Floor crossers, should they be banned, Carney's British English, Trump's court fight on tariffs and more...

Plus the Supreme Court and that crazy decision last week.

The speculation in Ottawa about floor crossers is getting silly, some of the names being pushed don’t make any sense. Which makes me think that this is really an attempt by the Liberals to try and destabilize the Conservatives.

Sorry, that would be “destablise” in Mark Carney’s new English but more on that shortly.

We have seen Liberals push name after name including Chris d’Entremont who did cross, but others who have said they have no interest in crossing. That was the case for Dominique Vien the Conservative MP from Quebec’s south shore who had to post a video after jerks like me published her name following weeks of speculation.

If you don’t speak French, let me summarize, or sumarise in Carney English. She says that she’s heard the rumours that she would be leaving the Conservative caucus to sit as a Liberal or an independent, but that’s not true. She states clearly that she is and will remain a Conservative and that she doesn’t like Mark Carney’s budget.

Meanwhile, Joël Godin, the MP for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier a riding northwest of Quebec City, who has been named as a possible floor crosser declined to answer questions entering caucus on Wednesday. Does that mean he’s ready to cross or not just putting up with the BS?

Conservative insiders tell me that he won’t be changing teams anytime soon.

The rumour mill is insane, with Liberals pushing the idea that all kinds of Conservatives are looking to jump ship. I’ve had several Liberals tell me that Michael Chong has been looking to cross the floor, an idea that is so ridiculous that I didn’t even call Chong to ask him because anyone floating that doesn’t know the man or conservative politics.

After I mentioned that on 580 CFRA in Ottawa, Chong called me to assure me that he wasn’t crossing to the Liberals. Michael, I never doubted you.

It’s doubtful that other names Liberals are pushing will come to fruition.

What is clear is that Carney and the Liberals are reaching out to Conservative MPs and making them offers to switch parties. Are they making illegal offers? I’d really like to know what has been put forward.

Is a “comfy landing” being offered for those that will cross? It wouldn’t be the first time that kind of thing has been offered.

Canadian, versus British, versus American English…

Canadian English has always been a hybrid between American and English spelling. For those that don’t know, standardized spelling isn’t a very new invention and the battle between the American and English standardized spelling is something we’ve long been caught in.

In standard Canadian English we spell colour with a U like the British and unlike the Americans. Meanwhile, we spell words like standardize with a Z like the Americans rather than an S like the Brits.

We are in between both worlds and if you grow up with it as I have then it’s second nature. Carney though has mandated that all spelling in English in government documents follow British spelling.

So much for sovereignty.

Should MP’s crossing the floor be banned…

Every time there is a big floor crossing the calls come out for this to be banned, made illegal. It seems to be something that unites Canadians, if someone crosses the floor to the other side, they think that should be made illegal.

As I discuss in this video, even though it may not be a popular position, this is part of our system.

Here’s why…

Carney’s budget is completely unsustainable, just like Trudeau’s budgets…

I am still hearing people say that Mark Carney’s first budget, presented by his finance minister Frankie Bubbles - sorry, François-Philippe Champagne - has spending under control. That’s not what the numbers say and that’s a major part of my column on the issue today.

As I point out in my latest column for the Sun, Carney’s budget doesn’t deliver on so many fronts including generational change. I’m not alone in saying that and if you read the piece and know that I’m uncomfortable in the company that I am keeping.

Bottom line, people don’t think this is a great budget no matter where they sit on the political spectrum.

Trump’s court fight over tariffs…

I spent part of my day listening to the U.S. Supreme Court hearings on Trump’s tariffs so that you didn’t have to.

There are two types of tariffs on the line, Section 232 tariffs and IEEPA tariffs. As a court watcher, and someone who has read the legislation that allows both forms of tariffs to be applied, I think the 232 tariffs will be upheld and the IEEPA tariffs could be struck down but I’m not sure which way the court will go.

What this means for Canadians is that tariffs on products like oil and natural gas could be struck down. It’s highly unlikely that Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum or autos will be lifted.

The legislation that allows the 232 tariffs gives the President broad and sweeping powers. The legislation that allows the IEEPA tariffs is far more limited in terms of what the President may be able to do.

That doesn’t mean that Trump will lose on all fronts but if he does lose, it is likely on the IEEPA tariffs but not on the 232 tariffs.

Sean Fraser ruined immigration and housing and how justice…

I really wish Sean Fraser had never entered elected politics because the man keeps proving himself to be incompetent. There are Liberals that I can disagree with but believe they have a clue, Fraser isn’t one of those politicians.

So, when he came out and said that he would not even consider using the notwithstanding clause to overturn last Friday’s crazy Supreme Court decision, I wasn’t all that shocked.

Fraser is one of those Liberals more married to ideology than results.

Despite my political leanings on the conservative side, I’m more interested in politicians who will look for the best result. Fraser is not one of those politicians and therefore he is rejecting the idea that he will use the notwithstanding clause to overturn the court’s decision.

This is where Fraser and I disagree: Using the notwithstanding clause to overturn this ruling would not be overriding the Constitution. It would be overturning a bastardization of the plain meaning of the Charter. It would be telling a judge, five of them actually, that their job is not to bend the law to their own vision; it is to interpret the law as written.

Do read and please share the whole column on social media or via email, it’s important that as many people as possible see this information because it won’t be reported elsewhere.