What about next time? - Macleans.ca

What about next time?


Jeff Jedras wonders if we shouldn’t be thinking of a permanent solution to the predicament just negotiated.

We can’t go through this drama and crisis every time there is information Parliament needs to see that the government, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to share. It’s tedious, it’s counterproductive, and it undermines public faith in democratic institutions. This isn’t the first time a government of any stripe has tried to be less than forthright with Parliament, and it surely won’t be the last.


What about next time?

  1. Its only an issue in a Parliament where there is no majority or a coalition that acts as a majority. This wouldnt be a problem in the UK situation or if Lib/NDP/Bloc coalition had been in place.

    Only in the current configuration can Parliament express its desire to things the government doesnt want it to see.

    It wont be the case after the next election, there will either be a majority or a stable coalition.

    • ''Only in the current configuration can Parliament express its desire to things the government doesnt want it to see.
      It wont be the case after the next election, there will either be a majority or a stable coalition''

      Too bad eh, this is the parliament Canadians wanted…..without the bickering.
      The coalition of losers laid the way for nothing but majority govts from here on out.

  2. Invoke Emergencies Act, arrest the opposition (and media) for trying to manufacture war crimes they can pin on the military and Harper so they can score cheap political points and maybe win an election for a change, and Bob's your uncle.

    By perpetuating the unsubstantiated rumour that Canadian Forces are involved in war crimes they are jeopardizing the safety of over 33 million Canadians who are now more than ever potential targets for terrorism. This clearly is a national security breach. We can hold a new set of elections if and when the left settles down with the national security jeopardizing.

    • You're a troll. There would be rioting in the streets if the government did anything like that.

      • I'm sure he believes there would only be rioting if it was a liberal gov't that did that.

      • "You're a troll."

        This is why your side always loses elections. You're too ugly, too angry, too rude. It's unCanadian, and, in my estimation, a national security issue. Hate leads to violence and you are clearly a hater.

        Liberals: pool your money together and hire a smart person to comment for you on this site, you lose votes every time you comment online. Or keep grossing out Canadians with your ugly hate and keep losing elections, your choice.

        • The 'atmosphere' here is down right delightfull, compared to making a comment on Liblogs…..there they have century trolls that go right into degradation with themes/words that would not make it thru filters here.

        • "always loses elections"

          There you go again. The CPC have won 2 elections since 1990. I see that makes you happy, but your optimism is slightly over-stated.

    • Yes. That'sit. Al the media and the opposition are willfully risking the lives of our men and women overseas, all in order to score a couple points in the polls.

      I think the CPC should go with that. In the next election, tell Canadians the opposition and the media do not care if Canadians die. Tell Canadians the opposition is willing to see us all killed simply to score a couple points.

      See how far that gets you.

      "maybe win an election for a change"

      Getting a little cocky there don't you think? Why don't you stroll back through history and add up the number of elections won by the liberals, and the ones won by the conservatives.

  3. Don't we basically know, give or take, that this will be the method next time (assuming it works)? Or am I missing something about Jedras's point?

  4. This is just another badly patched piece of nonsense designed to save the a$$es of politicians of all stripes just because not one of them wants to face the electorate.

    • You speak the truth, Kathryn. Be prepared for the ridicule.

  5. Give the speaker more authority to enforce orders once they've been voted on. parliament wants documents? They get the documents once they pass the motion.

    • Do you see a problem with the fact the Speaker is elected by the House? Is he going to be re-elected if he is perceived as being too draconian? Is there a risk he will favour his party in his or her rulings to ensure he maintains their favour?

      • That is a pretty strong counterargument, I suppose. I guess I have to retreat to that old standby of not needing more rules, but better politicians.

        • That is why it is a bad idea to elect judges too. Anyone who has to enforce rules should be able to do so without risking his or her job unless the rules are not applied correctly or fairly.

  6. What's with the big grey bar at the top of every comment today? Makes it really hard to read…