Monday, January 25, 2010

Ignatieff Can't Back Down

It is official, Team Ignatieff has decided to go all in on the "prorogation crisis" and ride the wave while it lasts. Today between the jokes and complimentary exchanges, Evan Soloman managed to squeeze in an interview with Iggy who was introducing new legislation proposals to limit the government's ability to prorogue. As you might have guessed, E-Solo did not ask a single question about Trudeau's 11 prorogues, Chretien's 4, or Rae's 3. Iggy laid out his complex set of new rules for prorogation, which ostensibly strips duties and responsibilities from the Governor General. Evan's most challenging question was pointing out that Iggy was stripping power from the GG, and he answered by complementing what a fantastic person she is, but ultimately he dodged the question.

Clearly Donolo has decided that this has been the most successful of all the contrived controversies the Liberals have launched under Ignatieff's reign, and they may as well run out every last breath of momentum they can squeeze out of it because nothing else has worked. I would like to correct an error in Ignatieff's rants about proposed rules. He said that the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament "twice within one year" and I would take care to remind the leader of the Opposition that more than 365 sunsets elapsed between Harper's two prorogations.

Of course he fully admitted that he would use prorogation if elected Prime Minister (good luck with that), but said that the difference was that you need more rules when the PM has no character. That because this particular Prime Minister allegedly has no distinguishing mental or moral qualities, a different set of rules need to be applied to the current administration. At this point I don’t see how Iggy could back out of this even if he decided he wanted to.

I have to complement Pierre Poilievre for reminding Bob Rae of his storied history as the "Prince of Prorogation" on a later panel discussion, and how one of Bobby's prorogations went so long that they could not release a budget for that year. Bob's scholarly response to this reminder was to say that this is not about him and it is just a baseless attack to try and change the subject. Way to deflect Bob, but that came across as hollow as the space between your ears. When you are so vehemently opposing a standard procedure that you yourself used frequently in your short reign of terror in Ontario, there's a word for that, hypocrisy. Sir I disagree with you. I think in this instance, it is about Bob.


  1. To be fair to Bob, when he is sitting at the head of a government, it is best to have them working in the legislature as little as possible.

    I support Rae governments proroguing the legislature.

  2. Bra, there were at least a million people at the Vancouver rally.

    It is about we the people, not about the divine aptitude of the greatest Premier in the history of Confederation.

  3. Why the big fuss over the PM's constitutional ability to adjourn (prorogue) a sitting of parliament and commence a new one????

    Because it was the only tool Harper had to prevent Stephane Dion from becoming PM and having the coalition take over last year.

    So, the coalition is now attacking the only parliamentary tool that would prevent another attempt.

    Ignatieff is just the useful stooge to rile up the impressionable youngsters with his in his comfort level University lectures. Layton can always count on the Unions and loony tunes and Bob Rae and friends are just snickering away in the backrooms that the media can be so easily led around by the nose.

    Get rid of prorogue- Install Ignatieff without and election - bump him out and King Rae becomes 'da boss.

    Easy peazy when his backers own half the country and sit on all of the media boards.

  4. TangoJuliette sez:

    Lib PM Louis St Laurent: 7 prorogations in 4 years. Of these, 3 prorogations all in less than twelve months in 1951.

    I am not making this stuff up. I'm not allowed to.

  5. Can we assume Bob Rae, who surely sees himself as a future Prime Minister and a clear lover of prorogation as a lever of power; he cannot like these proposed restrictions on usage of it! When Bob is in power Bob loves proroguing. In the unlikely event that he became Prime Minister, isn't he going to want his old favourite trick?

  6. When Bob Rae is King he will just change the rules back to how it best suits him. That's the Liberal way.
    Anything that gives the Conservatives an inch of power over the Liberals MUST be squashed until they can take their rightful place at the public trough.
    So, any changes would just be temporary. Or, as Ignatieff said today "Rules have to be made for people without character"...

    That means rules for Conservatives but not Liberals.

  7. I believe this is one misstep that Iggy will come to regret.
    Iggy's biggest problem now is that to keep this issue warm until the resumption of parliament he has to keep putting "meat on the constitutional bone".
    Everytime this guy gets in front of the mike till then he will have to either respond to the actions of the PM, or he will have to try to bring the interviewers questions back to prorogation and how he wants to erase some of the Queen's authority. Sounds kind of republican doesn't it?

  8. Say, didn't Rae reign throughout a serious economic recession? Was Bob extending his Christmas vacations every year acceptable when the economy is suffering? Or did he know that his administration could only do harm and it was best to just allow Ontario to suffer naturally?

  9. Here's my fearless prediction:

    Conservative in power for at least another year while the economy begins its recovery.

    A spring election in 2011 and Harper gains a majority.

    Iggy heads home.

    Conservatives set an election date and four years later Canadians become restless and the Conservatives lose to a Liberal Party headed by Bob Rae.

    Bob and his minority government only last a year at which point Canadians wonder what the hell they were thinking and go to the polls to re-elect the Conservatives time and time again.

    You heard it here first.

  10. A poster at the National Post wrote that Duceppe is against these prorgation changes because he doesn't want to open up the Constitution.

    I haven't been able to find any link to the relevant news article. So make of that Duceppe "report" what you will. It kind of makes sense, since Duceppe might get flak from the hard core seperatists, for co-operating with the federal parties.

  11. Now that we read today, that Colvin's new lawyer ( he has replaced Lori Brokenfohr Colvin's first lawyer and girl friend) is making accusations that "the government's refusal to pay his legal bills is a reprisal". This accusation is not factual and lacking merit but makes great political fodder for the opposition, who appear to be working in concert with Colvin, in leaking this accusation at this politically opportune time.This is particularly true if some members of the media are prepared to hide the facts and distort the truth in another shameful performance.
    According to a foreign affairs spokeswoman officials "are still reviewing Colvin's latest request for money " since they paid Brokenfohr $21,000 already "and is considering whether to pay the additional amount requested in a new invoice". Foreign affairs people are only doing their job and due diligence, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, in examining closely fees submitted by Colvin's lawyer, particularly since a romantic relationship was involved between the lawyer and client.
    The Foreign Affairs spokeswoman also said that since "changing counsel, Mr. Colvin has not submitted an application for more funding. Should one be received, the application will be reviewed as per the normal process".
    Since Main Street Media didn't see fit to give Canadians all the facts on this latest attack on the government, nor earlier attacks by Colvin and opposition MP's, I suspect Canadians would want the answers, and make some observations to some very pertinent questions.

    Harper is not denying Colvin of paid counsel in any shape whatsoever, contrary to media headlines - another silly accusation akin to "door knobs" that the Liberal party of Ignatieff has become infamous for.
    The Department of Foreign Affairs is responsible for processing and paying these legal bills, and is currently acting on their disposition, and examining the fees submitted, as is their duty on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer. Fees that have been approved have been paid.
    Is this another case where the Liberals and NDP are accusing civil servants in the Department of Foreign affairs of incompetence and poor job performance?
    Is this akin to the Liberals denying they are charging our military, our good soldiers on the battlefield, of war crimes, because our troops "detained and handed over for severe torture a lot of innocent people". As Ignatieff told all Canadians earlier this year he and the Liberals "want to investigate the conduct of our troops in the field" but incredibly they say they are charging Harper and Peter McKay of committing these war crimes. Only a compliant media, and not Canadians, could buy this fuzzy logic.
    Didn't the Main Street Media think that it was significant, that Colvin's lawyer was also his romantic partner, that was submitting legal bills to the government.
    If they didn't think it was significant, don't they think they should just lay out the facts and the truth, and let Canadian people decide? Or are members of the media attempting to manage the message, which they are prone to often accuse others of doing?
    It isn't strange that Colvin has now switched lawyers, when some of the legal fees submitted by his romantic partner, are receiving close examination, to avoid the public debacle, if his romantic partner continued to fight the assessment of her legal fees?
    Is anybody in the media interested in informing Canadians what the legal fees are, that the Canadian taxpayer are expected to bear?

  12. If this legislation alters the role of the Govenor General, is it not a constitutional change that would require the consent of the provinces? Where are those learned professors when you really need them to give an opinion. Heck at this rate we will become a republic like the US. This will never see the light of day - the mushrooms prefer to grow in the dark. Cheers. FernStAlbert

  13. Iffy has backed down countless times.
    In fact, what has he ever followed thru on?

    so are Libs gonna stand infront of a locked door and sing O Canada, every day for the next 2 weeks?

  14. "Didn't the Main Street Media think that it was significant, that Colvin's lawyer was also his romantic partner, that was submitting legal bills to the government."

    Put the "shoe" on the Conservative foot and imagine the MSM's reaction!