Like a young Pat Martin

On the afternoon of May 25, 1998, a young parliamentarian—a member of the opposition, not yet 30 years old and elected for the first time less than a year before—stood to speak on the Liberal government’s latest budget implementation bill.

I begin by expressing my regret that debate on this bill has been limited by the government’s time allocation motion. I understand this is the fourth time in this parliament alone that closure or time allocation has been implemented. It was done on Bill C-2 regarding the Canada pension plan, on Bill C-4 with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, on Bill C-19, the Canadian Labour Code amendments which we dealt with before parliament broke, and now twice on Bill C-36 … This is parliament. The purpose of this place is to deliberate on legislation brought forward by the government. It is not to rubber stamp legislation brought forward by the bureaucracy or the executive branch. It is to deliberate, to debate, to amend, to consider, to ensure that those who pay the bills for the legislation we pass have their concerns fully and exhaustively expressed with respect to every single piece of legislation.

Two days later, he challenged government MPs to remember their principles.

I ask my colleagues opposite to reference what their caucus colleague said when they were in opposition. They were principled when they were in opposition. They spoke out against the invocation of closure and time allocation.

That was a young Jason Kenney. More hereherehere and here.




Browse

Like a young Pat Martin

  1. To paraphrase a former Con PM, “There’s no hypocrite like an old hypocrite….”

     Sorry, I couldn’t resist the temptation.

  2. OR HINGE….

  3. Except Pat Martin acts more like a 12 year old who doesn’t get his way at the Toys-R-Us then an MP.

    Although I’ve come to expect that from the left wing.

    • Does he kick chairs?

    • As epitomized by such noted left-wingers as Dean Del Mastro, John Baird, and Rob Ford.

  4. I would never have known that time-allocation and closure were routinely used in previous majority governments.

    • The old “but the Liberals did it defense…” knows no bounds.

    • Indeed.  And where did all of these people around here get the impression that the Tories were going to do things differently???

      You’d think that years and years of the Tories loudly proclaiming “We’re going to do things just like the Liberals always have!” and Stephen Harper promising to be “More like Chretien than Jean himself!” would have clued people in to the fact that their plan, once in a majority position, was to take past Liberal practices from the Chretien years and DOUBLE DOWN.

      • If you believe that Parliament is supreme, and you did in the last minority government, when Parliament found the CPC government in contempt, and I presume you did when the Liberals used their majority to govern as they pleased, then you must have rejoiced when the voters decided they would like a new majority so that  once again Parliament would be supreme.

        • Parliament is supreme regardless of whether there’s a minority or a majority. Parliament is not “once again” supreme, it was ALWAYS supreme.

          That the government can treat the opposition with contempt with impunity in a majority situation isn’t in dispute, but we don’t need to celebrate it either.

          I’m just getting really sick of all of this “well the Liberals used to do this, so what are you complaining about” rhetoric from the folks who used to be APOPLECTIC when the Liberals used to do this, and who vowed that they were going to be different. Don’t get me wrong, I never BELIEVED the Tories when they used to say that they were going to be different. I always knew that was b.s. Still, I think I’m entitled to nonetheless find the rank hypocrisy galling.

          • And I was really sick of the posturing by the opposition and their supporters in the last Parliament when they thought they could embarrass the gov`t with this silly contempt motion, and then bring the government down and hope to win an election with that theme.
            And why did they do it—because they could.
            Now they can`t, so does that make Parliament less supreme—of course not.
             I`m really sick of the hypocrisy of Liberals who never bemoaned the lack of supremacy in Parliament until they thought they could take advantage of the gov`t with that cry.
            The lesson that should have been learned from the last election is that the people want the government to govern and the opposition to be constructive not obstructive. That  “  Parliament is supreme “  was an unnecessary cry last year and it still is.

          • A hypocrite is a hypocrite is a hypocrite….

          • Parliamentary supremacy would be easier to swallow if we used an electoral system to build it that resulted in actual majorities, not fake ones.

          • Parliamentary supremacy would be easier to swallow if we used an electoral system to build it that resulted in actual majorities, not fake ones.

          • Parliamentary supremacy would be easier to swallow if we used an electoral system to build it that resulted in actual majorities, not fake ones.

          • Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree then. I happen to believe that Parliament brought that “silly contempt motion” last year because the government was holding Parliament in contempt. And personally, I think I’ll always have more of a problem with a government that holds Parliament in contempt, than I will with an opposition that holds the government in contempt. Government is held to a higher standard (or should be) because they’re the ones GOVERNING.

  5. Good thing we didn’t have Twitter back then.   Kenney would have been sending texts with six syllable words you need to look up in a dictionary, lol!

    • Don’t you mean “six mono-syllable words…” ?

  6. Yabbut, that was when government was in the hands of the infidels. Now that the righteous are in office, none but the unchosen shall question their authority.

Sign in to comment.