The Conservatives are trying to get the Accountability Act through, Grumpy.

http://www.faa-lfi.gc.ca/index_e.asp

Much cleaning up and transparency there. Let's hope it passes.

I'd like to see the federal Liberal Party cut itself free of every vestige of Paul Martin's time in parliament.

Trivia item: while searching Hansard for clues about what happened in the 3 days of CanWest silence during the B.C. Legislature's Fall session, I saw this ... that Jamie Elmhirst had once been a Ministerial Assistant, appointed to the Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection in 2001.

Also that there were two(2) Ministerial Assistants at the Ministry of Finance then: Robert Pauliszyn and Dave Basi.

As for the do-nothing NDP Opposition, they put on an astonishing performance: disciplined, intelligent, appropriate (except for Leonard Krog running on about King John and Runnymede) ... and pissed though I am at the NDP ... it did seem a cryin' shame that British Columbians couldn't have read in their newspapers about these speeches detailing the urgent issues from each Opposition M.L.A.'s constituency and why they needed to be addressed urgently in that very sitting of the House. The NDP held the House in session all through the night, until 8:30 AM next day. Well worth googling Hansard for B.C., 22 Nov. 2006.

Meantime ... although Krog wouldn't dream of doing such a thing ... many thanks to Bill Tieleman for this summary of how the Basi Virk Basi affair touches upon vital aspects of Canadian life even as we speak.

Sounds like 'business as usual' in the LIEberal Party of Canada.

Aren't LIEberals the provincial Socred/Reform/CCRAP/Alliance/BCLiberal group ... otherwise known as Liberal In Name Only (LINO), the provincial party?

Mary, there is no association whatsoever between the Liberal Party of British Columbia and the Liberal Party of Canada.

In fact, the BC Liberals have a platform slightly closer to the federal conservatives. They still spend piles of money, though. Canadians love big spending government.

working man. There may be no formal relationship, but the same crooks pull the strings in both parties. Did you not even read the article?

Working Man: I didn't even suggest a connection ... in fact, what I said points out that there's a big difference (except for their Paul Martin organizers).

Back to B.C. for a moment, here's the link to Hansard of the recent NDP debates. There really were some fine presentations made. There doesn't appear to be any copy of the debates that went rightÂ*through the night.
Â*
http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/38th2nd/H61127y.htm
Â*
Â*

Anybody know what those unintended asterisks mean on my WM comment above?

I've had two warnings that someone is trying to hack into my computer ... is there a geek who knows if these are fingerprints or something?

Mary
It usually means there's something in the material you posted that Tyee's software can't handle.

Some accents for example:

á â ã ä å è ā

clearly not one of those - the symbols have popped into text I've posted from time to time as well but I can't think of an example just now.

Could be a language translation glitch BC Mary, and then again, maybe you're just getting hacked.

As for the provincial and fed libs having anything to do with each other, working man, is there a connection between the Alberta Cons and the Feds? How about the NDP provincially and federally? The greens?

There are connections between the feds and provinces with all of the parties. They are, however, not constitutional or ideological, but more so regional and personal. There are examples of crossovers with MLA's that have gone on to become MP's of course, as we would see elected municipality officials go on to become MLA's.

On paper, the political parties of Canada are not connected to each other's federal provincial counterparts, except for one very glaring fact... they have the same name. The same brand. The same logo's. The same flag and color. And brands speak volumes. And personally? Regionally? The connections are there.

On that note, quite frankly, if I was a federal liberal voter, I'd be embarrassed by the BC Libs with most everything they've done in office.

BC Mary:

You are being unduly critical of Krog. Everybody knows the Virk/Basi trial is dragging on, but what EXACTLY do you propose?

When the trial comes, evidence will be introduced, and witnesses will be cross-examined.

Do you really believe it's in a potential future A-G's interest to shoot his mouth off with wild speculation before the evidence is actually before the courts?

Perhaps the time to do so is when more facts have come to light.

What if he shot his mouth off about certain speculatory claims that the coming trial showed to be patently false? That would not illustrate prudence.

What if he shoots his mouth off about the trial process and progess in a way that defence claims are further reinforced to the point that the prosecution does indeed collapse?

I agree that things are taking a long time.

You may have noticed Krog did issue a release quite some time ago chastising Wally Oppal for shooting his mouth off about witnesses and evidence in this case. Of course it was not covered in the press.

But what - exactly - do you believe should be done, given the nature of the case, and how it is (or isn't) currently going?

When the evidence does start coming before the court, there will be ample time for the politics.

The bigger story than the who's who of corruption backing who of which might go for not, is on CPAC at the moment, with the broadcasting of the Liberal convention. Currently at issue, is a vote that could very well decide the course or direction of the leaders and future PM's of this country and that vote is on whether or not they stick with the same old convention with 5,000 delegates elected by Liberal members to vote for a leader of the party, as opposed to one member and one vote.

The loss for the Libs in going to one member one vote, will be the loss of the convention for leaderships. Leadership conventions hold a special purpose, to further test the leaders and their support, to keep within the minds of Liberals, the policies needed to function as a party and to prepare for the new millenium and perhaps, most of all, to rejuvinate openly in front of the public eye. Seldom do conventions not boost numbers at the polls.

The gain for the Libs in going to one member, one vote, is democracy spoken by the grass roots of the party itself. There are no "machines" in play to prop up the numbers of the first ballot for the insiders of the party and this is fundamentally huge in terms of polls that more greatly reflect the will of the people, as opposed to the will of the party insiders. As well, it should save money.

Readers make no mistake, this choice is almost as important as the chioce of leadership itself.

One member, one vote lost. It was a close vote, but... The Libs have chosen the same old same old. This is highly unfortunate, I think, since two things would have happened if they would have chosen one member, one vote.

More memberships! More Funds!

Aside from the pro's, its simply more democratic, the greatest pro of all, but there's a twist to all of this.

The greatest promoter of one member one vote was Belinda Stromach. Belinda wants to be a PM, there's no denying it. She's wanted power before, wants it now, wants it in the future and I'm not going into whether or not she's capable of weilding power (although I believe she is). What is evident, is that if it goes to one member, one vote, she could win a future leadership on popularity in the street... but she won't win with the insiders and delegates. The reason? Money. Here, the one with the most must come up with dough from elsewhere and insider support isn't there for her. Buts its there from a grass roots level. And thats why she's promoting "one member, one vote".

Aside from these motives for and against, the question remains... should the Libs go one member one vote? The answer is yes. It is quite simply, better for democracy as a whole and looking at the cast of players for and against...

BC Mary... is the entire media of BC shunning the provincial NDP party from even offering opposition or political positions in the press? Is the media in BC so controlled that there are no microphones being put in front of the mouths of the NDP MLA's for a reason? Has democracy failed on so many fronts? Is the BC NDP party simply quiet, or are they being "muzzled" by the media? Something's not right with such a complete lack of political coverage in BC's media with provincial issues. Indeed, it seems quite disturbing.

Greetings cosmo krog:

It's amazing to me how the legal mind can read a clear statement and then fixate on dumb ideas which aren't mentioned.

How can you begin to see breaches of courtesy, good sense, of law, in my two comments about the annoying Krog? One said that he ran on about King John and Runnymede; the other said Krog wouldn't dream of writing such a useful summary as Bill Tieleman just wrote. You call that "unduly critical"? I call that fair comment. Mild, even.

If I hadn't already given up on you, I'd give up on you if you can't see (in two of my 3 comments above) top marks given to the NDP's all-night performance in the Legislature last Monday. Just not to you.

For god's sake, man, focus! You've started to sound like a CanWest editorial. Doesn't it bother you even a little, that CanWest didn't even bother to mention the tremendous Opposition performance in the House on Monday?

Have another look at Bill Tieleman's article above ... then explain to me why you can't comment in the same, or similar ways, which will not only inform the public but reassure them that the Justice Critic is watching the situation on our behalf. OK?

I think it's a complex of things.
First, the provincial NDP lost the one truly experienced Opposition MLA it had - Joy McPhail - when she decided not to run again.

Jenny Kwan, the only other MLA with prior experience in the house was first elected in 1996 and, although she became minister of Municipal Affairs in 1998. I suppose some other MLA have considerable experience, people like Corky Evans, for example, but no one seems to have the jam to step into McPhail's shoes.

When the media ignores you, you have to find ways to get their attention and there seems to be nobody on the opposition side who knows how to do this.

Evans' efforts on behalf of Formosa farms are laudable but they haven't made much of a splash on TV, have they? You have to find a way to get faces in front of cameras regularly - especially on Tony Parson's show - since that seems to be what most British Columbians watch.

Whose fault is it? A media with other agendas? An opposition party that hasn't mastered the learning curve?

Bit of both in my view. If there were a way to get Joy McPhail back into the fray I think they’d get a lot more attention in a hurry. There is no shortage of questions that aren’t being considered by Gordon and his clones. Then, the Premier sees the role of the house as so irrelevant that he needn’t even darken its door. Perhaps he’d rather not be directed by the Speaker to answer any questions.

Brain asked:

"Is the BC NDP party simply quiet, or are they being "muzzled" by the media? Something's not right with such a complete lack of political coverage in BC's media with provincial issues."

...me thinks the corporate media empire have a strategy to (1) not report or minimally report any opposition to the Fiberals, whether generated by the NDP or others; but,

2) secondly, if that fails, then to attack and undermine whatever opposition that exists, primarily by attacking the perceived or actual leadership.

If one accepts the premise that one of the components that comprise a well-functioning democracy, is an independent media that provides balanced reporting and analysis from all sides of the political spectrum,. tthen judging from the conduct of the corporate media, we have a long way to go to restore the democratic process in the province.

From a practical perspective, many have turned away from the mainstrea media for their news, --to the Internet, podcasting, blogs- we go, no doubt too we will see, as in other countries, the rise of pirate FM radio stations, perhaps even TV stations. Certainly, a ship - located 12.1 miles off the coast - would pose a challenge for enforcement of Federal telecommunication law...even though the 'fishing limit' is 200 miles....also, by siting such a radio /TV station on First Nations land, would pose a hell of challenge to the Crown's alleged title of our airspace. That is my take on things anyhow.

Peter, and the Brain,

I think the shortcomings of the media certainly play a role and I can’t disagree that much of the traditional media ownership is much more sympathetic to the corporate culture of the Liberals.

Nevertheless, the Opposition has not done all that it could with what it has available and it has made several extremely bad moves when it was in the house.

How is it possible that even an inexperienced NDP leader like James was not warned off the MLA salary/pensions issue? There must be no one in an advisory capacity with the current opposition who has any political smarts at all.

Further, why is no one from the NDP taking more of a leadership role in investigating and disclosing what is happening with BC Hydro and the capacity of the province to continue to take competitive advantage from the resources of this province?

You, Peter Dimitrov, have done more as an unelected and interested individual to advance this cause than anyone in the party that I'm aware of. And that’s just lame.

I could go on. The examples, including the Liberals complicity with their business friends, are legion: Maybe a pirate radio station would be a good idea, but we'd need someone who's not afraid of the media and the public to take the microphone and run with it.

The current provincial government has, as far as I can tell, 38 communications consultants on the payroll. Pretty hard for the NDP, who can't afford to send Carole James to Taiwan, to keep up with that kind of personpower.

Thanks for the feedback gentlemen, it confirms somewhat what I suspect as well, a muzzling media and an NDP party that doens't quite know how to handle it. They need to get modern in a hurry. There's just way to much at stake.

By the way, Peter, I'm quite impressed with your posts. If you have time, does the Quebec motion put forth by Harper bode ill for Canada in legal terms, as to how the international community will perceive Quebec's claim to sovereignty?

Can, say, the PQ begin to set up an embassy in Europe based on such a motion, only to be supported by the international community with such a motion? Can they try acts of sovereignty within the courts with such a motion? I guess, if you've got the time Peter, what are the legal international implications of such a motion?

Its easy for me to see why Harper would support a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation. This solidifies Iggy support at the Lib convention and he is unquestionably the weakest candidate to face, in my opinion, the one the Cons would most like to face. The motion also helps Dion, not considered to be the best bet either.

In my opinion, Rae and Kennedy would be the ones to most fear from a Con perspective. Whoever wins Ontario will form the next government. Quebec isn't in play for the Libs, but the Cons need to break Lib support in Ontario. Iggy and Dion won't do as well in a federal election in Ont. as Rae would, and maybe even moreso, Kennedy. Kennedy would be the best pick for Ontario support and becuase he's new to the scene, he could end up being widely populist.

But beyond playing politics, I believe Harper served a second purpose, a second agenda, to destablize and decentralize the powers of Canada. He is a Republican led NCC western separatist, after all.

BC Mary:

I guess everyone can be a victim of mistaken identity. While it's fine for you as a citizen to attribute statements made by one person to another, it is something other if done by an aspiring AG.

Which was my exactly my point.

Its really quite baffling at this point, why more isn't being done to counter Campbells lack of governship and continuous selloffs. Do we need a recession? One's coming...

Here's my two cents on Brain's question "does the Quebec motion put forth by Harper bode ill for Canada in legal terms, as to how the international community will perceive Quebec's claim to sovereignty?"

IMHO, yes and no.

I believe [/I]nation is like a people at international law. And peoples have certain rights, self determination being a big one.

But with the case of Quebec, Harper's pronouncement didn't really change much. The Quebecois [I]are a people.

So the big questions that follow are 1) Who are the Quebecois, and 2) what does self-determination mean at law with respect to them.

With regards to the former, Harper and everyone else do create a bit of a problem if and when they equate quebecois with the entire province of Quebec. This is slightly dangerous.

But to the extent the motion doesn't do that, it's less of a problem. And it probably wouldn't matter because what is 'a people' is still a question of law.

When you look at international law, the quebecois as a people won't include all people in Quebec. The Cree and Inuit in Quebec are the most clear exclusions, and indeed they have self determination rights to the extent they are peoples as well. And they are.

One of the most interesting pieces of reading on this is the Cree Chief's international submissions made in the run-up to the referendum. It spells this all out.

And with regards to the second question (What does self-determination entail for quebecois?), the cases make it look like the Quebecois would already be seen to have self determination rights within Canada (as a modern rights-based democracy) and no unilateral succession right.

The part of you question about international recognition is a separate question, and does play a certain role in terms of - in the event of a conflict - who has 'effective' control and governance of the province. Even if succession is a no-go at international law currently regarding self-determination, this would change in the event of a conflict, with the 'effectivity' principle eventually coming into play.

We covered this in my international law class at law school (two years ago), but I haven't reviewed my notes, and certainly wasn't the brightest student.

BTW, I think Dion is the best Liberal candidate.

So I have some issues with this article.
(For reference I am not and will likely never be Liberal or consider voting Liberal)

Yes, internal politics are not clean within ANY party. Trust me I have experienced this first-hand. Factionalism causes people to do strange things. Yes, the Liberals seem to have it the worst.

Having stated that, this article seems to try to make(or suggest) Dion out to be some sort of corrupt entity. Umm... just because the majority of these power hungry political operatives seem to support one candidate has nothing to do with that translating into anything to do with dion himself. Where's the link?

On that note, I seem to remember Jack Layton saying something to the effect (and I'm paraphrasing here) at the ndp convention that for a Liberal he [Dion] is a highly resptable and Principled man. I believe Elizabeth May of the Green Party said something quite similar.

My other issue is Bill Tieleman's regurgitation of media misunderstanding regarding 'David Orchard.'
First off, he is not an 'anti-free trader' as the media have labeled him. Being against NAFTA does not mean you hate free trade in general. He argues that we had 'freer' trade under the 'GATS' rules than under the FTA or NAFTA. NAFTA has many issues and I do not support it myself. Yet I support The European Union and their version of free trade. Does this make me anti-free trade? These statements only encourage people to think in terms of black and white.

"Marissen has been part of some controversial Dion moves, including the inexplicable decision to welcome nationalist cult hero David Orchard into his campaign."

How is this inexplicable? He [Dion] does not have much of a presence in the prairies and shares many views with Orchard. Orchard has quite a following and is looking for someone in the Liberal party to support since his incident with Mackay. This makes alot of political sense and is not in anyway immoral(?).

Lastly whats the point in making this article about Dion, there is no real commentary on Dion himself. Really this is just an analysis of sketchy Liberal insiders' voting habits. Make a point or don't make this about something you are not even really going to comment on.

cosmo: Is that Amour de Cosmo (like the 2nd premier of B.C.)? Or is that Cosmo Kramer (like Michael Richards who shot his mouth off recently)?

You stepped up here, cosmo Krog, of your own accord, making almost identical accusations full of the same misreadings as Leonard Krog made in a personal email to me yesterday.

Is that what you call being "a victim of mistaken identity"? Pretty weak defence.

I'm not exactly sure what the heck you're driving at, but at a guess, when you say:

... I am first and foremost, intrigued by your self-image as The B.C. Attorney-General In Waiting ... implying how you must be as careful as the Pope in every word you say, every step you take. Hello?

There's something very wrong with this picture. You aren't the A.G., cosmo. And maybe you never will be the A.G. The people have something to say about that, remember?

Someone should explain: You're an M.L.A. from Nanaimo, part of the fighting Opposition, elected by the people who decided to trust you to defend their interests.

You're paid by the people of British Columbia ... many of whom are now asking "What's wrong with the NDP? Why is the Opposition so quiet?"

So cosmo or krog or kramer or cosmo krog ... don't lecture anybody about their duty to this province, while you feel that you can say nothing to reassure the people -- facing threats on all sides -- that justice will, in fact, be done.

How exactly would it hurt "the aspiring Attorney-General" to ask a question in the House because he's watching the situation and needs more answers himself (like Joy MacPhail regularly did)?

Surely, showing an interest in the facts of the Basi Virk Basi case might improve your chances of ever becoming the B.C. AG.

I know this drives you nutsy, but really ... why not drop in at http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com/ for some of the relevant Hansard records; or the essays written on the importance of the BVB trial; on the dates, times, places of the BVB hearings as well as what happens in the courtroom; or to read the comments people leave.

Why not (in your role as the aspiring AG, of course) leave a note applauding people who try to keep informed, and who argue the tough question about what's fair, what's logical, what's the best thing to do ... and who NEVER pre-judge the trial. Got that? Never. Tell Krog when you look in the mirror.

Or -- let me guess -- do you advocate placing bags over our heads for 5 years lest we find out what it all meant when 32 police sergeants raided the legislature for the first time in Canadian history?

mary, I'm sorry you're so upset. You are mistaken.

Any comments I write on here are my own private opinions, and you are entitled to yours. And I am aware of your blog. You're doing a good job keeping up on something that the media is completely ignoring.

The Tyee has a search function that you can use to see my occasional posts going back a number of years, most while I was a student in another province.

In fact, you do an excellent job with the blog.

Thank you, cosmo. I like it better this way.

If you'd be interested, I'll show you the message I received yesterday. My e.mail address is

Cheers Mary, I'll get in touch.

I was just thinking. The most recent Virk/basi delay into the new year might actually work better in terms of whether there is more media attention.

Maybe next year will be better??

Someone above mentioned the Accountability Act. The consensus among unbeholden public policy specialists is that this Act at best doesn't do anything substantive or constructive and at worst exaserbates the situation by unrealistically raising expectations (which will lead to more public disappointment and disillusionment) while simultaneously making it more difficult for honest civil servants to administer departments effectively.

I happened to drop in at the 2006 Law and Parliament conference and the only people really defending the legislation were Vic Toews and Treasury Board's Parliamentary Secretary, both of whom are tied to the legislation. Virtually every academic who spoke critiqued the legislation along the lines mentioned above (and the moderator at one point felt compelled to gently correct the somewhat underage Parliamentary Secretary on a critical point, lest the Q & A's become misdirected).

With those comments nightbloom, I have no hesitation to agree. The Accountability Act is smoke an mirrors and will probably make things worse if passed in its present form.

Toews is a complete and partisan disaster at Justice - who would have expected otherwise given his background?

By the way, I see the Pope has managed to leave behind some of his anti-Turk rhetoric in Rome. I wonder what else he left back at the Vatican in one of his Louis Vuitton bags.

Thanks for the input, Cosmo. Initially, I thought that if Quebec voted to separate, combined with this passed motion in parliment, that the implications would mean that the international community would respect Quebecs vote to separate under such a scenario and anything that Canada tries to do at that point to stop Quebec from becoming a recognized international nation would lead to an unjustified act of war, if Canada was to use force.

In other words, nothing can stop Quebec from separating legally as long as they have more than 50% of the Quebec vote (and I'm assuming 50% is enough now). It appears that my assumptions might prove correct, and I believe, under international law, that a vote of greater than 50% is all they will need. What was needed earlier, 55%? 60%? The percentage needed might drop for international recognition, I don't know, just throwing it out there.

Will it ever happen? I believe it would take mistreatment of Quebec by Canada to trigger it. Gomery doesn't logically wash. Quebec MP's involved with Gomery were their own people. These weren't corrupt MP's from BC or Labrador, and for that matter, it does miff me slightly to hear the entire Liberal party branded as corrupt when it was a small group from Quebec.

Every political party is an adopted family of sorts. When so and so gets pinched does it stain the brand or family name? Sure it does, but people know in general that they aren't all theives (unless its ideological like say the Nazi's but this isn't the case). But in politics, out comes the big broad paint brush. If one or more is corrupt, the whole party is corrupt. And who benefits? Your own party of course, if no one from your party got indited or incarcerated that day.

The exaggerations, the stretchers, put downs, rhetoric, insults, lies... its all a part of politics. Unholy alliances, backroom deals, secrecy, back stabbings, this is politics! This is the turnoff! People hard headed, nose headed, painting every other party but their own with the biggest, baddest stereotype they can find... and thank God, that we aren't all like that. Some are, but most aren't.

The thing with governing parties, especially majorities, is that a majority government is the ultimate test of faith, faith given by the public trust of its servants to do their job the best they can. And when that public trust is violated, its not hard to imagine hard feelings. But when the smoke clears, and the oppositions have had their say, the question remains and its a good one. Would the opposition do any better?

And this is where I now find myself examining the NDP at a federal level. Anyone can fingerpoint and say they will do better, fiscally, morally, internationally... but the fact remains with the NDP. They are an untested governing party, at best influencial and at worst, divisionary (in which, in some cases, might not be a bad thing). And until the NDP realizes the need to pass these tests at a smaller scale, to walk their own talk, they won't be ready or fit for the majors... its just how it is.

And so, I'll get to the heart of why its so hard for me to support not necessarily an NDP candidate federally, but its party and leadership as a whole. For one, the broad paintbrush approach to labelling all other parties as inferior in practice and ideology compared to their own, is simply not for me. A bit to Amway, a bit to "puritan". If party members are going to go there in numbers, they've got to walk that walk and it starts with their leader. Jack Layton simply turns me off, and I've explained what does turn me off in spades. I want a sincere, honest leader at all times! And instead, all I get with Jack is a politician. (might still vote NDP indirectly however, if the same food bank dude runs again in my riding)
:-)

Thanks to Mary and others for their kind comments on my article here.

One comment by Working Man claimed, to quote: "There is no association whatsoever between the Liberal Party of British Columbia and the Liberal Party of Canada."

I beg to differ, not that the BC Liberals don't try to say otherwise.

But take a look at the federal Liberal Party of Canada's National Executive, online at:

http://www.liberal.ca/executive_e.aspx

and here is what you will find - Gordon Campbell among others on the Executive.

National Executive
Between national conventions, administration of the Party is performed by the National Executive which is a body comprised of nationally-elected officers and committee chairs as well as representatives from each provincial or territorial association, the national commissions, the national caucus and the Leader....

Position Name
Leader William (Bill) Graham
President Mike Eizenga
Past President Stephen LeDrew
VP, English Michael Hillman
VP, French Annie Claude De Paoli
.......
Leader, Newfoundland & Labrador Gerald Reid
Leader, Prince Edward Island Robert Ghiz
Leader, Nova Scotia (Interim) Michel Samson
Leader, New Brunswick Shawn Graham
Leader, Québec Jean Charest
Leader, Ontario Dalton McGuinty
Leader, Manitoba Jon Gerrard
Leader, Saskatchewan David Karwacki
Leader, Alberta Kevin Taft
Leader, British Columbia Gordon Campbell
Leader, Yukon Arthur Mitchell

So, as you can see, the connection is quite real and published by the federal Liberal Party for all to see.

GlobalSkeptic:

I believe the dot Bill Tielman was trying to connect was where some of Martins less than noble buddies drifted to supporting next, and its a valid point. Dion's National Campaign Director is Marissen and Marissen & friends does have a past here in BC. But I think that's where it should end in a way with Martin support of Dion being inferred to as "where is the dirt going to settle next?".

The reality of it is that Martin's croney's just aren't what they once were, and their support is spread throughout all of the leadership hopefuls. Who is Goodale supporting? Bob Rae. And who would Martin himself support? His hand picked cabinet minister Ken Dryden? Two newcomers (Rae and IGGY)? His other hand picked cabinet minister of the environment, Dion? (mind you, Chretien picked him first) Martin's not running on this one so they all got to go somewhere, the good, the bad and the ugly! Haw!!

As for the broad stereotype paintbrush, Bill Tieleman, a journalist of which I hold in high regard, should probably put the brush down in regards to Dion's ethics or David Orchards own standing. Reaching out for the David Orchards of the world is not a far reach for Dion, nor a poor choice in strategy. For Dion, its right wing votes and for Orchard, its payback and lets face it. David Orchard is no Stephen Harper. I like Orchard already. :-) But thats how it is in politics.

Best friends can turn into bitter enemies over politics. Families have been known to split with arguements from the dinner table. Were they already disfunctional? Probably. And so is politics!

Nightbloom:

I agree. While realisticman offered a website that has the jest of the accountability act, all it is at this point is PR. All the words we read are in fact, nothing more than work sheets. Until these words are put into legal writing, they are nothing more than words. But I will say that if they pass legislation the way it is worded in the work sheets and all of them are passed, I would support it fully. But here's the stickler. It won't pass in its present form, and it likely won't pass at all, because it will go too far, and not far enough. A quick example:

In its present form, there isn't a party that could support these restraints, most specifically the Conservative party of Canada. Whats that tell you about their sincerity to pass such legislation for real? What will happen is that it is likely the bill to get voted down, and the Cons will try to use this "draft" as being the "honest" party of the bunch and we all know we can't vote for those "dirty" liberals under such light. The Conservatives out fundraised the Liberals by more than 3:1 with corporate donations.

That's perfect. Team Martin backs a loser -- again.

What Cosmo points to here, in my view, is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate and create a confusion which doesn't in fact exist.

Clearly Quebecois and Quebecers are the Anglo and Francophone word for the same phenomena: all citizens of Quebec, regardless of where they originally came from, be it Thailand, Haiti, France or Anglo-Canada.

There is little confusion in Quebec, I can assure you.

Some Anglo-chauvanists in our part of the greater country are merely attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill, and out of our resentment at not getting it all our way, which some have become over accustomed to, attempting to create a semantics problem that doesn't exist, save in their own minds.

It is a tempest in a teapot. All about nothin.

Yes, I didn't follow the trip closely, but he appears to have placated his more even-handed Muslim critics, although I noted there were still (and probably always will be) a hard core who tried to milk this tempest a little further. He needed to re-establish his credibility on this issue after the misunderstanding and subsequent overreaction (and deliberate exploitaion of it) that followed the Regensburg lecture. When it comes to mass media and deliberate manipulation of mass passions, perception trumps reality every time.

Note his concession on Turkey's E.U. bid. That must have hurt. I suspect they realized they needed to apply some triage and decide what the one or two key priorities/messages would be and then decide what they were willing to sacrifice to get them across. Since the Vatican never really had an official position on E.U. enlargement, that one had to go. I suspect this is what bought him all the good press in Turkey.

His gesture at the Mosque, praying to the East in the manner of Muslims, was a work of theatric genius. Of course, all Catholics in the West (except the clergy, ironically, since the Vatican II reforms which obliged them to face the congretation) pray to the East, since all altars are oriented towards Jerusalem. The Muslim "pose of tranquility" was a nice touch though.

nightbloom
Or maybe, just maybe, he realized that Eurocentric exclusionary tactics and attitudes were wrong. Just plain wrong...and un-Christian. If he now starts thinking about some of the other un-Christian things the Church stands for we will be lucky.

All that ceremonial and theatrical folderol is just gay! It impresses people who use their heads for hat racks, and not much else.

Looks like they made a rather good call.

Kudos for Marissen's strategic acumen--but isn't at least a bit ironic that everybody's favourite progressive green Liberal, Stephane Dion, is the heir to so much of the Martin support? I would feel on firmer ground with Bob Rae taking on Emerson & Co. over softwood lumber, fighting hard for Kyoto, and pushing for a national drug plan.

I guess that's about the only thing you could think of that was positive for such a slick willy.

I'd call it damning with faint praise - The Marissens and Clarks and Bornmans and Emersons and Campbells are what's always been wrong with the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed --- just a few more names on a long and compromised list.

Not too much credit now Mark Crawford; Liberals are notoriously easy to fool.