Treacherousness is in the eye of the beholder (II)

by Aaron Wherry

In case you were wondering, Minister Kent’s office hasn’t yet responded to my request for clarification. Regardless, Mr. Kent will probably have to explain himself to the Speaker now—at least so far as his second use of the term “treacherous”—because the NDP’s Pierre Dionne Labelle rose with a point of order after Question Period yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, in his response earlier to my colleague from Halifax, the Minister of the Environment called her a traitor. Since when do we call someone a traitor for going to meet with elected representatives in another country? Why is the environment minister keeping tabs on the people the NDP meets with? We maintain valuable relationships with progressive people in the United States. Instead of keeping tabs on us, he would do well to keep an eye on the hole in the ozone layer.

The Speaker said he would review the comment in question.




Browse

Treacherousness is in the eye of the beholder (II)

  1. “Instead of keeping tabs on us, he would do well to keep an eye on the hole in the ozone layer”

    LOL…the minister hasn’t responded to JT yet. Does he know which ozone layer needs looking at? Or what to do about it?

    • Or what ozone is?

    • Do you really believe JT could have answered that question if the situation was reversed? 
       
      According to the HoC procedure and practice:   “There is no formal notice requirement for the posing of oral questions, although some Members, as a courtesy, inform the Minister of the question they intend to ask.”
       
      So JT changing his original question to try and make Kent look foolish is OK?  Should everyone start doing this?

      • I’m sure JT could have answered that question, and remember it was directed at the appropriate minister. It isn’t like he asked him to split the atom or something.

        No, everyone shouldn’t do it. Perhaps it was a bit of a sucker punch. But really, on the scale of 1 to 10 just where would that rate in today’s house? I’d give it a 5…minus 5.

        • I’ll give you 5, lol. 
           
          It could be worse i.e. USA.

          • Oh yeah…Kent might be a pizza billionaire with an appetite for rough sex and a bad smoking addiction as well as being a scientific dunce. :)

      • Standing order 31 has traditionally been used to allow MPs to recgognize constituents, events, notable deaths, etc. Over the last five years or so, Conservatives have used this instrument to launch vicious personal attacks against members of the other parties. I never heard a single conservative object to this perversion of parliamentary practice. Is it OK for Justin Trudeau to try to make Peter Kent look foolish? Absolutely. The Conservatives have lost any right to complain about opposition tactics. The opposition for their part must adopt the same no holds barred tactics of the government.

        • Oh come on now – these kind of antics by ALL have been going on since I used to watch QP from the gallery pre-TV.

          • There have always been some antics, but I challenge you to come up with a single precedent for the SO31 attacks or for today’s use of QP to launch another attack, or for calling opposition members traiters and any other epithet they can think of. The Cons are in permanent attack mode and the opposition better start attacking back.

      • It is not necessary for anyone to make Kent look foolish. he manages to do it with no help from the opposition. 

      • According to the HoC procedure and practice:   “There is no formal notice requirement for the posing of oral questions, although some Members, as a courtesy, inform the Minister of the question they intend to ask.”

        I’m sorry, but the difference between the effects of ozone at low altitude and its effects at high altitude is hardly some complicated matter to talk about.  I’m not an environmental scientist, and I can’t even remember the last time I though about ozone, but I could have answered that question.  If the MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT really needs advanced warning to answer this question, then frankly, we need a new Minister of the Environment.

        To me, this is like the Minister of Finance not being able to give a simple explanation of the concept of compound interest, or being stumped when asked to explain the difference between GDP and GNP.

  2. Thomas Macaulay ~ The object of oratory alone is not truth, but persuasion

    • John Baird ~The object of oratory is neither truth nor persusion, but denial, denial and denial.

      • Pat Martin – *%$%#!~

        • Pat Martin~ the object of oratory is to drop the f word whenever i need attention or if the govt deserves it…cuz i’m a roofer.

  3. mmm, wonder if we’ll ever get to see…Mr Speaker, i’m sure you’ll agree with me…creep creep creep…?

    Like watching a slow train wreck of our democracy…and after only a 144 years…how sad.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *