The Commons: Stephen Harper is very sensitive

And Pierre Poilievre calls us all to a higher purpose

Shortly after Conservative Brian Jean had stood to accuse the New Democrats of advocating for a “job killing carbon tax” and Conservative MP Scott Armstrong had stood to say that “the policy of the NDP is to go south to recruit foreign criminals to come to Canada” and Conservative MP David Wilks had stood and claimed to possess “a long list of attacks on Canadian interests from the NDP” and Conservative MP Robert Sopuck had stood and ventured that the NDP leader “leader rejects sound science and works hard to kill Canadian jobs” and Conservative MP James Bezan stood and said Thomas Mulcair had “attacked Canadian jobs, attacked Canada’s national interests and took up the cause of a convicted cop shooter” and shortly before Justice Minister Rob Nicholson stood and declared that “New Democrats are never on” the side of victims of crime, Stephen Harper stood and declared himself quite disappointed with Mr. Mulcair’s tone.

“Mr. Speaker, Peter Penashue broke… the… law,” Mr. Mulcair had enunciated, now pausing for effect. “If our law and order Prime Minister considers Peter Penashue, a known lawbreaker, to be the best Conservative MP, what does that say about the rest of his caucus?”

In fairness, Mr. Harper had not said that Mr. Penashue was the best member of the Conservative caucus, rather that he was the best MP that the riding of Labrador had ever had. Though perhaps that description too raises questions about how the Prime Minister measures quality.

Regardless, Mr. Harper was now profoundly saddened. “Mr. Speaker, obviously, I disagree with that categorization,” the Prime Minister sighed. “I am sad, but not surprised, to hear that kind of negative campaign from the—”

He could not finish because the New Democrats had burst out laughing.

The Speaker called for order and returned the floor to Mr. Harper.

“Mr. Speaker, in Labrador, Minister Penashue,” the Prime Minister continued, apparently still struggling to come to grips with the reality of Mr. Penashue’s resignation, “will be able to point to a record of respecting his promises, working against the federal long gun registry and for such things as the Trans-Labrador Highway, the Lower Churchill project and obviously for the strong record that he has presented to the people of Labrador.”

So Mr. Penashue might not have rightfully won a seat in the House of Commons, but at least while he had it, some things happened that the people of Labrador might have reason to be happy about.

The House proceeded to other matters, but after Rob Nicholson had declared his concern for the victims of crime, Bob Rae detected a segue back to Mr. Penashue.

“Mr. Speaker, the victims of the latest Conservative crime are the people of Labrador. Those are the victims we need to stand up for,” Mr. Rae ventured. “It is now clear that there was a completely orchestrated-from-central-casting resignation by the minister. Peter Penashue held press conferences. He used government money to hold press conferences. He placed ads. The Conservative Party transferred money to the riding association in Labrador. The entire thing was orchestrated by the Prime Minister of Canada and orchestrated by the Conservative Party of Canada.”

There was not a question here, but the Prime Minister stood anyway.

“Mr. Speaker, the member for Labrador has taken the correct action,” Mr. Harper said. “The people of Labrador will decide.”

But, once more, the Prime Minister was besmirched.

“They will have the difference between that kind of negative, ugly campaign,” he said, drawing laughs from the Liberals, “and, on the other side, a record of positive achievement for the people of Labrador by minister Penashue and, obviously, we will respect the decision of the people of Labrador.”

Mr. Rae saw another segue.

“Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to see ugly, he and his cabinet colleagues should simply look in the mirror and assess their own conduct—”

The Conservatives groaned their displeasure. The Speaker called for order.

“I do not think we need to make those kinds of personal characterizations,” Speaker Scheer suggested. “It is certainly not adding to the debate today.”

Mr. Rae pleaded innocence. “Mr. Speaker, if looking in the mirror produces unacceptable results,” he offered, “it is hardly the fault of the people who are asking the questions.”

The interim Liberal leader again failed to register a question, but the Prime Minister stood again nonetheless.

“Mr. Speaker, I think the real problem is the positions that the Liberal Party of Canada has on issues that matter to the people of Labrador,” Mr. Harper ventured. “The people of Labrador value the seal hunt; they value investments in their infrastructure and in their Internet; and they certainly value the Lower Churchill hydroelectric electric project.”

It is a well known fact that the Liberals despise the Internet, but at last check they did support both the seal hunt and the Lower Churchill project.

The questions about the former minister persisted and it was Pierre Poilievre who took up the cause of defending his honour.

“Mr. Speaker, in anybody’s mind, writing cheques for nearly $50,000 is a clear admission that Conservatives broke just about every law in the book during the Labrador campaign and that they knew they broke them,” Liberal MP Gerry Byrne charged. “With that said, the Prime Minister also knows that sanctions with serious consequences remain inevitable against Mr. Penashue and his party. With absolutely nothing left to lose under those circumstances, a byelection is about to be called to try to dull some of that reality. Does the Prime Minister really feel that holding a byelection could ever trump the rule of law in Canada and that the process of justice might actually be able to be turned off for a byelection?”

Somewhere in this distance, or perhaps only in Mr. Poilievre’s head, a string quartet began to play the national anthem.

“Mr. Speaker, there they go, launching a nasty, negative campaign full of slurs,” he sighed. “Never did a slur create a job. Never did a slur protect a traditional aboriginal way of life that Peter Penashue has fought for.”

The anthem swelled. Watching at home, mothers gathered their children to listen. In office towers, business halted. In the fields, plowing ceased. Tears trickled down the cheeks of grown men.

“Never did a slur help a school child in a remote community have access to the world through high-speed Internet, the way Peter Penashue delivered. Never did a slur protect CFB Goose Bay,” Mr. Poilievre continued. “Slurs do not do that, but Peter Penashue did.”

And lo was the nation stirred and lo did all who heard Mr. Poilievre now rush to Labrador, cheques in hand and the Elections Act in mind, to donate the maximum allowable funds to Mr. Penashue’s re-election campaign.

For sure, Mr. Poilievre was so very right. And thus it is to wonder why so many others waste so much of their and our time with such empty words.

The Commons: Stephen Harper is very sensitive

  1. LOL having been warned by all the foreshadowing I duly got out my hanky…..and it was very useful for the tears of laughter!

    Beautifully done Mr Wherry….thank you!

    • Agreed – one of AW’s best. Poilievre’s answers in QP are mostly slurs and inneuendos. PP is the grand master of the big slur. Set to the anthem played by a string quartet. It would be a great Youtube moment!

  2. Just remember NDP and Liberal scumbags, the Conservatives have a MAJORITY Government so your whining doesn’t matter

    • It’s easy to get a majority when you cheat………………..

    • And it becomes more apparent, with each new election irregularity being investigated, how they acquired that majority.

      It’s also becoming apparent that, not only are their methods unethical (perhaps illegal), they don’t even seem to care about being exposed anymore. They just carry on regardless.

      So who are the real scumbags here?

      • the Quebec sitty Frenchies NDP and late spend 3x the budget Liberals

        • Sorry, I don’t speak garble. Come again in English.

        • Yes, sitty. Late spend bad. Frenchie bad.10x Quebec! Budget Liberals smash!

          You obviously SPEAK HULK! Me understand!

        • This will be the first and last time I acknowledge this individual (unless they develop the ability to offer something of value). People who have no input to offer other than slander and partisan insults are a waste of every ones time, and obviously do not educate themselves enough on the issues to provide real input. Thanks for your insightful input Exxonmobil.

    • Then why the crocodile tears from the PM and his minions?

    • Nor does breaking the law seem to trouble you.

  3. Wilks the MP who got took out to the woodshed and had his nose spanked by a rolled up newspaper , now has permission to speak ……… say this David…… wooof woof yes Mr. leader

  4. I’m convinced that the speaker, andrew scheer, is not containment, but rather corrupt………

    either way, he’s doing a really awful job ………………………

  5. Wherry is excellent.

  6. No shortage of Leftist Mental Disorder around here.

    • There you go again, “launching a nasty, negative campaign full of slurs”

  7. LMAO, typical liberal reaction, prepare for more majority Conservative governments for the next 15 years, its inevitable!

    • You can’t get elected in prison. Your own private prisons too, with your own mandatory minimums. Looking forward to it.

      You wasted like 200 times what the Libs did and it ain’t even finished yet. Fiscal responsibility my foot. What was the latest price you did not quote for F-35s? What about the ads we don’t need? You send our children to war but give them nothing when they come back wounded… if they come back. BGut the War of 1812 (when Canada did niot even exist yet) is oh-so important.

      You have the same attitude as the GOP in the US. You will get the same results. Mane, thecel, phares (it’s in the Bible look it up).

    • When you took power we had a surplus. As usual under Con leadership you turned out the biggest deficit in Canadian history. If I were you I’d shut up.

    • Inevitable, eh? I wish you and your compatriots actually believed that, as you would all lapse into such a state of complacency as to be in for the shock of your lives…as it is, though, it is pretty clear you are trolling here

  8. This whole fiasco is beyond disgusting, or dare I say “ugly” without fear of the hypocritical Harper “government” pretending to have ethics and morals in the Commons. Anyone who pays even the slightest attention to what happens in the House of Commons since Harper Inc. has slithered it’s way in is not fooled by this hypocritical rhetoric. They have been the most dismissive, rude, insulting, scandalous, and unintelligible caucus I have ever seen.
    Penashue is a prime example of how this government operates: lies, corporate illegal loopholes, and misleading the public. The documentation is out there for everyone to see; re-electing Penashue, to use Harper terminology, is akin to setting a convicted criminal free, and for a government who likes to waste tax dollars on prisons instead of prevention, we now have one more person to fill those cells.
    Side note: never become a conservative volunteer, they’ll use you as a scapegoat!

  9. Magnificent theatre. Great reporting. Riveting writing. Thanks to all.

  10. How about cutting open the perimeter fencing with shears and directing dozens of protestors on to the runways? Did that protect CFB Goose Bay? That’s what Peter Penashue was up to in the 1980s and 90s? Protecting CFB Goose Bay?

    • SILENCE! Consequences are for Liberals!

  11. Because everyone knows the Conservatives only ever run clean campaigns with no slurs towards the opposition…

Sign in to comment.