Wow. This is how it's supposed to be done.

Nice move on the part of the Liberals.  Instead of just raising points in the House which is pretty ineffective, ex-Justice Minister as well as lawyer has been having discussions with Quebec's justice minister, Jean-Marc Fournier concerning the omnibus crime Bill.  Quebec has objected to several sections of the Bill.

Not only does this move show support for Quebec, it offers a great opportunity to clarify Liberal objections to parts of the Bill, something difficult to do in the House where scripted CON notes make true debate impossible.  How can anyone seriously respond to charges that debating any section of the Bill means you are soft on crime, love criminals, or don"t care about victims of crime?

The Liberals are also showing that they can work with provinces and recognize how federal Bills can impact upon each one.  Shows respect and an understanding of provincial issues, contrasting starkly with Nicholson's failure to meet with Fournier despite requests.

Cotler plans to take several of Fournier's amendments to the justice committee's review of the Bill.

Quebec Conservative Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu accused Fournier and the Quebec government of being "soft on crime", something Rae dismissed as "ridiculous."

It's not about being hard or soft on crime, it's about being smart on crime, Rae suggested in French.

Good.  Needs to be said over and over and over.  Pro-active Liberals...about damn time.

That should win over some of the male vote

“The cleavages are becoming sharper and more and more clear,” said Mr. Ignatieff.

Ignatieff may finally be listening to Liberal supporters who have been threatening to pull their support.   -

Liberal Party will oppose the Conservative government’s budget, Michael Ignatieff says, greatly increasing the likelihood of an election call in February or March.

The Liberal party also spoke with a lot more conviction yesterday in the House.  Maybe they are finally realizing that propping up the harperites to stall off an election because they are down in the polls is part of what is keeping them down in the polls.  That, and one other thing -

“I have low expectations that there will be anything in the budget” that his party can support, the Liberal Leader declared on Thursday in a year-end interview with The Globe and Mail, “because I think the differences in political philosophy are very clear.”

A lot of us have not been seeing clear differences, which has also caused many of us to turn away.  Words are fine, Ignatieff, and you have been telling us about some of the policies you would implement, but it's your actions we will watch.

This sudden energy just before Christmas may work well for the Liberals.  Canadians seem tired of the same-old.  Year end articles emphasizing harper's do nothing party and did-nothing rule feed that itch for change as well.

It will take a lot more than words to get past supporters to trust the Libs, me included.  I'd rather see a coalition NDP/Lib to get harper out and to keep the Libs focused on social policies, human rights, fair treatment for all Canadians.  A Lib minority would likely give us another dysfunctional House unless they and the NDP come to an informal agreement to put policy before politics and actually get something done.

Hearing Goodale in the House talk about stopping tax cuts for corporations was encouraging.  The overall focus yesterday the Libs placed on social issue was good.

Hard to see how they can back down from those clear policies and prop harper up this spring.  It has happened before, though, but the Liberals will lose whatever goodwill they gained this week if they do that.

Just vote the bastarcons out.  Then be ready to work on behalf of all of us - whether it's a coalition or Lib minority - because we'll be very vocal.

Well that’s better.

Responding to a leaked American cable outlining a 2008 conversation with CSIS director Jim Judd and Eliot Cohen, a senior State Department official, Michael Ignatieff said his party stands behind the court-ordered restrictions.

“I’ll just say this: I’m proud of our Charter, I’m proud of our courts. I’m proud of the fact that there are limits on what agencies and our government can do,” Ignatieff said. “That’s always been our position. We’re a country of freedom. We’re a country of democracy.”

A clear statement, a good statement.  Shows respect for the Courts and for Canadians.

But Michael, they’re just words if you don’t back them up with actions.

We're watching.

Flip and flop onto your lying faces, bastards

In 2007 ther Liberals put through a motion calling “upon the government to (inform) NATO "immediately" that Canada's current military commitment to Afghanistan will end in February 2009.”

Now the Liberals say no debate is needed to extend the mission once more. Saying it is not really a military one is more than deceptive since they well know that training Afghan soldiers will place them in the line of fire and that any military presence in Afghanistan draws fire.

Prior to that 2007 motion, “O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have repeatedly said the troops are only committed until 2009. Harper also said MPs would be informed of any changes to the length of the deployment. "If the government wants to extend it further, it will seek the approval of Parliament to do that," he said.

Today Harper tells us he’s the Big Boss of everything and doesn’t have to debate this new extension, “that he had changed his mind and had reluctantly decided to deploy trainers because he doesn't want the past "sacrifices" of Canadian soldiers to be in vain.”

Oh. I see. If more soldiers die, the sacrifices were worth it? Because seriously, as Harper himself said in 2009 when he wanted to extend the mission and include training, 6 years is long enough, and if the Afghans haven’t learned from our troops by 2011, they aren’t going to.  So it's all about having more soldiers die to justify the death of the ones who have already died?

But did any of us really believe he’d stick to the 2011 deadline? I sure as hell didn’t.

"My position is that if you're going to put troops into combat, into a war situation, I do think for the sake of legitimacy, I do think the government does require the support of Parliament," said Harper.

Typical Harper not to get it because he just doesn’t see the soldiers as human beings. “For the sake of legitimacy,” he says, failing to understand that debate is necessary not to cover his precious ass, but to make sure that our precious soldiers are not placed in harm’s way unless every other option has been exercised.

Mr. Megalomaniac sociopath goes on -

"But when we're talking simply about technical or training missions, I think that is something the executive can do on its own."

On paper, maybe. But we’re not sending paper over there to face spitballs. So legitimacy aside, serious debate must take place when deciding on any mission that risks flesh and blood.

And the Liberals don’t think we need such a debate. No doubt they would like to avoid facing questions from the Bloc and NDP in the House since they’ve already decided it’s just perfectly fine to send more Canadians to Afghanistan to face death and maiming. What’s the value of debating the lives of our soldiers compared to the embarrassment the Liberal party might suffer, eh?

The prime minister said he believes that a smaller mission that just involves training will present "minimal risks for Canada."

Well, steve, you tell that to families of dead soldiers in 2014, ok? You go visit the new vets in the hospital, maybe drive them to their therapy sessions (if you haven’t cut off funding for that by then).  Talk to them then about "minimal risks."

And you Liberals who won’t even insist on a debate over this, you had better stand beside harper in 2014 and face those affected by this endless war because any blood spilled after the original 2011 pull-out of troops will be on your hands as well.

I’ve had it with the lot of you inhuman bastards.

No justification

While it is proper that Ignatieff is accepting responsibility for the Liberal mess concerning the vote on Rae's motion to include a broader range of family planning programs, including contraception, in a maternal health initiative for developing countries, there is no excuse for the handful of Liberals who voted against it, or for those who abstained.

According to some of these Liberals, they did so because they are opposed to abortion.

First of all, Rae's motion does not promote abortion, and speeches made in the House explain that it would be supported, only as a health issue, and only in countries where it is legal:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government’s G8 maternal and child health initiative for the world’s poorest regions must include the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options, including contraception, consistent with the policy of previous Liberal and Conservative governments, and all other G8 governments last year in L’Aquila, Italy;


that the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths; and


that the Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a “global gag rule” that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning.

This line is key to what is so objectionable about the opposition to the motion:

the approach of the Government of Canada must be based on scientific evidence, which proves that education and family planning can prevent as many as one in every three maternal deaths

By voting according to their own moral beliefs, likely based on religious views whether the members are currently believers in a god or not, those MPs are mixing church and state, something that must not be done. They know this, and failed to consider the science and facts above their own nebulous beliefs. In so doing, they are subjecting women and children to their personal narrow ideology.

It is insane (and fanatical) that anyone would not support family planning in a world where over-population has become a huge problem, one which is increasing exponentially. It is madness not to see that family planning is critical in a world where resources are becoming more scarce, where access to clean, safe water is an issue for many, where wars are being fought over arrable land, where sexually transmitted diseases ravage developing countries, where women are still suppressed through their inability to manage their reproductive rights due to lack of access to contraceptives.

By voting against Rae's motion, those Liberals have placed their own personal ideology before the rights and welfare of others while using their position to affect women and children globally. They have failed to separate church and state. They have also gone against their own party's stance on contraception.

While this motion wasn't binding, it was meant to send a strong message that Canada stands for women's reproductive rights and understands that those rights are essential to the health and welfare of women and children. Such a motion, had it passed, would have helped Canada at the G8 by showing that the country, while currently lead by a party of mysoginistic dinosaurs, is not made up of such.

As for the impact of the vote politically - the Liberals ended up looking weak (again), disorganized (again), with a leader who does not have the support of his party (again). Those few opposed could have made their personal views known, yet still have supported the motion for the positive aspects it offered. Hell, the Liberal party has compromised often enough over the past few years on Harper Bills because they didn't want to incur the wrath of voters by voting down Bills that contained some good despite crappy sections wedged in.

Passing this motion would also have shown how the opposition can work together, can agree on issues that stand to improve lives. It would have kept the focus on how dismally neanderthal the CONs are on women's and children's rights. Instead, the story is about what fuck-ups the Liberals are. Even among the left, focus is heavily on the Liberal failure and those few idiots who failed to see how beneficial passing this motion would have been.

To say, oh well, it wasn't binding anyway is no excuse. This was a chance to show some backbone, some solidarity, some strength of unity in the party, and to make a strong, public stand for women's and children's rights. It was also a good opportunity to call the CONs out on their atavistic policies in regards to women, children, and developing countries.

But the Liberals blew it.