171

Prorogue is kind of a weird word

Aaron Wherry explains everything in this rough guide


 

With the Prime Minister asking to prorogue Parliament until October, we provide answers to all of the questions you might have.

So what’s this all about?

The Prime Minister has asked Governor General to prorogue Parliament. If he feels like some exercise, Mr. Harper will walk over to Rideau Hall and ask the Governor General to grant his request for prorogation and issue a proclamation to recall Parliament on a specified day (in this case, October 16). Maybe they’ll sit down for a bit and drink tea and chat about their respective summers. Or maybe the Prime Minister will just call.

Prorogue is kind of a weird word.

It is. Apparently it dates to the early 15th century. The parliamentary practice dates to King Henry VIII.

So what happens when Parliament is prorogued?

The current session of Parliament comes to an end. All government bills that are currently before Parliament die—though bills can be revived once Parliament returns with the agreement of the House of Commons and private members’ bills are not effected. All committees are dissolved and no further parliamentary business can be conducted until Parliament is recalled and a new Speech from the Throne is delivered. For a more thorough explanation, feel free to consult the House of Commons guide to practice and procedure.

The Speech from the Throne is kind of a silly conceit isn’t it—the Prime Minister having to sit there while someone reads a speech about what the Prime Minister’s government is planning to do?

Kind of yes, but we could all use a bit of pageantry in our lives, I suppose. Perhaps baby George could come visit this time and the Governor General could cradle our future sovereign in his arms while he reads and then we could measure the quality of the speech by how quickly it soothes baby George to sleep. Anyway, let’s stay on topic.

So why would the Prime Minister want Parliament to be prorogued right now?

In this case, the current session has lasted two years and the government has passed most of the legislation it introduced and at the halfway point of its mandate it is understandable that it might want to set out a new agenda with a Throne Speech. Under those circumstances, prorogation seems a fairly reasonable maneuver.

Ah, good. Well then I guess we’re good here and I’ll go back to not thinking too much about this.

Well, thing is, the House of Commons was due back on September 16. And the Prime Minister would now rather it return on October 16.

Oh. Why’s that?

Good question. The House of Commons is set to lose 17 sitting days, but prorogation does not necessarily need to last longer than the time it takes the Prime Minister to say when he would Parliament to be recalled. Mr. Harper could, for instance, prorogue Parliament on Friday and still ask that Parliament be recalled for Monday, as previously scheduled. Comparatively speaking, this prorogation is less problematic than when Mr. Harper sought to prorogue Parliament in 2008 (when his government was facing a vote of non-confidence) and 2009, but it is not unimpeachable.

Could the Governor General refuse Mr. Harper’s request to prorogue Parliament?

Technically, yes. Practically, only in extreme situations, of which this should not be considered to be. The Governor General holds what are known as “reserve powers,” which conceivably might be exercised to protect parliamentary democracy. If, for instance, a government is defeated in the House shortly after an election, the Governor General can call on another party leader to attempt to form a government. But likely only under dramatic circumstances—perhaps something like the coalition situation in 2008—would the Governor General consider refusing a request for prorogation and any Prime Minister who was rebuffed would likely be compelled to resign. It’s not going to happen in this case. And the Governor General would almost surely plunge us into a constitutional crisis if he did, in these circumstances, refuse a request from the individual who currently has the confidence of the House.

Could something else be done to restrict the Prime Minister’s power to request prorogation?

A few ideas have been kicked around and proposed, but nothing yet adopted that has had the effect of limiting the Prime Minister’s discretion. Perhaps it is the sort of thing that Mr. Harper’s successor, in those heady days after an election and with a mandate for change, might pursue.


 
Filed under:

Prorogue is kind of a weird word

  1. It also allows his MPs to go and immerse themselves in their ridings, and people. This helps avoid the “Ivory Tower” “out of touch with reality” stuff that so often inflicts Government.

    Any MPs who do not spend time in their communities, during prorogation, should be reprimanded, held to acountabilty by their constituents, and (if proven to not be working on your goals and concerns) voted out, or forced to resignation.

    There’s alot going on, and much of it is new; so your MP would probably LOVE to hear what you think about any changes that affect your riding. [Are they working? Are they not? Could they be better? Do you see upcoming challenges? Has life changed, thus demanding scrapping old focuses, or building new focus?]

    ThougnI was raised Liberal; I saw ALOT of ivory towerism and elitism (that didnt give one hoot about you, or I, or Ms Smith down the street] I am not completely sold on Blue (at their deepest levels, but this Government has shown me alot of good things about Blue, and VERY good things at that)

    And Conservatoism, with “grass roots” (who made you, where did you come from) concerns…..well…..anyone who has ever studied a week of politics knows that this is sort of blues heritage. (It’s their thing; it’s always been)

    Government doesnt end just because they leave the sanctity of the Chamber, and take their proverbial wigs off. And those bills can be: reintroduced, and passed, in record time after they return. (like issuing a cheque, when you return to the office, no problem)

    We’re ok here.

    Well; I’m not, but that’s another story for another time (Titled: “false syncope diagnosis as a political weapon”)

    • “The current session of Parliament comes to an end. All government bills
      that are currently before Parliament die—though bills can be revived
      once Parliament returns with the agreement of the House of Commons and
      private members’ bills are not effected. All committees are dissolved
      and no further parliamentary business can be conducted until Parliament
      is recalled…”

      Er, no actually. Those bills can’t be reintroduced and passed in record time just like issuing a cheque…not without the co-operation of the opposition. It’s a big reason Harper could never get his senate reform stuff through…he kept on killing it himself…and then blaming the opposition or the senate of course. Although in this case most of their stuff is through. So the question is why lose any days at all? Perhaps this answers that question – http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/09/12/f-vp-weston-harper-prorogue.html

      • if they were goin to pass; they are still going to pass. If they were not; they still wil not, however, may be worked no outside of parliament.

        I.e. After the first pause; all bills that the public and media were worried about being forgotten were passed within the first month back.

        I’m a polisci major; I know how it works.

        • Nevertheless bills that can be brought back and passed quickly require the cooperation of the opposition, otherwise the must start from scratch again.

        • You should read some Kady O’Malley if you think that’s how it works – little something called procedure.

    • Absolute patronising rubbish and a classic example of anti-intellectual, inverted snobbery in thinking.
      I’m sure the PMO will have a cookie for you, but you do need to brush up on your delivery, it’s so obviously written by a hack,

      • “anti-intellectual, inverted snobbery in thinking.”

        Inverted snobbery?

        Does this, by its name, mean “non snobbery”?

        Ya; I agree. (I’m not much of a snob)

        • Nah
          An inverted snob is every bit an elitist snob as a real elitist snob, except they place great stock in their ignorance and celebration of disliking anyone who might actually know more than them.

          You’re every bit a snob as those you deride except dumber. The fact you needed that explaining to you illustrates it only too well.

          • Ya; ok, I see what you mean now.

            I’m very much not that; its a pretty well known fact.

            P.s. What made me sound snobby?

            P.s.s Your reply sounds exactly like the type of inverted, ignorant snob you just described. (project much?)

          • Oh I’ve no problems embracing my disdain for those who use terms like ” I saw ALOT of ivory towerism and elitism” to deride someone who might know more than them or for that matter me.

            I guess if that makes me an elitist I’ll live with it, however at least I value the knowledge and input that someone who has learned more than me can make; rather than dismiss it because they do know more than me.
            Projecting would mean that I projected my faults onto you and my faults are clearly not what I said you had; so I haven’t projected at all, let alone much. At the risk of being inaccurately accused of projecting again.. you really aren’t following this thread at all are you?

    • If they weren’t in their constituencies over the summer, why on earth should we expect them to use EVEN MORE time to do what they were supposed to be doing for the last two months?

      • But what then, is so good about this hypocrisy:

        “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
        $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

        “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

        • 4 thumbs down:

          a) does that mean: booo; sshhh

          or

          b) Thats a bad thing.

          • Good question. I don’t pay too much attention to the thumbs down here at them comment boards. I usually get a lot of thumbs down. That, here at Macleans comment boards, simply means they cannot handle the truth and so the thumbs down keep coming! It’s comical, really.

          • Well at least someone can’t handle the truth…

          • I am giving you a thumbs up because I wholeheartedly agree.

            lol

        • Yeah, that’s not good. But have you looked at all MPs who work on the side, or just Trudeau? I’m all for a level playing field, and so while I personally think one probably shouldn’t have a job/business besides being an MP, that needs to go for doctors, lawyers, insurance salesmen, boat retailers or whatever, including professional speakers. Right now, it is only professional speakers that get complaints.

          • Ok, then let me know how many other MP’s have other jobs while being an MP.

            It is true that many other MP’s have extra income, but having extra income is not the same as having another job besides being an MP.

            And secondly: giving speeches is part of what any MP does. Giving speeches is NOT an extra job an MP takes on; giving speeches is what an MP does!

            Justin Trudeau knew very well when he became an MP that MP’s give speeches as part of their job description, and so for Justin Trudeau to play the innocent card here is a bit too rich for my thinking.

            I am not talking about Justin getting an extra income because of his stock options. I am talking here about Justin Trudeau giving speeches for extra fees while already being paid an MP salary for giving speeches in the first place.

          • Wasn’t he already doing this for money before he became an MP? How do you take that from someone because they are now an MP?

          • Wasn’t Harper the President of the NCC before he became an elected MP?

            Should Harper have kept his job as President of the NCC while being a paid MP?

        • How is this bad? Your telling us Trudeau was out earning money probably so he could get ready to run the in the next election. It isn’t free you know and campaign funds do not cover every expense especially when you have a family in tow or at home to take care of. You take the gigs where you can get them. For him perhaps, the long picture outweighs not being there to add his input or vote on occasion. Perhaps the contents of these public speaking events are equally important on some level? I am sure each time he decides to be elsewhere it is a difficult decision to make. I know that if you look at all the MP’s records you will find many others are away here and there too.

          • Why then are people upset when Duffy double dips. I am sure he could use the extra money too. Why be upset when Duffy double dips but not being upset when Justin Trudeau double dips?

            THAT is the question.

          • I answered elsewhere and you clammed up.

            You are a dishonest person Francien.

        • The Royal Mistress of the Irrelevant Interrogatory strikes again.

          • Darn, I was thinking that surely you would be able to tell me the difference between Duffy’s practice of double dipping and Justin’s. But I guess you cannot tell the difference either.

          • Surely you know that one does not argue with the Royal Mistress of the Irrelevant Interrogatory. Look it up. It’s in your job description.

          • So you don’t know the difference between Duffy’s practice of double dipping and Justin’s. But don’t worry; you are not alone

          • Actually, you are the one who does not know the difference. It is not our fault that the obvious escapes you, and people cannot be blamed because they do not want to teach you basic logic and comprehension.

          • Duffy claims senate time while giving speeches to CPC campaigns for which he also gets paid= double dipping.

            Justin claims MP time while giving speeches to various voters for which he also gets paid= double dipping.

            See, it is that simple. No need to make excuses at all.

          • Duffy’s double dipping was about claiming the Ottawa per diem while vacationing in Florida, spending time at his cottage, oh sorry, I mean prime residence in PEI, and possibly while he was out campaigning (and billing individual campaigns). So you need evidence that Trudeau was doing the same if you want to make the comparison. .

          • Actually, you are incorrect. Duffy’s claim for doing senate business while being in Florida, is only one of the practices of double dipping he undertook.

            Duffy also claimed senate time and expenses, while giving speeches for CPC campaigns, and being reimbursed for that as well.

            In fact, it is easy to compare Justin as having done the same kind of double dipping over the years when he was an MP, starting in 2008.

            Justin, on several occasions, received an MP salary, skipped the House in session, to then go out and deliver speeches for an extra fee while still drawing his MP salary.

            All MP’s deliver speeches as part of their MP job. MP’s already get paid for delivering speeches, be they speeches delivered in the House or be it speeches delivered out of the House.

            Justin Trudeau gave speeches about the environment as an MP, for which he gets paid an MP salary, AND Justin Trudeau gave speeches at the same time, on the very same topic (environment) while being an MP, for an extra fee.

            Those are examples of double dipping, just like Duffy’s actions described above are examples of double dipping.

            I would like you to explain to me how the following actions could NOT be the practice of double dipping:

            “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
            $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

            “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

          • Why do you do this stupid routine on here?

          • And why do you never find the courage to answer the question:

            I would like you to explain to me how the following actions could NOT be the practice of double dipping:

            “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
            $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

            “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

          • Funny that, until you found out the your own Conservative MP was
            earning money on the side, your “outrage” was simply at the fact that
            Trudeau earned money in addition to his MP’s salary. When your MP’s
            “double-dipping” was brought to your attention you abruptly stopped
            responding to comments. When you resumed responding the problem was no
            longer earning money in addition to an MP’s salary, but was now
            Trudeau’s field of work.
            What caused the change of heart?
            How much did your Conservative MP earn from his farming business? How much from his auction business? How many of the days he didn’t attend parliament was he attending to his other businesses?
            Who knows. He won’t tell us.

          • She does not get it, she won’t get it, and you will hurt your brain trying to explain it to her. You cannot reason with unreasonable people.

          • No.

          • Have you noticed that each and every time the facts about Justin come out, people rush in to try and make excuses for Justin, rather than be able to deal with the facts instead?

            All MP’s give speeches as part of their MP job description. Justin knew that when he became in MP. Yet, Justin insisted on keeping two sets of speaking engagements.

            And lots of Canadians love him for it. Justin loves it when people fall for his double dipping practices. He absolutely loves it.

          • Have you noticed that every time the facts about your double-dipping Conservative MP come out, you rush to try and make excuses for him rather than deal with the facts?

      • Well then; that is an issue.

    • It also allows his MPs to go and immerse themselves in their ridings, and people.

      They haven’t been sitting since JUNE. They’ve had almost three solid months to check in with their ridings.

      • At some point I would think the constituents would ask them “Are you still here? Don’t you need to be going back to Ottawa to pursue what we talked about those times over the past few months?”

        • And why exactly does Justin Trudeau thinks the sitting of the House is soooooo important:

          “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
          $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

          “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

          • Sorry, not gonna bite at this trolling.

            Its too bad you weren’t able to sustain your very eloquent words on tolerance and immigration I read (and ‘upped’) the other day.

            Besides . . . I have a hockey game to go play now :-)

          • I am sustaining my reasonable understanding of reality. This IS what actually happened and as such is the practice of double dipping:

            “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
            $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

            “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

          • Any reason you need to mention this same quote three times instead of once?

          • Any reason why so many Canadians accept the double dipping practices of Justin Trudeau? He double dipped not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, not six times, but well over 20 times, for a total of $277,000 over 3,5 years.

            How many times will you decide to make up excuses for Justin Trudeau??

          • Funny that, until you found out the your own Conservative MP was
            earning money on the side, your “outrage” was simply at the fact that
            Trudeau earned money in addition to his MP’s salary. When your MP’s
            “double-dipping” was brought to your attention you abruptly stopped
            responding to comments. When you resumed responding the problem was no
            longer earning money in addition to an MP’s salary, but was now
            Trudeau’s field of work.
            What caused the change of heart?

          • Maybe because its very valid, and highlights a disturbing habit?

      • Well then; there is an issue there.

        You cannot reach them?

        • I’m actually getting sick of mine. I wish she’d go back to work.

    • Oh my god… A LOT* not alot

      • while I am at it:
        Conservatism*
        IT HAS always been*
        doesn’t
        Though I*
        Ms. not Ms

        Sorry I had too

        • Ya grammar nazi… ;-p

          • LOL, remember: if you have to resort to calling someone a nazi …

          • We may have to re-think this rule…

          • Used to be seen as a distraction, now seen as a welcome distraction. Keep it up. :-)

    • Oh, oh, more “immersion” in the ridings. I guess that means I should steel myself for another constituency e-newsletter from my Conservative MP in which she takes credit for saving the ELA and publishes our email addresses for everyone to see?

    • Well you can dream about these guys “building a new focus” if you like and you might even be right.

      But I’ll suggest to you from years of close observation since 1968, the main focus down there will likely turn out to be just another round of foc-u.

    • I would agree with you if we were looking at just this one prorogue in isolation.

      Taken together with the previous prorogues and a general pattern of evading accountability by Stephen Harper, I can’t help but conclude this is a strategy to delay/dodge questions about a PMO coverup of Senate expenses.

      • “I can’t help but conclude”

        Of course you can’t. Makes perfect sense. In the exact same manner, I can’t help but conclude you’re a hyper-partisan shill for the opposition.

        • And you will defend Harper to the death because you’re a hyper-partisan for government. See how this works?

        • I’m not even a partisan, let alone a hyper-partisan. You on the other hand defend everything this government does no matter that it has failed to deliver or even continue to support its own stated agenda of transparency and accountability.

          • Yes you are, and no I do not. When you say “I can’t help but conclude” and the entire thing is a vague amorphous accusation, that means only one thing in my book.
            Let me paraphrase what you said, “I can’t help but conclude that Harper sucks because of my previous conclusion that Harper sucks, all based upon the fact that Harper at one time progogued the government to avert a takeover by a coalition that nobody voted for, and that polls overwhelmingly opposed at the time and ever since then.”
            “Because Harper did what I opposed (it does not matter that most Canadians were in favour), Harper is forever guilty in my book”.
            To me, I can’t help but conclude that’s hyper-partisan. However, to your credit, you fit right in on this comment board.

  2. The govt has been ‘prorogued’ …ie ‘gone’….all summer.

    Get back to work.

    • What about this EmilyOne?

      Why would Justin Trudeau be so concerned about the sittings of the House?

      “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
      $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

      “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

      • You know, of course, that there are people missing from the HOC every day? People in surgery, or working, on trips etc?

        They pair up….if one Con is out, a Lib or NDP goes out. Many MPs have outside employment for example. It’s all quite organized. The Opposition in a majority govt can’t vote the govt out anyway. So even on a confidence motion….when they are all there….doesn’t make any diffeence.

        And what Justin is paid by an audience has nothing to do with it

        • So, mention me one other MP (from any political party) who has skipped the House in session to then go out and give speeches for hefty fees?

          Name me just one other MP who has done the charging for giving speeches? One!

          • Why on earth would I have the schedule? The House leaders do.

            They go out for a variety of reasons….some have farms and businesses they look after.

            You realize there is a Speaker’s Circuit that does just that? Media, govt people, anyone famous…..they all get paid for speeches.

          • All MP’s give speeches. All MP’s, except Justin Trudeau, give speeches as part of their MP job and salary that goes with it.

            ONLY Justin Trudeau thinks that giving speeches for extra fees is as saying that giving a speech as an MP and giving a speech for an extra fee, are two different jobs. But they are not: giving speeches as an MP are always the same, namely part of what it means to be an MP.

            That is why I asked you to give me the name of one (only one!) other MP who has felt the need to skip the House in session to then go out and give speeches for some hefty extra fees.

            You cannot find another MP who has delivered speeches for an extra fee other than Justin Trudeau and that’s why you come up with nothing but excuses in order to find value in what Justin has done with his double dipping practices.

            But double dipping is wrong, whether Duffy does it or whether Justin Trudeau does it.

            Even Liberal Martin Cauchon called it double dipping what Justin Trudeau had done for 3,5 years, but Martin Cauchon was told to shut up about it by his fellow Liberals. Go figure!

          • Most MPs aren’t stars….Justin is.

            Nobody would go to here Fred Smith speak….they would with Justin.

            He’s earning extra money…doesn’t matter how he does it. Lots of MPs earn extra money.

          • It is completely besides the point whether Justin is a star or not. The fact remains that Justin decided to do the same job once for double the pay!

            You are not addressing reality. You are going out of your way in order to NOT have to deal with reality.

            Reality: you cannot find any other MP (other than Justin) who has felt the need to go and give speeches as an MP for an extra fee. No one else has done that as a paid MP except for Justin.

            Duffy has double dipped and you find such behaviour an abuse of the system. Yet, when Justin Trudeau abuses the system in the very same way as Duffy has abused the system, you find no fault with Justin. If that isn’t a sign of being hypocritical, then I don’t know what is.

          • You have it wrong. What Duffy did is flat out Fraud a Criminal Offence. What Justin is doing is in no way illegal at all. Besides his “speeches” for money that you refer to are unrelated to being an MP. MP’s have to avoid situations that may create a conflict of interest but they are able to do outside work and still earn their own money if they so choose.

          • Then why don’t you explain to me what the difference is between Duffy’s practice of double dipping and Justin’s.

            I am all ears.

          • No, EmilyOne: other MP’s do not do other jobs while being an MP on salary.

            Many MP’s have extra income while being on an MP salary, but such extra income does not need the particular MP to be there in order to get that extra income.

            You are trying to circumvent the facts when making excuses for Justin. Shame on you, and shame on Justin Trudeau to want to fool so many Canadians.

          • Yes, Francien they do.

            Farmers still have to farm. Surgeons have to practice surgery even just to keep up their skills. Some own businesses. They may not have to be there 24/7, but they do indeed have other jobs.

            You’ve had this explained to you many times by many people.

            If you can’t understand it….don’t blame it on others.

          • EmilyOne, it goes like this:

            I am not talking about Justin’s extra income earned from stocks he holds.

            I am not talking about Justin’s extra income he may or may not have earned out of holding another job on the side while being an MP.

            I am talking about Justin Trudeau getting paid twice for doing the same job once!

            All MP’s give speeches as part of their MP job description without charging above and beyond what they get paid as an MP salary.

            Justin receives his salary as an MP already and giving speeches is part of being an MP, hence, his MP salary ALREADY covers the giving of speeches.

            Justin Trudeau has been double dipping for 3.5 years because he has been giving speeches for extra fees WHILE he was already being paid to give speeches as part of his MP salary!

            Doing the same job twice for double the money, IS double dipping.

            And it is shameful that you must lie to me and that you must make up excuses for Justin’s double dipping practices! You have no on to blame but yourself when you condone abuse of the system when you condone what Justin has done, namely double dipping!

          • So if your MP is a property owner or a farmer then because he doesn’t farm or rent out suites in the House of Commons they can earn money and collect a salary even though that salary is for being an MP every day that they are registered as a sitting MP.

            But if your job prior to being an MP is as a speaker for fundraising events then doing that job and accepting payment for it is wrong?

            I see no difference between a farmer MP and speaker MP both earning via their professions as long as they were all up front about it and cleared it with the ethics commissioner. Trudeau was up front about it and cleared it.

            You really do have no idea about what “double dipping” means do you Francien? Double dipping means doing exactly the same work and charging two different organisations the full price for it. Only Duffy has been shown to have done that so far and charging the Senate for Party events smacks to me of theft.
            If I am invited as a speaker to talk about my job and how I got into it then I would expect to be compensated by those asking me to do it and I’d still expect my employer to pay me my daily wage if I had cleared it with them first. If however I was asked by my employer to go and speak to a group about my job then I would expect my employer to pick up the tab. I wouldn’t charge both as Duffy did. Trudeau did clear it with Parliament and so gets paid his salary and the fee.

          • Giving speeches IS what an MP does!

            When Justin applied for the job to be an MP, he knew all too well that part of an MP’s job description IS the giving of speeches!

          • Actually representing the wishes of their constituents is what MPs do. They may give speeches, produce flyers, hold town halls, be interviewed by the press etc in the course of doing that but they are not paid to give speeches.

            Classical roles of an MP
            (1) to consider, refine and pass legislation;
            (2) to hold government accountable for its administration of the laws and authorize the expenditure of the required funds; and
            (3) to determine the life of the Government through exercising the ability to provide or withhold support.

            These have been added to with supplementary roles like:
            Constituent advocacy and assistance
            The anti-independent and anti-democratic nature of party duties,

            But giving speeches especially outside one’s constituency isn’t the duty of any MP let alone part of their job description.

          • Yup; farmers, surgeons, business; guys all toiling away at their real jobs. But guess what Emily, your little tinker Justine isn’t any of those, is he?

            No sir, your little Justine is no surgeon and the main reason he isn’t a surgeon, is because his wacky little mommy and daddy sent him to acting school instead.

            So there he is Emily, just what you’d expect him to be by cracky.

            There he is indeed, another little Liberal Party fruitcake; a sprout of old Prime Minister Fish Face Trudeau himself, standing up there pretending to be something he ain’t.

          • So you don’t even know what education or work background Trudeau has? You are what they call a low information voter.

          • A low information voter? No, that would be you, apparently. Assuming of course that you’re actually old enough to vote.

            I’m what you would call a high information voter and the critical high information with this bozo is fourfold:

            a) he was nurtured upon the knee of Pierre Scumball Trudeau

            b) that his main political consultant is a U.S based, Marxist leaning outfit known as David Axelrod Associates.

            c) that he’s a school teacher with an education degree.

            d) that since the 1960’s the main thrust of the North American education system is to use our babies as fodder and to social engineer a type of Marxist society that I find abhorrent.

          • This is hilarious.

            I can see you are angry that Trudeau is a threat to Harper. I think you would help your cause little more by trying rational argument.

            Using terms like “Justine”, and “scumball” just make you look like some 13 year old who is mad at his teacher.

          • Well confusion reigns in your little palace of hilarity doesn’t it?

            And if you can “see” I’m angry that someone might beat out Harper you better run out and change the stool softener in that old bong you borrowed from your mother. Harper has written so many cheques to vicious African dictators I’m convinced he could out-liberal the goofiest freak liberal you could ever bring to the table. I’m surprised the back room honchos didn’t try to pick up Harper instead of Bob Rae when they canned Princess Ignatieff

            Now on this “terms” business, you must have English as a second language, is that right? Neither of those things is a term.

            “Scumball” for starters is an adjective and although I’ve never looked at it as a juvenile one, perhaps you’re right. So let me amend my style book and henceforth I’ll refer to the ugly little man as a “lowlife petulant scumball.” How’s that? I hope he doesn’t mind because I always had the impression he liked being referred to as a scumball. It proved that his efforts were being successful.

            As for Justine, you’re away with the fairies, that’s the guys name.
            All the Quebec fops have an “e” at the end of their name; Stephane Dion, Claude Wagner, Pauline Marois.

            Quite frankly, I think you’ve lost it.

          • Wow. You have so totally convinced me you are right now.

            Signed

            The 13 year old kid who lives down the street.

          • Oh, WOW, a 13 year old.

            Look, the Ontario Liberals have a few grown men who might be interested in you.

            Jack Layton would have jumped at a chance to meet you but down in Quebec the NDP of today might even be able to get you elected.

            And if you have a baby sitter license there’s an old progressive named Vic Toe you might talk with.

            In Canadian politics things are shaping up nicely for 13 year olds.
            I’d have to say ever since a fellow named Pierre Lowlife Petulant Scumball Trudeau became Prime Minister in 1968, thirteen year olds are a hot commodity.

            No wonder you want a Trudeau Dynasty.

          • Never mind. I thought it was your anger that made you incoherent. Now I see you are just incoherent.

            Cheers.

          • So, if I understand it correctly you had assessed the situation incorrectly when you composed your first comment to me.

            And you further assessed the situation incorrectly when you composed your second comment to me.

            What a laugh. Given that dismal record what makes you think you finally got it right with the last one.

          • Because you are incoherent.

          • But Skeeziks, everything is incoherent to a thirteen year old.

            By the time I was thirteen I already had that figured out; but then again I was better equipped at thirteen than you are

            No big 300 pound, indoctrinating, NDP kindergarten teacher had ever been anywhere near me. And certainly no big one wanting me to vote for Justine
            .

          • Hi. Thanks for proving my point.

          • You should try using your own material.

            I have a copy of the “Marxist Troller’s Handbook.” The Justine Liberals issue it to all the little weenies they pay 2 bucks an hour to spread the word.

            Marxist Troller’s Handbook, Page 26:
            Rule No 33: If you’re completely stumped by what they say, thank them for proving your point.

          • Yeah. It is also useful polite to thank someone for proving your point when they do prove your point.

            Nice try though.

            I am going to follow my own rules now and disengage. It is impossible to reason with someone who is unreasonable.

            Cheers!

          • Very catchy phrase, “useful polite”

            I think I’ll drop a note to Axelrod and Kinsella and ask them to add a few English lessons to that Marxist Troller’s Handbook.

            It’s obviously tough to get coherent thought out of a Justine Cult Weenie when it’s still grappling with the language.

            You should try trolling the Tripoli Ghibli. I think they have a French version they give away free to the Foreign Legion.

            PS: You’re not related to jean Chretien are you? He too was illiterate in both official languages.

          • Do not engage Francien….
            All he talks about is Justin Trudeau, no clue why… Random times, not on topic, just obsessed….with diversion.

            Good luck to you with trying to get a point across….

          • Right. Thank you! I will disengage. I see now how many times this person is posting. Perhaps the moderator needs to knock a few Francien comments off of here? They are off topic after all.

          • Oh, I see: when the group-think decides it does not want to hear about certain facts, the moderator needs to shut down the posts which are unbearable for some! And you consider yourself a liberal?

          • Knock off Francien? Seems extreme, but yes please.

            Wait, do you do this on the side ie: ARE YOU DOUBLE DIPPING AS A HIT MAN (PERSON)?

          • And yet another poster who is unwilling to face the facts about Justin Trudeau!

          • It is common for people, especially people with something to offer (fame, history, specialized genius etc), to make money from public speaking engagements. I think other MP’s are fools for not cashing in on this opportunity, but then again other MP’s may not have the history Justin has and are not as much of a draw for these events. Were these events that he spoke at specific to his role as an MP or were they for unrelated reasons? If unrelated, then perhaps you should back off?

          • Perhaps we should ask Justin Trudeau what exactly the difference is between the speeches on the topic of the environment as an MP and when he speaks about the environment for an extra fee.

            It would be very interesting to find out what the difference could possibly be, besides the extra cash between speeches.

  3. So the same bunch of crooked workshy loons that complained about Trudeau giving speeches while he should have been working are quite happy to suspend the running of the country for another month while they hope we forget about their criminal behaviour?
    That won’t happen even with the third strategic prorogation in Harper’s destructive time in office.
    Next time any Reform nut tells me that Harper and Co are all about law and order, fiscal soundness and hard work, I will laugh in their face.

    • Right, but the thing is that when Justin skips the House in session to go earn some extra dough by double dipping, you, and so many others find that a good thing!

      “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
      $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

      “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

      • Not necessarily a good thing, but that is something his constituents can take up with him. The parliamentary ethics commissioner cleared it, so it is of no concern to anyone else but his constituents.
        However, giving ALL MPs an extra month of not being able to debate policy issues at a time when Syria is getting very interesting, in order to give a bit more time for folk to forget about previous fraudulent criminal behaviour and Harper and the muppets lieing to Parliament does affect all of us.
        Try and see the difference please Francien, you actually appeared coherent on another forum earlier today, but your Trudeau derangement syndrome seems to cause you to lose all grasp of reality.

        • Then tell us all why so many Canadians are upset when Duffy charges the senate while going out and give speeches somewhere else for extra fees.

          When Duffy double dips it’s considered an abuse of the system, yet when Justin Trudeau does exactly the same thing, such action is regarded as a virtue! Go figure!

          • 1: Those speeches were for party political purposes, not Senate business.

            2: He charged the Senate the same full fee as he charged the Conservative party for the same speech. (That’s double dipping)

            3: He never cleared it with the any ethics watchdog or other regulatory body.

            This really isn’t that tough Francien. The fact that double dippimg doesn’t mean what you think it does it causing you to make a lot of errors.

          • The speeches JT made to schools and libraries and charitable foundations were for political purpose only, namely Justin’s.

            Justin got paid an MP salary while charging schools, and libraries and charitable foundations for extra fees. That is double dipping.

            Justin and Duffy did double dipping. The difference is that when Duffy does it, it is wrong, and when Justin does it, it is good. Even the ethics Com thinks it’s not a bad thing when Justin does it.

          • Party fundraisers are different from a speech whereby politics is mentioned.
            Things do not mean what you think they mean just because you wish to make them so. You are behaving in a disturbing manner with your constant redefining of terms just so you can attack a guy who you don’t like.
            As for the Ethics Commissioner, given the amount of times she has refused to sanction the crooks in the Harper government for their obvious breaches of ethics, if she is willing to clear Trudeau, I’d say he was well in the clear.

          • Many Canadians are behaving in a disturbing manner when they decide that Duffy’s actions of double dipping must be considered an abuse of the system but Justin’s actions of double dipping must be considered a virtue.

          • Francien is behaving in a disturbing manner when she decided that her Conservative MP’s double-dipping must be considered a virtue.

          • Because, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, they are different. You cling to this idea that they aren’t because you want to fit what happened to suit your partisan agenda and it doesn’t.
            I explained the difference to you in another thread and you stopped replying. That indicates to me that not only are you being dishonest in your interpretation of “double dipping” but that you are also a dishonest debater.
            So c’mon Francien try and be honest with hoe you argue, it’s not the Reform way, but hey you could start a trend

          • Funny that, until you found out the your own Conservative MP was
            earning money on the side, your “outrage” was simply at the fact that
            Trudeau earned money in addition to his MP’s salary. When your MP’s
            “double-dipping” was brought to your attention you abruptly stopped
            responding to comments. When you resumed responding the problem was no
            longer earning money in addition to an MP’s salary, but was now
            Trudeau’s field of work.
            What caused the change of heart?

    • I predict you will plenty of opportunities to do that.

      • I’m working on my jaw muscles so I don’t cramp up

  4. Slimy man protecting his interests and hiding from the people of Canada and his vast (and necessary) opposition.

    We enable this man by accepting his actions.

    • You want Slimy…Cretien demonstrated Slimy on a daily basis.

      • And apparently Harper was taking notes the whole time…

        • Mastered it!

        • He did vow to do better – we doubted him.

      • I love the, “lets put up with corruption because there was corruption in the past” argument….

        so useful….

        • It’s all about honoring tradition.

  5. This is nothing more than a stalling tactic to draw attention away from the senate scandal plaguing the tories(or PMO anyways). Whenever Tory spin doctors can’t get the PM out of the hot seat, Harper pulls this BS to draw attention away from the real issues.
    Basically he is spitting in our faces, and going ahead with what he thinks is best for the country regardless what the public thinks. He refuses to be accountable for his actions, this is one way for him to wipe the etch-a-sketch clean and never face the public for his misdoings.

    • What was Justin Trudeau thinking when the House was in session? Did the House matter to him when Justin decided to skip the HOuse in session so that he could go out and do some double dipping, sticking some more tax payer’s money into his own private pockets:

      “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
      $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

      “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

    • I think it is Justin Trudeau who has spit in our faces to the tune of $277,000 for giving speeches for extra fees to schools and libraries and charitable foundations while getting an MP salary to boot!

      “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
      $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

      “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

      • How much does your double-dipping Conservative MP earn on the side?
        Who knows, he won’t tell us.

        • Which other MP, besides Justin Trudeau, has charged double the money for doing the same job once??

          Name me one other MP. (Duffy is a senator, not an MP)

          • Funny that, until you found out the your own Conservative MP was earning money on the side, your “outrage” was simply at the fact that Trudeau earned money in addition to his MP’s salary. When your MP’s “double-dipping” was brought to your attention you abruptly stopped responding to comments. When you resumed responding the problem was no longer earning money in addition to an MP’s salary, but was now Trudeau’s field of work.
            What caused the change of heart?

          • I am not asking you about MP’s getting extra income from rentals or stocks: I was and am asking this:

            ‘Which other MP, besides Justin Trudeau, has charged double the money for doing the same job once??

            Name me one other MP. (Duffy is a senator, not an MP)”

          • Sorry, I have now idea what “charged double the money for doing the same job once” means. Is that like one-hand clapping?

            So what caused the change of heart?

          • We now pause while the goal posts are moved.

          • How so? Do you need time to move goal posts, before you are able to answer my very straight forward question?

          • Justin talks about education, teaching, Katimavik, his father etc

          • So, when Justin delivers a speech about education as an MP, or Justin delivers a speech about education for an extra fee, what then is the difference of the speech?

            Does Justin talk different about education when he is an MP than when he gets paid for the speech about education?

            Tell me, EmilyOne, what is the difference of Justin’s speech giving when he speaks about education other than to receive extra cash when he speaks for extra fees.

          • You’ve now bafflegabbed yourself into a corner.

            He doesn’t give speeches on education in the HOC….this govt never discusses education!….he does to outside audiences….who pay to hear him speak.

          • It remains to be seen if Justin will never speak about education as an MP.

            Ask Justin if he speaks about he environment when he charges extra for his speeches.

            Fact: Justin has spoken about matters of the environment when giving speeches for extra fees. AND Justin, as an MP, speaks about the environment. What then is the difference??

          • Francien….nobody is talking about Justin but you.

            Last couple of weeks in fact the media has discussed Mulcair, with a minor bit on Harp.

            But here you are….giving Justin tons of notice….bringing him to everyone’s attention over and over again….when it’s clear nobody wants to talk about him. He hasn’t even said anything since the pot announcement, so it’s boring.

            You really work at it too….EVERYBODY talks about the environment….it’s the Canadian concern for weather….and Justin has always been big on the environment. Camping with his dad and all.

            So all you’re doing is spamming the board here with publicity for Justin. And you know what they say….there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

            In your case, you might as well join the Liberal party and be done with it. LOL

            Ciao.

          • What an outright lie to say that “nobody is talking about Justin” but me!

            Everyone, including Justin and the media, talk about Justin all the time: Justin and the pot issue; Justin and the Quebec charter of values.

            Only when talking about Justin and his double dipping practices must everyone be quiet about Justin.

            What a farce!

            EmilyOne, afraid of seeing Justin as he really is! Justin is just loving it.

          • Sorry Francien….nobody else cares.

            Bore yourself silly….just stop spamming the board.

            And I said….Ciao.

          • If no one cares, then why are you, and so many others, still trying so hard to make up excuses for Justin whenever I post the following?

            “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
            $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

            “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

            And what about ‘Ciao’ don’t you understand?? You keep coming back, time and again! You simply cannot stand it when the truth about Justin is revealed.

            Have a look at how Justin talks about the need to use correct stats and the likes but NOT when Justin does the talking; then all stats can be twisted and lied about! What a joke this Justin Trudeau and his followers are becoming!

            Justin and the whacky stats he uses:

            http://www.torontosun.com/videos/2668721386001

          • I believe I’ve said Ciao twice now.

          • Yes, and you keep coming back! That is the beauty of being EmilyOne: not even realizing what it is she is doing!

            I gotta give you that!

            (Lesson #1: it is YOUR choice to respond to my posts. No one is forcing you to respond, so when you say ‘Ciao’, say it and stand by it! For once!)

          • You got it Francien. A chico from Emily isn’t worth what it used to be.
            In fact, Emily has issued so many Chicos they’re now like 50 dollar bills with pictures of that old Liberal crackpot on them. They’re worthless.

          • You’ve got that right!

            The funny thing is that when EmilyOne issues a ‘Ciao’ she thereby thinks that the other person (me in this case) should just stop posting to her. She actually thinks she has that power.

            So interesting to observe human behaviour here on them comment boards!

          • I had a fellow 2 or 3 days ago tell me that he believes Emily is a bot, a computer program that roams the site looking for things to respond to and then heading over to Wikipedia for a load of bilge to bury you in,.
            He said he caught it contradicting itself within the same dialogue series
            Think about that. It’s been intriguing me ever since he mentioned it

            If he’s right, it’s a pretty nifty piece of work.

            If you stump the thing, it gives you a chico.

          • Yes, it makes one wonder, that’s for sure! Very interesting to give it a second thought: EmilyOne being a bot!
            It does make sense considering it in that way. And yes, if that ‘fellow’ who told you about it is right, it is a pretty nifty piece of work, that bot!

            How very interesting.

          • Do you know what’s going to happen to you Emily? No?

            Well what’s going to happen to you Emily is that sometime, when you least expect it, Nemesis is going to overtake both you and your 7,910 stupid comments.

            Mark my words Emily, one of these days Justine Trudeau is going to wander in here under a stage name. He’s going to be pretending to be some kind Liberal soul calling itself Justin Stones and you’re not going to realize it’s him. And that moment Emily is when you drop into the pit.

            You’re going to make an instant run-up to 7,911 dumb postings by mistakenly giving one of the nicest little drama queens of all time, a Chico.

          • Does Justine ever tell the story about the time his genius “father” tried paddling a big voyageur canoe from Florida to Cuba so he could go to Fidel Castro’s birthday party.

            He got caught in a storm, had to be pulled out of the drink, seasick and crying by US Coast Guard who promptly deported him to Quebec and told him to never come back.

            On the day Canadians stupidly elected him Prime Minister he was still on the deportation list and barred from entry to the United States.

            That’s a good story eh? Does Justine ever tell that one to the faithful?.

  6. oh well we will be waiting in October to question more of the scandals going on….It will actually give the opposition more time to build a case against the Tories.

    • Oh, well, we will be waiting till members of the media will have a good look what Justin Trudeau is really all about:

      “On April 20, 2012, for example, Trudeau earned
      $20,000 for a speech he gave to Literacy for Life in Saskatoon. In the House of Commons, other MPs were debating and voting on a pension reform initiative.”

      “On Jan. 31, 2009, MPs debated and voted on changes to employment insurance benefits. There is no record Trudeau voted on that initiative or participated in the day’s proceedings. But he did give a speech that day to the Toronto-based group, The Learning Partnership, for which he was paid $10,000”

  7. Recent Liberal History Re: Prorogue…so don’t get all righteous Liberal Lovers of the Left

    Jean Chretien prorogued Parliament four times during his time as Prime Minister: February 5, 1996; September 18, 1999; September 16, 2002; and November 12, 2003.
    – On each occasion, the Liberals killed their own legislation. Several bills ended up dying over and over again due to Liberals proroguing Parliament or calling early elections.
    – September 16, 2002 – After a summer of Liberal in-fighting and Jean Chretien being forced to announce his planned retirement date in August, Chretien prorogued Parliament, killing legislation so that he could unveil his legacy agenda.
    Chretien decided to have a Throne Speech just to test the will of the PAUL MARTIN forces who were trying to push him out early: Chretien was happy. “I like that. It is exactly what we just discussed. Prepare me a statement. But just one more thing,” said the old turd. “I want a Throne Speech in the fall. The government will stand or fall on it. If they want to vote against me on it, then it is the one case in which I will run again.”
    – November 12, 2003 – Jean Chretien announced that Parliament was prorogued on the eve of the Liberal leadership convention (so Chretien and Martin didn’t have to sit together in the House of Commons and face a dispute over who was Prime Minister). Martin did not become Prime Minister until December 12, 2003 and Parliament did not resume until February 2, 2004 – almost four months later

    Chretien prorogued Parliament in November, 2003 TO AVOID having to face the AG’s report on what happened with the LIBERAL PARTY AND ADSCAM, and thus FORCING Paul Martin to answer for what occurred under Chretien’s term as PM….the “Cretien Liberal Legacy” was ADSCAM and the $$$millions missing or lining the pockets of Liberal Friendly Ad Businesses. The Gomery Inquiry into the Adscam mess did not go far enough…Cretien should have been made to answer for his part in this travesty.

    History Statistics are a bitch eh! Libtards. Whine and Cry all you want about Harper, but here it is in black and white for all to see…but I know all the lefties here see only what they want to see….hear only what they want to hear, and lie whenever they open there mouths.

    • Yes, but Liberals are good and Conservatives are bad, so when Liberals prorogue it’s a good prorogue, and when Conservatives prorogue it’s a bad prorogue.

      • Well Harp made it so…..talk to him.

    • 1. Your contraction “Libtards” is offensive and indicative of intolerance and ignorance.

      2. Many Canadians protested the excesses, corruption and undemocratic behaviour of the Chretien government, and withdrew their permission for the Liberals to govern. (+ they never had my vote to begin with)

      3. The Harper government has exceeded the excesses, corruption and undemocratic behaviour of the Liberals in record time.

      4. History Statistics are “a bitch” if you don’t understand what you are reading.

      • Man up Toby? or not Toby??…If you don’t like the cold hard facts of this little history lesson about the criminal activity of the Liberals stay away from this commentary section…I didn’t make any of this up, unlike some of the LEFTARD BS about Harper that I see here in great abundance. Go check it out for yourself…or was my statement about “only seeing what you want to see” one of your predominant character flaws.

      • If you say Harper exceeded Cretien’s criminal activity….by all means entertain me with the facts please, not some made up Lefty BullShite.

  8. Doesn’t Maclean’s filter the comments for spam?

    • You are still posting, are you not?

  9. Hey! Didn’t you know that beating up on Justin Trudeau is strictly off limits here. You’re not allowed to bad mouth Junior because he’s just so yummy and cool and has such great wavy hair and says such utterly hip things about smoking pot just 5 or 6 times while chillin with his cool homies at his cool crib in the capital or wherever his principal residence is at the present time.

    • Actually, people just do not tolerate silly, juvenile comments. I you can come up with fact based, intelligent criticism, I am sure people will hear you out.

      Try it and see.

      • No Gayle,
        Yes. Of course,
        Your brand of blather and bafflegab is the only one allowed here, right?

        • Well clearly they allow juvenile comments. So many of your fellow conservatives post them.

          I am just giving you some advice about convincing people. If you want people to agree with you it helps to use fact based, intelligent criticism.

          Try it and see.

          (Hint: criticizing Trudeau for his hair is kind of juvenile.)

  10. I’ve occasionally seen loathing and hatred on these boards but one of the commenters views and obsessions about Trudeau are so extreme and so off topic on every posting that it’s almost scary.
    I guess if the purpose is to destroy these comment threads and make them unreadable this person is succeeding.
    That commenter wants to drive reasonable people away and silence them. I guess the only response that might work would be to not become involved with that commenter because there is never an honest reasonable dialogue.

    • I completely agree with you. It’s organized chaos intended to shut down discussion and the worst thing is that it’s working. We used to have reasonably interesting, civil and relevant discussion here on MacLean’s. Now some loon immediately tags a rant or totally irrelevant question onto a reasonable comment that’s asking for some relevant dialogue, and the result is — we have lost a lot of people here. I don’t want to let them win, but it is frustrating here these days.

      I wish MacLean’s would reach out to those who want to wreak mayhem here and suggest they take their stupidity elsewhere.

      • Some MacLeans bloggers take cheap shots at commenters even years after the post. (Australian election)
        Although they don’t know the background or experience of commenters they will make insulting comments.
        And now they allow totally off topic rants to go on and on in response to every reasonable posting that’s made on topic such as this proroguing so called debate.
        There are fewer commenters on here than on other similar sites. I wonder why?
        I didn’t go on this thread, but as soon as I saw the number of responses here, I knew immediately what had happened.

        • LOL.
          You, Gayle, Patchouli, and a few others on this forum are full of a lot of politically correct sanctimonious crap. You couldn’t debate a grade six class and win. So give up on the holier than thou attitude. We’ve had an earful already. OK.

          • Showing your age. Politically Correct 1995 versus PC 2013, big difference.
            Harper rules the Canadian political universe in deed and thought.

            You sir are the politically correct of our time. And don’t go off the reservation, danger lurks.

          • You’ve proven to be a master debater here, for sure.

          • See, here you go again. Your big critique is to say we are politically correct and sanctimonious. Adjectives are so easy. How about some reasoned criticism instead – like pointing out, based on the facts, how people are wrong.

            (Hint: making up facts, like Francien, does not count)

  11. Personally I think pro-rogation is under utilized – people confuse being in Ottawa with actually working !!!!! – right my MP where I live is actually spending time with his constituents and getting an earful :) – Sometimes I think that our politcians spend entirely too much time in Ottawa. Pro-ragtion means we get a Throne Speech and new legislative agenda and actual movement forward with them doing their jobs . In our present system Question Period is for idiots and the like as it’s only function is to allow brain dead journalists and wanna be pundits to get some headlines it certainly adds no value to our democracy and if we wanted it to we would get rid of the TV cameras.

Sign in to comment.