Ivison gives the opposition a lesson...

In how parliament works. Apparently the dippers and the grits have not adjusted to having a strong stable Conservative Majority government.

Judging by the response, you'd think they had suspended habeas corpus. "A stunning assault on democracy," frothed Green leader Elizabeth May. "A hijacking of democracy," said Liberal Irwin Cotler.

Mr. Cotler, who should know better, was in full flow. "If we pass these nine bills in their present form - we will have the exact opposite of what we seek: more crime, less justice and more cost," he told the committee.

That may very well be the case - and there are certainly many shortcomings in the crime bill. But his opinion on its worth should not be confused with the government's right to pass legislation on which it was elected. It's not as if the various component bills that make up the Safe Streets and Communities Act have not been debated in Parliament. The bill as it stands has had four days of debate, comprising 16 hours and 53 speeches, not to mention nine days at committee. But much of its content has been hanging around Parliament since the Conservatives were elected in 2006. In total, including review in the Senate, the component bills have had 53 days of debate, made up of 95 hours and 261 speeches, since they were first introduced, according to the House leader's office. Not quite the trampling of democracy the opposition parties suggest.

In fact, most of the legislation in front of the House has been thoroughly aired - bills to modernize copyright, kill the long-gun registry, open up the wheat board, and create more seats in the House of Commons have all appeared in one form or another in previous parliaments.

Almost by definition, the opposition parties don't agree with them - nor should they. But the Conservatives won the right to push through their agenda at the last election, after years of seeing half their bills killed by elections, prorogation and opposition tactics.

Ibbitson: Blame Tories For Martin's F-Bomb Tirade

According to the Globe's John Ibbitson, NDP MP Pat Martin's F-Bomb tirade was justifiable considering the Tories management of the Parliamentary agenda. As the headline goes, "NDP profanity marks Parliament’s hastened decline under Tories". As Ibby puts it, the tweets were "in poor taste. But he makes an important point." The theory goes that given how the Tories have handled debate in Parliament, we should expect opposition MPs to express frustration. If you have to drop a few F-Bombs to get people's attention, then you gotta do what you gotta do. Maybe it is in poor taste, but you have to make an important point, right? Can you really blame Pat Martin for being frustrated with the Conservatives, who have been limiting (though not eliminating) debate in order to speed up their parliamentary agenda to fulfill election promises?

How much more debate exactly are we supposed to have regarding the gun registry? Parliament and the media have already dedicated thousands of hours of televised debate on this subject. The Tories campaigned on scrapping it, and they were elected to a majority. Should we shut down the rest of the Parliamentary agenda to rehash a debate that we've already had nationally? It is called fulfilling election promises, not justification for temper tantrums.

That's just my opinion. Today's poll question; are the Tories responsible for Pat Martin's F-Bomb tirade?

Tories Doing What They Said They'd Do

Now that the Conservatives have been elected by Canadians to a majority government, they are passing legislation that they campaigned on, which got them elected. Tough on crime, scrap the gun registry, scrap subsidies for political parties, no forced membership in the Wheat Board, etc, etc, all promises made well before Canadians elected them to a majority government. Now individual Premiers are revolting against this legislation, which seems odd considering the federal government was elected on promises to do exactly what they are doing. Just because left wing journalists are opposing Tory policies, that doesn't mean the current Conservative government does not have a mandate from the people enact these policies.

Seriously, how can you attack a government doing exactly what they said they'd do when they were elected to run the country? Are Tory MPs terrible people because they moved to scrap the gun registry? That's what they said they'd do, and people voted for them. Accept the mandate! It was the same thing with Mike Harris. I've talked to left leaning friends from Ontario about Iron Mike, and while they might not have always agreed with him, they all acknowledge that at least he did what he said he'd do during the campaign where the people elected him. He was very unpopular with the left, but was still re-elected to a 2nd term. I think sometimes we forget that after 4 years of Harris, Ontario wanted 4 more.

Supporting The Right To Strike

Since winning a majority government government in the spring, the Conservative government has twice intervened in labour disputes to end or prevent work stoppages. First it was the post office, now Air Canada. Personally I support the right of workers to strike, just as I support the right of the employer to hire replacement workers. Let them strike and allow them to exercise their democratic right to walk away from their jobs. Then hire new workers at a significantly lower price to replace them. The "essential service" continues and we don't deny the workers their right to strike. Let the collective bargaining process take as many years as needed to reach a fair contract. Problem solved.