Occupy Parliament


Noting the campaign against Irwin Cotler and the general state of the House, former Liberal MP Glen Pearson challenges this Parliament.

Do today’s MPs have the courage to stand with the House of the people against their own political masters when the occasion demands it? To date the answer would have to be a clear “no”. Perhaps what they require is the courage, mustered by their own citizens and constituents, to do the honourable thing and stop silently condoning what surely must be one of the saddest eras in Canada’s parliamentary democracy.

It is surely time for our federal political representatives to occupy the very House their constituents voted them in to. As Edmund Burke famously put it, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” I have learned that good men and women occupy the House of Commons. They question now is: will they at last show up to rescue Parliament from its more debased instincts and speak for us?


Occupy Parliament

  1. His constituents voted him out, and he has the gall to believe he speaks on their behalf? Where do these people come from? Where do they get this stuff?

    • People who have lost elections aren’t allowed to voice an opinion? Larry Smith and Yonah Martin should probably resign their senate seats, then.

      • Where did I say people don’t have the right to spout nonsense? For that matter, do I not have the right myself to call it nonsense? lol

        • What makes it nonsense?

        • Sorry, Dennis, I’ll rephrase.

          People who have lost elections should keep their opinions to themselves? By that logic, Larry Smith and Yonah Martin should probably resign their senate seats.

          • No. People who have lost elections should stop pretending they speak for voters. How does this basic point of logic escape him and others on here? He isn’t democracy. The people are. Where does he get off?

          • Oh… I didn’t pick up on any ‘speaking for voters’ vibe at all when I read it. Just sounded like a former MP stating an opinion (valuable or no.)

          • And here I thought he’s arguing that Parliament doesn’t represent the people. Ironic for a man who’s people chose not to send to Parliament, no? Who is he to claim he knows what the people want in their voted members? That’s his entire argument, isn’t it?

          • Good stuff.  I look forward to never hearing from Mike Duffy or Pamela Wallin again.

          • I look forward to somebody addressing my original point! lol. Next.

    • He lost an election, he wasn’t assassinated.

      • Give Dear Leader some time…

    • “His constituents voted him out, and he has the gall to believe he speaks on their behalf? Where do these people come from? Where do they get this stuff?”

      So, I gather it’s OK in your mind for your beloved Cons to deliberately sow misinformation about a rival MP in his own riding. You’re good with that kind of behaviour?

      In any event, I see nowhere in his comments that he claims to be speaking n behalf of “his constituents”. Could you point us to that specific passage?

      Glad to see you’re still around and finding “gall” everywhere.

      • First you go off on a topic that has nothing to do with this one, then you fail to understand Pearon’s argument, or mine. Funny.

        He says Parliament isn’t representing the people, isn’t he? The voters, right? You know, those poor folks who weren’t smart enough to send the brilliant Mr. Pearson back to Parliament to represent them?

        Too fast for some of you again? lol

        • Isn’t the Cons sowing misinformation about Cotler squarely on topic, here? I mean, try reading the first sentence in Wherry’s post to catch the drift here, Dennis.

          And since the conclusion that he claims to be speaking on behalf of his constituents is yours (“His constituents voted him out, and he has the gall to believe he speaks on their behalf?”), I simply ask you again to point out the specific passage where he makes that presumption.

          I’d say that’s pretty germane to Wherry’s post.

    • A defeated politician can still speak for those who voted for them.  Or do their votes not count if their candidate loses.  Strange reading of democracy there Dennis.  Will your opinion still hold for the current Con crowd when the public retire them?

      • So he speaks on behalf of voters even though his voters don’t think so? For people who love lecturing Harper about democracy, you sure have an odd perception of it yourselves. It’s not what you want it to be. It’s what the people want it to be.

  2. Burke? Really? Members of the modern LPC have the audacity to quote Burke?

    • Burke was from a time when conservatives had principles….long before they joined the tea party.

  3. I would gladly give a horse to have a Kingdom free of sanctimonious Pearson. 

    Is Pearson really the person who should be deciding which are the good/evil men? Liberals are all about how everyone else is inadequate but they rarely consider their own actions. 

    Lao Tzu ~ A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.

    TorStar ~ Dec 2009:

    “Since last Tuesday’s “special” caucus meeting called by the leader to tell MPs to support the controversial HST, doubts about Ignatieff’s ability to lead the party are surfacing more frequently. Many MPs openly oppose the HST, and those who backed the party’s stand, like Rae, express their support only in private. No one is defending the leader in public, in the caucus or with the media. Basically, Ignatieff is alone and the question of loyalty is becoming a huge obstacle to his leadership.

    Glen Pearson, an MP from London and one of those present for the nightcap with Rae, said that in his opinion Ignatieff was losing the loyalty of the party and Rae was “the only one the party trusts.”

Sign in to comment.