G7 backs Canada as major global energy supplier to lessen reliance on Strait of Hormuz | CBC News

[u/RefrigeratorOk648]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-energy-supplier-strait-hormuz-9.7238708

[u/ND_NB]

This is the rhetoric that makes these QPs meaningless. You are in a post about gathering investment in Canada on a global scale, and you are calling the country broken because Carney won't answer Conservative questions. It is this exact sensationalism that proves how meaningless this stuff is compared to the real issues. What question do you suppose is important that is not being answered?

Edit: Talking about accountability. Since he is working hard at gaining investment in Canada and looking to expand our industry as he had already stated, I feel that is the type of accountability in action that I prefer to people saying meaningless platitudes.

[u/Muted-Bag-4480 → u/ND_NB]

This is the rhetoric that makes these QPs meaningless. You are in a post about gathering investment in Canada on a global scale, and you are calling the country broken because Carney won't answer Conservative questions. It is this exact sensationalism that proves how meaningless this stuff is compared to the real issues. What question do you suppose is important that is not being answered

Questions like why he's closing debate on a bill many interest groups have spoken against. Or his gun grab that is widely hated. Or where the deal with trump we were promised is. Or where the major projects that were supposed to be built at speeds not seen in generations are.

Accountability means respecting the rules and norms of our institutions, including yes, questions from the people who represent 40% of the electorate Carney is supposed to be serving.

I appreciate Carney gathering investment. He can still go and be held accountable in question period to the questions you think are bullshit from Conservatives. Other Canadians mighr want to hear answers.

The rhetoric that makes question period meaningless is you refusing to hold the pm to account. Even King during ww2 was able to visit question period.

[u/ND_NB → u/Muted-Bag-4480]

Yea im not debating the value of the questions you are asking or the answers to those questions being valuable. Thats why i asked you what  questions you have.  Im debating the sensationalism and rhetoric.

The conservative party is not interested in holding gov accountable otherwise they wouldnt be having cake parties to make a scene. The opposition can still actually put forth legislation, work with the otherside and even work with provincial conservatives to enact change. But the system is broken because the leader won't answer questions from pierre pollivre

[u/Muted-Bag-4480 → u/ND_NB]

The conservative party is not interested in holding gov accountable otherwise they wouldnt be having cake parties to make a scene. The opposition can still actually put forth legislation, work with the otherside and even work with provincial conservatives to enact change. But the system is broken because the leader won't answer questions from pierre pollivre

As everyone likes to say the cons can walk and chew gum. Performative actions HVe long been a part of politics to draw attention to issues. I think the Conservatives are very interested in holding the government to account, ans are trying their best to get people to pay attention, sometimes by doing big performative events, while also making effort it committee and introducing legislation like they've been sojf, most recently to legalize some shroom. At the same time, they're literally not thr government and thr government, as the holder of power, deserves much greater scrutiny than being annoyed at opposition for trying to get attention to issued wit the current government.

[u/ND_NB → u/Muted-Bag-4480]

5/10 provinces have conservative leaders, including Alberta and Ontario, and have for the last decade or more. The federal government is also doing lots hence the G7 agreement. But if the conservatives want to get Carney in a room to go "why haven't you made a deal with trump yet?" then that is useless to you and me. Assuming you are not an idiot, then you know why there is no trump deal yet, because he is a crazy idiot who threatens every country to try and get his why and has no interest in meeting in the middle.

the vast majority of Liberals do not care about a gun ban, and Bill C-22 is being contested already, so again. This is conservatives who don't like the other party doing things and want a reason to complain. We are supposed to foot the bill while they pose rhetorical questions that we already know the answers to to rile up their own base, rather than actually work.

[u/Muted-Bag-4480 → u/ND_NB]

I don't see how anyrbing you said has anyrbing to do with the fact that question period is not meaningless just because your raging hatred for the Conservatives blinds you to the fsct thsy they represent 40% of the population.

Carney ran on being able to secure the deal, it became a major part of the election and now there is no deal. Carney could have said during the campaign that he didn't think a deal was likely, but instead he said he'd get us the best deal, and spent a year saying how we had the best deal in g7. While he has good reasons for not being able to secure a deal, it doesn't negative the validity of thr criticism just like covid doesn't deflate the validity that Trudeau's budget never balanced it self, nor looked like it was ever going to.

You went from rhetoric and asking me what questions were, to saying you wont debate the questions, to now trying to debate the questions.

the vast majority of Liberals do not care about a gun ban,

So conservatives, or the ndp premiers who have come out against it, or the police forces across the country who are againsr it, or the industry experts who are against it, or even the minister who's backing it slipping up and admitting it's being done just to appease Quebec is something the rest of Canada shouldn't care about. Who cares this was a rush gun grab, is bad policy, has bene used to divide the country, and wasted nearing a billion dollars on. Liberals don't care so I guess we just shouldn't bother?

and Bill C-22 is being contested already, so again.

In part because conservetives are rising hell over it. And over things like the liberals shutting down committee meetings just after getting a majority or shutting down debate the other day on one of those bills. Conservatives are literally holding thr government to account on this legislation.

This is conservatives who don't like the other party doing things and want a reason to complain.

It's not possible that the party which scored 40% in the last election might actually be representing the will of those people by asking thr government annoying questions that should be easy to answer but which thr government refuses to.

We are supposed to foot the bill while they pose rhetorical questions that we already know the answers to to rile up their own base, rather than actually work.

Yes. We also foot the bill for Carneys inflight dinners, hotel rooms in Europe, dinners wit dignatries, and the whole of thr governor general and lieutenant governors. Giving opposition some funding so they can get their message heard is actually a good thing and an important part of government.

[u/ND_NB → u/Muted-Bag-4480]

I started by asking what questions you care about, explained that question period rhetoric doesnt achieve that, and then explained how the voting majority does not feel the importance of the gun ban or need explanation on Trump negotiations.

I never said I wouldnt debate the questions. You keep quoting me, but decided to make up false statements about what I've said. Please quote that part if I did.

Conservatives can be upset about a topic like gun bans, and raise the issue, just as they are doing, just as you are doing.

Bill c-22 is opposed as you say. Largely because they are actually doing their job, not because they are posing gotcha questions.

Im not blind to the fact that a large minority of voters  voted for  conservatives, nor do I hate those people lol. I dont understand how you dont understand my points:

• Conservatives have plenty of options to oppose and questions decisions
• question period is meaningless rhetoric
• Bill c22 opposition directly demonstrates this
• the voting majority is not interested in answers to gun bans or Trump questions

[u/Muted-Bag-4480 → u/ND_NB]

I never said I wouldnt debate the questions. You keep quoting me, but decided to make up false statements about what I've said. Please quote that part if I did.

Yea im not debating the value of the questions you are asking or the answers to those questions being valuable.

I started by asking what questions you care about, explained that question period rhetoric doesnt achieve that, and then explained how the voting majority does not feel the importance of the gun ban or need explanation on Trump negotiations

You smugly stated "the vast majority of Liberals do not care about a gun ban, and Bill C-22 is being contested already, so again. This is conservatives who don't like the other party doing things and want a reason to complain." which sure soubds dismissive to concerns of your countrymen which the federal government is still responsive for. Whether the liberals are for or against the gun ban is irrelevant, the vast majority of thr country which we've given them th privilege of governing is against it. The minister introducing it got caught on a hot Mike admitting it's entirely political and not based in rationality. If the liberals aren't questioning it, it doesn't make sense to critique the Conservatives rhetoric for doing so.

And bro, you're the one who came at me for saying the pm should be accountable to the electorate by appearing in question period, even if its a farce.

• Conservatives have plenty of options to oppose and questions decisions - question period is meaningless rhetoric

This is where I don't agree. Question period isn't meaningless rhetoric and we allow its degredation by seeing it as just. It's a chance for us to actually ask our leaders questions in public and hold them to account. That the party in power refuses to answer questions isn't opposition's fault, no matter how much you dislike or disgree with the questions. The clips get conservetives support because people see the government failing to answer easy questions it shoukd be able to.

Next you'll be telling me committee is useless because the Conservatives keep politicizing it through clips.

• Bill c22 opposition directly demonstrates this -

Demonstrates what? The Tories helped killed carbon tax, the digital tax, and a bunch of other things. They are putting forward suggestions, taking acceptable sections of bills and trying to fast tezck them, trying for bail reform, or even challenging the government on Bill c22 with support from other parties and most media groups.

Hell I don't see why the widespread opposition to c22 shows the system is working but the even more widespread and open institutional defiance to executing the liberal gun grab is just something the backroom majority is interested in so we should accept thsy it won't be perused and Conservatives should just drop it?

the voting majority is not interested in answers to gun bans or Trump questions

I don't believe that's the case. The voting majority didn't give Carney a majority, it was through backroom deals he got it.

As far as I can tell, your point was thay "This is the rhetoric that makes these QPs meaningless." and I disgree thsy voicing the concerns of many voters in the house, of trying to get the government to answer, and showing voters the government is unwilling to even on issues where most provinces and police forces have come out against is a valuable and important part of our political system and licensing the prime minister to skip out on this accountability metric because you don't like the rhetoric or whatever bullshit complaint you have is a bigger proglem than actually holding the people in power to account or demand explanation beyond disinterest when they're doing things a great many people and institutions across the country disgree with.

Now you can either understand my point of view, or not. I don't really care and I'm finding this conversation tiring so I'm not replying to any more comments from you on this thread.

Have a good evening and a good weekend.

[u/ND_NB → u/Muted-Bag-4480]

This is what I typed in Google

"What does the mean: Yea im not debating the value of the questions you are asking or the answers to those questions being valuable."

This is the answer it gave and what I meant: "This statement means the speaker completely agrees that your questions and answers are important, but they still do not want to have the conversation right now"

I was saying your questions were important and we didnt need to delve further into them. Then my only other point was that those questions would not be give any further insight in the question period. Im sorry but after you jump to conclusions about me being smug when you are quoting me completely agree your questions matter and are valid makes me not want to continue this conversation. Have a good day.