In House - February 20

There was a lot of talk about money in Ottawa this week. Questions about the size of the deficit in the Liberals' soon to be tabled first budge, and questions about whether Ottawa should follow Quebec's lead and provide a billion dollar bailout to help Bombardier's C series program.

In House panellists Emmanuelle Latraverse, the Ottawa bureau chief for Radio-Canada, and Terry Milewski, our senior political correspondent at CBC News, look at the that issue as well as the government's latest conundrum surrounding medically-assisted death legislation.

Chris Hall: The government's pondering a decision about whether it will invest up to, or more than, a billion dollars into Bombardier. Tell me from your point of view, can it say no?

Emmanuelle Latraverse: First of all, it's a big test politically for the government. They got a lot of support in Quebec during the election and it's being viewed, and interpreted politically in Quebec, as when the auto industry in Ontario needed a bailout. They got the bailout because of all the repercussions on the rest of the industry and the comparison is made daily. But I think beyond the political dilemma, which tilts the balance towards giving to Bombardier, the government's pitch to Canadians has been that we need to diversify the economy, that we need to fuel the economy of innovation, and so it also argues in favour of finding a way to help Bombardier.

Terry Milewski: I agree with Emmanuelle that the omens are in favour of giving them the money, although I wouldn't call it giving. I don't think it's a handout, I think we're talking an equity stake in the C Series, I don't think any free money is on the table.

Besides all of that there is the trusty old argument, which seems to work for governments everywhere else in the world, that everybody does it, everybody subsidizes aerospace. So here's poor little Bombardier up against Boeing and Airbus and they're rolling in government cash - they depend on government cash - so forget your free market principles.

CH: I'd like to end the show with a head scratcher, and this is about the Liberals and whether or not they're going to whip the vote on legislation to meet the Supreme Court's ruling that certain people have an entitlement to doctor-assisted death...

TM: Well, they've gone both ways haven't they? They said they would, then they said maybe we won't, we'll wait for the committee report. It is a very touchy issue. I mean, they do have a principled argument for whipping the vote, despite the outrage about that because it's a matter of conscience, blah blah blah...The problem is that that matter was settled by the Supreme Court, which decided that it is against the Charter of Rights to prosecute a doctor for assisting somebody who wants to end their life, has incurable suffering, you can't prosecute that. Everything else is just the details, and these are important details which may in themselves be matters of conscience but it's about how all who qualify, who decides, do we have a patchwork of provincial regimes governing the this kind of thing, or do we have a national scheme. But there are problems, of course, with whipping the vote. They can't really win this one. Of course, in Quebec's National Assembly they had a free vote, all parties had a free vote, an open debate, and it passed, why can't Parliament do it?