Trudeau loses it in QP

[segnosaur]

I'd be interested in how those business parterns were chosen.

Application for Kyoto Conference
Check All that Apply

I represent 
___ A Campaign Contributor
___ Big Oil

If you have not made a check, you are ineligible.

Of course since by law corporations are limited in the amount they can contribute I doubt they'd hold that much sway.

Oil companies might actually have been brought, but considering they are a major employer within the Canadian economy (and probably familiar with the effects of certain regulations) their concerns shouldn't necessarily be ignored. (Not that they are the only ones the government should listen to.)

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Before I (or anyone else) condemns the conservatives for "excluding opposition MPs from the delegation",

The precedent is sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depending on how co-operatieve the government of the day is feeling.

That is not the area of anger in this situation. This is:

Step 1: Ban opposition members from representing Canada at Kyoto,

Step 2: Discredit opposition members for not being at the conference.

Again, that is 1984 esque. And that is what people are pissed about.

They have already rigged the system so that they have the best ability to raise money of all parties. Keeping the party subsidies that they benefit from.

They have already rigged the system by ensuring that the majority of new seats will cause a windfall for their party. Giving the largest proportion of new seats to conservative friendly provinces.

We keep losing our ability to have fair and equitable democracy as long as the CPC is in power, currently with 36% support....

Edited December 16, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Scotty]

No: excluding them form the delegation and then criticizing them for not being part of it is piece of shit behaviour.

I disagree entirely. Those who say he "banned" them don't understand how government works. They were not accepted as part of the government delegation. Hardly surprising since they completely oppose the government's position. Why should the government pay their dime to go over there? What was it they wanted to accomplish as opposition MPs there? Criticize Canada? Interact with their fellow international socialists? They wanted to go for crass political reasons. They were no part of the government group.

Don't the NDP get a budget as official opposition? Doesn't the party have money? If they wanted to send people over there purely for political purposes they should have paid their way.

[Scotty]

The opposition was banned from going.

There were tons of NGOs there. Nothing was stopping them from going and taking part.

[Scotty]

Why wasn't she allowed to be part of the Canadian delegation? How come the government can afford to bring private business, but not their own Members of Parliament? You argue that MPs should not be paid by the government to do government business,

They were not going to do government business but to oppose the government business. They wanted to go so they could strike a political pose which would help them win votes among the mushy brained left back at home.

Why should we pay for that?

[Scotty]

Wow.

I'm sorry but, they are a elected representatives of Canadians.

Do you honestly think that the CPC are the only legitimate members of government in Canada?

That's sick and twisted.

It's actually the way things work. The government of Canada consists of the bureaucracy, and the governing party, and even then mostly just the cabinet ministers, not the opposition.

[Scotty]

Your rebuttal is moot. Members of the business community were part of the delegation that went. Their place there was bought and paid for by the taxpayers, while duly elected representatives of the taxpayers were barred from being part of the Canadian delegation.

They were brought as part of the team.

The opposition is not, by definition, part of the team.

[cybercoma]

They were brought as part of the team.

The opposition is not, by definition, part of the team.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The government brings a delegation to a conference and it brings business interests but excludes elected representatives of constituencies?

[Scotty]

The precedent is sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depending on how co-operatieve the government of the day is feeling.

That is not the area of anger in this situation. This is:

Step 1: Ban opposition members from representing Canada at Kyoto,

Step 2: Discredit opposition members for not being at the conference.

Refusing to pay their way does not equal 'banning' them. Their party could have sent them.

They have already rigged the system so that they have the best ability to raise money of all parties. Keeping the party subsidies that they benefit from.

They didn't rig anything. The Tories have always been the best at raising money from their large base - in small donations. The Liberals used to get most of their money in large cheques from wealthy elites and corporations. But it was the Liberals themselves who banned large donations. Chretien screwed over his own party to get back at Martin.

They have already rigged the system by ensuring that the majority of new seats will cause a windfall for their party. Giving the largest proportion of new seats to conservative friendly provinces.

This is idiocy. Elections Canada decides where new seats will go based entirely on population trends.

[Scotty]

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The government brings a delegation to a conference and it brings business interests but excludes elected representatives of constituencies?

It excludes people who entirely disagree with its position on the issue at hand. You think Harper should have taken Layton and Martin along to the last G20?

[Moonlight Graham]

He told the truth in the House - it was a piece of shit move by Kent.

Trudeau apologized.

I don't hear Kent apologizing.

It's amazing that it's blasphemous and a national scandal to use profanity in the House but lying is just fine. In fact it's a daily institution.

What a piece of shit.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

Off the original topic, but still pertaining to QP, I'm incredibly disappointed in how Question Period has become "Reading Period". The Opposition poses its questions and the Conservative MPs and Cabinet read canned responses that often times have nothing to do with the questions asked. Since most Canadians don't actually watch QP or give a crap about politics, they don't notice this; however, in a properly functioning democracy, any party that does this should be punished at the polls. If they're not going to answer the questions asked by the opposition, there's no point in having QP at all. There's no point in Parliament at all in a majority situaiton if the governing party is not going to debate the issues and answer the questions that representatives of Canadians pose to them. It's the height of arrogance and quite infuriating.

[Vendetta]

Many thanks to Justin for calling it like it is. These guys really stink.

[Cameron]

All this is useless. In four years the only thing people will remember is Justin calling Peter a POS.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Cameron

[jacee]

It's actually the way things work. The government of Canada consists of the bureaucracy, and the governing party, and even then mostly just the cabinet ministers, not the opposition.

Not quite ...

We've fallen into the habit of referring to the party in power as 'the government' but it's not ... There are three branches of government:

Canada is a democratic constitutional monarchy, with a Sovereign as head of State and an Sovereign as head of State and an elected Prime Minister as head of Government.

Canada has a federal system of parliamentary government: Government responsibilities and functions are shared between federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Federal responsibilities are carried out by the Monarchy and the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of Government.

The Legislative branch of "Government" includes all elected MP's of all parties.

Just a nitpick.

Obviously, POS as they are as Justin Trudeau accurately pointed out, the HarperCons aren't going to take opposition members anywhere.

Fortunately their opposing views were there anyway, in the youth delegation.

Edited December 16, 2011 by jacee

[CPCFTW]

Did you actually read the list?

“Slut”

1991: Tory MP Bill Kempling, to Liberal MP Sheila Copps. Kempling claims that he said, “What a pain in the butt.”

“Chubby little sucker”

1997: Reform MP Darrel Stinson calls Progressive Conservative Leader Jean Charest a “fat little, chubby, little sucker” in the Commons, while the Canada Pension Plan is being debated.

“You are one bitch”

1997: Reform MP Ian McClelland, to Sheila Copps

“F-----g bastard.”

1991: A visibly angry Prime Minister Brian Mulroney allegedly calls Winnipeg Liberal MP David Walker a “f-----g bastard” during an attack by Walker on the government’s child-poverty record. Opposition MPs and a Canadian Press photographer in the Commons say they clearly heard Mulroney utter the phrase but the comment didn’t turn up in Hansard, nor was it audible on the sound recording.

Yes I read it. Did you read my post in which I noted the only quotations that weren't a decade and a half old?

[CPCFTW]

Off the original topic, but still pertaining to QP, I'm incredibly disappointed in how Question Period has become "Reading Period". The Opposition poses its questions and the Conservative MPs and Cabinet read canned responses that often times have nothing to do with the questions asked. Since most Canadians don't actually watch QP or give a crap about politics, they don't notice this; however, in a properly functioning democracy, any party that does this should be punished at the polls. If they're not going to answer the questions asked by the opposition, there's no point in having QP at all. There's no point in Parliament at all in a majority situaiton if the governing party is not going to debate the issues and answer the questions that representatives of Canadians pose to them. It's the height of arrogance and quite infuriating.

What are you on about now?

The opposition reads loaded written questions just as frequently, if not more frequently, than the government reads canned responses. Not that it matters since this has been how the HOC has always operated.

This is the type of drivel that makes everyone ignore the cries of lefties. Talk about the boy(s) who cried wolf.

[eyeball]

It's amazing that it's blasphemous and a national scandal to use profanity in the House but lying is just fine. In fact it's a daily institution.

What a piece of shit.

A steaming stinking heap you mean.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

n/a

Edited December 16, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Black Dog]

If they're not going to answer the questions asked by the opposition, there's no point in having QP at all. There's no point in Parliament at all in a majority situaiton if the governing party is not going to debate the issues and answer the questions that representatives of Canadians pose to them.

I think that's the point.

[Tilter]

I think that's the point.

IT`S AMAZING. How situations change---- when the liberals were (for too many years) slinging the shit in Parliament as the governing party there would be 0 complaints from the `truthseekers`posting on these pages---- now that they are reduced to a bitter handful in Ottawa the grits feel it is their duty to turn on the manure mouths & have nonentities like phideaux Trudeaux set himself up as the Canadian bastion of the truth. Most liberals wouldn't recognise truth if the statue of the Lady weighing justice at the courthouse fell on them (which actually happened with the last liberal govt.) Can it, imitator of your father--- no one in their right mind sees you. Only liberals

Edited December 16, 2011 by Tilter

[Shady]

This just shows what a classless degenerate Justin Trudeau is. I'm sure daddy would be proud though.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

A steaming stinking heap you mean.

Politically correct terminology.

[Evening Star]

What are you on about now?

The opposition reads loaded written questions just as frequently, if not more frequently, than the government reads canned responses. Not that it matters since this has been how the HOC has always operated.

This is the type of drivel that makes everyone ignore the cries of lefties. Talk about the boy(s) who cried wolf.

Again, huh?

It's called "Question Period". The Opposition is supposed to ask questions. The government is supposed to answer them. If the Opposition prepares questions ahead of time to read during QP, they're doing their job. However, if the government prepares stock responses that don't actually answer the questions (especially if they were prepared before the govt even heard the questions), they're not really playing fair in the same way. You see the difference?

Edited December 16, 2011 by Evening Star

[CPCFTW]

Again, huh?

It's called "Question Period". The Opposition is supposed to ask questions. The government is supposed to answer them. If the Opposition prepares questions ahead of time to read during QP, they're doing their job. However, if the government prepares stock responses that don't actually answer the questions (especially if they were prepared before they even heard the questions), they're not really playing fair in the same way. You see the difference?

Nope. You don't think the government knows the issues that will be raised beforehand and prepares questions accordingly?

Reading canned answers and failing to address questions is not unique to this government. Any politician worth his salt knows how to dance around a loaded question.

Talk about complaining for the sake of complaining. QP isn't a presentations class... "No reading cue cards!!!"

Maybe if you guys quit blowing smoke about nonsense like this, Canadians will listen to you guys when you actually have a legitimate bone to pick with the government. Canadians are going to be blinded to any legitimate scandal because you guys turn little things like reading a canned answer into the end of democracy as we know it.

Edited December 16, 2011 by CPCFTW