I don't really care for the phony excuse they have given me as to why they are not at work.

Maybe I'll call in and tell my boss that I cannot come into the office for the next couple weeks. I need to balance my chequebook.

Clearly the message has been sent out to Harper's clones: email your local newspaper and let them know that no one cares about parliament. Let's follow their example and write our own letters of support for Canadian democracy and issue a call against the arrogance of the Harper Conservatives! Anything they can do, we can do better.

I don't know about you, but my face is getting itchy from having the wool pulled over my face.

Prorogation's Guillotine: Free trade, Senate Reform, Aboriginal rights

The Calgary Herald has given the blogosphere some ammo that is non-partisan and ought to disturb everyone on the political spectrum.

Below is a list of the bills that will die thanks to Harper's Olympic-sized prorogation. The list is a hodgepodge of bills, some of which are good and some of which I'm not so sad to see die.

A few good bills on the chopping block are C-6, 13, 27, 45, 46, 55, 58, 63 and S-7. Some of the ones I'm not too upset about are the token free trade agreements with Colombia and Jordan.

One of my favourite 10-percenters sent to my home while I was studying in Winnipeg was from James Bezan, that continually berated Liberal MP Anita Neville for being "soft on crime." All I ever heard from Bezan was what he thought Anita Neville should be doing about crime in Canada. Now, his own Prime Minister is putting up some tough-on-crime bills to the graveyard in lieu of the Olympics. Stephen Harper: softer on crime than powder in Whistler's back country.

But! Thanks to the Calgary Herald, everyone on Harper Island (read: Alberta) can look and see what kind of soft-on-crime approach their own government is taking. All the "free-traders" can watch their beloved agreements get stalled - or worse - broken, by the very man who described them as "historic." But then again, he's never been one of those "cosmopolitan" latte sipping "internationals," so maybe it was for the best.

This kind of information is what hits conservatives in their breadbasket. I wonder what rebuttal they'll come up with to this blatant disregard of their party's principles and parliamentary work.

Take a look for yourself below, and give your input. What are you disappointed to see die and which are you glad won't make it to March?

Legislation that died due the suspension of Parliament:

C-6 Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (allows government recalls of dangerous products)

C-8 Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act (gives equal property rights to aboriginal women)

C-13 An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act (modernizes how grain delivery is regulated)

C-15 An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts (minimum penalties for serious drug offences)

C-19 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions) (reinstates anti-terrorism powers for law enforcement)

C-20 An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident

C-23 Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

C-26 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (auto theft and trafficking in property obtained by crime)

C-27 Electronic Commerce Protection Act (cracks down on spammers)

C-30 Senate Ethics Act (unites House and Senate ethics oversight under one watchdog)

C-31 An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act (gives police more fingerprinting powers)

C-34 Protecting Victims From Sex Offenders Act (strengthens sex offender registry)

C-35 Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (allows victims to sue terrorists)

C-36 Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act (eliminates "faint-hope" parole)

C-37 An Act to amend the National Capital Act and other Acts (An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission)

C-40 An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (expands advance polling)

C-42 Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

C-43 An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code (more rights for crime victims in parole process)

C-44 An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (ends Canada Post monopoly on international letters)

C-45 An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (cracks down on human trafficking)

C-46 Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act (gives police powers to hunt online predators)

C-47 Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act (allows police to wiretap digital communications)

C-52 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud (cracks down on white-collar crime)

C-53 Protecting Canadians by Ending Early Release for Criminals Act (ends accelerate parole review)

C-54 Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act

C-55 Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker Act (gives court power to require blood and urine samples)

C-57 Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act

C-58 Child Protection Act (Online Sexual Exploitation) (cracks down on child pornography)

C-59 An Act to amend the International Transfer of Offenders Act (makes it harder for offenders to be repatriated)

C-60 Keeping Canadians Safe (Protecting Borders) Act (allows more Canada-U.S. co-operation on marine law enforcement)

C-61 An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of railway operations (back-to-work legislation on CN Rail strike)

C-63 An Act to amend the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act and another Act in consequence thereof (enables commercial real estate development on reserves)

S-5 Long-Gun Registry Repeal Act

S-6 An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to political loans)

S-7 Constitution Act, 2009 (Senate term limits)

S-8 Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2009 (implements tax-evasion treaties with Colombia, Greece and Turkey)

Poilievre: Trying to fire the judge

Craig Oliver cuts through the CPC "defense" of the Harper prorogation.

Old excuses are new again, and Poilievre just cannot seem to gain the sympathy of his CTV brethren.

CPC puts "dangerous" Climate Change on hold

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, chaired by James Bezan (CPC), has two local Kitchener-Waterlooans on it in Peter Braid (CPC, Kitchener-Waterloo) and Stephen Woodworth (CPC, Kitchener Centre).

Peter Braid won his seat in '08 over LPC veteran Andrew Telegdi by 17 votes - or o.1%. Woodworth won by 0.8%. Both of these men do not represent a clear majority of their constituents, and yet, both of them will act like they do when Harper prorogues parliament for the second time since they won their respective seats in the House.

The interesting part of Braid and Woodworth is that they sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development which has produced Bill C-311, "An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change."

The title of the bill is interesting for a government, and it's representatives, who made such a shameful appearance at Copenhagen just a few weeks ago. It recognizes that Canada has responsibilities and that climate change is dangerous and needs to be prevented. Yet, how can we prevent dangerous climate change and assume our responsibilities when parliament is suspended?

Tell me, Mr. Braid, Mr. Woodworth; why do you deserve a break from your important work in preventing dangerous climate change? Do you feel like we have now fully assumed our responsibilities in preventing climate change? Did we get it done?

No. We didn't get it done.

In truth, this government has yet to BEGIN it's work to prevent dangerous climate change - but, what the hell! Let's sit on it until March. In the aftermath of the largest conference on climate change in the decade - let's take a break! After all, we did such hard work in Copenhagen we deserve it.

Mr. Braid, Mr. Woodworth - your job is no where near complete and this prorogation is a farce given the (self-professed) urgency of your own work.

Climate change isn't prorogued. Unemployment isn't prorogued. But Conservative representation and leadership is. How apt.