Add another to the enemies list

On Friday, Michel Dorais, a member of the internal audit committee which oversees the Auditor General, resigned in protest. In Question Period, Mr. Dorais’ resignation was raised by Liberal MP Denis Coderre. Afterward, Tony Clement stood with a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period today there was some mention from the Liberal Party of a gentleman by the name of Michel Dorais. Further to this topic of discussion, I would like to inform the House that Michel Dorais donated in 2009 to former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. I certainly make no allegations of the partisan leanings of the individual; I simply find that the House should be informed of these facts. I table these documents.




Browse

Add another to the enemies list

  1. Soon, it will be illegal to vote for any other party than Con.

    • Seeing how there is no such thing as a Con. I can’t see you being right on that one. Unless you mean the Conservatives, in which case: evidence please!

      • Sure there are…Cons and Libs.

        Hey, you named em, I didn’t.

        • I
          don’t remember christening either the Tories or the Grits their new Americanized
          nicknames, but if I did then all I have to say is: Sorry Canada!

          • Cons are neither conservative nor Tories…’Con’ suits them

          • Could you elaborate?

          • @551c14f48b308a0ed33ab82406b0688c:disqus 

            Oh I think I was pretty clear. They aren’t remotely conservative, nor are they Tories.

            Just the Con party.

          • I was asking for clarity. I asked for an elaboration, preferably with proof, to
            your assertion that the modern CPC (if you feel to lazy to type Conservative or
            Tory, there’s a happy alternative) is neither Tory or conservative in nature. I
            would then appreciate an explanation why the American “con” is a
            better alternative. If you want to make a declarative statement you have to
            back it up with more than rhetoric.

          • * I wasn’t asking for clarity

          • @551c14f48b308a0ed33ab82406b0688c:disqus 

            I was PC for 30 years.

            Cons….and it’s not an American word, just a contraction, but it sums them up nicely anyway…..are our tea party.

          • I don’t mean to be rude but what party you once belonged to does not give your assertions validity. Examples could help your case though, along with a greater definition on what terms like “tea party”, “Conservative” etc mean in the naritive your creating of the modern CPC. I realise this is a comment board and most posters choose rhetoric over well researched arguments, but that does not stop rhetoric from being meaningless except for the heavily biased.

          • @551c14f48b308a0ed33ab82406b0688c:disqus 

            That’s nice….off you go now.

            Thanks for participating.

          • Well I guess not being rude is offically off the table. That being the case: Being condescending, obnoxious and constantly refering in vague terms to your past for legitamcy does not make you an authority on anything. Instead, all you do is repeat the same points with different levels of incomphresion in an attempt to sound intelligent. Newsflash: You don’t come across as smart. Rather, you come across as small minded and occasionally crazy! Which is not to say there is anything wrong with small mindedness (well I guess there is) and crazyness if you have facts to back yourself up. You can have fun disorting those facts, manipulating them as you see fit, but at least pretend to have some sort of base of reason from which to launch your many assualts. And while I highly doubt you’ve gotten through this unforutantly rude diatribe, when you respond to anyone who demands that simple foundation of reasonability by condscendingly patting them on the head you lose that final shred of legitamcy.

  2. Is Mr. Clement trying to make a connection with the Liberal Party of Canada and support for official bilingualism vs the Conservative Party of Canada and opposition to official bilingualism?  That may very well be the case. 

  3. Drive-by snipe alert from one of Harper’s guttersnipes.

  4. I’ve always thought it would be foolish for anyone who is critical of Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative party on these comment sites to use their real name or any traceable identifier. Some would say that shows a lack of courage; To me it’s just common sense in the current political climate.

    • I agree….and it’s very sad that we now think that way.

    • A
      few years back I had the opportunity to visit China with a group of citizens
      from across the globe. During our visit we heard from an official of the
      Chinese government who opened the floor to questions. One of our members, who is
      a citizen of China, got up and gave a critique of the government, but not
      before first giving his name and city of residence. At that moment I had a
      reaction quite similar to the one you are professing. The difference is that my
      experience took place in an honest to god dictatorship, and you’re making
      comments about democratically elected members of the House of Commons. You can
      dislike their policies and the members your fellow citizens have elected, but
      when you resort to thinly veiled scare tactics you only convince the already converted.

      • Guess you missed the Cons checking people’s facebook pages for any signs of ‘leftieism’ before allowing them to attend rallies?

        • A party rally in an election race is different from an authortarian regime. These days a rally is really little more than a photo-op, and I’m going to guess that nothing freaks out Harper’s PR people than the thought of a ruined photo-op. Is it cool? No, but its drastically different than an dictatorship which actively represses its people through government offices

          • Obviously you haven’t heard about the new internet surveillance legislation coming soon, which will force internet provides to be agents of the state,  in order for the police to access our internet usage without having to obtain warrants. I would call this repressive- you?

          • I’ll be honest that I don’t know alot about the internet copy right bill (which is what I’m assuming your refering too) but what your  suggesting seems to be a radically different interpertation than how most are presenting it. Which is not to say that you may not be right, but I guess this is my long winded way of saying: No comment. Eeexcept to say that we cannot judge if this bill is proof of Conservative dictatorial tendencies until we see how the House as a whole votes on the bill.

          • No, not copyright, this is about surveillance. 

          • What’s the name of this bill?

  5. I’ve never seen a political party so utterly disinterested in actual governing since, well, the Liberals c2000-2005. My my but how quickly the barbarians become assimilated.

  6. I love that phrase “I certainly make no allegations…”

    No, you wouldn’t, would you Tiny? You don’t think, speak, smirk or smear for yourself. You do what you’re told and you regurgitate whatever sh*t is fed to you.

    I certainly make no allegations about your manhood, Tony Clement, but you sure sound like a man who’s traded his balls & his spine for a car & a driver.  

  7. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Liberal Party of Canada?

    • You don’t need to be a member and it’s not just the Liberal Party… The  Conservatives govern for Conservatives and the rest of you can shut your mouths, pay your taxes, and fondle your ”rights” in the privacy of your own homes.

  8. This may be a silly question but how does Tony know who donated how much to whom?

     Not that i think it’s worthy of any serous consideration anyways. Keep it up Steve, you’ve picked just the man to stop the voter turn out headed back south again.  

    • The list of contributors to political parties is available for all Canadians to see.  I believe if you spend a few minutes digging for it that you will find this information on the Elections Canada website.  However, you get names only, not addresses.

      Except in QC where the personnal addresses of contributors to the Parti libéral du Québec are published on a site hosted by Le Québécois.  It also includes personal information, i.e., father of, cousin of, etc.  This list was used to send a letter warning donors that ‘we know who you are, we know where you live’, all this with the watermark of the patriote (the FLQ logo) and the approval of the Directeur général des élections du Québec.

  9. So how is Clement’s comment a point of order?  It has nothing to do with a procedural issue.

Sign in to comment.