Would Canadians elect a PM who is a social conservative and fiscal 'progressive"?

Paul Wells, channelling Andrew Coyne and Chantel Hebert at the same time (Bravo! remarkable achievement!), notes that “while many Canadian politicians claim to be socially progressive and fiscally conservative, [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper is turning out to be the opposite on both scales.”

In other words, as events this week have underlined, his government is socially conservative and fiscally ultra-liberal.

As I hate to develop a bias in one direction or the other, I'd be pleased if someone might disabuse of this notion if, in fact, I'm correct.

And, more importantly, will Canadians elect a government with record spending levels, a record deficit, who believes ministers ought to be sidelined for funding a parade celebrating gay culture that brings in millions in tax revenue?

For the record: Harper's misguided attack on Ignatieff

At his closing press conference in Italy at the G8, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was asked about the future relevance of the G8. Here is an unofficial transcript of the question Harper was asked and his English-language response. (He responded somewhat similarly in French). The attack on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff came, unprompted by reporters I should point out, at the end of his comments to a question about the future of the G8:

Reporter: I would like to hear you speak about the future of the G8. What do you feel about the pressure that has been exerted by some countries to broaden the group to G5+1 to make it a G14 given the fact that year-in and year-out we see power from emerging economies and, with this in mind, how do you expect the Muskoka summit to unwind? Will there be as many participants there as there are here?

Rt. Hon Stephen Harper: The G8, in our judgment remains, an important forum. It is a forum of the major developed countries in which we get together, countries with much in common in terms of their economic structure, their values, their history. And we get together in a very intimate setting where we are able to discuss the major questions of the day.. that can drive a wider consensus. I think we reached at this particular g-8 meeting very important discussions on climate change and on Iran for example, things that I think will have a lot of impact going forward.

So I think it is an important forum. Some people say well the G8 is not a representative body in the modern world. It is not representative of the power. It's not representative of the economic realities of the modern world. It's not an appropriate forum for global governance. I agree with that. I don't think those of us who continue to support the importance of the G8 suggest that it is a body of global governance.

Obviously we have to have, we have to develop a wider body that will be more representative. What we've had recently, what we've had at this forum as I mentioned earlier — I counted at one point a G8, a G9, aG14 or 15, we had a G18. At one point a G19 and a G25 and finally ended with a G28 and of course we also have the G20 process going on around the world which is now up to G24 last time I counted. So I think our challenge for the year will be to try and use our presidency of the G8 to bring some coherence to this as we move forward.

I think it's important that the G8 continue to be a forum where we have the discussions among the major developed economies. At the same time, we do have to develop an institutionalized, more representative forum. We listened carefully at this summit to what other countries had to say and will be taking some decisions in this regard as we move forward towards Muskoka.

If you don't mind giving me a moment to address the comments of Mr. Ignatieff. The leader of the opposition suggested very recently in the last day or two, I gather, that it's possible — I’m not sure if he's saying it's desirable or should happen or could happen — that there will be a group come to the fore, a group of major countries that will exclude Canada. I don't know where he's getting this idea. Nobody but Mr. Ignatieff in the world has suggested excluding Canada from a meeting of major countries. Nobody. It's the first anybody has heard of it. I think it's an irresponsible suggestion, Mr. Ignatieff is supposed to be a Canadian. I don't think you go out and float ideas like this that are so obviously contrary to the country's interests when no one else is advocating them. So I would suggest that he look carefully at his comments and withdraw those. Frankly they would be irresponsible coming from anybody but particularly irresponsible coming from a kean Canadian Parliamentarian.

Immediately after those remarks were made, Dimitri Soudas, the prime minister's press secretary, told reporters that Harper's remarks on Ignatieff were incorrect and that he had misinformed the Prime Minister about them. The prime minister's staff said the remarks they misattributed to Ignatieff may have been made by an academic during a television interview.

For the record, Ignatieff, in London, England, earlier this week, said something about Canada's presidency of the G8 that was remarkably similar to what the prime minister said. Here's Ignatieff:”Huntsville should be a plce where we will make substantial progress redefining and refocusing the G8 itself.”

My colleague Peter O'Neil was at the press conference and filed this report.

Speaker Kinsella says the PM ate it

Senate Speaker Noel Kinsella jumps into the surprisingly heated debate about whether or not the prime minister downed the wafer — otherwise known to many Christians as the body of Christ, given for thee, to be washed down with a little wine, known in my church, as “the Blood of the new Covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins”– at Romeo Leblanc's funeral:

The Speaker of the Senate of Canada, the Honourable Noël A. Kinsella, issued the following statement today:

There have been some media reports focusing on the Communion Service during the funeral of the Right Honourable Roméo LeBlanc last Friday in Memramcook, New Brunswick. These reports have questioned whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper consumed the host that was given to him at the funeral.

I would like to state that I personally witnessed Prime Minister Harper consume the host that was given to him by Archbishop André Richard. Sitting only a few seats behind him I had a full view of the proceedings and clearly saw the Prime Minister accept the host after Archbishop Richard offered it. The Prime Minister consumed it.

Canada being a multicultural society is by consequence a multi-faith society and it is a Canadian value to be respectful of all our faith traditions.

As a Catholic, I was therefore pleased to see the Prime Minister of Canada express his solidarity and Communion with all those present in the sanctuary as we celebrated the life of the former Governor General.

I reflect that it was only one year ago that Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Primate of all of Canada hosted the World Eucharistic Congress and was supported by Prime Minister Harper and his government. Together with Minister Jason Kenney we were pleased to host in Quebec City all of the Cardinals and Prelates from around the world who were in attendance at this World Eucharistic Congress.

The Harper Government's long history of funding gay and lesbian activities

Lots of fallout today from my file yesterday. A reminder, in case you missed it:

Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy has been stripped of responsibility for administering a major tourism funding program after she signed off on a grant for Toronto's gay pride week.

Ablonczy, who retains her title as minister of state for small business and tourism, was in charge of the Marquee Tourism Events Program, an initiative to provide $100 million of funding over two years to the country's major festivals and tourist attractions like the Calgary Stampede, the Stratford (Ont.) Festival and the Montreal International Jazz Festival, each of which received at least $2 million in federal support.

But within days of her June 15 announcement that Toronto's Pride Week would get a $400,000 grant, Ablonczy lost control of the file to the senior minister in her department, Industry Minister Tony Clement.

Conservative MP Brad Trost said Ablonczy was removed from the file because of her decision to fund Pride Week, which its organizers say, is to “celebrate the history, courage, diversity and future of Toronto's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, intersex, queer, questioning, two-spirited” communities.

Trost was critical of Ablonczy for making that decision.

“The pro-life and the pro-family community should know and understand that the tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy,” Trost said in article published Tuesday at LifeSiteNews.com. “Canadian taxpayers, even non-social conservative ones, don't want their tax dollars to go to events that are polarizing, or events that are more political than touristic in nature.”

The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix was among several papers which ran this story today but SP reporter Jeremy Warren made it better with this little twist:

But in his criticism of his colleague, [Trost] did not mention his government funds Saskatoon's Pride parade. The Saskatoon Diversity Network received $9,000 from Canadian Heritage this year for last June's Pride Festival.

Now, a little birdie helpfully provides the following list of gay and lesbian (and bisexual, etc.) events funded by the Harper government:

  • Recipient: Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives
    Minister: Hon. James Moore
    Funding received – $175,000.00
    Purpose: Arts in Communities
    Date: 2009-03-26
  • Recipient: Vancouver Out on Screen Film and Video Society, Vancouver, British Colombia
    Minister: Hon. Josée Verner
    Funding received: $32,000.00
    Purpose: Project: 20th Anniversary Vancouver Queer Film Festival, Programming
    Date: 2008-2009, March 4, 2008
  • Recipient: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgender Pride Toronto
    Funding received: $21,000.00
    Date: ** Last modified, 2008-02-19
  • Recipient: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, and Transgenderal Pride Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Minister: Hon. Josée Verner
    Funding received: $35,000.00
    Purpose: Arts in Community
    Date: 2007-04-23
  • Recipient: Inside Out Lesbian & Gay Film Festival Inc. Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Funding received: $20,000.00
    Purpose: Project: Toronto Lesbian and Gay Film and Video Festival, Programming
    Date: 2008-2009
  • Recipient: Winnipeg Gay & Lesbian Film Society Inc, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
    Funding received: 4,000.00
    Purpose: Project: Reel Pride Film Festival, Programming
    Date: 2008-2009
  • Recipient: Reelout Arts Project Inc., Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    Funding received: $7,000.00
    Purpose: Project: Reelout Queer Film & Video Festival, Programming
    Date: 2008-2009
  • Recipient: Queer City Cinema Inc, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
    Funding received: $13,000.00
    Purpose: Project: Queer City Cinema 7, Programming
    Date: 2008-2009
  • Recipient: Inside Out Lesbian and Gay Film Festival Inc.Funding received – $26,000.00
    Date: 2008-2009 Last modified, 2008-02-19
  • Recipient: Darren McAllister, Ontario Canada,
    Minister: Hon. Peter MacKayFunding received – $550.00
    Purpose: To allow Darren McAllister to present his short film “Confessions of a Drag Queen” at the Outfest Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in Los Angeles, California from July 6 to 17, 2006.
    Date: 2006- 2007
  • Recipient : Michael Mew, British Columbia, Canada,
    Minister: Hon. Peter MacKayFunding received – $900
    Purpose: To allow Michael Mew to present his short film “Peking Turkey” at the London Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in London, United Kingdom from March 28 to April 6, 2007.
    Date:2006-2007

As a reporter, I have no official opinion, of course, as to whether it was a good idea or a bad idea to provide funding for these organizations and individuals. It is surprising, however, that we are only now hearing from Trost that the Conservative caucus objects to public funds being used for these kinds of “polarizing” purposes.

Finally, I can report that the Prime Minister's Office recognized early on this issue was going to be controversial and so, less than two weeks after Ablonczy was photograhed next to – gasp! – transvestites in Toronto handing over a government cheque, MPs were issued their marching orders on the subject. Presumably, some constituents were confronting Conservative MPs angry that money went to fund an event , as LifeSiteNews.com put it “which is notorious for its inclusion of full frontal nudity and public sex acts by homosexuals”. Other constituents might be supportive of Ablonczy and angry that a minister was disciplined for funding a perfectly legitimate organization which happens to celebrate the worth and dignity of gay people. Whatever: MPs were told on June 26 told to shut up and call Tony!

From: Alerte-Info-Alert <Alerte-Info-Alert@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>

To: Alerte-Info-Alert <Alerte-Info-Alert@pmo-cpm.gc.ca>

Sent: Fri Jun 26 15:18:41 2009

Subject: Marquee Tourism Events Program / Programme des manifestations touristiques de renom

Recently many MPs have received an increasing number of constituent communications related to the Marquee Tourism Events Program.

The program is now directly the responsibility of Industry Minister Tony Clement. He will be conducting a review of the entire program to ensure that the funding is providing genuine stimulus to the economy.

The Minister's office and the PMO are working together to support Caucus members and help them respond to constituents.

For further information, please contact Regional Affairs in the Prime Minister’s Office:

Jane's just plain wrong: Lots of influential women in Harper's PMO

The Globe and Mail's Jane Taber writes a popular “Hot and Not” column for her paper on Saturdays but she's made a serious and, to be honest, surprising error in this week's edition. While writing up a few paragraphs on women in politics, Taber says:

“Meanwhile, there are rumblings among some grass-root Liberal women that Mr. Ignatieff doesn't quite share that view. Mr. Ignatieff has few female caucus members in key critics' roles and has one senior woman in his entourage: communications director Jill Fairbrother . (Stephen Harper doesn't have a single senior woman.) The rumblings are that if more women were in high places, seeking consensus, we might not have come to the brink of another federal election this month.

The bolded part is my emphais and it's a sentence I'm sure Taber knows is incorrect.
As anyone who covers the PMO and the Conservatives know: The third most powerful person in the PMO — after Harper and Chief of Staff Guy Giorno — is a woman: Jenni Byrne, Harper's Director of Issues Management. If you ask most Conservative staffers if they'd rather be on the wrong side of Giorno or Byrne, I bet most would say Giorno. No one wants Byrne gunning for them.
And Byrne, unlike Giorno, has been there since day one of Harper assuming office. Byrne's unheralded influence for three years is largely a result, if you ask me, of the fact that she has never curried the kind of “inside-the-queensway” status that some other staffers are often interested in. I've asked some of the leading lights of the Parliamentary Press Gallery if they could pick Byrne out of a crowd and, even when she's walking down the stairs from PM's office right in front of them, they shrug in ignorance. For what it's worth: There are about four people in the PMO whose rolodex info I covet and she's one of them. Tough luck for me: I am told by many staffers that she is no fan of the Ottawa press corps and keeps them at arm's length.
Every Conservative staffer who matters in Ottawa hears from Byrne every day beginning at 7 a.m. when she holds her daily conference call to review what's in the morning papers, last night's newscasts, and what's the gossip on today's blogs and talk radio. She'll give marching orders or ask you to account for your activities the day before, particularly if there's a headline somewhere that she never saw coming. Byrne, I am told, can be a tough taskmaster and some staffers (women mostly, I'm told but I have no way of confirming) have quit because they felt Byrne was too tough. But other staffers, even those who have come in for a dressing-down by Byrne on those conference calls, says she has to be that tough because the meeting after her daily 7:15 a.m. call with staffers is with the prime minister and it's her job to make sure he is not surprised by anything a reporter or opposition politician might say that day.
When Sandra Buckler (another woman) was Harper''s director of communications, I'm told that she and Byrne often tussled over what the message of the day ought to be and then Buckler would decide how that message would be delivered. Buckler's successor, Kory Teneycke, I'm told, doesn't have the same kind of conflicts with Byrne. Teneycke, who is the director of communication (no 's' on that), seems to concede that it is Byrne's job to sort out the message of the day and Byrne seems to concede that it is Teneycke who knows best how to execute the communications strategy with that message. In other words: Byrne figures out what the message is; Teneycke does the messaging.
I would agree with Jane' s general thesis that a gender imbalance continues to exist among elected politicians and staffers but there are plenty of influential women behind the scenes in the Harper government:

  • Carolyn Stewart-Olsen: I don't know how Stewart-Olsen could slip from Taber's mind when she says Harper doesn't have a single senior woman advising him. Stewart-Olsen, a former nurse, has been on the plane next to Harper for every federal election he's been in. She is Harper's longest-serving staffer (Tom Flanagan, in his book Harper's Team, said he hired her in 2001 when Harper was trying to beat Stockwell Day for leadership of teh Canadian Alliance.) exceeding the tenure of Ray Novak and Dimitri Soudas. She is tremendously loyal and protective of Harper. And, like the other women in Harper's inner circle, she (it seems to me) has no interest in building cozy relationships with the Ottawa press corps, even though she's now been in Ottawa longer than many members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Stewart-Olsen is now a senior advisor and director of Strategic Communications for Harper. I'd say she outranks Ignatieff's Jill Fairbrother in terms of title, salary, and influence.
  • Jasmine Igneski. I've never met Igneski and I know no reporter who has. And yet, her current title is Director of Priorities and Planning – a very important job in any PMO. Before her current assignment, she was one of Harper's senior advisors. Check out her meeting record with lobbyists: If there was an economic or business issue you needed the PMO involved with, you went to see Jasmine. As far as I can tell, Andrew Wallace is the new Jasmine Igneski. My lobbyist sources tell me Igneski was someone you needed to deal with if you wanted to get anywhere in the PMO.
  • Isabelle Bouchard was once a separatist, then a member of the ADQ and finally a Conservative. She's not 30 (I think — cuz we all know it's not polite to ask a woman her age) and was Gordon O'Connor's director of communications when he was defence minister. Now she's working with Byrne in issues management with an eye towards Quebec.

There are many other women with senior administrative, communications, or policy advisor roles in the Conservative government. I say this not to be an apologist for the Conservatives. The Conservative record when it comes to nominating and electing female MPs continues to lag other parties. The Conservatives have come under fire by their political opponents for gutting some government programs that support women. And Conservative have all but ignored the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women. There is plenty of evidence that the Conservatives do not believe “the status of women” is an issue that ought to taken seriously.
But it is inaccurate and unfair to say, as Taber does in a widely-read newspaper, that “Harper doesn't have a single senior women” in his office. There are, in fact, several women who play an influential and important role in the most senior office in the land.

Ottawa gives group handout so group can promote life without handouts

Does this make sense to you?

The Fondation communautaire Gaspésie-Les Îles exists to to build a spirit of entrepreneurship in the Gaspésie. Since 2003, federal taxpayers have given the group $5.5 million which it has handed out to local businesses to create 350 jobs. The latest handout is $700,000 which, according to the press release from the federal government, is to help the Fondation “pursue its efforts to promote entrepreneurship and business succession.”

I always thought that being an entrepreneur meant you didn't need government handouts?

Am I missing something here?

Tories trying to change the channel? Naaah …

With a nominally conservative government about to nationalize a car company the week after announcing the largest deficit in Canadian history, I can't say I'm surprised to see members of that government fanning out across the country to have their pictures taken with uniformed police officers and remind their base that while the conservative economic agenda may have temporarily been abandoned, the Conservative law-and-order agenda is back on track! If you're collecting the set, here's what you'll need (all times local):

  • OTTAWA – Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan “Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety” 0930 outside the House of Commons.
  • SASKATOON – Minister Lynn Yelich “Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety” 1000 @ Saskatoon Policy Headquarters
  • HALIFAX – MP Gerald Keddy “Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety” 1100 @ Halifax Police Headquarters.
  • REGINA – (Former RCMP officer and) Conservative MP Rob Clarke “Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety “Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety” 1100 @ the Alvin Hamilton Building.
  • CHARLOTTETOWN – Fisheries Minister Gail Shea “Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety” 1100 at Charlottetown Policy Headquarters.
  • SAINT JOHN – Conservative MP Rob Moore “”Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety”” at 0930 at the Saint John Airport.
  • VANCOUVER – Former public safety minister and current Trade Minister Stockwell Day “”Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety” at 0900 at Vancouver Police Headquarters.
  • EDMONTON – Minister Rona Ambrose “”Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety”” at 0900 at Edmonton Police Services.
  • ST. JOHN'S – Senator Fabian Manning “Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety”” at 1100 at 10 Fort William Place.
  • WINNIPEG – Minister Vic Toews “Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety” at the Cargill Building @ 1100.
  • MONTREAL – Minister Christian Paradis “Will Make an Important Announcement Regarding Sex Offenders and Public Safety” at 1000 at the Montreal Science Center.

The daily snowball fight between Liberals and Conservatives

The 15 minutes directly before Question Period every day in the House of Commons is reserved for what are called Members Statements. MPs get 1 minute to say just about anything they want. Most of the time, MPs get up to acknowledge somebody or something special back in their riding, as Hamilton NDP MP Chris Charlton did today, when she saluted a slo-pitch league in her riding or when Liberal Michell Simson congratulated William McDonald for his work in helping veterans in her Toronto riding.

But recently, Members Statements has become a partisan battleground as Conservatives and Liberals throw verbal snowballs back and forth at each other across the aisle. (If you're counting, I'd say the Conservatives started this little fight last year, when they'd use Members Statements to pick on former Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and try to unnerve just before QP got started.)

Here's today's snowball fight, with Liberal Anthony Rota leading off:

M. Anthony Rota (Nipissing—Timiskaming, Lib.)Rota.jpg : Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have become a single issue party. The issue is taxes. They want them higher and they will have more of them to pay for their staggering deficit. Their leader told the House two days ago he will not bring in another budget, and I quote, “until we need to raise taxes”. It is now clear: taxes will rise under the Conservatives.

In these tough economic times, that is not what Canadians need. We need a stable and focused leadership that only the Liberals can provide.

Ce gouvernement conservateur attaque les familles canadiennes qui travaillent fort, et ils veulent faire en sorte qu'il soit encore plus difficile pour les Canadiens de subvenir aux besoins de leur famille.

Tout court, les conservateurs causeront des impôts plus élevés.

Raising taxes to cover their incompetence is just plain wrong. I know it is wrong. The people of my riding know it is wrong, and all Canadians know it is wrong. It is only the Conservatives who have not figured it out yet.

The always excitable Jacques Gourde then threw one right back at the red team:

EyeTVSnapshot.jpgM. Jacques Gourde (Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, PCC): Monsieur le Président, je veux rappeler au chef de l'opposition que l'enjeu aujourd'hui, ce n'est pas le déficit, c'est l'économie. Nous sommes en pleine récession mondiale et nous ferons tout ce qui est nécessaire pour protéger les Canadiens et les aider à surmonter la tempête économique.

Les mesures que nous prenons sont nécessaires, abordables et à court terme.

Nous ne présenterons pas d'excuses pour avoir fait des dépenses afin de stimuler l'économie, de protéger les emplois et d'appuyer les chômeurs. En fait, s'il devient nécessaire d'en faire encore plus, nous le ferons.

Les libéraux font preuve d'hypocrisie. D'un côté, ils critiquent la taille du déficit, et de l'autre, ils exigent que nous dépensions des milliards de dollars supplémentaires. Le chef libéral tourne au gré du vent et change de direction, comme un coq sur une grange. Par chez nous, on appelle cela une girouette.

There was a short break in the action while the aforementioned Ms. Charlton said something nice about people who slowly throw softballs at batters. And then Conservative Rodney Weston got back to throwing more mud at the Liberals:

EyeTVSnapshot[2].jpgMr. Rodney Weston (Saint John, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader is leading the Liberal Party down the path of hypocrisy and they are losing credibility with Canadians. On one hand the Liberal leader is in Toronto saying that he stands up for seal hunters, meanwhile, the Liberal Party's campaign boss is calling the hunt “appalling and more trouble than it's worth”.

Our Conservative government believes that seal hunters and their families are worth it. They are worth defending and our conservative government will continue to stand up for them.

The Liberal leader's biggest hypocrisy of all is on Canada's economy. On one hand they are attacking the size of the deficit and then on the other they are demanding billions and billions more in spending. They cannot have it both ways.

While the Liberal leader and his party continue on this path of hypocrisy, our Conservative government will continue to support and help Canadians during these tough economic times.

The BQ's Christiane Gagnon then jumped in with some criticism of Conservative Quebec MPs who, she felt, weren't standing up strong enough for the principal of appointing bilingual judges to the Supreme Court.

And then it was Liberal Scott Andrews' turn to get into it:

EyeTVSnapshot[3].jpgMr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister admitted to the House that he is spending hours holed up in his basement, going through old tapes that he has collected on the Leader of the Opposition.

We knew the government was a bit shaky when it came to scientific novelties like the greenhouse effect and the theory of evolution, but who knew they missed the digital revolution as well.

The Prime Minister seems to be stuck in another political era. Who does the Prime Minister think he is, Richard Nixon?

What are these tapes the Prime Minister is talking about? Is he bugging the phone lines again, just like when they eavesdropped on the NDP? Are there microphones in our offices and cameras in the potted plants?

It is time for the Prime Minister to wake up, throw away his little spy cameras and start focusing on the mess that he and his government have made to this economy or else he may be remembered in political history as fondly as Richard Nixon.

Andrews finished that one with a nice flourish, raising his arms up over his head and doing Nixon's V-for-Victory gesture.

But then, batting cleanup for the Conservatives as he often does, rose the hulking form of Daryl Kramp, Kramp was once an OPP officer in rural eastern Ontario and, though he's a pretty gentle guy when you're chatting with him, I can't say as I would ever want to get him angry at me. Perhaps because of his intimidating physical and vocal presence, he often gets the last spot before QP starts, perhaps in the belief that he'll throw off the Leader of the Opposition who he knows will speak next, asking the first question of Question Period. Here's Kramp's effort today:

Mr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are off in dreamland again. The issue is not the deficit, it is the economy. We are in a global recession, and the Conservatives will do whatever it takes to protect Canadians, to help them weather this economic storm.

The measures we are taking, they are necessary, they are affordable and they are short term, unlike the Liberal hypocrisy. On the one hand, they simply attack the size of the deficit and also demand billions more in spending.

As the Liberal leader revealed, their plan is to raise taxes on Canadian families and businesses. On April 14 he said “We will have to raise taxes”. He declared that a GST hike is on the table.

They support billions more on an east-west power grid, another $1 billion-plus on EI, $5 billion to bring back the Kelowna Accord that was written on the back of a napkin. The world economy is in a difficult position. Canada is a leader in this G8, but the Liberals are trying to spend us into oblivion. Canadians do not need taxes from the Liberals with their hands in the cookie jar.

In these times, only the Conservative government's steady leadership can keep us on the right track.

Breitkreuz reloads on new bill to get rid of long-gun registry

Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz says he is happy to let his legislation to kill the controversial long-gun registry die a quiet death as he gets behind the bill of another Conservative MP who he believes has a better shot at abolishing the rule that would force rifle owners to be certified.

Breitkreuz had introduced a private member's bill in February that would have forced only owners of restricted and prohibited weapons to obtain a gun registry certificate. But his bill went further than that, with, for example, changes to restrictions on the transportation of weapons and a call that the auditor general periodically review the operation of the gun registry.

Those additional items, he said in an interview, may have jeopardized the chance of his bill passing through the House of Commons so, on Monday, as his bill came up for debate, he purposely stayed out of the House.

Under House rules, debate on his bill could not proceed unless he was present. It may come up one more time for debate but even if it does, Breitkreuz will likely do the same thing, effectively killing his own bill.

He will, instead, work in favour of another private member's bill put forward by Manitoba Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner. [Read the rest of the story]

Chalk River: Time for return of the MAPLEs?

Canwest News Service has learned that some current and former nuclear engineers are quietly pushing a plan to reactivate a backup project for the NRU, a project shelved last year by AECL with the backing of Raitt's predecessor Gary Lunn.

In the 1980s, AECL began building two new reactors — MAPLE-1 and MAPLE-2 — next door to the NRU at Chalk River and were to have put them into service in 2000, allowing the NRU to be permanently retired. But last year, with construction of the MAPLEs seven years behind schedule, hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, and with no apparent prospects of sorting out a technical problem that prevented the federal nuclear regulator from certifying them as safe, AECL cancelled the project with Lunn's backing.

Raitt, who had not yet been elected an MP at the time, said she stands by Lunn's decision.

“We are not considering resurrecting this project which, despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent, continued to be crippled with irresolvable technical impediments, was eight years behind schedule, experienced serious licensing challenges, and had never produced a single medical isotope,” she said.

But two sources, both of them nuclear engineers who have worked on the NRU and the MAPLEs, say the MAPLEs are perfectly capable of safely producing isotopes and that Raitt ought to “persuade” the CNSC to take another look the project.

“I think there's a way out of this but the way out is that CNSC would have to relent on the safety requirements and that's a tall order,” said a former Chalk River engineer who is now a risk management expert for the federal government and asked not to be identified. “But maybe we'll have to get that in order to avert a major crisis.” [The whole story]