trudeau crossed the floor and pushed aside NDP MPs

[Locutus]

Locutus is a fine mod, I don't know why you guys complain about him so much.

everyone can relax their sphincter. is gray good enough for the crybabies? ;-)

 

[Angstrom]

Yeah... not quite what I said.

I believe that it is fair and reasonable for a government to invoke time allocation on a bill that must be passed by a due date handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada. If the Conservatives and the New Democrats are going to attempt to intentionally defy the Supreme Court (as the Tories, we know at least, are wont to do) then it is up to the executive branch of government to use the time allocation powers that the House itself, by majority vote, has authorized.

Let us remember that the government proposed that there be an entire day of debate on the report stage of the bill (i.e., on the amendments proposed by the legislative committee); an entire day of debate on the third reading stage of the bill; and that the bill must still pass all stages of debate in the Honourable the Senate. Any amendments made in the senate to the bill (and there will be amendments) would also have been open to debate in the Commons.

The desire to speed up the passage of the bill, in areas where the government has that prerogative to ask, and where the Commons accepts, is entirely reasonable in this context. Let us recall that if our Parliament has not enacted Bill C-14 within the next two weeks, then we have no in-force legislation the books respecting physician-assisted dying.

And the NDP find this complete unacceptable? And are trying to slow the political process by being little children about it? And some people are starting to be annoyed with the childish behaviour of some NDP members?

Thanks for helping us clear that up 5P

 

[PoliticalNick]

Not when your arround that's for sure :lol: With your 168 IQ

It's ok I'll explain everything for you, like a small child

maybe you can have a other hissy fit and get all homophobe on us again :lol:

You do whatever you like. I have an ignore button for morons like you when I'm done letting you make yourself look foolish.

 

[Angstrom]

You do whatever you like. I have an ignore button for morons like you when I'm done letting you make yourself look foolish.

Knock yourself out, Douchbag :lol:

 

[PoliticalNick]

Yeah... not quite what I said.

I believe that it is fair and reasonable for a government to invoke time allocation on a bill that must be passed by a due date handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada. If the Conservatives and the New Democrats are going to attempt to intentionally defy the Supreme Court (as the Tories, we know at least, are wont to do) then it is up to the executive branch of government to use the time allocation powers that the House itself, by majority vote, has authorized.

Let us remember that the government proposed that there be an entire day of debate on the report stage of the bill (i.e., on the amendments proposed by the legislative committee); an entire day of debate on the third reading stage of the bill; and that the bill must still pass all stages of debate in the Honourable the Senate. Any amendments made in the senate to the bill (and there will be amendments) would also have been open to debate in the Commons.

The desire to speed up the passage of the bill, in areas where the government has that prerogative to ask, and where the Commons accepts, is entirely reasonable in this context. Let us recall that if our Parliament has not enacted Bill C-14 within the next two weeks, then we have no in-force legislation the books respecting physician-assisted dying.

You lost all credibility and respect when you called the Senate "honorable"

What we have if they don't pass it is a supreme court ruling allowing assisted suicide. Any legislation is going to wind up under challenge to the SCC by the pro-lifers and HRCC anyway so why bother, just let the initial SCC ruling stand and save us all a bunch of time and money.

 

[Angstrom]

You lost all credibility and respect when you called the Senate "honorable".

Didn't I call it? Pure douchbag style talk. Trying to sound smart.

With his IQ of 168 :lol:

 

[FiveParadox]

You lost all credibility and respect when you called the Senate "honorable"

What we have if they don't pass it is a supreme court ruling allowing assisted suicide. Any legislation is going to wind up under challenge to the SCC by the pro-lifers and HRCC anyway so why bother, just let the initial SCC ruling stand and save us all a bunch of time and money.

You questioning anyone else's credibility in this debate is laughable.

You clasp desperately to the constitution, claiming that the Liberals were violating our constitution. Make your case. Show me where it says, despite all of the constitutional and parliamentary precedents to the contrary, that it is unconstitutional for the House of Commons to invoke time allocation on a piece of legislation. Show me something in the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, or the Parliament of Canada Act, or some quasi-constitutional bill, to prove this.

You claim that the government ignored the House's own standing orders by invoking time allocation. Well, there is no standing order that requires that each bill must be debated. And, in fact, the invocation of time allocation is by the very standing orders themselves, in standing order 78(3).

You're claiming that the government is acting unconstitutionally and in contravention of the House's rules, while the things that you're saying to back up your argument are the very picture-perfect definition of untrue. You're not debating, you're just saying a bunch of dramatic words and hoping that they stick. I've found some resources to explain the legislative process to you.

 

[Angstrom]

You questioning anyone else's credibility in this debate is laughable.

You clasp desperately to the constitution, claiming that the Liberals were violating our constitution. Make your case. Show me where it says, despite all of the constitutional and parliamentary precedents to the contrary, that it is unconstitutional for the House of Commons to invoke time allocation on a piece of legislation. Show me something in the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, or the Parliament of Canada Act, or some quasi-constitutional bill, to prove this.

You claim that the government ignored the House's own standing orders by invoking time allocation. Well, there is no standing order that requires that each bill must be debated. And, in fact, the invocation of time allocation is by the very standing orders themselves, in standing order 78(3).

You're claiming that the government is acting unconstitutionally and in contravention of the House's rules, while the things that you're saying to back up your argument are the very picture-perfect definition of untrue. You're not debating, you're just saying a bunch of dramatic words and hoping that they stick. I've found some resources to explain the legislative process to you.

He's just a troll

And not even good at it :lol:

 

[PoliticalNick]

You questioning anyone else's credibility in this debate is laughable.

You clasp desperately to the constitution, claiming that the Liberals were violating our constitution. Make your case. Show me where it says, despite all of the constitutional and parliamentary precedents to the contrary, that it is unconstitutional for the House of Commons to invoke time allocation on a piece of legislation. Show me something in the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, or the Parliament of Canada Act, or some quasi-constitutional bill, to prove this.

You claim that the government ignored the House's own standing orders by invoking time allocation. Well, there is no standing order that requires that each bill must be debated. And, in fact, the invocation of time allocation is by the very standing orders themselves, in standing order 78(3).

You're claiming that the government is acting unconstitutionally and in contravention of the House's rules, while the things that you're saying to back up your argument are the very picture-perfect definition of untrue. You're not debating, you're just saying a bunch of dramatic words and hoping that they stick. I've found some resources to explain the legislative process to you.

My guess is you are either employed by big govt or the liberal party somehow. I could be wrong but the way you defend both is completely distasteful to me and indicative of someone who makes a living from other peoples money without a care about those people. Go read the constitution for yoyrself but you don't know the difference between 'house standing orders' and the 'rules of order' so I'm guessing it's over your head.

 

[gerryh]

My guess is you are either employed by big govt or the liberal party somehow. I could be wrong but the way you defend both is completely distasteful to me and indicative of someone who makes a living from other peoples money without a care about those people. Go read the constitution for yoyrself but you don't know the difference between 'house standing orders' and the 'rules of order' so I'm guessing it's over your head.

How about you prove him wrong. I say you can't. I say you are nothing but a blow hard that has never read the constitution and really doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. Prove him wrong, blowhard, or admit angstrom is right.

 

[PoliticalNick]

How about you prove him wrong. I say you can't. I say you are nothing but a blow hard that has never read the constitution and really doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. Prove him wrong, blowhard, or admit angstrom is right.

What you say means nothing to me. I don't need to prove anything to anyone especially you or Angdingbat. Do your own research or just take what the govt feeds you.

 

[Angstrom]

What you say means nothing to me. I don't need to prove anything to anyone especially you or Angdingbat. Do your own research or just take what the govt feeds you.

Look at this predictable turns of events.

It's all a big conspiracy!!!!!

Best we all get our tin foil hats out for this special douchbag.
Ok I got my hat on, let's have your conspiracy theories on why your right.

This is going to be good :lol:

 

[gerryh]

What you say means nothing to me. I don't need to prove anything to anyone especially you or Angdingbat. Do your own research or just take what the govt feeds you.

I have, and it doesn't say anything even close to what you have stated. So, you admit then that you don't have a clue and are just talking out of your a$$....as usual.

 

[Angstrom]

I have, and it doesn't say anything even close to what you have stated. So, you admit then that you don't have a clue and are just talking out of your a$$....as usual.

I've psycho analyzed him and his pride gets the better of him..... Often.

I can't see this loser ever having the strength of character to admit he's wrong.

 

[JLM]

Yeah... not quite what I said.

I believe that it is fair and reasonable for a government to invoke time allocation on a bill that must be passed by a due date handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada. If the Conservatives and the New Democrats are going to attempt to intentionally defy the Supreme Court (as the Tories, we know at least, are wont to do) then it is up to the executive branch of government to use the time allocation powers that the House itself, by majority vote, has authorized.

Let us remember that the government proposed that there be an entire day of debate on the report stage of the bill (i.e., on the amendments proposed by the legislative committee); an entire day of debate on the third reading stage of the bill; and that the bill must still pass all stages of debate in the Honourable the Senate. Any amendments made in the senate to the bill (and there will be amendments) would also have been open to debate in the Commons.

The desire to speed up the passage of the bill, in areas where the government has that prerogative to ask, and where the Commons accepts, is entirely reasonable in this context. Let us recall that if our Parliament has not enacted Bill C-14 within the next two weeks, then we have no in-force legislation the books respecting physician-assisted dying.

Makes sense to me!

 

[FiveParadox]

My guess is you are either employed by big govt or the liberal party somehow. I could be wrong but the way you defend both is completely distasteful to me and indicative of someone who makes a living from other peoples money without a care about those people. Go read the constitution for yourself but you don't know the difference between 'house standing orders' and the 'rules of order' so I'm guessing it's over your head.

Afraid I'm employed by neither the government nor by the Liberal Party. Good guess, though.

I have indeed read our constitutional texts. The Constitution Act, 1867 expressly states that the House inherits the powers and privileges of its counterpart in the United Kingdom as at the time of confederation; that includes the power of the House to regulate its own affairs through its own rules. The same Act also states that any decision in the House is decided by a majority of votes. Not just votes on whether a bill should be adopted. Rather, this extends, too, to votes on expressions of the House's opinion, instructions and orders of the House, and decisions on how the House, itself, should be governed. A decision that there has been enough debate is, too, the constitutional right — and indeed the exclusive constitutional prerogative — of the House.

As to the rules of order, sure, let us discuss.

The House governs itself under House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by Marleau and Montpetit. Chapter 14 addresses, specifically, the curtailment of debate. That's right... the House's procedures and practices, its rules of order, provide expressly for mechanisms for the House to bring debate to an end on any given question. Let's consider this passage, which sums it up nicely:

"One of the fundamental principles of parliamentary procedure is that debate in the House of Commons must lead to an unimpeded decision in a reasonable time. [...] The rules pertaining to the "curtailment of debate" invite the House as a whole to pronounce itself on the issue of limiting debate on a particular item of business beyond what the normal rules would otherwise allow. [...] The question of a Member's freedom of speech — a basic parliamentary privilege — has no relevance to this process." — House of Commons Procedure and Practice, c. 14​

 

[Angstrom]

Afraid I'm employed by neither the government nor by the Liberal Party. Good guess, though.

I have indeed read our constitutional texts. The Constitution Act, 1867 expressly states that the House inherits the powers and privileges of its counterpart in the United Kingdom as at the time of confederation; that includes the power of the House to regulate its own affairs through its own rules. The same Act also states that any decision in the House is decided by a majority of votes. Not just votes on whether a bill should be adopted. Rather, this extends, too, to votes on expressions of the House's opinion, instructions and orders of the House, and decisions on how the House, itself, should be governed. A decision that there has been enough debate is, too, the constitutional right — and indeed the exclusive constitutional prerogative — of the House.

As to the rules of order, sure, let us discuss.

The House governs itself under House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by Marleau and Montpetit. Chapter 14 addresses, specifically, the curtailment of debate. That's right... the House's procedures and practices, its rules of order, provide expressly for mechanisms for the House to bring debate to an end on any given question. Let's consider this passage, which sums it up nicely:

"One of the fundamental principles of parliamentary procedure is that debate in the House of Commons must lead to an unimpeded decision in a reasonable time. [...] The rules pertaining to the "curtailment of debate" invite the House as a whole to pronounce itself on the issue of limiting debate on a particular item of business beyond what the normal rules would otherwise allow. [...] The question of a Member's freedom of speech — a basic parliamentary privilege — has no relevance to this process." — House of Commons Procedure and Practice, c. 14​

Well, look, at that. I learnt something new today. Thanks 5P.

 

[JLM]

Sure. According to a liberal we don't need any debate on anything. Heck we might as well save a ton of money and not bother sending any opposition MPs to Ottawa. Just let the majority govt do whatever whenever. Perfect sense.

Hadn't they already been debating when things erupted?

 

[Angstrom]

Hadn't they already been debating when things erupted?

Basically the NDP are not taking their new role in the parliament as irrelevant very well. They feel belittled. Tom is feeling jealousy the Liberals and Justin call the shots. :lol:

Did Tom apologize to Trudeau for his rude comments yet?

What you say means nothing to me. I don't need to prove anything to anyone especially you or Angdingbat. Do your own research or just take what the govt feeds you.

BTW , Thanks for letting us make fun of you all evening long, and be sure to drop by anytime, we can use idiots like you around here. Things get boring when all we have is 10 intelligent people in a thread.

 

[JLM]

Basically the NDP are not taking their new role in the parliament as irrelevant very well. They feel belittled. Tom is feeling jealousy the Liberals and Justin call the shots. :lol:

Did Tom apologize to Trudeau for his rude comments yet?

I don't think it's rocket science, after Jack Layton's death I predicted the Federal N.D.P. would slip back to their historic level of 30 - 40 seats & it's pretty tough to obtain opposition status at that level.