<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The House of Commons is a sham</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/</link>
	<description>Canada&#039;s only national weekly current affairs magazine.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 02:06:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: CH Richard</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463849</link>
		<dc:creator>CH Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:34:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463849</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t fret, they all have Blackberrys and have access to everything they need.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#039;t fret, they all have Blackberrys and have access to everything they need.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wilson</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463790</link>
		<dc:creator>wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:56:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463790</guid>
		<description>Excellent writting, Mr Wherry,
and how amazing it is, when you are non-partisan,
the tone at Wherry&#039;s place follows suit.

Very much illustrates that the leaders, all the leaders, set the tone in QP with their questions as well as their answers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent writting, Mr Wherry,<br />
and how amazing it is, when you are non-partisan,<br />
the tone at Wherry&#039;s place follows suit.</p>
<p>Very much illustrates that the leaders, all the leaders, set the tone in QP with their questions as well as their answers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arpy</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463848</link>
		<dc:creator>Arpy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 20:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463848</guid>
		<description>Parliament must be about the only body which does not require a quorum in order to conduct its business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Parliament must be about the only body which does not require a quorum in order to conduct its business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arpy</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463847</link>
		<dc:creator>Arpy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463847</guid>
		<description>Parliament must be about the only body that does not require a quorum in order to conduct its business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Parliament must be about the only body that does not require a quorum in order to conduct its business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: noob_goldberg</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463846</link>
		<dc:creator>noob_goldberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:07:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463846</guid>
		<description>Really joel, you&#039;d prefer your MP to be an unthinking automaton, responsible solely for selling the official party line to their constituents?

The MP is tasked with knowing what the majority of their constituents wants, and if they vote against them they can expect to be canned in the next election.  How in the world would the national party know any better than an individual MP on what their constituents want?  I think that&#039;s a thousand times worse than the &#039;problems&#039; you identify with allowing MPs to vote independently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really joel, you&#039;d prefer your MP to be an unthinking automaton, responsible solely for selling the official party line to their constituents?</p>
<p>The MP is tasked with knowing what the majority of their constituents wants, and if they vote against them they can expect to be canned in the next election.  How in the world would the national party know any better than an individual MP on what their constituents want?  I think that&#039;s a thousand times worse than the &#039;problems&#039; you identify with allowing MPs to vote independently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Highland lassie</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463845</link>
		<dc:creator>Highland lassie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:05:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463845</guid>
		<description>What a great commentary on the malaise that has fallen over what should be our seat of democracy in this country.

As a Nortel pensioner, I have spent many hours in the Finance and Industry Committee meetings over the past two years, as well as sat in the Member&#039;s Gallery as legislation related to revising our archaic bankruptcy laws has been tabled and squashed.  Partisan politics and lobbying by big financial institutions have blocked every initiative by the Opposition parties to see that Justice-in-Bankruptcy prevails and that the assets of the bankrupt  companies payout pension and disability underfunding before the foreign junk bond holders get their money.  Too many people who comment on the Nortel situation are ill-informed about the impact on pensioners and the disabled under these circumstances.  While the Opposition Parties are willing to help, in most cases, except for 13 Conservative MPs who have been voting with their conscience, our Government is leaving us high and dry.  What they don&#039;t seem to realize is that many of the 20,000 people affected will end up using federal and provincial drug benefits and support systems to the tune of nearly $500million of taxpayer funded programs which would be unnecessary if the bankruptcy laws were changed with retroactivity.

Most developed countries protect pensions and disabled benefits in a bankruptcy.  Our governing party listens to the big banks and lobbyists like John Manley and Don Boudria rather than support those people who worked hard, paid taxes, and put deferred wages into a pension fund.  It was not our fault that Directors like Manley, who had responsibility for our pensions while he was a Director of Nortel, sat by and watched the value erode.

I also support MP Michael Chong in his efforts to bring back civility to the House.  His Bill is in Committee now but he suffered the barbs of his own party colleagues when he presented this Bill.  Let&#039;s hope sanity will start to prevail in the House.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a great commentary on the malaise that has fallen over what should be our seat of democracy in this country.</p>
<p>As a Nortel pensioner, I have spent many hours in the Finance and Industry Committee meetings over the past two years, as well as sat in the Member&#039;s Gallery as legislation related to revising our archaic bankruptcy laws has been tabled and squashed.  Partisan politics and lobbying by big financial institutions have blocked every initiative by the Opposition parties to see that Justice-in-Bankruptcy prevails and that the assets of the bankrupt  companies payout pension and disability underfunding before the foreign junk bond holders get their money.  Too many people who comment on the Nortel situation are ill-informed about the impact on pensioners and the disabled under these circumstances.  While the Opposition Parties are willing to help, in most cases, except for 13 Conservative MPs who have been voting with their conscience, our Government is leaving us high and dry.  What they don&#039;t seem to realize is that many of the 20,000 people affected will end up using federal and provincial drug benefits and support systems to the tune of nearly $500million of taxpayer funded programs which would be unnecessary if the bankruptcy laws were changed with retroactivity.</p>
<p>Most developed countries protect pensions and disabled benefits in a bankruptcy.  Our governing party listens to the big banks and lobbyists like John Manley and Don Boudria rather than support those people who worked hard, paid taxes, and put deferred wages into a pension fund.  It was not our fault that Directors like Manley, who had responsibility for our pensions while he was a Director of Nortel, sat by and watched the value erode.</p>
<p>I also support MP Michael Chong in his efforts to bring back civility to the House.  His Bill is in Committee now but he suffered the barbs of his own party colleagues when he presented this Bill.  Let&#039;s hope sanity will start to prevail in the House.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louise B</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463844</link>
		<dc:creator>Louise B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:46:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463844</guid>
		<description>Really?

The only &quot;at their throats&quot; hooligans are sitting on the Conservative benches and judging by their chief dog John Baird, they need some prozac or we Canadians need an antidote for their bites!

The cons are a disgrace and I don&#039;t care if you vote for Greens, NDP or Libs or Bloc.  They have deteriorated our democratic discourse to the level of a U.S. backwater redneck rage...shame on them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really?</p>
<p>The only &quot;at their throats&quot; hooligans are sitting on the Conservative benches and judging by their chief dog John Baird, they need some prozac or we Canadians need an antidote for their bites!</p>
<p>The cons are a disgrace and I don&#039;t care if you vote for Greens, NDP or Libs or Bloc.  They have deteriorated our democratic discourse to the level of a U.S. backwater redneck rage&#8230;shame on them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louise B</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463843</link>
		<dc:creator>Louise B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:43:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463843</guid>
		<description>HARPER HAS DISGRACED OUR PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY.

In the past 5 years we have witnessed a despicable deterioration of Democratic pinciples with an alarming LACK OF CIVILITY in Parliament.

The level of vitriol is unprecedented and unless we get rid of the current bunch of arrogant, biting Bullies and firstly muzzle the childish dangerous foaming-at-the-mouth John Baird, we see no improvement.

A Coalition is long overdue to restore dignity to this poor land and its most disgraced insitution (currently).  Time&#039;s over. The world is rebellling against Dictators.  &#039;

Our Hill must be liberated from the Cavemen in charge. They&#039;re a disgusting blemish on the footnotes of our country&#039;s history.

Trudea, Pearson, Dief, Douglas, Lewis....must be turning in their grves to see the disaster on our Parliament....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HARPER HAS DISGRACED OUR PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY.</p>
<p>In the past 5 years we have witnessed a despicable deterioration of Democratic pinciples with an alarming LACK OF CIVILITY in Parliament.</p>
<p>The level of vitriol is unprecedented and unless we get rid of the current bunch of arrogant, biting Bullies and firstly muzzle the childish dangerous foaming-at-the-mouth John Baird, we see no improvement.</p>
<p>A Coalition is long overdue to restore dignity to this poor land and its most disgraced insitution (currently).  Time&#039;s over. The world is rebellling against Dictators.  &#039;</p>
<p>Our Hill must be liberated from the Cavemen in charge. They&#039;re a disgusting blemish on the footnotes of our country&#039;s history.</p>
<p>Trudea, Pearson, Dief, Douglas, Lewis&#8230;.must be turning in their grves to see the disaster on our Parliament&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463842</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463842</guid>
		<description>being the first country to outlaw suicide bombing...pretty hard to convict someone, even if it was possible...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>being the first country to outlaw suicide bombing&#8230;pretty hard to convict someone, even if it was possible&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thwim</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463841</link>
		<dc:creator>Thwim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 19:50:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463841</guid>
		<description>What they &quot;should&quot; be involved in is a subjective idea.  Personally, I very much feel that our education and health care systems should be looked at on a national level.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What they &quot;should&quot; be involved in is a subjective idea.  Personally, I very much feel that our education and health care systems should be looked at on a national level.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: noob_goldberg</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463840</link>
		<dc:creator>noob_goldberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:49:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463840</guid>
		<description>No one needs to be watching the House of Commons for them to be effective.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

I wish politicians would remember that from time to time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No one needs to be watching the House of Commons for them to be effective.  Quite the opposite, in fact.</p>
<p>I wish politicians would remember that from time to time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: noob_goldberg</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463839</link>
		<dc:creator>noob_goldberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463839</guid>
		<description>I think it&#039;s even *more* important, these days, to elect people to represent the views of their constituents.  We&#039;ve already turned the HoC into a stream of Twitter-length speaking points, instead of an actual debate about any specific issues.  I can&#039;t imagine that it would be remotely productive to open up our decision-making process even more to people who may or may not have taken the time to educate themselves on a specific issue before clicking &quot;submit comment&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think it&#039;s even *more* important, these days, to elect people to represent the views of their constituents.  We&#039;ve already turned the HoC into a stream of Twitter-length speaking points, instead of an actual debate about any specific issues.  I can&#039;t imagine that it would be remotely productive to open up our decision-making process even more to people who may or may not have taken the time to educate themselves on a specific issue before clicking &quot;submit comment&quot;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: noob_goldberg</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463838</link>
		<dc:creator>noob_goldberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:24:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463838</guid>
		<description>Yes, because bombing--on its own--is not a felony, right?  And I go back to my initial point: if a person is willing to blow themselves up, do you really think that they&#039;re going to be worrying about a penalty if they fail?  Seriously?

What a ludicrous law.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, because bombing&#8211;on its own&#8211;is not a felony, right?  And I go back to my initial point: if a person is willing to blow themselves up, do you really think that they&#039;re going to be worrying about a penalty if they fail?  Seriously?</p>
<p>What a ludicrous law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LoLol</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463837</link>
		<dc:creator>LoLol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:03:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463837</guid>
		<description>I dunno, I&#039;m personally happiest when the fools we elect don&#039;t actually do anything.  Better they do nothing then screw everything up by doing something.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I dunno, I&#039;m personally happiest when the fools we elect don&#039;t actually do anything.  Better they do nothing then screw everything up by doing something.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joel</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463836</link>
		<dc:creator>joel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 00:53:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463836</guid>
		<description>I prefer the present system where one votes for a party and not for a candidate who could vote independently. There are several advantages for the current system. By voting for a party, one knows the general policies and values that party (and MPs) stands for. If an independent MP could vote however they want to, how would they determine how the majority in their riding are thinking? What if the proper vote is against  the wishes of the majority? I don&#039;t want my MP voting based on their conscience - especially if their conscience is based on religion.  Independent thinking MPs could be like American politicians whose vote can be bought by who contributes to their campaigns. The party system of voting may not be perfect but it is better than the alternatives.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I prefer the present system where one votes for a party and not for a candidate who could vote independently. There are several advantages for the current system. By voting for a party, one knows the general policies and values that party (and MPs) stands for. If an independent MP could vote however they want to, how would they determine how the majority in their riding are thinking? What if the proper vote is against  the wishes of the majority? I don&#039;t want my MP voting based on their conscience &#8211; especially if their conscience is based on religion.  Independent thinking MPs could be like American politicians whose vote can be bought by who contributes to their campaigns. The party system of voting may not be perfect but it is better than the alternatives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: katie.smith</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463835</link>
		<dc:creator>katie.smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 23:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463835</guid>
		<description>The House of Commons is a joke and Question Period is an embarrassment.  But isn&#039;t all this - and I quite agree with all that Wherry says - a function of a fundamental problem with our politics of this new millenium?  That being that it is not about governing the country.  It is not about serving the country.  It is not about public policy arrived at after fulsome debate.  Nope.

It is and has been for some time, only about power, getting it and keeping it and, once you have a majority, doing what you like with it.  This is a politics of personalities won by PR.  In such a system, what happens in the House of Commons is irrelevant, cause nobody is watching.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The House of Commons is a joke and Question Period is an embarrassment.  But isn&#8217;t all this &#8211; and I quite agree with all that Wherry says &#8211; a function of a fundamental problem with our politics of this new millenium?  That being that it is not about governing the country.  It is not about serving the country.  It is not about public policy arrived at after fulsome debate.  Nope.</p>
<p>It is and has been for some time, only about power, getting it and keeping it and, once you have a majority, doing what you like with it.  This is a politics of personalities won by PR.  In such a system, what happens in the House of Commons is irrelevant, cause nobody is watching.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TimesArrow</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463834</link>
		<dc:creator>TimesArrow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 19:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463834</guid>
		<description>We should implement some of Chong&#039;s ideas to reform the place and make individual mps matter again [ removing the signing of nomination papers by the party leaders would be a very good starting point] for their constituents&#039; sakes and their own and not, as has become obvious now, principaly the Party. If not we might yet get to the point where we have one MP speaking to an empty house and a bored an impatient janitor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We should implement some of Chong&#039;s ideas to reform the place and make individual mps matter again [ removing the signing of nomination papers by the party leaders would be a very good starting point] for their constituents&#039; sakes and their own and not, as has become obvious now, principaly the Party. If not we might yet get to the point where we have one MP speaking to an empty house and a bored an impatient janitor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thwim</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463833</link>
		<dc:creator>Thwim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 06:37:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463833</guid>
		<description>You mean nothing other than the chances of getting elected without a party affiliation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You mean nothing other than the chances of getting elected without a party affiliation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Candace</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463832</link>
		<dc:creator>Candace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:57:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463832</guid>
		<description>If you can be charged with attempted murder, you can now be charged with attempted suicide bombing (in the event you were unsuccessful), no?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you can be charged with attempted murder, you can now be charged with attempted suicide bombing (in the event you were unsuccessful), no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Candace</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463831</link>
		<dc:creator>Candace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 22:54:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463831</guid>
		<description>&quot;One thing that was not discussed in this article is the increasing role of the provinces and &quot;off-loading&quot; of responsibilities. &quot;

Offloading? Responsibilities of federal &amp; provincial governments are very clear. Things aren&#039;t being offloaded to the provinces, the federal gov&#039;t is stepping OUT of things they should never have been involved in. Provinces are responsible for delivering healthcare, not the feds. Same with education (daycare). Monetary policies are federal, although provinces have the right to set commerical laws/policies, which is why some provinces are against a national securities commission.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;One thing that was not discussed in this article is the increasing role of the provinces and &quot;off-loading&quot; of responsibilities. &quot;</p>
<p>Offloading? Responsibilities of federal &amp; provincial governments are very clear. Things aren&#039;t being offloaded to the provinces, the federal gov&#039;t is stepping OUT of things they should never have been involved in. Provinces are responsible for delivering healthcare, not the feds. Same with education (daycare). Monetary policies are federal, although provinces have the right to set commerical laws/policies, which is why some provinces are against a national securities commission.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amanda</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463830</link>
		<dc:creator>Amanda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 20:04:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463830</guid>
		<description>This report really hits the bullet. As a student of political studies, I regularly follow question period. I find the MPs who do not get up to ask a question nor debate are mere cameos, who are viciously partisan. Heck, once I was present in the public gallery and Jason Kenney had the newspaper spread out on his desk throughout QP! It certainly makes one ask what they are doing there if they are not actively participating.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This report really hits the bullet. As a student of political studies, I regularly follow question period. I find the MPs who do not get up to ask a question nor debate are mere cameos, who are viciously partisan. Heck, once I was present in the public gallery and Jason Kenney had the newspaper spread out on his desk throughout QP! It certainly makes one ask what they are doing there if they are not actively participating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kathryn_C</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463829</link>
		<dc:creator>Kathryn_C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 19:15:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463829</guid>
		<description>Pierre Poilievre - more d-bag than windbag:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjT0zzACg9o&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjT0zzACg9o&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pierre Poilievre &#8211; more d-bag than windbag:  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjT0zzACg9o" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjT0zzACg9o</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brooster2</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463828</link>
		<dc:creator>brooster2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:48:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463828</guid>
		<description>I am corrected and edified. You can always learn something on these boards. Thanks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am corrected and edified. You can always learn something on these boards. Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EeeOar</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463827</link>
		<dc:creator>EeeOar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:43:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463827</guid>
		<description>I can think of three main criteria that HQ considers when deciding if they will sign the nomination papers for a potential candidate;  a) will this candidate be able to win the seat?, b) how much grief will this candidate cause inside of caucus?, and c) will we be able to control, live with, or otherwise deal with any &quot;off-the-cuff comments&quot; this person might make?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can think of three main criteria that HQ considers when deciding if they will sign the nomination papers for a potential candidate;  a) will this candidate be able to win the seat?, b) how much grief will this candidate cause inside of caucus?, and c) will we be able to control, live with, or otherwise deal with any &quot;off-the-cuff comments&quot; this person might make?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: McC_</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463826</link>
		<dc:creator>McC_</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463826</guid>
		<description>the Liberal-National coalition in Oz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the Liberal-National coalition in Oz.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463825</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:39:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463825</guid>
		<description>Funny that this article appears the same day I finally make my way to the visit the House, after so many years wishing to see it first hand. Living in Winnipeg, the snippets of footage and QP a lll I had to go on for, I was excited to finally visit. This article captures the disappointment I felt in seeing the rote events unfold.

I was lucky, they called everyone into the House for some votes on bills, so I got to see all 308 MP&#039;s check they bakcberries, read the paper and chat with each other. I even heard a few desktop slammed in impatience for the speaker to get things underway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny that this article appears the same day I finally make my way to the visit the House, after so many years wishing to see it first hand. Living in Winnipeg, the snippets of footage and QP a lll I had to go on for, I was excited to finally visit. This article captures the disappointment I felt in seeing the rote events unfold.</p>
<p>I was lucky, they called everyone into the House for some votes on bills, so I got to see all 308 MP&#039;s check they bakcberries, read the paper and chat with each other. I even heard a few desktop slammed in impatience for the speaker to get things underway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Claudia Lemire</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463824</link>
		<dc:creator>Claudia Lemire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 08:26:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463824</guid>
		<description>You are so lucky, take advantage of it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are so lucky, take advantage of it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Claudia Lemire</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463823</link>
		<dc:creator>Claudia Lemire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 08:23:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463823</guid>
		<description>To me our voting system is so undemocratic, I hate it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To me our voting system is so undemocratic, I hate it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Claudia Lemire</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463822</link>
		<dc:creator>Claudia Lemire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 08:18:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463822</guid>
		<description>Jan, that&#039;s just silly to this poster Ken Rowan maybe is very meaninful and touches really close to home, don&#039;t make you hate for Harper make you insensitive towards other people&#039;s views or feelings.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jan, that&#039;s just silly to this poster Ken Rowan maybe is very meaninful and touches really close to home, don&#039;t make you hate for Harper make you insensitive towards other people&#039;s views or feelings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brooster2</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463821</link>
		<dc:creator>brooster2</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:40:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463821</guid>
		<description>Can you identify a single precedent, in any parliamentary democracy anywhere, where a coalition, as such, ran for office? It&#039;s difficult to imagine how such a campaign would even work logistically.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you identify a single precedent, in any parliamentary democracy anywhere, where a coalition, as such, ran for office? It&#039;s difficult to imagine how such a campaign would even work logistically.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: @DavidJGagnon</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463820</link>
		<dc:creator>@DavidJGagnon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:24:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463820</guid>
		<description>This is very thoughtful and helpful article.

I had never thought about the fact that PM Harper rarely &#039;speaks&#039; in the house - not including his silly out-of-context QP one-liners. He never speaks in an unguarded or unrehearsed manner ... anywhere. Watson would be more cogent on policy - and without the &#039;human&#039; nastiness.

I definitely watch &#039;the debates&#039; if someone of Joe Comartin&#039;s ability is speaking because I learn something about criteria to consider for good public policy. Often the Bloc MPs raise important ideas as well. Have I forgotten anyone? Doubt it.

I was shocked to find out how much time is wasted by the government prepping for QP. Do they even understand their responsibilities to Canadians?

It would be nice to have more thoughtful journalists presenting insightful ideas like this. And much less P&amp;P, &quot;Power Play&quot; and &quot;Question Period&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is very thoughtful and helpful article.</p>
<p>I had never thought about the fact that PM Harper rarely &#039;speaks&#039; in the house &#8211; not including his silly out-of-context QP one-liners. He never speaks in an unguarded or unrehearsed manner &#8230; anywhere. Watson would be more cogent on policy &#8211; and without the &#039;human&#039; nastiness.</p>
<p>I definitely watch &#039;the debates&#039; if someone of Joe Comartin&#039;s ability is speaking because I learn something about criteria to consider for good public policy. Often the Bloc MPs raise important ideas as well. Have I forgotten anyone? Doubt it.</p>
<p>I was shocked to find out how much time is wasted by the government prepping for QP. Do they even understand their responsibilities to Canadians?</p>
<p>It would be nice to have more thoughtful journalists presenting insightful ideas like this. And much less P&amp;P, &quot;Power Play&quot; and &quot;Question Period&quot;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrin</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463819</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 19:18:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463819</guid>
		<description>The House of Commons is no longer relevant to the current age... the Westminster System was developed in a time where communication was facilitated by horsemen.

Let us leap into the 21st century where the common man can speak for himself instead of through proxy; forums like this one where debate is alive and well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The House of Commons is no longer relevant to the current age&#8230; the Westminster System was developed in a time where communication was facilitated by horsemen.</p>
<p>Let us leap into the 21st century where the common man can speak for himself instead of through proxy; forums like this one where debate is alive and well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DanielBlouin</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463818</link>
		<dc:creator>DanielBlouin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:59:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463818</guid>
		<description>No, Jim Maloway wasn&#039;t a Member of Parliament then.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, Jim Maloway wasn&#039;t a Member of Parliament then.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diogenes54</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463817</link>
		<dc:creator>Diogenes54</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:12:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463817</guid>
		<description>What did Bev Oda do? Try this for a scenario...

She signed off on approval of funding for KAIROS, as did other important people.  Then she got a call from Langevin Block with orders to reverse that decision NOW. So she did.  We don&#039;t know exactly who made this clumsy forgery (and that is what it is).  Maybe it was Oda, maybe one of her minions.

But we do know this... she lied about it in the beginning, she lied about it again, and she keeps piling lies upon lies. And this is OK for Harper because if he throws limousine Oda under the bus, she just might tell all - that the order came from the man himself.  So Oda still has her job.

That, my friend, is pure contempt of parliament.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What did Bev Oda do? Try this for a scenario&#8230;</p>
<p>She signed off on approval of funding for KAIROS, as did other important people.  Then she got a call from Langevin Block with orders to reverse that decision NOW. So she did.  We don&#039;t know exactly who made this clumsy forgery (and that is what it is).  Maybe it was Oda, maybe one of her minions.</p>
<p>But we do know this&#8230; she lied about it in the beginning, she lied about it again, and she keeps piling lies upon lies. And this is OK for Harper because if he throws limousine Oda under the bus, she just might tell all &#8211; that the order came from the man himself.  So Oda still has her job.</p>
<p>That, my friend, is pure contempt of parliament.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463816</link>
		<dc:creator>john</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 07:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463816</guid>
		<description>This article could have been written in 1997</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article could have been written in 1997</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sourstud</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463815</link>
		<dc:creator>sourstud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 06:43:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463815</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t know... not often enough?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#039;t know&#8230; not often enough?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diogenes54</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463814</link>
		<dc:creator>Diogenes54</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 06:40:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463814</guid>
		<description>Wow Blue - you certainly prove this point...

&lt;i&gt;Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.&lt;/i&gt;
&lt;b&gt;-John Stuart Mill&lt;/b&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow Blue &#8211; you certainly prove this point&#8230;</p>
<p><i>Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.</i><br />
<b>-John Stuart Mill</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diogenes54</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463813</link>
		<dc:creator>Diogenes54</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 06:36:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463813</guid>
		<description>Comparing records of achievement adds nothing to the debate?  How often do the cons bring up the sponsorship scandal when &lt;i&gt;answering&lt;/i&gt; a question in QP?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Comparing records of achievement adds nothing to the debate?  How often do the cons bring up the sponsorship scandal when <i>answering</i> a question in QP?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thwim</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463812</link>
		<dc:creator>Thwim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 06:23:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463812</guid>
		<description>Now come on.. that was uncalled for.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now come on.. that was uncalled for.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cooper</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463811</link>
		<dc:creator>cooper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 06:12:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463811</guid>
		<description>And the biggest impediment to the honourable functioning of our parliamentary democracy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And the biggest impediment to the honourable functioning of our parliamentary democracy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe3</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-2/#comment-463810</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe3</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 05:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463810</guid>
		<description>Excellent story on our country&#039;s current Democratic Deficit!

We&#039;re replacing Parliamentarians with casual-help that&#039;s there for their own self-serving reasons.  To hell with Public Service. The men and few women in our Parliament are losing Canada&#039;s Vision.  The last 5 years have witnessed a deterioration and manipulation of democracy so that it&#039;s become unrecognizable.   Shameful....but  just try to remember, when you get nostalgic about REAL democracy....

STEVE MUBARAK rules!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent story on our country&#039;s current Democratic Deficit!</p>
<p>We&#039;re replacing Parliamentarians with casual-help that&#039;s there for their own self-serving reasons.  To hell with Public Service. The men and few women in our Parliament are losing Canada&#039;s Vision.  The last 5 years have witnessed a deterioration and manipulation of democracy so that it&#039;s become unrecognizable.   Shameful&#8230;.but  just try to remember, when you get nostalgic about REAL democracy&#8230;.</p>
<p>STEVE MUBARAK rules!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EeeOar</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463809</link>
		<dc:creator>EeeOar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:50:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463809</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the dance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the dance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sourstud</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463808</link>
		<dc:creator>sourstud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463808</guid>
		<description>If he was the best candidate running in the riding I might.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If he was the best candidate running in the riding I might.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EeeOar</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463807</link>
		<dc:creator>EeeOar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:23:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463807</guid>
		<description>You&#039;d vote for Anders?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#039;d vote for Anders?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jan</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house-of-commons-is-a-sham/comment-page-1/#comment-463806</link>
		<dc:creator>Jan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:01:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=173201#comment-463806</guid>
		<description>It is as Minister  Nicholson says, sending a message.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is as Minister  Nicholson says, sending a message.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
