Watching CPAC, I am getting tired of Canadian politics

I have been watching CPAC for the last week or so and I am so damn frustrated with the politicians especially the Liberals and the Conservatives because it is only a game for so it appears.

They make these comments on issues like it really matters to them, but then in the next incident they are all laughs and buddy buddy.

It is just the same, and they don't really care about the average joe except for the select few, mostly NDP or Bloc members.

Its sad.

Welcome to the club jersay

Don't watch Cpac for longer then 5 minutes a day bro.

It actually drove my grand mother insane for over a year. She was hospitalized and was even ordered not to watch Cpac.. I'm not kidding. She better now however.

Wow.

I think i am not going to watch it again for at least a little while. I think it shortens the life span.

I'm not allowed to watch when the wife is at home because either I start yelling at the TV or I sit there bitching for the entire time its on.

I would argue that CPAC is perhaps the best way to inform one's self on the state of affairs in Canada — I have discovered, in my experience, that it is subject to the least bias out of any network that I have seen broadcast "the issues". However to return to the topic of the thread: Jersay, I would agree that at least in the House of Commons, the conduct of both the Government of Canada and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (with respect to their supporters, of course) has been quite disconcerting.

In fact, today I believe, watching the Webcast of CPAC during school, I was forced to see the Honourable Peter Milliken, M.P., the Member for Kingston and the Islands and the Speaker of the House of Commons, chastize the entire House for their conduct during their proceedings. The Speaker then indicated that he would like to point out, in particular, the conduct of the parties to his "immediate left and right" — the Tories, and the Grits.

Hey Paradox how is the Grit speaker doing these days in the conservative house?

It appears that the Speaker is adjusting quite appropriately to the new configuration of the House; given the often-perceived lack of decorum during the Thirty-eighth Parliament of Canada, the Speaker has been seen to be far more stringent in terms of his attempts to keep decorum in the House, as can be seen by the comments that he made today.

However, the Speaker is not the only member having to adjust; Andrew Scheer, M.P., the Member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the Assistant Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole (a member of the Conservative Party of Canada) found himself in an odd position when a war of words erupted during a point of order between a Tory and a Grit; the Tory had accused the Grit of being a liar (which is unparliamentary, and cannot be done), and instead of withdrawing his comments, said that he would "reserve" his comments for outside the House of Commons (which is not the same thing as a withdrawal). Members of the opposition parties were sceaming prima facie breach, and demanding the booting of the Tory from the House. Luckily for the Chair, the situation diffused (more or less) before things got out of hand.

Wow I'm sure if I had watched that I would have lost years off my life. lmao.

It will be interesting.... if the house ties and the tie breaker gets caste. I mean the whole house will go nuts that day (if it happens).

Finder, I don't think that it would be quite so exciting.

While the Speaker of the House of Commons is not barred by any Statute, provision of the Constitution, or regulation from voting as per his or her conscience, there are many conventions that would dictate the way in which the Speaker should vote (and these conventions have not been breached in any obvious fashion since the creation of the Commons of Canada).

Where there is a tied vote on a motion, the Speaker should vote, where he or she can, in favour of the status quo — on questions of first reading, a Speaker would vote in favour of the motion; on questions of second reading, the Speaker would vote in favour of the motion; at report stage, the Speaker would vote in favour of the motions; at third reading, the Speaker would reject the legislation, knowing that it can be introduced again at a later time (however, if such a piece of legislation were a motion of confidence, the convention for the third reading is somewhat unclear).

Paradox I understand what you are saying but like the last time we got into this debate and you said unless the conservatives got a magority the Liberals would still get the first chance to form the next government I was always on the other side saying the conservatives would if they had more seats and they did. Agains I'd state it would be up to the speaker to decide how he would vote and since I believe we have not had a speaker ever from an opisition party, it would be very interesting to see how he would vote.

Javert I think your fooling yourself again to think the presidance stands blindly when we have never had this happen before.

Finder, we have had Speakers from opposition parties before. They're nowhere near as common as Speakers² from the Government, but it has indeed happened. And yes, the incumbent Government has the right to attempt to secure the support of the House; the Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., M.P., the Member for LaSalle—Émard decided not to seak his right to do so, and so it was not considered. Yes, as I mentioned above, the Speaker does have the right to vote as he sees appropriate; however, they do not do so (never since Confederation), because it would breach their non-partisan status. We have been in this situation before.

The precedents are there.

I would urge you to review the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by Marleau and Monpetit; I think that Chapter 7 (perhaps Chapter 8)¹ is the chapter on the Speakership. It's on the Parliament of Canada Web site, a link on the right-hand-side, here.

:!: Revision : (1) Corrected a formatting error. (2) Corrected a typing error.

hmmm I still think you are wrong Paradox. Lets put it this way. If this comes to happen and the speaker votes for the oppistion you buy me a coke, if he doesn't I'll buy you a coke. ok?

I would suggest, Finder, that no Speaker (in particular, in modern times) would dare to risk the censure of the House. The idea that a Speaker could continue where the House would no longer trust the non-partisanship of the Speakership has occurred once, I think (though not over a vote), and the Speaker was forced from the Chair.

Would you prefer that I post a list of opposition Speakers?

Or perhaps quote the text of the House of Commons Procedure?

Ok ok Paradox, your right and I'm wrong... but if the speaker votes against the government you so owe me a coke!


edit: damnit I guess I'm no longer the know it all of CC. =-(

Nor do you have more posts than me. :P

(On a related note, when did our post counts get so far apart? We were at par for the longest time! And no, you can still be a know-it-all — just not in terms of decorum and protocol of the Parliament of Canada. I am a stickler for tradition, protocol, pomp and circumstance. :P)

lol.
I know bro, you got so many more then I do now. You know whats it's from? My work schedule. When I'm on my 4 days off I rarely post. So every 3 weeks you get 4 extra posting days then I. Plus I think your slightly more insane then I as you have over 25 posts a day and I'm usually around 13-16 posts depending....


edit: and we started almost at the same time too lol.