The stories of the day for Monday clearly had to be Warren Kinsella's testimony before the Commons public accounts committee and the spat over opposition days.

Here's the Kinsella story from CTV.ca (video aplenty!):

A political ally of Jean Chretien returned to Parliament Hill Monday to accuse Prime Minister Paul Martin and his former advisors in the finance department of cronyism and contract rigging.

Warren Kinsella, who advised former prime minister Jean Chretien and his team during the nasty battle for the Liberal Party leadership, appeared before the Public Accounts Committee to read from a letter he wrote in 1994, in which he originally made his complaints.

Testifying under oath, Kinsella made an even more serious charge, suggesting his old boss -- former public works minister David Dingwall, now CEO of the Royal Canadian Mint -- would deny his accusations under government pressure.

Martin loyalists -- spokesman Scott Reid, Terrie O'Leary (chief of staff to Martin when he was finance minister in 1994) and David Herle (pollster, Liberal campaign chair, Earnsecliffian) -- dissed Kinsella, either for the media or before the hearing.

"If you ask me about Mr. Kinsella's motivations, he's as strong a political adversary of Mr. Martin and of myself and Ms. O'Leary as exists in this country," Herle said.

What also made Monday so extraordinary was the time the opposition took in question period to ask why Prime Minister Paul Martin wrote such an intimate 50th birthday letter to his acquaintance Claude Boulay.

Boulay -- president of Groupe Everest -- spent a short time in the witness chair Monday but will be testifying pretty much all day Tuesday.

Last week, the opposition was trying to get Martin to admit he did lunch with Boulay and talked contracts.

I wonder what will be on Tuesday's question period agenda -- although the Earnscliffe stuff is 11 years old and frankly, not that stunning a revelation. Earnscliffe was well known to be Martin's consulting firm of choice.

(For background on Earnscliffe, see Juggernaut, by Susan Delacourt -- a sympathetic look at Paul Martin's successful effort to wrest the prime ministership from Jean Chretien).

But in these fevered times, everything old is new again.

The second big story was the opposition day stuff. Here again is the CTV.ca story:

Liberals made a sudden move to control the timing of a possible election, by restricting when the opposition will be able to introduce a motion that could possibly topple the minority government.

Liberals accused Conservatives of trying to "hijack" the legislative agenda, while Conservative leader Stephen Harper said the government is on a "death watch."

Harper was furious, and hinted his party will no longer help the Liberal government remain afloat.

The fury happened Monday night, when government House Leader Tony Valeri cancelled the upcoming "opposition day" scheduled for Wednesday.

CTV's Mike Duffy told Newsnet the government heard through the grapevine that Conservatives' opposition day motion would have allowed opposition parties to set the timing of future opposition days.

That would have given the Conservatives total control over the timing of a non-confidence vote that could bring down the government.

"When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent ... is when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to govern," Harper told reporters Monday night. ...

Valeri said the opposition was trying to take over the legislative agenda, "and frankly, I would not allow that."

One theory floating around out there is the Liberals will use up all of the opposition days at once -- say in the period leading up to June 23, the start of summer recess. Then, if the opposition wants to use one of those days to introduce a non-confidence motion, defeat the government and force a cottage-and-barbecue-season election, they can go to it.

Note this:

Asked if he would put all the opposition days off until the end of the session, Valeri said, "What I am committed to is providing all those opposition days in this cycle."

Whatever could he mean? :)

If you missed Monday's Globe, then you missed the story Tories debate necessity of having NDP support.

The federal Conservatives are debating the political need to obtain NDP support for a possible motion of no-confidence in the minority Liberal government -- and the New Democrats are giving no assurances that they would be on side.

Geoff Norquay, a spokesman for Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, said yesterday that the possibilities around when, and if, a no-confidence motion will be put forth and what conditions would predicate it are still being explored. "We will continue to look closely at our options," Mr. Norquay said.

But The Hill Times, a parliamentary newspaper, quoted unnamed Conservative sources as saying the party would not enter a motion of no-confidence without the support of the New Democrats.

Here's the math: 99 Tories + 54 Bloc Quebecois - 132 Liberals

Theoretically, the two main opposition parties could defeat the government on their own (there's also two Independents: B.C.'s Chuck Cadman, who would likely vote against the Libs, him being a former Alliance MP, and Ont.'s Carolyn Parrish, the former Lib kicked out of caucus by PM PM for not being a loyal team player [Addendum - I forgot the third Independent, David Kilgour, who abandoned the Liberals. And apparently the Globe reported Tuesday that Cadman would likely support the government] ).

But, as the article notes, then Stephen Harper has to deal with the annoyance of being in bed with the separatists.

Later Monday, NDP Leader Jack Layton made a nifty play as seen in the CP story NDP will prop up Liberals if Ont. gets more cash:

Prime Minister Paul Martin could win the support of the New Democrats and avoid a spring election by cutting corporate tax cuts and addressing Ontario's so-called fiscal gap, NDP leader Jack Layton said Monday.

"If he's willing to take some of the surplus, if he's willing to reduce the corporate tax cut and invest it now, then we don't have to have an election,'' Layton told reporters.

"Then we could talk about supporting the government.''

If Layton could get political credit in Ontario for helping the province get some serious coin to address the "fiscal imbalance," then it's mojitos all around for the NDP, both federally and in Ontario.

Here's the Tuesday version of the Globe's take on that:

The federal NDP fought back against Liberal courtship of the left yesterday by portraying Paul Martin and his government as both the friends of large corporations and the enemies of ordinary Ontario taxpayers.

The attack came as the parties jockeyed for election position, particularly in Central Canada where both the New Democrats and the Tories hope to gain seats in a vote that could be just weeks away.

NDP Leader Jack Layton refused again to say whether he would support a Conservative motion of no-confidence in the minority government, should one be presented.

But he also repeated an offer to vote for a controversial omnibus budget bill if the government cancels proposed tax cuts for corporations and injects more money into Ontario and other provinces.

This was also interesting:

.. Inside the NDP, there is nervousness over the Liberal squeeze play.

Many New Democrats believe voters' fear of the Conservatives hurts them because it can cause a flight of their voters to Liberals.

"It's the exact repeat of last time," one New Democrat said. "Which is why we don't want to play into demonizing and vilifying the Tories right now, because it actually has a backlash for us. We'd rather a moderate image for the Tories and have a legitimate three-way race."