Greg Staples is running the numbers, now that both Kilgour and Cadman have announced they’ll vote to defeat the government;
Liberal + NDP + MP Parrish = 151
Conservative + Bloc Quebecois + MP Kilgour + MP Cadman = 155
As he notes, even with two Conservatives too ill to travel, it renders Jack Layton’s attention seeking ploy irrelevant. Damian Brooks makes a good point in the comments – with so many prominant Libranos heading down the gangplank and hoping to swim to safe diplomatic and patronage posts, how many back-bench Liberals will abandon ship?

I hear the train a’comin’
Comin round the bend
Ain’t seen the sunshine since
I don’t know when
But I’m stuck in Ferndale Prison
Time keeps draggin’ on
And I hear that lonesome whistle
I hang my head and moan.

“Rex Murphy: The story goes around that at the next day’s caucus meeting — Mr. Chretien, I, my judgement, ah, wasn’t the most hospitable witness — but that you were supposed to be leading a cheer for Mr. Chretien the next morning in the caucus. That’s been reported widely and a number of people have called in here today. (a) Did you? and (b) If you did, why did you do so?
Paul Martin: No, I, I think — first of all, you, I think you understand as well as I do that, that there’s nobody at those caucus meetings except Members of Parliament, so anybody reporting on them is reporting, you know, second, third, fourth-hand. Ah, but fundamentally, ah, what happened is that, that caucus, ah, ah, did react, ah, to the fact that a former prime minister had just testified, and that’s a very very rare occasion to testify in front of a commission such as this. And that was, that’s what, that’s all that happened, there were a number of issues discussed, but they, they just simply said: former prime minister testified. I mean, the fact is that I testified as well, and, and ah, I took it very very seriously and I think that we would all take it very seriously under those circumstances. It fundamentally comes back to this — integrity in public life requires I’m telling the truth.”

He’s made a believer out of some people.

I believe Martin when he says he deeply respects Gomery. I believe he showed his respect when he led the Liberal caucus in a standing ovation for Jean Chretien’s display of open contempt for Gomery. I believe Martin wants no stone left unturned. I believed that when he ordered Liberal MPs to shut down the Public Accounts Committee’s investigations last year, before the last election. I believe if the Liberals get a majority government again, they wouldn’t shut down the committee again, or interfere with Gomery, as they have with other inquiries.
I believe Martin when he says he’s glad that Sheila Fraser, the auditor general, issued her report. I believe Liberal MPs and spin doctors were acting without Martin’s approval when they personally attacked Fraser.
I believe Martin when he says he was happy to fire Alfonso Gagliano. I don’t think it’s odd that last summer he recorded a video birthday greeting for Gagliano, saying “I wish I could be there Alfonso. You may be a terrible golfer, but you’re a tremendous political leader. Congratulations.”

Heh.

“I didn’t have to call the commission. I could have done what most politicians would do – just try to avoid it,” he said. “I just feel so strongly about the integrity of the political process that I was prepared to run the risk of damaging my own political prospects.”
Martin, who asked for more time in office during an address to the nation Thursday night, said he received “tons” of advice telling him not to have the inquiry – to “hide this thing” and to “put it under the rug.”

A startling admission from a Prime Minister who has not yet announced any mass firings or ejections from his party or caucus.
So tell us, Mr. Prime Minister – Who are these people? What are their names?”

As Gomery begins to hear testimony from Chuck Guit� and Paul Coffin, Captain Ed is gearing up to report on it.

Politicians will know the specific testimony of the two witnesses at the end of each day, if not almost in real time. Some media sources will watch and hear Guit� and Coffin tell everything they know about Adscam and the politicians who profited most from it on live TV feeds that they will be barred from rebroadcast. The only people left in the dark will be those Canadians who have seen their money stolen by the people they trusted to wield power lawfully.
As part of the ‘imperfection’ mentioned tangentially in the Montreal Gazette, I had hoped that the brouhaha over my publication of Brault’s testimony would have convinced Justice Gomery of the folly of publication bans. Apparently not. If my original source can get me reliable information on the testimony under the ban, I will republish it again here.

Stockwell Day has been asking the right questions.

In question period yesterday Stockwell Day, Official Opposition Foreign Affairs Critic, asked “Mr. Speaker, Maurice Strong, long time Liberal, long time mentor of the Prime Minister, long time business associate of the Prime Minister and companies such as Canada Steamship Lines and Cordex, has suddenly resigned his post at the United Nations. To date the government has refused to stand up and answer questions about the Iraqi oil for food scandal at the United Nations. Canadians are wondering why the Prime Minister will not just stand up in his place and state categorically that there has been no implication of Canadians or Canadian companies in the UN oil for food program. Where does this all end? Why will he not just stand up?”
Day has been asking questions related to any possible Canadian involvement in the Oil-for-food-scandal for several months, all with no response from the government.
“We want to presume innocence on these matters,” said Day. “However the government’s peculiar silence only leaves the questions hanging in the air”

And, in other Canadian related Oil-For-Food developments, Paul Volcker’s investigation is coming apart at the seams;

Last night, in the most explicit criticism so far directed at the report, Robert Parton, one of the senior investigators, told a lawyer involved with the Volcker inquiry that he thought the committee was “engaging in a de facto cover-up, acting with good intentions but steered by ideology”.
The lawyer, Adrian Gonzalez, told The Sunday Telegraph that he believed the committee, headed by Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, was determined to protect the secretary-general.
According to Mr Gonzalez, Mr Parton felt that the committee had effectively divided the body of evidence relating to the oil-for-food scandal into testimony that it did want to hear, and testimony that it did not.

H/t – Paul Tuns.
(More on Maurice Strong here, if the name is new to you.)