The Commons: This is a crucial time, apparently

So why all the talk about neck ties?

stephenharpercomThe Scene. Having not had the opportunity a day earlier to add his unique voice to the discussion, Conservative Gord Brown stood a few minutes before Question Period with a bulletin.

“Mr. Speaker, throughout my great riding of Leeds-Grenville there are shovels in the ground, there are roads, sewers and other infrastructure works being built and repaired and folks are looking forward to the future. Everywhere I travelled in my riding this summer the people told me they are pleased with the direction our government has taken to help position Canada to face tomorrow,” he reported. “My constituents have one message: ‘Remain focused on the economy and do not have an expensive and unnecessary election.’ ”

No doubt. Our last exercise in electoral representation cost the national treasury some $280 million. Even with a drop in the price of oil, another one might add approximately the same to our already overdrawn account.

Mind you, that surely pales in comparison to the cost of sending several dozen men and women to Ottawa after each election so that they might stand in their places every so often and repeat the rote partisan rhetoric of the day.

Not that one should fuss too much over the numbers. For who among us, really, can put a price on precious democracy?

Conservative Andrew Saxton later made something of something Justin Trudeau had said. Then Marlene Jennings mocked Jack Layton and Stephen Harper as the Hill’s hottest new couple. And then Sylvie Boucher rose to repeat Saxton’s comments about Trudeau.

Then the real fun began.

“Mr. Speaker, seven months ago the Prime Minister met with President Obama. Seven months ago ‘Buy American’ was threatening Canadian jobs, country-of-origin labelling was hurting our pork and beef exporters and a thickening border was damaging trade and tourism. Seven months later, these things have only gotten worse,” Michael Ignatieff lamented to open Question Period. “For seven months the Prime Minister has ceased to have any credibility in advancing the Canadian cause in the United States, so how will the 42 minutes tomorrow be any different?”

Well, for one, there likely won’t be an adoring throng awaiting Mr. Harper on the White House lawn as there was for Mr. Obama when the President visited Ottawa, though perhaps the embassy staff can be sent over to hoot and holler. For another, Mr. Harper will likely have a difficult time finding a Beavertail in D.C.

“Mr. Speaker, I anticipate, not just with President Obama but with congressional leaders, discussing things like environment and energy security, discussing peace and international security,” Mr. Harper replied, “and, of course, discussing the economy, which all governments of the G20 are focused on primarily now and which I would encourage the leader of the opposition to focus on, instead of trying to force a needless and wasteful election.”

This seemed an odd time to pick a fight with Germany. But then the Prime Minister has seemed eager for a tussle of late.

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just said he wants to talk about clean energy,” said Mr. Ignatieff. “That is an important subject, but he does not have any credibility on the subject. He has had three environment ministers in as many years. We have the worst climate change record in the G8 and we have no plan to create the green jobs of tomorrow. How can we trust the Prime Minister to advance the cause of the environment in 42 minutes tomorrow when he has failed for four years?”

The Liberal leader was strangely hung up on the specific amount of time Mr. Harper is to spend with Mr. Obama tomorrow. Perhaps it is generally understand at the upper echelons of power that it is in the 43rd minute that most of the work is accomplished.

“Mr. Speaker, of course, this summer, for example, I announced the Mayo B hydro project in the Yukon, which is an important project not just for the economy but for the environment as well,” Mr. Harper shot back. “We have a clean energy dialogue going on with the United States administration. Both of our governments are putting a lot of money into both green and clean energy technology.

“In fact, I do recall a time not too many weeks ago where the leader of the opposition actually supported those initiatives. I would encourage him to go back to supporting positive initiatives instead of trying to force the country into a wasteful election for his own purposes.”

Indeed. One shudders to think what would come of this country were into fall into the hands of a man with such motivations.

With Bob Rae still recovering from yesterday’s showing, the Liberals turned next to Denis Coderre, the great booming voice first taking issue with the colour of the Prime Minister’s neckwear before proceeding with a series of words that were apparently meant to form a question of some kind.

For a few awkward seconds, no one on the government side rose to respond, the frontbench apparently unsure to whom the apparent query was directed. Finally, Lawrence Cannon stood and pronounced himself confused. Coderre stood again and this time went after the foreign minister’s choice of tie.

Returning to the business of Mr. Harper’s trip to the White House, Jack Layton suggested that the Prime Minister pursue serious measures on the environment, while simultaneously concluding that Mr. Harper was almost surely incapable of doing so.

“I would point out we are committed to clean development of the oil sands, upon which many Canadians’ jobs depend, including a number of NDP voters,” Mr. Harper shot back, “or at least people who work there who used to be NDP voters.”

Not that we’ll know anything for sure about that until that wasteful, expensive and unnecessary election is called.

The questions eventually came around to Gerard Kennedy, the former Liberal leadership hopeful who has quietly spent the last year growing a fine head of hair and developing into one of his party’s best assets. As he had a day earlier, Mr. Kennedy stood and wondered aloud how it is that so much government spending has found its way to ridings that most recently elected Conservative MPs.

Gary Goodyear rose and proudly asserted his government’s ability to spend some $2 billion in public funds. Unsatisfied, Kennedy gave it another go. This time, John Baird was sent up. And the Transport Minister, loud and demonstrative, proceeded to make a joke about Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. The government benches dutifully roared with laughter.

A short while later, out on the Hill, some tourists were walking away from the Peace Tower. “I think there might be an election in Canada,” one said. “This is a crucial time.”

The Stats. Employment, eight questions. Trade, five questions. Taxation and crime, four questions each. The environment, three questions. The Prime Minister, infrastructure, swine flu and Nortel, two questions each. Seniors, bilingualism, Omar Khadr and public service, one question each.

Stephen Harper, eight answers. Stockwell Day and Ed Komarnicki, five answers each. Christian Paradis, three answers. Lawrence Cannon, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Tony Clement, Leona Aglukkaq and John Baird, two answers each. Gary Goodyear, Denis Lebel, Rob Nicholson, Jim Flaherty, James Moore and Daniel Petit, one answer each.

The Commons: This is a crucial time, apparently

  1. "so much government spending has found its way to ridings that most recently elected Conservative MPs"

    I assume the government does not want to acknowledge whether this is true or not but I would be tempted to say that Con ridings need attention after 13 years of Lib rule.

    • My personal favourite…

      A private school getting a new soccer pitch in Helena Guergis' riding (the unfortunates, in Collingwood). Haven't seen a good defense of this project yet!

      My favourite faux project, the Alexandra Bridge repairs in Ottawa/Gatineau. It's not that it isn't a worthy investment, it's just that those plans had been in the works for about 5 years now (as made evident on PWGSC website). the red tape had already been cleared by the time the Economic Action Plan had been announced. But, on both ends of the bridge, the project has been branded with all the nice Economic Action Plan signage. I guess, if the economy hadn't tanked, the Government would've left the bridge to rot some more…

      • I've got one of those too! The Pitt River Bridge in Port Coquitlam is flanked by 'The Economic Action Plan' signs. Being that the bridge is slated for completion this fall, I think it's rather laughable that it is now being lauded as something this last budget accomplished.

        • Well, I'll be damned… If that project has all that propaganda (and I'd love a picture if one was available), that takes the cake!

          After your post, I did some research… That is a pretty huge project, that one! As you said, completion is due quite shortly. The decisions began around 2005, consultations and bidding began in and about 2006, by 2007, it was good to go. (http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/gateway/prb-maryhill/prb….

          When is a lie a lie?

          I couldn't care less if they have all that jazz on actual Economic Action Plan projects but, at this rate, you might as well slap those signs on the L'Anse aux Meadows settlement remains!

          • Yup it got it's approval in '05. Brought to you by the Liberal party of Canada…. oppps I mean the Conservative Economic Action Plan '09!

      • The University of Waterloo, in a riding that recently elected a Conservative by 17 votes, got $50 million dollars for a building that was already funded and well into its construction…

    • To be fair the Liberals were faster at distributing the cash without any rules according to the Auditor General and Gomery in Liberal ridings.

      I look forward in the Fall hearing more about Adscam money in Quebec.

    • Yah, after so many years of surplus budgets, i guess its only fitting that the CON ridings do most of the sucking into debt financing…

  2. I miss the days when nobody was making Parliament work.

  3. '
    "…Gerard Kennedy, the former Liberal leadership hopeful who has quietly spent the last year growing a fine head of hair and developing into one of his party's best assets…. "

    Gee, does this mean that Jack Layton should begin to worry whether his party still sees him as an asset?

    • Kennedy knows where the food's stashed. Jack, on the other hand, is in danger of biting the hand that feeds him.

      • Well … no. Apparently he should worry about his head of hair.

    • He does have a fine head of hair!

      • So does Stephen Harper, actually.

        So, …my question remains…of what significance is Gerard Kennedy's head of hair?

        • It masks his empty head. Gerard Kennedy has been my MPP/MP since 1999 and I have met him on several educations. I was not impressed. He is very full of himself, no doubt lulled on by the sychophants he surrounds himself with. When I went to his riding association meeting (a friend dragged me), most of the people there were Ontario teacher federation flunkies (this was before he was education minister). At our all-candidates debates you always get the distinct sense that he thinks this is all beneath him. After all, he THE Gerard Kennedy. He doesn't need to graduate from university in order to be education minister. He doesn't need to speak a word of French to be the Prime Minister of Canada. No, he is golden boy Gerard Kennedy, and he has nice hair.

          • Gee, I had to read your post twice. I thought you were describing my MP David McGuinty.

          • Lol!!

        • Nah, Harper's got Helmet hair. Kennedy's has movement and flow.

        • That it's pretty. Because it really really is.

          Seriously, no point other than that.

  4. Steeles Avenue will probably get some infrastructure money because that street is on the border of Conservative Peter Kent's riding of Thornhill.

    • Already announced but half of Steeles avenue is in Martha Hall Findley;s riding…..mabe they'll only fix the westbound part of the Steeles.

    • I assume you are referencing the fact that most stimulus money went to Tory ridings. I have a less conspiratorial reason for that. Look at any electoral map of Canada and you will see a LOT of Blue. If seats were based on land area, the Tories would have a massive majority. That is a meaningful distinction when you are talking about infrastructure spending. Big rural ridings require more roads per person, so there are going to be more roads to fix. Moreover the bulk of our major highways go through Tory country. Impose the trans-Canada highway on top of an electoral map and you'll see what I mean.

      The other thing is that, from an electoral point of view, it actually doesn't make sense to send money to Tory districts, or at least not to most Tory districts. The Conservatives have at least 100 rock solid seats, where voters don't need bribes to vote Conservative. Winning a majority requires winning over marginal districts – the ones won by only a small margin last time. So when the Conservatives decide to build 12 highways and a subway system in Guelph, that's when you know they are trolling for votes. Building a few over-passes in Medicine Hat would just lead to overkill in the next election.

      • Doesn't explain how projects that were approved for funding more than 3 years ago are suddenly part of the new stimulus package that wasn't deemed necessary just 10 months ago! But when it comes to revisionist history, no one can top the so-called leader Helmet Hair.

  5. I think you ought to keep quoting tourists on Parliament Hill. They are quite entertaining.

  6. Well the comments here seem to show that Canadians really want to laugh about the election and find it humkorous whether Parliament accomplishes anything.

    The Harper Conservatives continue to drag their feet (EI changes could have been introduced in the spring if they really cared), and they continue to take credit for activities and spending that was in place well before they formed the MINORITY government, and they continue to be the a-typical school yard bully in Parliament, someone like John Baird takes a stick, bangs the hornets nest, rhen complains when the hornets get angry, then blames someone else by lying about what just happened and who hit the hornet’s nest, and then gathers with all the other Parliament school yard bully’s and laughs about it and how smart they were to make everyone belive someone else did it!

    The Harper Conservatives as the MINORITY government need to make sure they have the votes when they table a spending bill because if they don’t and it does not pass then Parliament is disolved and the GG is asked for a writ to be dropped (which she may or may not agree to have happen). And so, the Harper Conservatives, like the school yard bully, are not trying to get consensus in Parliament and jist like the bully hitting the hornet’s nest are now complaining that it’s not their fault there may be an election.

    Well, I’m all for an election so we can get some people in Parliament that are willing to work with others and move the yardstick ahead. You do not need Harper or the Conservatives to spend stimulus money, or to implement an EI reform or two, or to have green industry get some funding, or to approve a portrait gallery, or make sure our position as a global player is being taken seriously around the globe, or even to bring home Canadian citizens being held without charge in prison.

    What you do need is a government that believes these things are the right things to do and then gets them done. For that you need a government that is not Conservative because, unless I am mistaken here, Conservatives do not believe that the Government of Canada should be doing any of those things!

    • Well, I'm all for an election so we can get some people in Parliament that are willing to work with others and move the yardstick ahead.

      Me too

      Overheard in Question period the other day……

      “I would invite the leader of the opposition, since he has yet to table any comprehensive economic agenda at all, and I have invited, since the budget last January, if he has anything to say on the economy to bring it here so we can debate it.”

  7. "Mind you, that surely pales in comparison to the cost of sending several dozen men and women to Ottawa after each election so that they might stand in their places every so often and repeat the rote partisan rhetoric of the day."

    When did the Members' Statements period become the goofy partisan attack period? Wasn't there a time when MPs took advantage of Members' Statements to make announcements about events or people in their ridings? Not that it was a particularly gripping thing to watch, except for those in the ridings mentioned, but at least it was less annoying.

      • Harper's repapering our democratic standards along with the principles of all involved. Nice view, tho.

  8. I wonder was QP always this consistently depressing? I understand that raucous Question Periods have been a part of the Parliamentary system since forever…but can anybody recall if EVERY QP was as pointlessly bitter and cutting in sittings of Parliament past?

    • QP is perfect as it is

    • Here's a link to QP from April 20 1994 (about as far back as it goes online), an exchange between Manning and Copps. Random example, first one I clicked on.

      That's 15 years ago now. In my opinion, it's miles ahead of what we're getting now. It's true that it says nothing very concrete, but it raises a real issue and both speakers are apparently stating their honest positions without platitudes and without mugging for the camera. Nothing is really resolved, but two distinct philosophies are concisely stated.

    • Here's a link to QP from April 20 1994 (about as far back as it goes online), an exchange between Manning and Copps. Random example, first one I clicked on.

      That's 15 years ago now. In my opinion, it's miles ahead of what we're getting now. It's true that it says nothing very concrete, but it raises a real issue and both speakers are apparently stating their honest positions without platitudes and without mugging for the camera. Nothing is really resolved, but two distinct philosophies are concisely stated.

      • That's a revealing example. Things really seem to have gone downhill in the last fifteen years.

        • My guess is the member from Calgary-West was totally disgusted by the display of rigorous parliamentary debate shown by the two members of the day. It may have led him to want to turn that economics degree into a career — nah, maybe just a crock-tossing head of some private interest group.

      • Wow a great walk down memory lane…I had forgotten what exactly I disliked about the Liberals then…Paul Martin being on close terms with bank presidents was an example…Brian Tobin another. Sheila Copps though does come across as very statespersonlike.

        Also we often think of the Chretien years as little of real importance being done but the discussion of income contingent student loans by the Reform party brought chills to my spine. What the Liberals did do for better or for worse was make boatloads of money available to students for loans. I remember this transition very clearly and while I am happy to have had a small loan which is now repaid I envy those students who came along a couple of years later and had more choices.

      • I thought MI was going to do things differently, change the tone in Parliament…..

        • Again, he apparently has only one seat in the building. Maybe you should check across the isle once in a while, heaven forbid you look in the mirror for some honest appraisal of who's leading what.

  9. One shutters to think what would come of this country were into fall into the hands of a man with such motivations.

    One might shudder as well.

  10. Your continual efforts to cloak support for another election on democratic expression:

    Surely context matters. Surely an election every few years is responsible democracy in action, but there can be limits.

    Would you support an election every week? How about every month?

    If not, why not, aren't you in support of a democracy. Italy became an international laughing stock for its frequent elections – was the whole world "undemocratic" for it's concern?

    Having four elections in five years raises legitimate concerns. Dissagree if you will, but your attempts to deligitimize those concerns by casting them as "undemocratic" is unfair and dishonest.

    • Indeed it does.. the main one being, why is the party in power unable to come to any sort of compromise with any one of the opposition parties?

      • It takes two (at least) to compromise.

        Perhaps your idea of compromise is keeping all of your "great ideas" for Canada hidden until an election, lest they be adopted (stolen), or debated (attacked).

        Keep in mind that it is the Liberals who have declared that they will vote against the govt. without reading any of the measures put forward.

        Who is really trying to make parliament work?

        • It is the job of the government in power to gain the confidence of the House, not of the Opposition to provide that confidence. You're telling me that the opposition should come up with the policies that the government decides to support? And we elected these Harper guys why? I mean, if we're relying on the Liberals to come up with the ideas, we might as well have the Liberals setting the agenda to begin with.

          And it is not in the Liberals power to make this government fall. They simply don't have the numbers to bring down the government, no matter what they claim. The only person who can bring down this government is Mr. Stephen Harper, by putting forward policy proposals and suggestions that less than 17 members of the opposition parties can support.

          You're seriously trying to suggest that if the supposed chess-master can't figure out any sort of policy — even though the NDP and Bloc at least have been quite clear in the types of things they want to see — that will win the support of [i]less than half[/i] of any [i]one[/i] of three opposition parties, that it's the oppositions fault?

          I would suggest it's the fault of the person who managed to only come up with about 5 ideas for governing during 2 decades of being in opposition, and then when called to execute, only managed to get the very simplest implemented in any sort of coherent fashion.

        • It is the job of the government in power to gain the confidence of the House, not of the Opposition to provide that confidence. You're telling me that the opposition should come up with the policies that the government decides to support? And we elected these Harper guys why? I mean, if we're relying on the Liberals to come up with the ideas, we might as well have the Liberals setting the agenda to begin with.

          And it is not in the Liberals power to make this government fall. They simply don't have the numbers to bring down the government, no matter what they claim. The only person who can bring down this government is Mr. Stephen Harper, by putting forward policy proposals and suggestions that less than 17 members of the opposition parties can support.

          You're seriously trying to suggest that if the supposed chess-master can't figure out any sort of policy — even though the NDP and Bloc at least have been quite clear in the types of things they want to see — that will win the support of less than half of any one of three opposition parties, that it's the oppositions fault?

          I would suggest it's the fault of the person who managed to only come up with about 5 ideas for governing during 2 decades of being in opposition, and then when called to execute, only managed to get the very simplest implemented in any sort of coherent fashion.

        • It is the job of the government in power to gain the confidence of the House, not of the Opposition to provide that confidence. You're telling me that the opposition should come up with the policies that the government decides to support? And we elected these Harper guys why? I mean, if we're relying on the Liberals to come up with the ideas anyway, we might as well have the Liberals setting the agenda to begin with.

          And it is not in the Liberals power to make this government fall. They simply don't have the numbers to bring down the government, no matter what they claim. The only person who can bring down this government is Mr. Stephen Harper, by putting forward policy proposals and suggestions that less than 17 members of the opposition parties can support.

          You're seriously trying to suggest that if the supposed chess-master can't figure out any sort of policy — even though the NDP and Bloc at least have been quite clear in the types of things they want to see — that will win the support of less than half of any one of three opposition parties, that it's the oppositions fault?

          I would suggest it's the fault of the person who managed to only come up with about 5 ideas for governing during 2 decades of being in opposition, and then when called to execute, only managed to get the very simplest implemented in any sort of coherent fashion.

          • Time for an election I guess, lets get it on!

          • What was the Liberals great legacy from those 13+ years in government anyway?

            Harper has clearly thrown a limited bone to the left with the proposed changes to E.I.

            If the Liberals remain intransigent it will be their undoing.

          • Well, the first thing that comes to mind is surplus budgets and a lower debt for most of them. The second thing that comes to mind is maintaining strong regulation on our banks and blocking bank mergers when it wasn't in the interests of Canadians as a whole — moves that today look positively prescient when we look toward our neighbors to the south. Then you have supporting the rights of gays and lesbians with actual legislation. We also have significant work toward unity between Quebec and the rest of the nation. One can certainly debate how effective the referenda were, but it can't be denied that over the Liberals term, separatism went from a very hot issue to one that, while it still remains, now smolders in the background.. at least until Mr. Harper stokes it up again.

            As for the limited bone of proposed EI changes, once again you show the exact same misunderstanding that Harper does. Gaining the confidence of the House does not mean you can simply provide scraps and then say "Oh well.. we tried" it means you actually have to work at providing legislation that the other parties can accept. Failure to do that is a failure to govern Canada as the electorate has demanded, and will result accordingly.

            As for Dakota's comment.. I just have to say I agree, it is time for the election, but I don't agree with your characterization that it should be some sort of fight. There used to be a time when elections were about who had the best ideas, not who could throw the lowest blow.

  11. Could anyone enlighten me on just who Harper's the audience is supposed to be; the cons being the main instigator of the farce that QP has become – yes i know we've had other bad patches, the Libs rat pack springs to mind. But this endless preaching to the choir, what's the point, who's the intended audience? Surely not the opposition and the folks who faithly watch CPAC wouldn't fill a phone booth [ do they exist anymore? ] So, who? I can only conclude it's to keep up the morale of the troops or, if you prefer, to conduct a sorta mindless loyalty test for the shock troops. The downside of course is to lower the morale and perhaps the expectations of every reasonable person who remotely pays attention. And even more seriously an entrenching of sectarian partisanship in our HOC which we never be able to reverse. Whether it's the PM's intent or not the result is the same, the lessening of the relevance of our parliament and an ever growing cynicism with politics and politicians in this country.

    • Oh contrare, mon pere
      The instigator of the farce that QP has become is the fault of the opposition, not the government. After all it is called Question Period not Answer Period, I think if the opps could come up with some better questions than they may come up with some better answers.
      For example, when they start off the session with a torqued, misleading or down right lie for a question, then you may not receive a polite answer.
      In my world the question precedes the answer, how does it work in your world?

      • Oh really! Cognitive dissonance in action!

    • For the entertainment and edification of the press corps ?

      So they can tell us who won that day ?

      Good to see you back, kc.

      • Thankya sir! I hadn't considered that possibility – i doubt the press would like your take.

  12. If this is the best the opposition has to offer then Harper does not have any concerns about the forthcoming election. The questions are random in nature, incoherent many times and the PM clearly shows he is in command of his files and the rhetorical flourishes that deflect the oppositions meaningless questions. Another day and another lost opportunity for the Czarist leader of the opposition.

  13. What is fascinating to me is the constant emphasis on a "wasteful and unnecessary election", especially considering Harper himself forced an election just last year – violating his own law in the process – because he sensed weakness in the opposition and wanted to close in for the kill.

    The strategy seems to be this: "Sick of elections? Give us a majority, and the pain will stop." Of course, one of the reasons we have so many elections is because the Conservatives aren't interested in cooperating with other parties.

    If we do have an election, I guess we'll find out whether the Conservatives can win a majority with no (or virtually no) representation from Quebec, Toronto or downtown Vancouver.

    Of course, an election might be avoided if the NDP or the Bloc prop up the Tories. The Parliamentary system of government doesn't allow the Tories to repudiate votes in their favour; it would be supremely ironic if the "socialists" and "separatists" took turns propping up the government against its will.

  14. What is fascinating to me is the constant emphasis on a "wasteful and unnecessary election", especially considering Harper himself forced an election just last year – violating his own law in the process – because he sensed weakness in the opposition and wanted to close in for the kill.

    The strategy seems to be this: "Sick of elections? Give us a majority, and the pain will stop." (Of course, one of the reasons we have so many elections is because the Conservatives aren't interested in cooperating with other parties.) Judging by the polls – if they are to be believed – there is a distinct possibility that this strategy might work.

    If we do have an election, I guess we'll find out whether the Conservatives can win a majority with no (or virtually no) representation from Quebec, Toronto or downtown Vancouver.

    Of course, an election might be avoided if the NDP or the Bloc prop up the Tories. The Parliamentary system of government doesn't allow the Tories to repudiate votes in their favour; it would be supremely ironic if the "socialists" and "separatists" took turns propping up the government against its will.

    • Yes, the Toronto Party of Canada (a.k.a. The Liberal Party) will likely hold most of their Toronto seats, but where else will the gain? The West? Hardly. Northern and Rural Ontario? Nope. The Maritimes? Not much left there.

      The Conservatives have a better chance at a majority then the Liberals have at a minority.

      Hopefully the old coalition can muster some of their former bravado and actually vote against the Government soon. I'd like to see an end to Ignatieff's smug threats.

  15. Would that be the same level of irony as is involved in the Liberals supporting the budget and mouthing platitudes about "making paliament work in the intrest of Canadians", then moving in a 180 degree turn where they will not support anything the govt. does (regardless of the intrest of Canadians).

    I like how the Liberals lose their intrest in cooperation, and you blindly assert that it is the Conservatives who are unwilling.

    Kudos to your ironic post.

  16. Iggy is becoming more and more irrelevant every time he opens his oversized and overeducated mouth in QP. Very intersting to watch him morph into a chimera part Dion and part Layton – here we have a new leader showing he won't even read legislation before he votes NO taking that part away from Layton who in turn will now slowly turn into the leader who is getting parliament to work and Iggy the outfielder who needs glasses – this getting better and better .. Iggy needs to refine and target his attacks much more effectively and his bodly language in QP doesn't match his speechifying.

  17. If Canada only functions well when Liberals and NDP have a working relationship when will we see the re-signing of the Coalition agreement from earlier this year?

    I'm sure Canadians would like a chance to vote their opinion on such an arrangement.

    Coalition of the left (Liberal, NDP, Bloq) vs Conservative?

    Pretty simple.

Sign in to comment.