InfoAlerteBotWatch: Reports of the death of C-12 greatly exaggerated?

Courtesy of the Conservative Party's tireless InfoAlerteBot emergency broadcasting system, a surprisingly feisty response to a Globe and Mail report on an alleged all-party deal to quietly snuff a bid to even out "voting inequalities" by giving more seats to Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia:

From: Alerte-Info-Alert [mailto:Alerte-Info-Alert@conservative.ca]
Sent: December-03-10 10:54 AM
To: Alerte-Info-Alert
Subject: Another False Globe & Mail Story / Une autre histoire erronée du Globe & Mail

Another False Globe & Mail Story

In the Globe & Mail, John Ibbitson states the government has come to an agreement with opposition parties to kill C-12, the Democratic Representation Act.

This story is completely false.

Today the Prime Minister confirmed that our Government will continue to move forward with our representation by population bill.

We believe, to the greatest extent possible, each Canadian's vote should carry equal weight.

It is only fair that as some provinces increase in population, so too should their representation in the House of Commons. Ensuring citizens are adequately represented is fundamental to democracy.

Our government is taking a principled approach that strikes a balance between restoring fairer representation for faster growing provinces, while protecting the seat counts of remaining provinces.

We urge the Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Québécois Coalition to support this important legislation.

Now, I'm not sure what the PM means by "continue to move forward", as the bill in question has yet to be brought forward for second reading since it was officially announced, amid much fanfare, last April.

Incidentally, that was the third time that the government has come out with a similar bill to expand the Commons. In its last iteration -- C-22, for those keeping track -- it garnered a grand total of one day of debate at second reading. That was, however, one day more than C-56, which was introduced in 2007, only to languish at first reading until dying on the Order Paper at the 2008 election call.  I can't think why InfoAlerteBot didn't include that context in its stroppily categorical denial.   

So, to recap, via the official talking-point delivery system, the PM would like to reassure all and sundry that a bill that has had precisely one (1) day of debate in the three years since it was first brought before the House of Commons will "continue to move forward". It is, of course, the government that decides what bills are brought forward for debate on any given day; the alleged Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition has absolutely no say on what it chooses to feature on the legislative menu. Opposition members can attempt to hijack the debate through various tried-and-true procedural maneuvers, from concurrence debates to quorum calls, but as far as C-12 and its predecessors are concerned, that hasn't been an issue: after all, you can't very well filibuster a bill that never comes up for debate.

That said, I fully expect to see C-12 come before the House for 2nd reading before the Christmas break, what with the Globe and Mail having so inconsiderately reminded the outside world of its existence. It will now, presumably, be given at least one day to bask in the spotlight of the Chamber, if only to prove John Ibbitson wrong; somewhere, an overworked, underappreciated legislative shepherd in the Government House Leader's office is now cursing the InfoAlerteBot and Ibbitson alike for making the final pre-holiday push that much more complicated. (Sample muttering: "Oh, I'll just put off third reading of the supplementary estimates, shall I? After all, it's not like the government needs that money to keep the lights on or anything. Also, who's going to tell the public safety minister that he can pick one bill to make it through before Christmas, but the rest are going to have to wait until next year?") 

Then again, perhaps by "continuing to move forward," the PM simply meant that C-12 will, indeed, maintain its current status as an untouched, but still present item on the Order Paper once again being unceremoniously terminated by prorogation or dissolution. We'll just have to wait and see.