The end - Macleans.ca
 

The end

‘We need to show some respect for the Canadian public’


 

The last two rounds of Question Period this morning, in which Elizabeth May suggests that denigrating one’s rivals in response to questions about one’s own failings is a philosophically flawed and unworthy approach and Pierre Poilievre responds by attacking Justin Trudeau.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, in all the din and disrespect of the last few sessions of question period, actually going back weeks, Canadians would never see what I see, which is that the vast majority of members of Parliament in this place are decent and hard-working people who would never, except when they are handed a talking point, turn and around and decide that when they are asked a question to try to cast blame and throw scandals at everybody else. This tactic of throwing mud around is going to bring all parliamentarians and democracy itself into disrespect and disrepute, essentially saying “everybody does it”. I really would beg the government ministers now to answer this question. Will the Prime Minister please just take responsibility and call an inquiry?

Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, currently there are independent agencies which are reviewing this matter, as they should do, and of course the government will co-operate fully with such reviews.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister’s response, and it is true that the RCMP are investigating the Prime Minister’s office, which is, I think, a first in the history of this country. My question goes to the partisanship, which is endemic, of course, to politics, but can we not rise above it in question period and in our talking points to media, to stop trying to make minor molehill incidents into major mountains? We need to show some respect for the Canadian public and not continue to let this place degenerate.

Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, today we learned that Leanne, from the Grace Foundation, lost her job. She lost her job because the Liberal leader charged $20,000 in speaking fees for a fundraising event that was a total bomb. It lost money, and now donations that were intended to help the elderly who are most in need, went into the pocket of the Liberal leader. This organization is pleading with the Liberal leader, and has been doing so for two months, for him to pay that money back. I hope the Green Party will join with us in urging the Liberal leader to do the right thing by our seniors and our elderly and pay the money back.


 

The end

  1. Trudeua is millionaire dilletante, born into Canada’s 1%, I was wondering how long it would take for Cons to focus on Trudeau’s shady behaviour. Trudeau had a travel budget, he’s already well paid by public and MPs have lots of time on their hands, I expect to see more focus on Trudeau and his version of public service.

    How many Trudeau’s can taxpayers afford?

    • Tony.

      • Jolyon

    • Li’l steve was the boy in the Imperial oil bubble!

    • I’ve got no problem with an inquiry, but let’s be sure the scope is correct.

      I recommend at least 40 years of review of parliament and senate, that should cover pretty much all living influence that may still reside. All senior civil servants also.

      All parties are in scope, all income and expenses claimed.

      IF we are going to do this, then we do it properly.

      Jail for all who are guilty, regardless of age or party.
      Payback isn’t allowed for the average joe, neither should it be here. Justice is justice, and if it happens to nail ex-PMs then so be it.

  2. Also, how much credibility does the leader of Green Party really have? One of my auntie’s lived on salt spring island for a while and and I notice similarities.

    “Elizabeth May said in 2011 the inclusion of homeopathy in the Green Party’s health care policy was a mistake, but two years later the controversial “alternative medicine” is still part of official party doctrine.”

    http://o.canada.com/2013/06/10/elizabeth-may-homeopathy/

    • Irony and ad hominem attack in one comment. Brilliantly tasteless.

      • No attack, that’s just your neurotic mind at work. She is my favourite auntie, I loved visiting her on salt spring island but it does not mean that I think she should be PM either.

        • The irony of the remark remains. Regards to your aunt. If she reminds you of Elizabeth May, she probably has more respect for our democratic institutions than the autocrat currently running the nation.

  3. Ms.May is a hard working politician, no doubt about that in my mind.

    And what I have to say next is not meant in any derogative manner but to underscore but one point:

    Working hard is no longer the issue here; working smart is the issue!

    When my father would sit on the edge of his wheelbarrow, wiping his brow, trying to figure out a better way of doing things without breaking one’s back, it was the father of my father who would have said, at the time:” Don’t sit there, son, wasting your time away with thinking; move that wheelbarrow – move the load so that tonight we can call this a day of great accomplishment!’, and, after having said that, the father of my father would indeed have picked up another heavy load to dump out of site, for whatever reason the work required.

    I’m glad though, that my father thought otherwise!

  4. Very interesting news about the $20,000 payment made to MP Trudeau. This, too,then will have to be sorted out.

    An awful lot will need to be sorted out before we can come to the bottom of these scandals, but first and foremost: consistency is of the essence!

    Too many ‘things’ have been flung around since these so-called scandals broke, and ‘the flinging around of things’ has made the scandals bigger – unnecessarily!

    It is BECAUSE of inconsistency (everywhere and,yes, within the media too!) that the real essence of this scandal cannot be grasped at.

    I, for one, am very confused about the collective understanding of what the term ‘double dipping’ is supposed to be marked as. What, then, is this practice of double dipping?

    I wrote a letter to Mary Dawson this morning, asking for clarification, because, as I have already said: I, for one, am confused!

    Anyone interested in reading that letter, it can be found here (hope Aaron doesn’t mind?):

    http://www.letteredonline.com/politics/hot-politics/

    • The allegation came from PP; so best double, no triple check the facts.

      • I did not watch QP today. This is the first I hear of PP response in QP today. But I have been following QP for a while now (mostly since the scandal broke – I do have a life beyond politics, as we all do) but Fridays, for some reason, I seem to miss QP all the time (AB time and sleeping in could be the reason:))

        Have you read the letter I sent to Mary Dawson?What do you think of the questions I pose to her?

    • Funny, the charity in question seems to have very suddenly changed their tune, before they were saying that the event was a great success. You can find statements to that fact on their website.

      The fact that you bring up Pierre Polievre’s talking point to further expound upon proves Ms. May’s statement. You partisans are the worst, an odious, disgusting lot. I’m not surprised you’ve jumped onto the most embarrassing Member of Parliament’s talking point.

      You out to be disgusted and ashamed of yourselves. You and your ilk are going to end up being the death of political parties.

  5. Put skippy in a ring with Trudeau. It’d be fun to see if his feet move. as quick as his mouth.

    • Trudeau won at boxing, deservedly so.

      But politics is a sport of the mind, not a physical sport. But we have always known that, right?

      • The root of all politics is the mind , skippy is peanut butter

  6. An ultra-partisan mud slinging talking point is the response to Ms. May’s objections to ultra-partisan mud slinging talking points.

    I bet your mother is very proud of you Pierre, you have managed to fast become one of the most embarrassing Members of Parliament.

  7. All you who are responding to the comment about Trudeau have totally missed Elizabeth May’s point. Therein lies the problem. What part of “disrespect for Parliament” do you not understand?

    • Just because Ms.May says we should not talk about double dipping when Justin does it, does not mean we should Ms.May’s advice.

      If no one in the media dares to tell the truth about Justin, well, then someone has to let out the truth, and thank god for PP to tell us at least something going on with Justin (which the media does not like to talk about!).

      You like being taking for a fool?

  8. How sweet it is to see such an arch-Consevative like little Pierre feel some consideration of the working person suddenly bereft, is in order. He clearly didn’t think that when depriving seasonal workers of their EI. It is heartening to see the Harper Cons agreeing that people who make a profit and charge for their work are liable to support those who suddenly find themselves unemployed.
    I trust that wee Pierre and his master will extend this programme to insist that all those corporations that they excuse from paying their fair share of taxes while receiving subsidies will support all those people they fire, so they can relocate to China, India etc.

    A call for progressive politics from a reform so-con criminal cabal, it warms the heart so it does.

  9. It’s disappointing to see Wall go down this road. A conservative he may be, but he’s shown recent signs of being a cut above the Harper crud that makes up so much of the national Cons. You’d think he’d at least provide some sold evidence for his assertion.

    • I notice he was “only asking questions” when he asked if any of the $20k was used to fund his leadership campaign. This is a defence used by only the most scummy of people. It is akin to the the “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” type of question beloved of many commentators and politicians.

      Brad Wall had no evidence that Trudeau did such a thing but asked a leadimg question that Trudeau couldnot ignore. It would be like me asking Brad Wall, “Did you accept some bribes when you were at that secret Bildergerg meeting the other day?” Could I then say, “I make no apologies for asking questions about accountability in public life?” And would he would be happy with that?

      Brad Wall has shown himself to possess a less than righteous character and acted like a typical rightwing sleazebag in this matter.

  10. The last paragraph – from Pierre Poilievre is telling.
    Tru-doh!! will give it back – possibly soon – with a false apology. Little does he know that the damage has been done. Canadians know who Tru-doh!! really is now.

    • And Canadians have every right to know who Justin Trudeau really is.

  11. How did Harper’s office get a copy of a letter from the charity to Trudeau? I smell another cheap setup.

    • Obviously it’s a massive conspiracy. We urgently need a full Royal Commission of Inquiry to get to the bottom of this.

      • No it’s just another open and transparent ploy by Harper that backfired. Maybe that’s what he meant by open and transparent government.

  12. So far, no one has managed to comment to comment on either the point of Mr. Wherry’s article or the point Elizabeth May was trying to make with her question. Indeed, everyone has followed Pierre Poilievre and done precisely what Ms. May was lamenting…

  13. Now and then I let my imagination wander and assign characters from “Animal Farm ” to real people, Poilivre as “Squealer ” , they are all there !

  14. May is one of the worst offenders of mud-slinging. She has a lot of nerve.

  15. That would be an example of “being in the red”? Zigging when it looked like it might benefit, but a zag, may have been a more honest and appropriate action. Hmmm… this only comes with having first, the experience…. and then measuring the results. Lesson: Better negotiations, less hero worship.