That would be something new, wouldn't it, asking nicely?
I had pointed out why the new House leader came in with a whole different approach, dropping things out of the blue, followed up by motions related to a discussion paper that virtually tie the hands of the opposition 100%. There was no discussion with House leaders, just the exact opposite. Supposedly going from the old government House leader to the new government House leader was going to be an improvement. I guess in some ways it was to the extent that she didn't bring in M-6. She brought in this, another wolf in sheep's clothing.
It goes on, Mr. Chair.
Afterwards it says,
It typically also uses its majority to control committees, further ensuring that little gets in the way of its legislative agenda. There is little except its own conscience, and its fear of voters in the next election, to stop a majority government from doing what it wants. Which is where the opposition parties come in.
This is a parliamentary system, not a congressional system.
They can prick the conscience of the Prime Minister and his cabinet in Question Period, which is well covered by the media and will often generate unflattering headlines for the government.
And as legislation moves through Parliament, opposition members can question, delay and filibuster in the House and on committees, and thereby force the government to use its majority to curtail debate in a unilateral fashion, which never looks good to the public.
This is standard procedure in parliaments everywhere. It is not always pretty, but it helps keep governments accountable. Mr. Trudeau, however, thinks it’s all a nuisance.
It's not the NDP that said that. It's not even the Progressive—pardon me, the Conservatives. That really was a mistake. It's not the Cons. It's The Globe and Mail. Its observation is that Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister, thinks it's all a nuisance. That's its interpretation of what Mr. Trudeau's opinion is of the House and committees. That didn't take long.
I'll go back to the editorial, Mr. Chair.
His government considers the opposition’s limited arsenal
—which, by the way, it's trying to limit even more in its discussion paper—
to be “tactics which seek only to undermine and devalue the important work of Parliament,” and which “sow dysfunction” and are not “rational” or “defensible,” according to a discussion paper it released on its proposed changes last month.
Those contentions are cynical bunk.
Oh, how I wish I had been able to deliver those kinds of quotes, but then, they probably would have sounded a bit over the top, both because of the way I would do it because that's just what I do—