Earlier this week, a Conservative MP declared he yearns for the old Bloc Quebecois days because they spoke more French in Parliament than the current New Democrats.

Not to be outdone, the NDP and Liberals attacked that Conservative for not being fluent in English and insisted he be removed as critic for official languages.

Then the NDP put forward a motion which would force all future officers of Parliament to be fluently bilingual. They believe the same should apply to Supreme Court justices.

More than 40 years after it became official federal policy, bilingualism still creates friction between the two solitudes.

In reality, there is no shortage or short-shifting of French in Ottawa to represent the 16 per cent of Canadians who comprehend French only.

The prime minister has a French-first policy in speeches and press releases. The NDP have achieved a 50-50 balance in asking questions in both official languages. And costly translation services are everywhere to bridge the language divide.

But even being bilingual is not always good enough in this politically correct capital. First-class MP Paul Dewar wasn't fluent enough for some and that's why he was dumped early in the NDP leadership race.

Most Canadians accept that bilingualism partially defines us. But ensuring service in both official languages is one thing. Insisting that anyone in cabinet, senior critic, judicial or parliamentary service capacities be bilingual is quite another.

Cutting off the 82 percent of Canadians who are not bilingual from all senior jobs eliminates a huge pool of worthy candidates from consideration.

Besides, if you want proof that bilingualism is not essential to do the job, well, a good proof is a proof and the proof is a former prime minister.

Jean Chretien did a decent job at the top -- and he was not fluent in either official language. I'm kidding, of course.

I was born in the States, but renounced my citizenship to become a Canadian when I turned 21.

When I told that to a former U.S. ambassador, he suggested I should rectify my mistake by getting a U.S. passport in about a month.

Not to be outdone, a U.S. border guard took my daughter aside to insist that, having a father who was a natural-born Yank, she could and should secure speedy citizenship in his great nation.

Americans apparently regard any revocation of citizenship as an act of mental instability by those who must be forgiven for they know not what they've done.

Given the backlash against former media magnate Conrad Black's return this afternoon, Canadians obviously see it differently.

Once our citizenship is rejected, the humbled foreigner must crawl over glass to reclaim it.

Let's be honest here. The fuss over Conrad Black's return is about his fraud sentence. His crime was to surrender his Canadian citizenship to join the ultimate snob club as a British Lord.

That's an affront to our patriotic pride, perhaps. But it's no excuse to deny Black temporary or even permanent permission to live in the land of his birth.

For all his sketchy business conduct, he invested heavily in Canadian newspapers which are around today and doing rather well as a result.

And he is a changed man. His views on the merits of incarceration have undergone a stark reversal from his old hard-right beliefs.

His behavior in prison was, by all accounts, obediently exemplary.

And he has clearly realized the inherent value of being a wealthy Canadian trumps the elitism of being a British Lord.

Perhaps, then, Canada should be more like the United States in dealing with wayward citizens.

Let's forgive him for giving up on Canada. He knew not what he'd done. Now that he's back on his home in his native land, may Lord Black grasp that he really does live in the best country on Earth.

And that's the Last Word.

There are three stages to assess the failing health of a Stephen Harper cabinet minister.

When a senior minister is ordered to defend you from intense Question Period attack, you're in intensive care.

When Harper must personally justify your poor behaviour while wearing the dark face Laureen sees when ordering him to eat more broccoli, you're in palliative care.

And when a minister claims complete innocence hours before the Prime Minister's Office orders them to deliver an "unreserved apology" for bad behaviour, you have a dead minister talking.

That's why International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda is a goner. Not if. Just when.

Her enthusiastic embrace for ministerial luxury is framed by a history of stretch limousines.

But her latest move to reject a five-star room at a London convention site to book a smoking suite in the city's ritziest hotel is boneheaded so many levels, I don't know where to begin.

This is, after all, the minister assigned to help refugees and fight famines. Yet her orange juice tab could feed a Third World family for several days.

This is also the minister who apparently failed to alert damage control specialists in the PMO, who at least have some expertise at defusing bombshells, to the incoming horror story before it rolled across the Canadian Press newswire.

And by reimbursing taxpayers for the hotel upgrade and related limousine costs so reluctantly and gradually, she turned a two-day scandal into a full week of government bombardment.

This prime minister does not fire his chosen ones easily. But he has plenty of backbenchers who would not be as blind to the consequences of lavish charge carding, knowing the receipts could and would ultimately find their way into media hands.

The minister who is our political face to the world on matters of humanitarian calamity is now Conservative Exhibit A for snobby entitlement.

Not even Stephen Harper, whose pride goeth before the fall of any minister, can let this optical disaster go unpunished.

Bev Oda must be replaced now and not shuffled out under cover of late Friday darkness in July when the PMO hopes nobody will notice.

Her ouster needs a clear link to this behaviour to make sure the rest of the cabinet and government understands that what she did was intolerable.

Stephen Harper must reveal the political price of a $16 orange juice and a lavish smoking room upgrade is to lose the future perks and pay of a federal cabinet minister.

Today there will be considerable celebration over being 420 friendly.

For the longest time I had no idea what that meant. But a few years back, after being asked if I was 420-friendly a few times while near a computer, I consulted the Gods of Google.

That's when I learned it's the one celebratory date and time every year when marijuana users bond over a THC-induced state of international bliss.

But there's not much else for the Canada cannabis crowd to celebrate.

Despite recent pressure from four British Columbia attorney generals and assorted mayors, police officers, health agencies and the leaders of drug-growing Latin American countries, any serious decriminalization debate is more distant than ever.

Stephen Harper is more hostile to decriminalization than any prime minister since the hilarious Reefer Madness short movie was demonizing the drug. Even NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has gone decidedly cold to removing simple possession from the Criminal Code.

That's exceedingly unfortunate.

Marijuana is a legal remedy for those suffering pain and seizures. It's less addictive or harmful than alcohol or tobacco. Even police have figured this out and don't often charge for possession unless there are indications the individual is trafficking.

Indeed, the greatest danger is something young people in particular rarely ponder. If caught smoking up by the wrong cop, a conviction for simple possession carries a criminal record. And when you have a criminal record for pot, you can and will be turned back at the border or the airport if you're heading for the U.S.A.

So as they celebrate the fourth month's 20th day on the calendar at 4:20 on the clock, the cannabis crowd should inhale deeply and enjoy the moment.

When coming down they're still find themselves in a country that is, 40 years after Canada's LeDain Commission advocated decriminalization, as 420 unfriendly as it has ever been.

Of the six provincial elections held in the last year, the titanic clash of them all rages still in Alberta.

Let's put this epic battle into historical context. Alberta has been governed for 107 years by just four party dynasties -- the Liberals, United Farmers, Social Credit and the record-holding Progressive Conservatives. Once a ruling party lost power, they shrunk to a rump or disappeared entirely.

So the electoral stakes are incredibly high as the greatest threat to the Conservatives after 41 years of non-stop rule rolls toward the grand finale in 10 days.

Middle-spectrum Conservative Premier Alison Redford is in a death struggle against harder-right Wildrose Alliance Leader Danielle Smith.

This welcome showdown between two intelligent women offer Albertans a welcome contrast of visions for a province roaring as Canada's economic engine. For added drama, the polls now have them tied for voter affection.

That meant last night's leaders debate was a crucial showdown with the potential to sway the final result.

There were no knockouts but, in my view, confident Danielle Smith notched the win for being in firm control of an appealing agenda her opponents failed to demonize. Redford, by contrast, appeared competent enough, but slightly rattled while under all-party attack.

Even so, they have given Albertans an enviable choice.

Those weary of prolonged one-party rule have a viable option in the Wildrose, whose only negative may be they're too conservative for an increasingly cosmopolitan province.

Those disinclined to gamble on an untested governing party have a superior premier in Redford, who will only get better with experience.

But this much is certain. When Albertans vote for change, they tend to do it for a generation or more. That's why the campaign for Canada's most prosperous province is the ultimate power play.

Right from the get-go, Stephen Harper could see right through the NDP convention to its leadership crisis on the other side. 

If Thomas Mulcair wins, I win, the prime minister confided to a few MPs. If he loses, I win too.

Give the prime minister credit. He is ruthlessly efficient at spotting a cold-blooded Conservative opportunity in any opposition disarray. 

When party patriarch Ed Broadbent unleashed broadsides at frontrunner Thomas Mulcair this week, pleading for the faithful to elect his choice of Brian Topp over unworthy Quebec troublemaker Mulcair, a hitherto hidden divide burst into the open. 

Never mind that it makes no sense for Broadbent to be critical of Mulcair's moderating push to the middle given that he was in favor of merging with the Liberals.

The true significance is how Ed Broadbent has deliberately revealed the thick wedge which will split the NDP in the messy aftermath of Mulcair's probable victory.

Mulcair you see, was to Jack Layton what Paul Martin was to Jean Chretien. 

Both were conniving heir apparents who the leader embraced as insiders, knowing it was best to keep enemies even closer than friends. 

But behind the closed doors of the NDP caucus pre-2011, Mulcair was a divisive force. That rift was only papered over by the commanding sway Layton held over his all-loyal followers. 

With Layton gone and the stakes elevated to leader of the Official Opposition, the paper is peeling back to expose an ugly polarization beneath. 

As NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair will be an antagonist to those who want the party rooted in a quasi-socialist, union-friendly, tax-the-rich dogma. 

As a loser, a bitter Mulcair could become another Lucien Bouchard, turning against his adopted party to a deep fracturing effect. 

Either way, as the prime minister so astutely noticed long before anyone else, Stephen Harper wins.

Two secret meetings in the prime minister’s office this month should become chapters in any crisis communications manual.

One is the wrong way to handle major problem files. The other highlights the correct response to big bad political news.

Shortly after the Robocall scandal broke, aides advised Stephen Harper to appear dutifully concerned and pledge full cooperation with any Elections Canada investigation.

He refused, angrily vowing to remain aloof and deliver a full-on head-banging assault against his House of Commons adversaries.

The prime minister then went forth and called them sore losers, blamed other parties for being Robo-culprits and dismissed all allegations of electoral funny business as a baseless, fabricated, opposition smear job. 

He even demanded the Liberals surrender all their documentation while his party defiantly refused to cough up their records. Their bizarre rationale? Well, the Conservatives did nothing wrong, so why should they?

But as this controversy dragged on and Harper found himself unleashing a few erroneous smears of his own, another meeting was held.

This week Harper assembled all party insiders who would know everything about its election tactics. He went around the table and demanded they come clean if they knew of any dirty tricks. No confessions were forthcoming.

That’s when Harper suddenly changed the tone and his tactics. He throttled back partisan hostility and dropped the government’s opposition to an Elections Canada request for enhanced investigative powers. He even pledged to surrender his party’s records for the probe.

That’s the correct response. Had he done this at the beginning of the Robo Call caper, the prime minister could’ve saved himself a lot of heat in the Commons.

By demanding his electoral stormtroopers come clean, Harper recognized that a Robo-Call coverup would be worse than the crime.

But if there’s a communications lesson for a Stephen Harper while under future fire, it’s that co-operation beats confrontation every time.

Calgary Conservative MP Rob Anders has graduated from being one of the worst MPs in Parliament to merely being the sleepiest.

This five-term miracle of an MP, who has done little to justify his longevity, nodded off in camera range during a Question Period last fall. This week, several witnesses report he dozed during a veterans committee meeting while MPs were being briefed on a program to help homeless vets.

Anders denies all of course, retreating to the mistaken and desperate smearing of his accusers as NDP sympathizers who support Russian President Vladmir Putin. Nobody can quite figure out what he means by either flailing accusation.

Rob Anders has no onerous parliamentary duties to sap his energy. He’s without ministerial portfolio or committee chair duties to crowd his daytimer. He doesn’t even make the cut for Friday Question Periods when the talent of third-stringers are showcased to a mostly empty Commons.

Yet, well-connected Postmedia journalist David Pugliese was told that Anders was yawning at his arrival for a meeting in Halifax on Tuesday, fell asleep during the conversation and bolted from the meeting as soon as it was over.

Lest we forget, MPs earn almost $160,000 a year and 40-year-olds like Anders are already in line for ludicrously generous pensions at age 55.  Attending committees are a big part of their job and there’s an unwritten rule they should actually stay conscious during the proceedings.

For reasons never made clear, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has always supported Anders for his party’s nomination in Calgary despite a groundswell of opposition to his ongoing candidacy.

Perhaps Canadians should be relieved Anders has stopped behaving badly, like the time he denounced former South Africa president Nelson Mandela as a terrorist or compared the Beijing Olympics to Olympics hosted under Nazi rule.

For these and many other transgressions, Anders has been placed deep in the ranks of nobody MPs and ordered to tread lightly so as to leave no lasting impression on anybody.

On that score, he’s been successful. Given the considerable exertion it takes for Anders to remain invisible, being alert might be too much to ask. Staying awake is the least he can deliver.

My all-time favorite political memory was watching Alberta Premier Ralph Klein being confronted by a young taxfighter named Jason Kenney outside the legislature cafeteria in the early 1990s.

Kenney demanded Klein eliminate the platinum-plated MLA pension plan. A furious Klein tried his feeble best to counterpunch, but it was a lost fight from the start for a premier on the verge of cutting deep in government spending.

The next day Klein waved the white flag. He eliminated the MLA pension plan entirely and told his caucus to accept it or quit. Jason Kenney, by the way, is now entitled to an even more lavish pension plan as a federal cabinet minister.

That’s the one, if not only, lesson Prime Minister Stephen Harper appears to have learned from the charismatic people’s premier.
Harper cautioned his MPs Wednesday to brace for reductions in their pension plan and cuts in office budgets.

Good for him. It must be done if Harper has any hope of selling an austerity program to nervous public servants and the general public.
But it should go far beyond a token public relations gesture.

Granted, politics is an easily-terminated occupation which justifies a financial safety net. But it’s also a selfless act of public service, not a career, where money is a secondary reward.

If Harper needs inspiration for downgrading or eliminating the MP pension plan, he has trailblazers in his own cabinet. Treasury Board President Tony Clement killed the Ontario pension for MPPs. And then there’s the same Jason Kenney who browbeat Klein into pension submission in Alberta.
Now is the time to retire Canada’s richest pension plan.

It’s the fiscally prudent thing to do. It’s the Conservative thing to do. It’s the popular thing to do. And, bonus, it’s the right thing to do.

That’s the Last Word.

The Twitterverse erupted with such fury yesterday that a Canadian politician was briefly the number two target on the planet.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews (@TellVicEverything) was besieged with thousands of followers posting every tiny detail of their lives to protest his Internet snooping bill.

It was a fun display of social media in full mocking attack mode.

But there’s something Vic Toews really needs to know beyond what a lot of followers had for lunch. His government’s law agenda is in disorder.

Never mind the big picture of an omnibus crime bill out of step with public opinion. Polls show a preference for prevention and rehabilitation over this government’s fixation on punishment and imprisonment.

Or that mandatory prison sentences will turn jails into a kindergarten criminal school for minor offenders. Six months for growing six marijuana plants? Three years for a kid caught holding a loaded gun? Where’s the logic in that?

Yet the loudest public backlash was reserved for this week’s lawful access bill, which would give police invasive Internet surveillance powers without a warrant.

It was introduced the day before the Conservatives killed off the federal long gun registry for being too intrusive. How ironic.

Toews initially framed it as a choice between bill supporters and child porn sympathizers. Then he told me he’d never said any such thing. Which, of course, is simply not true, as Commons video proved:

He then misnamed the bill as a warrantless child porn crackdown, glossing over the fact it will allow the police infiltration of any suspicious Internet user without a judge’s consent.

What’s worse, the need for it has never been articulated. Police can’t list a single case of a child porn producer escaping justice because of the existing warrant requirement.

To their credit, members of the Conservative caucus and the Prime Minister sensed big problems with the bill very quickly and Toews was forced to surrender it to a parliamentary committee for a make-over.

But a bill cannot be satisfactorily amended if it’s not needed in the first place. It should simply die on the order paper.

And if telling Vic Toews everything about his off-side lawmaking offends the minister, well, I’ll just deny saying it tomorrow.