The Commons: Stephen Harper is made to face the farce -

The Commons: Stephen Harper is made to face the farce

The Commons: Megan Leslie asks a question, the PM responds


The Scene. Two-thirds of the way through Question Period this afternoon, Megan Leslie rose to table a conundrum—to present to the House the foundational dissonance upon which rests so much nonsense. Here was the bare farce, exposed for all to see. After some weeks of merely referring to it, the New Democrats were apparently now prepared to confront it.

“Mr. Speaker, here is what the Prime Minister said in a speech on May 29, 2008 in London, England,” Ms. Leslie prefaced. ” ‘I should mention that while our plan will effectively establish a price on carbon of $65 a ton, growing to that rate over the next decade, our government has opted not to apply carbon taxes.’ ”

Various Conservatives applauded. A couple dozen were so moved they stood to applaud. Even the Prime Minister, who had been busy filling out paperwork at his desk, looked up to applaud Ms. Leslie’s reading of his previous sentiment.

What were these men and women cheering? It was certainly not the first part of the sentence: that Mr. Harper once sought to establish a price on carbon runs directly counter to everything these men and women have been saying of late. And it was certainly not the sentence in its entirety: no, taken as a complete sentence, this exposes everything they’ve been saying to be completely ridiculous. No, these grown men and women, all of them in business attire, each of them adults entrusted by their fellow citizens with no less a responsibility than public representation, could only have been applauding the third clause of that sentence. They were apparently suggesting it was possible, in the moment, to separate the final nine words from the rest of the statement. Here they were apparently venturing not simply that it was possible to take something out of context after the fact—anyone can do that—but that the human memory is so limited and the human mind so easily confused, that words can be taken out of context as they are being spoken.

Megan Leslie waited for the applause to finish and then continued.  “Mr. Speaker,” she asked, “why does the Prime Minister want to put a tax on everything?”

It was late in the hour and the Prime Minister could very easily and understandably have let one of his messengers take this, but instead he stood to respond himself, shaking his head as he rose.

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for highlighting the difference between our approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the NDP desire to put a carbon tax on everything,” he mocked.

Mr. Harper did not bother to explain how Ms. Leslie had done so. Instead he attacked, gesturing across the way at the Liberals and then the New Democrats. “The green shift of the Liberal Party only proposed $15 billion worth of carbon taxes,” he said, “and these guys want $20 billion worth of carbon taxes, something the economy cannot take, something Canadians will never accept.”

The Conservatives were once again delighted, all of them standing to cheer. Jeff Watson mimed a massive baseball swing. “More!” various voices called. “It’s t-ball!” cheered one.

Ms. Leslie returned to her feet. Mr. Harper sat and listened. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be confusion among Conservatives,” she ventured. “Formerly, the Prime Minister expressed his intention to establish a carbon price of $65 per tonne … but for the Conservatives a price on carbon is nothing more nor less than a carbon tax.”

Here was the riddle. “Do the Conservatives,” Ms. Leslie asked, “now deny the Prime Minister said that a price on carbon was not a carbon tax?”

Here is the farce. For years, the Conservative party and the Harper government publicly advocated for and pursued a cap-and-trade system to establish a price on carbon to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Beginning in 2008, they also loudly opposed a carbon tax. But now, faced with an official opposition that has advocated for a cap-and-trade system, the Conservatives say there is no difference between cap-and-trade and a carbon tax. Anything, they now say, that establishes a price on carbon is a carbon tax.

How do they account for everything they said and did up until recently? They don’t. “That’s the past,” they say. What the Conservative party ran on in 2004 and 2008, what the Harper government had the Governor General say in the Throne Speech in 2008, what cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister said they would do and what they all said and did over a five-year period is now not only ancient history, but entirely inapplicable to the present. (And never mind that, still now, the Conservatives are not quite prepared to definitely say they won’t pursue cap-and-trade if the United States decides to do likewise.)

In addition to splitting sentences, the Conservatives wish to control the human mind: to wave their hands and tell you these are not the droids you’re looking for and leave you to go about your business understanding only that Thomas Mulcair is a bad man.

Mr. Harper stood, smiling. “Mr. Speaker, in the quotation from the member, it is clear that the government would not impose a tax on carbon,” he said, en francais. “It is quite the opposite.”

The Prime Minister now switched to English and attempted to split the idea. “The difference is simply this,” he said. “No plan ever proposed by this government has involved raising revenue and taking money from Canadian consumers.”

It is important here to understand all of the problems with this second sentence.

His government has so far been unable to substantiate the claim that the cap-and-trade system it proposed would not have resulted in government revenue. If documentation from the time exists to support this present claim—if there is evidence that the Conservatives categorically ruled out any revenue—it has not yet been produced.

But it doesn’t even matter. Government officials needn’t waste a moment looking for anything to support the Prime Minister’s claim because according to the Prime Minister’s own government his words here are irrelevant. According to his own government’s logic, it simply doesn’t matter whether cap-and-trade results in public revenue or private revenue. “Carbon pricing in any form is a carbon tax,” Environment Minister Peter Kent explained in June. “Cap and trade or cap and tax, a price on carbon is a tax on carbon,” Conservative backbencher John Williamson reported to the House just last month.

The Prime Minister can claim now that he wasn’t proposing a carbon tax because what he was proposing wouldn’t have resulted in government revenue, but his own government has already sold him out.

As for the claim that “no plan ever proposed by this government involved … taking money from consumers,” Mr. Harper should review the legislation his government has passed so far in this regard, including the billions in costs contained therein, some of which will be applied directly to Canadian consumers.

“They have in their platform,” Mr. Harper concluded, “right in black and white in their financial tables, a $20 billion hit on Canadian consumers and households, which is something this government will never do.”

The Conservatives stood to cheer. And they were delighted to see Ms. Leslie stand for another round. The New Democrats stood to cheer her on.

“It seems that the Conservatives are caught in a vicious cycle here,” she chided.

The Conservatives laughed.

“They are either claiming that the Prime Minister never gave a speech that one can find on the PMO website, or that a price on carbon is not a tax on carbon,” she ventured. “Is there anyone over on that side who will stand up and defend the Prime Minister on his position that a carbon tax is not the same as a price on carbon?”

Various Conservatives stood to offer themselves up. Tony Clement mimed a baseball swing. The government side was gleeful. Ms. Leslie waited to finish.

“Mr. Speaker,” she finally asked, “will they defend the Prime Minister or will they throw him under the bus?”

The Prime Minister stood again. “Mr. Speaker,” he quipped, “if the member keeps leading with her chin I am prepared to keep going for it.”

He proclaimed greatness and pronounced shame and jabbed his finger and once more the Conservatives stood to cheer. They positively roared when Ms. Leslie stood for a fourth time. The Conservatives were having a grand time, finding their own joke to be quite hilarious.

“Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Conservatives are caught in a bit of an ethical dilemma here,” she suggested.

The Conservatives laughed.

“Mr. Speaker, day after day Conservative MPs and ministers are making things up,” she continued. “They are spouting mistruths and they are misleading Canadians. This is a major ethical issue.”

“Ahhh!” the Conservatives mocked.

Now then, a trick.

“My question is to the chair of the ethics committee,” Ms. Leslie explained. “I would like to know whether or not this issue is on the committee’s agenda.”

It is a little known fact that Question Period provides MPs an opportunity to ask questions of not only government ministers, but also committee chairs, even if those committee chairs are opposition MPs.

Mr. Harper attempted here to stand and respond, but the question was not for him. Instead, the Speaker called on the chair of the ethics committee, the MP for Sherbrooke, Pierre-Luc Dusseault.

The youngest person ever elected to the House of Commons duly stood and explained that the committee was presently taken with a study of privacy and social media. That said, en francais, he switched to English.

“In committee or in the House, MPs should conduct themselves in a very ethical manner, including not making things up about other parties,” Mr. Dusseault offered. “Conservative tactics have been denounced widely. Some in the media are asking how stupid the Conservatives think Canadians are. As the chair of the ethics committee, I invite my colleagues across the way to address that question in committee if they want.”

The Conservatives howled. Mr. Harper laughed and held aloft the NDP’s 2011 platform. As if he and his government hadn’t already decided that the public record was now entirely irrelevant

So here was the farce writ large. Here was the farce laid out before the public and celebrated and cheered by the actors who have been bringing it to life each day for the last few weeks. It is, for sure, an astounding spectacle. Hopefully you enjoy it, because it is being performed at your expense.

The Stats. Food safety, nine questions. The environment, four questions. Employment insurance, ethics, bilingualism and museums, three questions each. Afghanistan, omnibus legislation, immigration and small business, two questions each. Fisheries, food prices, trade and Canada Post, one question each.

Stephen Harper, nine responses. James Moore, six responses. Gerry Ritz and Gerald Keddy, two responses each. Diane Finley, three responses. Peter MacKay, Gary Goodyear and Rick Dykstra, two responses each. Leona Aglukkaq, John Duncan, Pierre-Luc Dusseault and Steven Fletcher, one response each.


The Commons: Stephen Harper is made to face the farce

  1. “He proclaimed greatness and pronounced shame and jabbed his finger ”

    Yeah, Harper doesn’t do that, as anyone who’s watched him in the House over the past 20 odd years knows.

    I already busted you once for fabricating stories about Harper allegedly huffing and puffing in the House and if you weren’t such a joke I’d do it again. I don’t even need to re-watch CPAC to know you’re lying from start to finish here.

    Being an English major, logic and non-fiction aren’t your thing, so I’ll help out here: Harper’s proposed GHG emissions limits by sector are in fact different than the NDP’s cap & trade scheme, you’re just far too dense (and dishonest with self and others) to get that.

    “the Conservatives wish to control the human mind”

    Oh, right, of course they do. Harper Derangement is a helluva drug, eh? LOL, you fail, buddy, immensely and profoundly.

    • Aaron’s running a Hate Site, basically. That’s the bottom line.

      • Cons are liars and louts and don’t like being caught at it….that’s the bottom line

        • Like getting caught at a seedy massage parlour and telling everyone it was a legitimate massage? Even though the officers notes stated he was naked? GST is gone? All rules followed in sponsorship scandal? I never meant to steal that expensive ring? As we speak crosses are burning on lawns in my riding? I never called Canadians stupid(even though the video proves otherwise)?
          Take the blinders off Emily. Yes, cons lie. Just as well as the other parties I might add.

          • Being nude for a massage is pretty normal, unless youre some uptight weirdo with ridiculous hangups about sex and nudity

          • Sure. Go down to your local phsio massage parlour and get naked. Expect the cops to show up. And by the way, I’ve had massages on a weely basis since 2002 due to a serious back injury. Have never been asked to get naked. Sheesh.

          • Some people get massaged in the nude, some don’t. Grow up.

          • So laying on your back, which body part requires you to be nude? Get a life. The place was a well-known brothel that had a reputation and was previously raided. It was also in Layton’s riding.

          • Okay? Who cares? Why does this matter?

          • Cuz pauly is miffed someone criticized his beloved Harper.

          • Actually I don’t hide the fact Harper and the Conservatives are far from perfect. As are all the parties. Seems your the one with your partisan knickers in a bunch.

          • I’m Independent….no party at all. Sorry.

          • And you don’t!

          • You’ve had very odd massages. And Layton didn’t have a riding….he wasn’t in federal politics at the time

          • OK, in his ward. Happy now?

          • No, you’re still lying.

          • The presson who reporter this is a former cop and former Conservative candidate. There is more to the story, though and I don’t remember everything. For a non-partisan yu sound a bit too much like an attack dog.

          • The CPC did some very expensive investigating on our dime..Typical Conservative behavior.

          • Ya so what a hand job never hurt anyone bet you’ve had a few! he was an adult and as an adult he could do as he pleases and above all that was not going to change his policies..

          • And besides, how do the alleged sexual indiscretions of a dead man in any way minimize or excuse the lies and hypocrisy of the Harper government?

          • Ask Emily. Seems only cons lie. I could care less what Layton did, but his version doesn’t line up with the police officers. And I’m also in favour of legalized prostitution. Far safer for the women’s health and safety. Also in favour of legalizing way. Both things Harper is deadset against.

          • Doh! Also in favour of legalizing weed. Both things Harper is deadset against

          • I’ve been having massage therapy for 20 years – I always have a full body one – always naked. I’ve had both female and male therapists. They have a very clever way with sheets that is very discreet – no tits exposed etc. If you had underwear on it would be oil soaked and make working on areas like the lower spine impossible.

          • Yes, Cons lie….just like you’re doing right now.

          • Everything stated above is fact Emily. Please prove how it isn’t.
            The officer’s notebook indicates he asked the suspected john: “Did you receive any sexual services?”
            He replied: “No sir, I was just getting a shiatsu.”
            The cop: “Why did you have all your clothes off?”
            The suspected john: No answer.
            The cop: “Are you aware that there were sex acts being done here?”
            The suspected john: “No sir.”
            The woman, who was from mainland China, denied masturbating the suspected john but when the question was repeated became nervous and replied, “I don’t know I only come to work today,” the cop’s notes show.
            His notes also claim he saw the “female dump wet Kleenex into garbage.”

          • You’re making the assertions pal….it’s up to you to prove them.

            And since you’re fixated on the NDP….kindly note Layton was never charged. Since the cops were after him at that point….he would have been if they could have done so. It was long before he entered federal politics.

            You’re simply trying to smear a dead man. Shame.

          • Sure, play the sympathy card. Boo-Hoo. Layton was a good politican, had a great smile and charm to him. But he wasn’t perfect. Nobody is.

          • Nobody ever claimed he was perfect. It’s just that you’re lying about one man in order to defend another.

          • Emily don’t even bother hes not even an interesting foe…..

          • I was bored, what can I say? ;)

          • Is that the only point you are able to make? get on to the nest one only this time don’t pick on a dead man.

          • That’s that got to do with the price of tea… er, carbon? Harping about a dead man? Typical Con channel-changing.

          • Typical Con always blaming the NDP Oh and by the way Leave the dead alone.Like my friend posted above Cons speak only talking points we have heard them all before. But sorry to say there is nothing positive one can say about those lying cheats so there for the debate is boring..Admit it you backed the wrong pig?… .

      • So you’re defending this ridiculous carbon tax offensive of Harper’s?

        • Any carbon tax is a stupid tax, whatever way Harper, Mulclair, or any other politician tries to spin it. My point is Harper did make that announcement in 2008, stupid as it was. It wasn’t made during the 2011 campaign. Using the NDP and Wherry’s argument promises or announcements from previous sessions or campaigns have an infinite shelf life. So I guess the Liberals still planning on getting rid of the gst.

          • No, it’s no different than a tax on anything else. Cons just can’t face reality.

          • A tax on carbon is a tax on everything. Every piece of food you eat. Every piece of clothing. The materials used to make your house. The only thing not taxed is air, and their working on it. Cars are far more efficient in terms of emissions than ones even made 5 years ago.
            Technology is what is needed. Clean coal is a perfect example. Solar panels and windmills that only produce 30% of the time are not.

          • We’ve had taxes for over 5000 years, guy…..and everything is already taxed.

            “Taxes are the price of civilization”

          • Yep, and taxes are on the rise in Ontario. Go get your sticker renewal. It’s up. Goes up again next year. They tax more, they spend more. That’s the biggest failure of Harper. He increased spending and hiring in the public service and now pays the consequences for necessary cuts.

          • “Taxes are the price of civilization”

            Please keep up.

          • So you prefer regulation which economists view as the worst way to reduce emissions?

          • Technology is the way to go. Give tax breaks for noticeable ghg cuts, rather than lowering corporate taxes across the board.

          • That’s not ‘technology’, that’s the same old blarney about ‘tax cuts’.

          • Really? Any idea what “direct injection” is Emily? It’s the newest technology in vehicles engines. Far less emissions and far better fuel economy. It’s taken 11 years for the technology to get to market due to cost. Had the manufacturers had tax breaks to offset the enourmous R&D costs figuring out how to make the technology work, it would have been available years earlier.
            Same with clean coal technology. Drop the partisan attack mode and try actually debating things.

          • You’re so new here you don’t know I’m always promoting high tech and globalization…….but sorry, babe…..oil is going to be taxed heavily.

            PS….buy hybrid, electric or fuel cell

          • Toyota Prius has the same carbon footprint of a Hummer H3. Fuel cell? A fuel cell is a holding device used for safety in vehicles to prevent fires and explosions. Have one in my ’68 Camaro.
            Buy electric? Not right now. Poor technology and too limited as too range per charge. And huge enviromental costs disposing of batteries. So if you are always promoting technology which auto manufacturer has the best electric vehicle not currently sold?

          • I’m sorry boyo, but yer talking drivel.

            PS…Yer also waving red herrings about

          • Clean coal does not exist.

          • Care to flesh that one out a bit more because it’s a little vague?

          • Offer a lower tax rate to companies whose technology has proven to dramtically lower emissions. Companies love to make money.

          • It wasn’t brought up in the 2011 campaign because Cons were trying to beat up the ndp on it…

    • Wow, and I thought the posters on the NP were ridiculous

      • Cons are noted for trying to intimidate the media….they try it with posters too.

    • Could you please refrain from attacking the intelligence and integrity of the bloggers here? You seem to have been here for about a week and every comment has been loaded with belligerence and insults.

      I like it here – there’s plenty of friction but good debate can actually happen. If you just want to bellow insults, maybe you can go back to wherever you learned this approach.

      • Whoever Neil may be, we have him recently back blathering away on Twitter as well. I suspect he had a long vacation or that name wasn’t need by the CPC for quite awhile. In fact CPC trolls have been strangely silent for some time and true conservatives have stopped talking at all. I used to enjoy lively debate with old time conservatives with brains. CON trolls can’t debate, only give talking points, insults & irrelevancies. They fool no one. Their MRI’s show no activity

      • Right On My Brother or Sista….

      • Yes of course you like the comments because they are mostly left leaning which fits into your political beliefs.

    • I think it’s clear that this column is opinion, and thus a matter of Wherry’s interpretation on events.

    • Forgive me for saying but you sound very competitive with other people and there comments, as though you need to feel smarter I’m sorry but you only come across as Paranoid Instead.

  2. Sorry I was looking for where it says your NDP title but it seems you forgot to post it. Perhaps you should be more honest and reveal every position you hold within the NDP and reveal how much time/money you’ve donated to the NDP. Go ahead.

    • Maybe you should check out Sun media and Ezra Levant and ask him the same question

      • Pretty sure Levant is pretty open about it, no?

        • Isn’t that what you just accused Wherry of?

      • No need. I don’t have Sun News on my TV. Unfortunately I do have this Dipper pretending to be an impartial expert in tax policy.

        • Because somebody put a gun to your head and forced you to this website?

          I think you’ve got bigger problems than Wherry, then.

  3. In the 2008 campaign the Liberals ran with the Green Shift as the major plank of their campaign. In 2011 they never mentioned it. Does that make them hypocrites Wherry?
    ““In committee or in the House, MPs should conduct themselves in a very ethical manner, including not making things up about other parties” Does that include making up the “hidden agenda” mantra all opposition parties loved to err, make up?

    • They lost. They specifically disavowed the policy (under a new leader). It’s allowed.

      One PM saying one thing, and then saying the exact opposite, only after the election is not quite the same thing. Unless you are prepared to forgive Chretien for flipping on GST. At least flipping on the GST was the right thing to do for the country.

      • So if Conservative ministers in the last year stated they were not going ahead with that policy is Wherry and the NDP wong?

        • Not quite. The problem isn’t just the change in policy, it’s the continuing rain of insults on other duly elected MPs, for policy that they themselves were championing not too long ago.

          If they want to announce they changed their minds, that’s fine. I can go with that.

          However, continually insulting and belittling others for doing what they themselves were doing is pretty hypocritical.

        • Two things.

          One, the Tories haven’t really repudiated their previous stand, they’re just pretending it never happened. Generally, they’re IGNORING the contradiction between their position today and their position as recently as 2010.

          Second, the Tories haven’t actually ruled out implementing a cap and trade system. In fact, were I betting man, I’d put money on the notion that cap and trade is still what we’re going to end up with eventually, and the Tories will have to reverse again and start forgetting what they’ve been saying recently, and re-remember what they said from 2006-2010.

      • heck if Harper puts in a decent greenhouse gas program (which would be the equivalent of Chreitens turning a GST cut into an income tax cut) I will personally congratulate him.

    • In addition to seconding Andrew, Thwim, and Lord Kitcheners’ sentiments, I want to add that I wish every Internet commenter would understand this basic tenet: a criticism of Party X is not the same thing as a defense of Party Y, and vice versa. “The other guys are just as bad” doesn’t get anyone anywhere.

  4. Harper and his bobblehead MPs are a national disgrace. The fact that they find their conduct so amusing if what I find the most distasteful. To think I once voted for these idiots.

  5. i watched that exchange and thought that the questions were weak and not at all well thought out,,,,,the responses were just as weak……..hopefully megan leslie will get off script and lash into the conservatives for intentionally misleading canada …….

  6. The problem is that no one cares. And what is the truth anyway?
    John 18:38

    • Well you won’t find it in John

      • You may find “the truth” in John. Generally speaking, it seems to me that if you don’t like or agree with something that you read in any given chapter of the Bible, all you need to do is read another section of that same chapter that completely contradicts the passage that you didn’t agree with.

        Arguably the Bible MUST contain “the truth”, because for every section saying “Don’t do X” or “X is bad” there’s another section where it says “You must do X” or “X is good”. Any text that contains basically every position possible on every issue must have the “right” position somewhere. ;-)

        • LOL well that’s one way to look at it!

  7. Wow! It appears Wherry’s campaign about “The Farce” has reached PC headquarters and the attack dogs have been unleashed. Not for the first time: who were those couple of guys that showed up here just before the election and disappeared again right after? Sad to say, it does bring down the level of discourse.

    • It’s the old Crazy Uncle thread hijack routine. Looks like they broke for the presidential debate.

      • Heh! They’re going to be sorry they did THAT!

    • It can be fun while it lasts too though. Before they all disappear, enjoy the show of them going round and round with Emily because they don’t know any better.

      (LOL, j/k Emily. Go get ’em girl!)

      • Why thank you LKO! Smooch!

  8. I think I’ve now concluded that, on this file anyway, discussing anything that Stephen Harper said before 2011 in relation to what he’s saying today is almost as fruitless as comparing anything that pre-2006 Stephen Harper said to anything that post-2006 Stephen Harper has said. The Tories clearly decided sometime after 2010 that everything they’d ever said before that point in time vis a vis carbon pricing was wrong, and what’s more, that to even remind them that they said it is an unfair travesty. I think the opposition should change tacks at this point.

    Fine, the Tories used to believe that putting a price on carbon was the right thing to do, and that a cap and trade system was the right way to do it, and what’s more, that such a system was fundamentally different from a “carbon tax”. Now, they’ve changed their minds and decided that increased regulation is the solution. Fine.

    Why not just accept the farce, ignore the cognitive dissonance, move on, and start regularly pointing out that most economists believe that increased regulations will do less to tackle climate change while costing consumers MORE than a cap and trade system would? The only disadvantage I can see is that this will make things ever so slightly less ridiculous for everyone when the Tories announce their new cap and trade system (totally not a “carbon tax” now, I mean, again) sometime between 2013 and 2017.

    • The NDP haven`t figured that part out yet – they`re still newbies who prefer to be outraged…not that the old liberals were one whit better on that score. Something about the liberal mindset that refuses to let a lie, lie, even if there`s a strategic upside to it, or even if it becomes almost pointless, like about now.

      • That’s perhaps the best explanation I’ve seen for the behavior of both the Liberals of the past and the NDP currently.

        You’re right, though. When you see an untruth, if you’ve got any honesty in you, you want to correct it — especially if it’s about yourself. You want to make sure people know what the truth really is, even though in the larger scheme of things it may not be that important. That’s actually a hell of an insight, and one that all of the opposition parties should take into consideration, especially while dealing with this particular incarnation of the conservative party.

        Kudos to you for it!

        • Thanks but credit where credit is due. I’m afraid LKO got there first, the @#$%!@$
          And the cons very smartly play on that tendency of course.

          I see by the thumbs up/down i’ve hit a nerve for some. Funny, i thought it was at least a backhanded compliment to tories; maybe the dippers got their tender feelings hurt?

          • Could be. Could also be that it seems the CPC defense league has come back online in the past couple of days and don’t like you exposing the play.

          • In that case i hope they keep on thumbing it down. An overly negative response is almost as good as an overly positive one at times.
            Do you think they see any irony in this at all?

      • I find it hilarious that you basically said the same thing as me and my comment is at +13 while yours is at -22.

        It makes me wonder if people even read the comments sometimes before voting, lol.

        • I plan to sue you, if i can ever figure out where you live :)

          • :-)

            I gave you a thumbs up, for what it’s worth!

          • one!!!! ta:)

  9. I watched the whole thing and was happy that Megan said all that she said but what I find much more concerning is how the CPC seem to believe Canadians are mindless people he has no faith in us its obvious look what he said about the reason 200 Chinese coming over to Canada to mine? that Canadians did not5 have the skill OMG Such little faith but above what I also find quite frightening is How his Mps stand up and cheer no matter what or how silly the PM sounds, now that has to create some kind of powerful believe that He is King that he can do no wrong, makes for some madness and its become quite clear he thinks of himself as President Of Canada best friend to Israel.

  10. Poor Wherry! Do you honestly believe that Canadians, despite the rhetoric, are going to vote against their own self interest? It just isn’t going to happen. So the parties can go back and forth and you can castigate the Conservatives and support the NDP but most people aren’t listening. All they know is they think the environment is important but when it comes to taking money out of their pockets they are not going to support a carbon tax no matter what form it takes. So have fun continuing to trying to poke holes in a policy that has long been abandoned by the government.

    • Bbbbbut it might come back again…Peter said so. There`s the undeniable self interest of the public and there`s the deniable self interest of this govt. They really aren`t the same, no matter how much you wish it.

    • That’s been shown to be crap already. People will support carbon taxes, if they have it explained clearly to them, and if they aren’t being harangued by lies about it at the same time.

      • To be fair hollinm thinks BCers are all hippies and the west owes it’s allegiance all to Calgary anyway.

    • On some other thread somewhere we agreed that its not like the government has abandoned the environment; instead they have simply decided to proceed down the regulatory route rather than either the cap and trade or the carbon tax route.

      But I’m still hoping that you might be able to provide some information about the costs (if any) associated with these regulations, and who is paying those costs.

    • Most economist seem to agree that increased regulations would be WORSE for the pocketbooks of average Canadians than a cap and trade system would. If Canadians are going to vote their own economic interests they’d arguably be better off voting for a cap and trade system than voting for the Tories new notion of increased regulations.

  11. Dippers are really scraping now with their bafflegab… in a feeble manner to avoid being skewered with their own $21 BILLION carbon tax grab plan… just like Dion’s Green Shift Scam.

    Monsieur Mulcair with his $21 BILLION Carbon Tax… inherited from Ste. Jaq du Hudson who served Quebec 50%+1 avec l’Orange Crushez koolaid..!!!

    • I swear Harper’s planted computer chips in their heads.

    • Dippers are really scraping now with their bafflegab…


      She was quoting the PRIME MINISTER’s bafflegab.

  12. it’s easy to respond to questions when you never tell the truthll

  13. Come on 2015, for the love of our country and our people. Please vote as a single block if we screw up the vote will just be split. We as a people have to accept we screwed up in voting CPC and there will be a very steep price for our incompetence. Canada+Canadians forever eh. Let us never join the USA for this is our home this is our destiny. A Canadian I was born a Canadian I will die.

    • Join the USA?

      If the real plan is to join the US, Harper is doing a pretty magnificent fake just at the moment, what with the recent focus on the War of 1812 and greater emphasis on our British heritage and all.

      I think you can rest easy, unless you leave Canada on your own, your wish to die as a Canadian is safe under Harper’s leadership.

  14. Once again the Conservatives’ total contempt for the intelligence of Canadians is demonstrated — and once again they seem to be proven justified in their conclusion.

  15. Repost from Chris Hedges (Pulitzer Prize winner and former war
    correspondent for the New York Times):

    Harper is a poster child for corporate malfeasance and
    corporate power, just sort of dismantling everything that’s good about Canada. So he’s the kind of species that rises to
    political power and is utterly subservient to corporate interests at the
    expense of the citizenry.

    Yeah, he’s a pretty venal figure.

    • Thanks for that. I always look to the Georgia Straight for utterly objective, unbiased, non-partisan commentary on Canadian poilitics.

      • What’s your source for unbiased commentary – the National Post?

  16. And enter the frothing angry tribalism of the unconditionally loyal Conservatives who will bend themselves into pretzels to excuse and defend any Conservative lie, all Conservative wasted taxpayer dollars–regardless of amount or waste, any Conservative abuse of power, and all Conservative corruption. But it’s all okay right? Because the other guys did it, too.

    In the meantime, we continue to get lousy government from whatever party is in power.

    This country is crippled by its tribalism, double standards, and poor level of thinking.

  17. This story is troubling on many levels. On the one hand, it is tempting to believe that the Conservatives who were cheering simply didn’t understand the logical fallacy in their position that Megan was pointing out….However, I suspect at least some of them (and Harper for sure) understand the logical fallacy….but they just don’t think it matters. In other words, instead of being ashamed of being caught in clear case of self-contradiction and lying, they are laughing because they think that Harper did a great job of changing the subject and misleading Canadians. No matter which is true, I cannot see how anyone who has integrity and believes in honest government can defend the behaviour of the Conservatives in this exchange.

  18. I hate it when they get cocky and narcisisticly complacent, I guess this is their true colors … It’s like watching a gang of bullies similar to the ones’ responsible for all the lives lost.. I’m ashamed of our parliament and what it has become.

    • A gang of bullies indeed.I couldn’t agree more.

  19. The farce is with him always. The dark side, that is.

  20. Give it up NDP [at least for now] no one likes to see a lie win out, or a liar like Harper appear to succeed. But this is politics right! Go after the tories plan to regulate. There are huge hidden costs involved and lots of stuff out there to back that up. Right now the tories are getting a free ride on their hidden costs, and at least in Parliament[ where they have the last word, and a PM with no moral political limits at all] they’re killing you. It’s too easy for him to wriggle out from under what is a very complicated subject, and all he has to do is yell tax and NDP in the same sentence to avoid answering for anything he has said, now, in the past, or in the future.
    Consider the source by all means – i’m not a dipper, but it sickens me to see this odious PM lie with impunity.

    There’s a freebie. My price is cooperation, if it becomes necessary dippers.

  21. I don’t understand the point or usefulness of Question Period. Questions are asked and then barely answered. No one is held responsible and no actions are taken on anything. This is a true waste of time and tax payers’ money.
    On a second note, the Conservatives are made to look like the evil liars, and yes I believe they probably lie through their teeth. However, to anyone suggesting that they would be ethical and not do the same as the Conservatives (Libs or NDP… cough); I also find to be a farce.
    Our political system is an embarrassment. Almost on the same scale as the US political system. It is no longer about voting for the right party that will lead Canada, but to vote for the party that will not screw things up the most. I see small parties getting more votes in future elections as people feel the need to vote but do not want to vote for either the Cons, Libs, or NDP.

  22. Reading this has left me with a sick feeling in my stomach.
    My god, how far we have fallen that even the Prime Minister cannot take parliament seriously.
    How long until someone with integrity and substance is put on offer as Prime Minister?

    • 2015…let’s hope, and get out the vote.

  23. What a mess of an article. I stopped readying half way through. Doesn’t this columnist have something else to do …… like fill in comic balloons. Pictures can say a thousand words. More than 10 words is waste with this writer. This columnist could definitely win a competition of ” how many angels sit on a pin”.

    • Its a subjective summary of what the author wants to say struck him as most interesting or topical during QP today. There’s a context if you’ve been following recently.
      You want him to draw you a picture? But he is, he is. You just don’t appear to like the end result…or the artist. There are others.

    • Durr I wanzaa the pizture version

      Welcome to Macleans.

  24. Turning Parliament into a show of nonsense and an Alice in Wonderland mockery – this is the way to a new regime, folks. He’s going to totally unbalance the country, and then bring in the type of totalitarianism that he wants to have. He’s not stupid, he’s insane.

  25. It’s all calculated; it’s not by chance. They ridicule everyone because they know they can get away with it. They’ve crossed a line that others in Parliament are conditioned not to cross; because they don’t have criminal minds. It takes a thief to catch a thief – we need some people with street smarts in there.

  26. Megan Leslie was met with a stunning display of cognitive dissonance by the PM, who as an alleged economist, must surely exemplify that most advanced stage in the development of the dismal science …that of “Alzheimer’s Capitalism.”

    • The Meggie Dance
      -Fake Shock
      -Open mouth
      -Fake Shock
      -Open mouth

  27. This is a helpful review of what happened in the Commons. I wonder if papers like the Calgary Herald or the National Post are going to continue to help this Conservative farce? There seems to be a lot of journalists covering up for Stephen Harper’s lies these days. Glad to see Aaron Wherry standing up and having some integrity – it can’t be easy in today’s media climate.

  28. I enjoy watching Question Period and then reading your twisted and falsified interpretation of it. It’s always good for the soul to know that the left wing is so utterly devoid of ideas and substance that all they can do is try to lie about events in the hopes that some people get confused and don’t bother to look at the facts for themselves. Sorry pal, but your description of QP could be written before the event and would be just as accurate. Either way you’re making it up.