23 Comments

Johnston fails to understand that his partisanship is the problem.

Expand full comment

A Friday afternoon stunner.

Mr. Johnstone’s great accomplishment today was bringing “honour” into the spotlight. Honour is a long lost aspect of Westminster democracy in Canada and it seems fitting that someone like Johnstone would be the one to remind us of that.

Johnstone had lost the confidence of Parliament and his appeals to fair play and decency were rebuffed. There was really only one option left and that was to resign.

I feel sorry for the man and really disappointed the way everyone used him for partisan reasons. Honour is hard to come by these days, but Johnstone leaves this sorry mess with his.

Expand full comment

Everyone didn’t use him. Trudeau did. End of.

Expand full comment

Gong show indeed. The Liberal strategy to deal with this crisis has now effectively failed. Do they finally cave to opposition demands and call a public inquiry to stop the bleeding?

Expand full comment

I was a little taken aback with " O'Toole as the adult in the room" but looking a various opposition members I see your point.

Expand full comment

Instead you should take a close look at the government in power. A gong show top to bottom. End of. This bad decision was not from the opposition now was it? Lest we forget.

Expand full comment

I do feel sorry that he was treated so badly, and I think he is correct in that a public inquiry into classified information would not work.

I don’t understand why party leaders declined the opportunity to obtain access to the documents involved.

I am perturbed that it looks like we no longer live in a civil society. I also think it is time that someone took a look at the role of the opposition. In my view, it should not be to lower the tone of the discourse of government. I think it should be deemed a conflict of interest to use the leadership position to enhance one’s own political fortunes and to waste the public’s time and resources by distorting and shaping the house agenda to that end instead of enhancing the business of government.

Surely the House Leader should have made Pierre Poilievre stand in a corner for his bad manners

Expand full comment

It is not the role of opposition to be nice. Their role is to hold the governing party to account. When legitimate questions are deflected & ignored in the HoC & responded to with circuitous talking points (that essentially say nothing) the oppo is well within their right to raise the temperature.

Expand full comment

Lately I have been reading reports of what Elizabeth May says in the house and I see courteous, thoughtful and intelligent comments. Here is a sample: Here's what Elizabeth May had to say in the House of Commons.

June 5th, 4 p.m.

Committees of the House

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2023/6/5/elizabeth-may-1/

----------------------------------------------------------

Madam Speaker, I know the tactics behind concurrence debates, which push

Routine Proceedings out a long time. Let me set that aside. The Conservative

strategy on delay is also in the media.

I do want to take my friend up on the idea that government is responsible

for the high prices of fuel and food price increases. It is very clear that

Putin's attack on Ukraine created volatility and higher prices for fossil

fuels globally. It is also very clear that the climate crisis interrupts

food supply chains, as do other events. I would say to the hon. member that

there are many things I would criticize the government for, and they are

very different than what my hon. colleague would criticize them for, because

the government has not done enough to address the climate crisis. It

continues to think it makes sense to build a $30-billion pipeline.

However, is my hon. colleague's position really that all of the increased

prices in Canada have nothing to do with Putin's attack on Ukraine, have

nothing—

June 5th, 8:30 p.m.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2023/6/5/elizabeth-may-2/

----------------------------------------------------------

Madam Speaker, I am curious because we are debating Bill C-47 tonight, which

is not the budget but the budget implementation act. In terms of reading

that piece of legislation, I can understand that speeches can wander off

topic, but I did not hear anything of the topic in that speech. I am

wondering what part of his speech the hon. member would refer me to in terms

of the budget implementation act we are debating tonight.

June 5th, 8:50 p.m.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2023/6/5/elizabeth-may-3/

----------------------------------------------------------

Madam Speaker, I have put this question to other members debating tonight.

Over the course of any discussion of Bill C-47 in this place, I have heard

very few members actually speak to Bill C-47, which is not the budget. The

budget carried already in this place. We are now debating a budget

implementation act, which changes many pieces of legislation. It is an

omnibus bill, but it is not an illegitimate omnibus bill. It follows through

on changes.

I actually voted against the Liberal budget, but I will vote for the budget

implementation bill because it contains many, many useful measures, none of

which relate to the topics that my hon. friend discussed. Universally, it

seems, in this place, we assume that the legislation, Bill C-47, is the

budget.

I just ask my hon. colleague if he has any comments as to why that is, since

that is not what we are debating tonight.

June 5th, 11:40 p.m.

Wildfires in Canada

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2023/6/5/elizabeth-may-4/

Expand full comment

Style, perhaps; however, largely ineffective. She hasn’t moved needle on any of those issues. Nor does she have the personal influence to excite the party in power to pay her heed. She’s generally overlooked. And while I don’t necessarily fancy all of PP’s tactics, he swings for the fences & he made the liberals blink, as per yesterday’s outcome whereby ‘they’re now open to a judicial inquiry.’ Phew!

The circus we’ve witnessed is what IT TOOK to get the Liberals to do what was asked of them by the ELECTED parliament.

So. Who’s playbook got the job done? With the players (leaders) we have (not the ones we wish we had) the guy who could handle the heat got past the constant obfuscation, the endless ‘there’s nothing to see here folks.’

btw I’m not conservative or liberal - no party can lay claim to my vote. I’ve voted for all 3 parties federally & provincially as I see fit.

Expand full comment

Did you notice how pleasantly and politely she pointed out that hat the opposition thought they were voting on the budget? And how badly that reflects on the opposition? Statesmen they are not! Actually my dream was a coalition of Liberals, NDP and Greens because she is good at getting people to work together and she has much to teach about how parliament should ideally run.

Expand full comment

You don’t understand because you didn’t listen to the explanation. The made up position Johnston took in fact has never existed. The usual course of events, repeated several times in Canadian history, is a public inquiry. ALL opposition parties requested a public inquiry. I repeat. ALL PARTIES. The evident conflict of interest was blinding to anyone able to see. As for “civil”, a more important lament should be the “degradation” of democracy. The people elect MPs as their representatives to speak for them across Canada. They all spoke. They represent the people not Trudeau and Ottawa. David Johnson is not a voice of the people. Maybe he should have stayed in his corner, to avoid being mocked for bad judgement. I am certain his manners are impeccable.

Expand full comment

I must question your claim to omniscience, not mention your facts and logic. At any rate, it is the mocking that I am concerned about.

Expand full comment

You Should be concerned about a federal government mocking Canadians daily with deliberate on ongoing obstruction scandal after scandal after scandal with no end in sight. I did not claim “omniscience”, that would be the king in Ottawa and his loyal followers. Facts and truth are foreign to many ruffling their sensibilities and view of their world. Time to awaken or this country is gone. That’s the bottom line.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately the CPC does not want to be consulted and refuses to participate other than rage farming.

Expand full comment

Why would they? This was nothing more than a smoke screen. Public inquiries have taken place on many issues in Canada, equally as confidentially sensitive. This is the first time this goofy position was “manufactured”. It didn’t and doesn’t exist. Further, all parties called for a public inquiry not just CPC. The Bloc also refused to be sucked in to seeing information they could not share. Oddly facts are often left out for partisan reasons. It is black and white. Johnston should not have accepted. End of.

Expand full comment

Remember that Harper had the same interference from China but he liked it and gave them a 31 year trade deal in their favour. I am sorry but it now looks like the CPC is it's leader and a bunch of trained monkeys.

Expand full comment

I am not a member of any party and have voted PC, NDP, and Lib. CPC record doesn't include PC accomplishments for Canada. CPC did a favour by signing a 31 year deal with China look it up. The deal is impossible to get out of without great difficulty look it up and you will see that it was signed just before Harper lost an election. You are full on rabid partisan hack for CPC.

Expand full comment

Here you go. I am certain this would interest you and your readers. Cooper, as you know, was the primary source that prompted the BC Cullen Commission into money laundering. Read “Wilful Blindness”, Sam Cooper. He is also the primary source for this current fiasco, CCP interference. Cooper has been at this for years. I am certain from reading comments that many of your followers are unaware of numerous details and complications involved around this issue, the importance of it, and the serious threat to Canada. Partisanship has no place in this serious issue.

Expand full comment

“The problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.” —Humphrey Bogart, Casablanca

There's where the expression came from. Is "hill of beans" a family-friendly version of something else? Probably.

Expand full comment

My impression was that Trudeau did ask for the opposition input into the original appointment.

Also Johnson did give a reasoned response to not having a close relationship with the Trudeau family.

Notable personalities in Ottawa or in any position that is in the public sphere would find it difficult to avoid contact with figures in the political arena. Academics who would volunteer their time to promote financial support for valid research projects should be congratulated (Trudeau Foundation).

I met Pierre Trudeau three times in my travels - does the make me a Liberal Party operative?

The self interested partisanship needs to stop and most reasonable Canadians just want these masters of hyperbolic theatrics to get on with it!

Expand full comment

I can’t imagine anyone who would be foolish enough to subject themselves and their families to the abuse and derision of the crowd, and look forward to reading your final report, Wes.

Expand full comment