en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/557596 Comments by AaronWherry http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house/#IDComment128843436 Well, that too. Fri, 18 Feb 2011 16:40:41 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/18/the-house/#IDComment128843436 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/04/more-focus-and-purpose-less-process-and-cost/#IDComment119540248 My understanding is that the ministry included ministers of state and secretaries of state, while cabinet was restricted to ministers. Chretien and Martin made the distinction and Harper did at first. Harper now includes everyone in cabinet, which is mostly how it worked in the past. Tue, 4 Jan 2011 23:33:29 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/04/more-focus-and-purpose-less-process-and-cost/#IDComment119540248 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/17/looking-back-and-forward/#IDComment116476686 "You don't think the bit about trying to force an election on a budget he hasn't read is interesting?" Not particularly. First, it's a hypothetical. If the budget doesn't meet certain conditions, he doesn't plan on supporting it. Second, he can't force an election. We've been through this before. All three opposition parties have to vote against the budget to bring about an election. We're months away from knowing whether that's going to happen. And given that it hasn't happened in five years, the odds still favour the government not falling. Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:39:06 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/17/looking-back-and-forward/#IDComment116476686 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/15/necessary-partisanship-ii/#IDComment115998320 Technical mishap. Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:54:30 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/15/necessary-partisanship-ii/#IDComment115998320 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/09/the-commons-the-hangover-and-the-afterglow/#IDComment114819492 Three times. Only after three times can one start to get offended. That's the rule. Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:36:39 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/09/the-commons-the-hangover-and-the-afterglow/#IDComment114819492 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/07/burn-the-witch/#IDComment114325315 I think I meant seven. I think I hate math. Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:44:47 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/07/burn-the-witch/#IDComment114325315 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/30/the-commons-checking-in-on-michael-ignatieffs-inevitable-doom/#IDComment113155527 Didn't realize that made it to television. He walked over to joke with Mr. Ignatieff. They had a laugh and then everyone cleared out. After the all-clear, the procession of MPs heading back into the House included Mr. Ignatieff and James Moore walking side-by-side in deep conversation. Lest you fear these people aren't in fact capable of human interaction with each other... Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:50:10 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/30/the-commons-checking-in-on-michael-ignatieffs-inevitable-doom/#IDComment113155527 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/19/what-if-the-united-states-ends-up-with-a-carbon-tax/#IDComment110704201 Fixed. Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:47:42 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/11/19/what-if-the-united-states-ends-up-with-a-carbon-tax/#IDComment110704201 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/06/duceppes-version/#IDComment102719447 Here's Lebel's only QP intervention today. Monsieur le Président, il y a trois semaines, le Bloc s'est aperçu qu'il y avait un plan pour les infrastructures quand les maires leur en ont parlé, car avant cela, il ne s'en occupait pas. D'ailleurs, les députés du Bloc ont voté contre. Nous continuerons à travailler avec les maires de toutes les villes du Québec et le ministre d’État (Transports) est en lien avec son confrère au gouvernement du Québec. Des discussions se poursuivent et comme à l'habitude, nous allons livrer la marchandise. Wed, 6 Oct 2010 22:00:43 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/06/duceppes-version/#IDComment102719447 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/29/history-will-judge/#IDComment101523693 I try to leave this forum to all of you to say as you wish, free of my quibbling or whining, but I feel a bit obligated to respond to this. That was meant as nothing more than a statement of fact and an attempt at the fullest disclosure possible. I've interviewed the Governor General at length on two occasions now. I don't understand French nearly enough to carry on the conversation in that language so the interviews have been done in English. This, because her first language is French, can be slightly problematic and often leads to wording that might read awkwardly. For the most part, attempts are made to smooth over those moments as the interview is prepared for print. (Always striving for a certain balance between clarity and, if our Andrew Potter will excuse the expression, authenticity.) In this case, the word "have" was deleted from the answer that will appear in the print edition. But, because of the gravity of the subject matter and the importance of wording when someone like the Governor General is speaking about such a matter, I attached the note above. That's all. Any connection to my general attitude of smug disregard for others is a matter of perception and has nothing to do with intent. Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:12:34 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/29/history-will-judge/#IDComment101523693 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/recorded-division/#IDComment100374706 Yes, this is essentially that motion (it's not technically a Liberal motion, it's a report of a committee). The count I've been keeping has been of those who oppose C-391 and those who support C-391. Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:38:03 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/recorded-division/#IDComment100374706 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/recorded-division/#IDComment100374531 See the link at "the event of a tie" for a guess. Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:36:34 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/recorded-division/#IDComment100374531 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/recorded-division/#IDComment100374445 It will be sometime later—likely weeks from now. Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:35:49 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/22/recorded-division/#IDComment100374445 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/15/canadians-feel-variously-about-thing-they-only-sort-of-pay-attention-to/#IDComment99009375 Note the question from Pollara that asks what kind of Parliament—minority or majority—we have. Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:10:07 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/09/15/canadians-feel-variously-about-thing-they-only-sort-of-pay-attention-to/#IDComment99009375 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/30/on-the-run-3/#IDComment89850304 A few guesses... Thornhill bbq. 350 Chinese banquet. 300. Coffee shop parking lot. 150. Stoney Creek Dairy. 50. St. Catharines town hall. 100. Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:26:11 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/30/on-the-run-3/#IDComment89850304 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/02/privilege-and-the-court/#IDComment71885847 You're welcome to make the argument that waiting two weeks to hear a motion on a question of privilege constitutes a limit or a condition on parliamentary privilege that amounts to bestowing upon the government the right to withhold documents for reasons of national security. If the government does indeed appeal to the Supreme Court, I'm sure the Justice Dept (and Margaret Wente and the National Post editorial board) would be happy to hear from you on this. In the meantime, I'll stick with what the ruling actually says in regards to the question of privilege asserted. Sun, 2 May 2010 22:27:24 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/02/privilege-and-the-court/#IDComment71885847 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/02/privilege-and-the-court/#IDComment71874972 Your complaint would seem to be with the Speaker's understanding and enforcement of House procedure. I suppose you're free to take issue with this two-week notice on those grounds, but, again, I fail to see how that equates to a limit on parliamentary privilege. Sun, 2 May 2010 20:52:24 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/02/privilege-and-the-court/#IDComment71874972 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/02/privilege-and-the-court/#IDComment71872191 Suggesting everyone take a couple weeks to sort out the particulars does not apply a limit, caveat, or loophole to parliamentary privilege. If all sides don't come to an agreement, we return to Parliament and we shall move forward according to the will of the majority. "As has been noted earlier, the procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of Government documents, even those related to national security." You can attempt to read the Speaker's mind, you can assume, you can imagine, you can speculate, but there is no equivocation in the text. Sun, 2 May 2010 20:26:51 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/02/privilege-and-the-court/#IDComment71872191 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/09/serious-allegations/#IDComment66933925 You've never really been to the dentist until you've done so while watching, without sound, the Prime Minister dispatch a cabinet minister on a television mounted to the ceiling. Good story, I suppose, for when my grandchildren ask where I was on this historic day. Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:27:49 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/09/serious-allegations/#IDComment66933925 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/30/just-saying/#IDComment64956867 David Miliband, Dana Milbank: so easily confused for each other. Wed, 31 Mar 2010 04:24:59 +0000 http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/30/just-saying/#IDComment64956867