trudeau crossed the floor and pushed aside NDP MPs

Angstrom

Angstrom

Hall of Fame Member
May 8, 2011
10,659
0
36
You having a other homophobic hissy fit :lol:
Keep it up PoliticalTwit, We are all getting a good laugh out of you :lol:

When no one agrees with you, it always automatically indicates a huge government homosexual conspiracy. ;).

It's easy to guess why you hate Justin Trudeau so much ;)
 
Last edited:
Locutus

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
67
Retired_Can_Soldier said:
If Trudeau needs a lawyer, might I suggest...
Click to expand...

they did a nice job on her. she looks so peaceful.
 
pgs

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
29,033
8,437
113
B.C.
FiveParadox said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is it not the Speaker of the House's job ?

FiveParadox said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is it not the Speaker of the House's job ?

gerryh said:
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.
Click to expand...
What is the statute number that supports this ?

FiveParadox said:
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​
Click to expand...
Is it not the Speakers job to enforce the rules ?
 
captain morgan

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
JLM said:
Do you think the elbow to the chest was intentional & if so what confirms that contention?
Click to expand...

As was pointed out, it is irrelevant if it was intentional or purposeful.

... But to really speculate properly on this issue, one would want to incorporate all of the relevant info including JT's mindset at the time and his actions.... I know you don't enjoy recognizing these elements, but he did leave his seat for a purpose and he was swearing like a fool at all those in his path.... Pretty fair to say that he was quite angry.

He needs help
 
pgs

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
29,033
8,437
113
B.C.
captain morgan said:
As was pointed out, it is irrelevant if it was intentional or purposeful.

... But to really speculate properly on this issue, one would want to incorporate all of the relevant info including JT's mindset at the time and his actions.... I know you don't enjoy recognizing these elements, but he did leave his seat for a purpose and he was swearing like a fool at all those in his path.... Pretty fair to say that he was quite angry.

He needs help
Click to expand...
And he was preforming the Speakers role .
 
captain morgan

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Maybe the speaker was tired that day.

How nice of JT.

#Elbowgate: PM's elbow meets MP's chest and a Twitter trend is born - Trending - CBC News

but critics maintain that the PM was out of line when he crossed the floor to physically move (or "manhandle," as NDP House Leader Peter Julian put it) Opposition Whip Gord Brown.

"What kind of man elbows a woman?" NDP Leader Tom Mulcair apparently shouted as cameras rolled on The House of Commons. "It's pathetic! You're pathetic!"
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
The salt is real folks.

I guess that's what happens when nothing you can say will change the political landscape.


Poor, poor conbots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom