Rhetorical question of the day


Liberal Todd Russell, yelling in the direction of Rob Nicholson this afternoon as the Justice Minister took a friendly question about crime legislation.

“What’s the mandatory minimum for cheque fraud?”


Rhetorical question of the day

  1. Criminal Code, S. 362. Hybrid offense, no minimum sentence.

    What a zinger. Let's hear him repeat the implied accusation outside the House, hm?

    • What accusation is implied there?

  2. What's the mandatory minimum for blatant exaggeration?

  3. Somebody should launch a website dedicated to the juvenille, jerkish, stupid, and classless remarks floated about by our MPs during Question Period. (I already thought of the Hansard joke, but I'm being semi-serious here).

    I'm envisioning a non-partisan attempt to shame these idiots into acting with at least the pretense of honour and civility.

  4. accusing a person of a crime is a crime = outside the house!

    • Let's not get too carried away. I agree this sort of bullsh*t needs to stop, and Russell is an idiot for acting out that way. But I think it can fairly be interpreted as a juvenille attempt at exaggerative humour, as opposed to a bona fide charge of fraud.

  5. Good question. Here is another; why hasn't the RCMP fraud squad been called in yet? And why do conservative who blat about law and order refuse to obey they law?

    • Do you think anyone actually tried to cash those novelty checks? You do realize they aren't real don't you? Just in case you've never actually earned a check in your life I'll fill you in, real checks are quite a bit smaller.

      • What about real cheques? Are real cheques smaller?

        • Smaller then novelty checks, yes. Someday when you get a job and earn a check you'll actually see one for yourself.

          • Perhaps you should finish school – in Canada it's spelled "cheques"….

      • Actually I believe novelty cheques can be used as legal cheques. But since most Canadians are more honest than the corrupt Harperites, they probably have not tried to cash them.

  6. Whats the maximum size a cheque has to be in order to be considered novelty? Some of the cheques even have fake numbers on the bottom to look official to me.

    • They should like totally write a cheque on the side of a cow.

  7. Seems like with a bloated cabinet, a bloated budget, bloated cheques and a so-called leader with a bloated opinion of himself, this is indeed a novelty government…
    I thought Russell's snark was at least witty.

  8. When you consider some of the heckling from the blue side, it's mild.

  9. Why doesn't one of Mr. Wells' smart people invent bank transfers.

    We can have photo booths at a work station. A debit card with a party logo.

    The possibilities are endless ….. and have been for years.

    Even the pizza boys don't take cheques these days …. only in the fantasy land
    of political coverage. Please.

  10. Nothing says you're ready to govern like throwing out shrill suggestions of criminal conduct while you're party plummets in the polls.

    • Huh?

  11. Nothing says you're ready to govern like throwing out shrill suggestions of criminal conduct while hiding behind the cover a law suit… See even Harper plays Biff's games!

  12. “What's the mandatory minimum for cheque fraud?”

    The smart money goes into brown envelopes so it can't be traced.
    Right Liberals?

    • Ask Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber.

  13. Todd Russell is a desperate man!