Shocker

Nobody could have foreseen that the much-ballyhooed Backbench Spring would give way to the Toadying Summer Olympics. But sure enough, the first question from a Con MP nominally challenging his party's whip looks like a gold medalist in the Party Boot-Licking and Tar Sands Shilling biathlon.

As best, it looks like we may be able to draw some amusement seeing the Cons' backbenchers compete for the right to ask future variations on "Mr. Prime Minister, your government has the momentum of a runaway freight train loaded with Uncle Cappy's Magic Non-Polluting Petroleum-Derivative Elixir, which will never spill and we shouldn't care if it does. Why are you so popular?". But anybody holding out hope that there might be some critical thought forthcoming from within the Cons figures to be in for a long wait.

Walk AND chew gum? At the same time?

Sure, Ron Cannan's earth-shakingly classless segue deserved all the criticism it attracted. But perhaps the more telling recent statement of the state of the Cons can be found in Leon Benoit's pitch to use the Cons' stacked deck to avoid a nomination challenge. Shorter Benoit:

I'm utterly incapable of carrying out more than one task at a time. But fortunately, your doing nothing will allow me to stick to the trained-seal duties which I so enjoy.

h/t to Pundits' Guide.

Lies and the lying liars who tell them

As is usually the case in the wake of a Con public relations blitz, there are loads of outright lies just waiting to be refuted. For now, let's take a moment to deal with one of the more obvious ones.

Here's the claim of Con MP Leon Benoit, which appears to be a fairly standard Con talking point:

Benoit stated that before the election Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and Stéphane Dion all had said they were not in favour of forming a coalition government.

Leaving aside the fact that Stephen Harper personally mentioned the possibility of a coalition, let's review what the other party leaders said about it during the course of the campaign.

Jack Layton was asked many times about the possibility of a coalition government. But throughout the campaign he at least left the door open to the possibility:

NDP Leader Jack Layton refused Monday to rule out the possibility of entering an alliance with the federal Liberals to prevent another Harper government.

“I've worked with any other party. I think people have seen that. Maybe it goes back to my days on municipal council – you roll up your sleeves and you try to solve a problem,” Mr. Layton said in an interview with CTV's Canada AM.

“I think right now the problem we have is Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. They're taking the country down the wrong path.”

Only in the world of Con spin could that be taken as a declaration that Layton wouldn't participate in a coalition. (Indeed, the same article features James Moore bashing Layton for having agreed to the idea of a coalition which the Cons now claim was never discussed.) And Layton's position remained substantially the same until election day:

NDP Leader Jack Layton says he will wait until after the votes are counted tonight to talk about coalitions with other parties.

"One has to see what Canadians are going to decide. After that, one can evaluate the situation," Mr. Layton told reporters at a campaign stop yesterday in the Toronto riding of York South-Weston.

In sum, it should be obvious that Layton consistently left open the possibility of a coalition, and equally consistently took that position that the time to discuss the idea would be after the election.

Similarly, Gilles Duceppe plainly signalled his willingness to work with the Liberals if a particular policy or idea proved to be beneficial for Quebec:

Earlier in the day, Mr. (Duceppe) said he is willing to forge alliances with Stéphane Dion on issues such as the environment to advance Quebec's interests...

“We don't mind if it's a red label, a green label, a yellow label, or a blue label…any kind of label. We look at the substance of each proposal and then we look if it goes in the direction of Quebec's interest and Quebec values. If it does we support it, if not we oppose it,” Mr. Duceppe said.

And of course, it's worth highlighting that the Bloc's involvement is limited to having accepted the proposal to bring down Harper's government and support the Lib/NDP coalition. Which would plainly fit within the type of action Duceppe suggested would be appropriate for his party.

In sum, the Cons are flat-out lying about what two of the three opposition parties said during the course of the election campaign - and all in the name of an argument about honesty and legitimacy. And their demand for another election to ratify a concept which was already obviously in front of Canadian voters represents little more than a declaration of entitlement to decide for the opposition parties when and how they can discuss working together.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Freedom of speech ends where we disagree: Committee Edition

The NDP's hard-fought effort to win hearings on the Security and Prosperity Partnership may only be a first step in attracting public attention to the issue of deep integration. But it's managed to cause yet another Con to blow a fuse - this time the committee chair Leon Benoit, who attempted to shut down the hearing to prevent a witness from testifying about the consequences of guaranteeing energy supplies to the U.S.:

Amid heated charges of a coverup, Tory MPs yesterday abruptly shut down parliamentary hearings on a controversial plan to further integrate Canada and the U.S.

The firestorm erupted within minutes of testimony by University of Alberta professor Gordon Laxer that Canadians will be left "to freeze in the dark" if the government forges ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North America...

The deal, which calls North American "energy security" a priority, will commit Canada to ensuring American energy supplies even though Canada itself -- unlike most industrialized nations -- has no national plan or reserves to protect its own supplies, he argued.

At that point, Tory MP Leon Benoit, chair of the Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, which was holding the SPP hearings, ordered Mr. Laxer to halt his testimony, saying it was not relevant.

Opposition MPs called for, and won, a vote to overrule Mr. Benoit's ruling.

Mr. Benoit then threw down his pen, declaring, "This meeting is adjourned," and stormed out, followed by three of the panel's four Conservative members.

The remaining members voted to continue, with the Liberal vice-chair presiding.

Mr. Benoit's actions are virtually unprecedented, observers say; at press time, procedure experts still hadn't figured out whether he had the right to adjourn the meeting unilaterally.

It's mildly surprising that Benoit was himself taken aback by testimony which shouldn't have come as much surprise given the NDP's legitimate concerns about the effects of ceding Canadian sovereignty. But that aside, Benoit's action seems only to be yet another symptom of the Cons' general belief in a right to shut down any discussion which doesn't suit their political purposes.

Fortunately, the effect of Benoit's snit will likely be to win more attention for Laxer's testimony than might otherwise have been received. And if the opposition parties continue to ensure that information is available despite the Cons' desire to suppress it, it shouldn't be long before the wave of truth washes Harper and company out of any position to dictate who says what.