Monday, May 5, 2008


That's right. Blame the plumbing.

My conspiracy theories are rampant on this. You see, Diane Finlay was supposed to appear infront of the Immigration Committee and the Finance Committee today to answer questions about Bill C-50. You all recall Bill C-50. That's the one that reminds you of when you have to wrap your dog's antibiotics in a piece of cheese so that he doesn't recognize the awful pill. Bill C-50. An awful Immigration Reform Bill wrapped in a Budget Implementation Bill.

Anywho, because the plumbing at Parliament Hill had zero pressure today, Mrs. Finlay didn't get a chance to appear at these committees. So what does that mean? It means the committees will be stalled again.

The long and the short of it is that the Conservatives really don't want a spring election whilst in the middle of 5 scandals. So they will stall this Bill in committee until it can no longer get back to the house before the summer break. You see the Conservatives know full well that this is the Bill that Liberals have no choice but to vote against. They know that the Dippers and the Bloc may vote against it too, thereby toppling their shaky little minority government.

The House is set to adjourn for the summer break June 20 - a mere 46 days from now. However, his royal majesty Stephen Harper could end the session a couple weeks earlier, which means 32 days from now.

In the final analysis, what all of this means is that the Conservatives, as much as they would lead the public to believe, don't want an election right now. They'll stall the only Bill that can spark an election. And this all because of a toilet.

Say, didn't the Conservatives have some favours to call in from the Mayor of Ottawa?


don's hottie said...

You've officially gone off the deep end.

Koby said...

As Guidy Mamann of the immigration law firm Mamann & Associates the Conservative immigration reforms are largely redundant.

"Our current legislation states that the federal cabinet “may make any regulation ... relating to classes of permanent residents or foreign nationals” including “selection criteria, the weight, if any to be given to all or some of those criteria, the procedures to be followed in evaluating all or some of those criteria… the number of applications to be processed or approved in a year” etc. In fact, in the case of Vaziri v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Federal Court held in September 2006 that our current legislation “authorize[s] the Minister to set target levels and to prioritize certain classes of PR applicants” without even a
regulation being passed. Accordingly, Finley has more than enough power under
our current legislation to make virtually any changes that she wants subject to
the Charter.”