Idea alert

From Peter Milliken’s conversation with John Geddes, the former Speaker suggests a possible punishment for unparliamentary behaviour.

Q: But why not throw out MPs more often when they get out of line?

A: Before I was Speaker, I said one of the problems with this practice of giving the Speaker the power to throw a guy out is that he’s out of the chamber for a day. No rights or privileges suspended. He gets paid. He can fly to Vancouver. He can go to work in his office. He can go to caucus meetings. He can go and have a press conference in the foyer.

Q: What would be a better punishment?

A: My urging years ago, when I was not Speaker, was the guy should be thrown out of the Parliament Buildings, not allowed in for the rest of the day. All travelling privileges suspended and his pay docked for the day. Then the guy would start listening to what the Speaker says. Otherwise, you just make a saint of the person. He can hold a press conference and say, I called the prime minister a liar, or whatever the offence was, and I was right. Blah, blah, blah. He’ll get more media coverage if the Speaker threw him out. It’s not a very effective penalty.




Browse

Idea alert

  1. And for blindsiding, a four game suspension!

  2. It used to be an effective punishment….back when politicians felt shame.

    • When the heck was that?!

      • When ‘behaving like a gentlman’ was a matter of honour.

        • So, like, the 19th century?

          • Well most everything was written in 1867…by Victorian gentlemen…so they depended a lot on honour.being a determining factor.

          • Jesus, have you ever read 19th-century Hansard? a 19th-century newspaper?

          • @Leroy Mouchelette…..yes, I have. The lower classes weren’t ‘gentlemen’ by definition

  3. Throwing someone out of the House to wander downtown Ottawa for a day? That’s punishment? That’s tourism.

    • We’re talking about downtown OTTAWA here.

      There’s a fine line between tourism and punishment.

      • And there’s occasionally the horizontal rain.

  4. Even better punishment.. lock the MP in and dock pay.

  5. ” ….. was the guy should be thrown out of the Parliament Buildings, not allowed in for the rest of the day.  All travelling privileges suspended and his pay docked for the day. Then the guy would start listening to what the Speaker says.”

     
    Bad idea alert, more like.

    Treat adults like adults, not children.

    How do we know MPs would start listening? Someone always feels aggrieved. Surely we have enough rules already for MPs to break, breaking rules is what people do.

    For all we know, MP local popularity might go sky high because they’re breaking rules. 

    Taking children’s privileges away does not always get desired reaction.

    “When people have power, they act the part. Powerful people smile less, interrupt others, and speak in a louder voice. When people do not respect the basic rules of social behavior, they lead others to believe that they have power, according to a study in the current Social Psychological and Personality Science.”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110520092735.htm

    • I thought you were down on the social sciences?

      • That is so 2 days ago. LOL

        • Even though he seems to use a random quote generator, there was that one consistent theme…

          • Until today. LOL

      • “I thought you were down on the social sciences?”

        I should have been more clear, only certain part of social sciences, the ones who are batsh#t crazy and think communism was good idea. Social science pre-1960s was also good, old social science was producing interesting work.

        Also, irritating the marxists out there, I wasn’t trying to make an argument against all social science.

        Marxists believe in tabula rasa (nurture) and I believe genes (nature) are way more important. So I favour social scientists who make sense to me and others chose their own experts to guide them. 

        Social scientists I like are small sliver of social sciences at moment, there is hostility within social sciences towards evolutionary psychology and it is hard for them to do their work. 

        Olver Wendell Holmes ~ Do not be bullied out of your common sense by the specialist; two to one, he is a pedant.

        “Gross also found that 25 percent of sociologists characterize themselves as Marxists, likely a higher percentage than members of the Chinese Communist party. I would guess that if Lenin were around today he would be teaching sociology and seeking grants to fund the revolution.”

        • Well there are maybe 10 people in the whole country who have anything other than an academic interest in Marx or communism….and I’ve never heard of any of them mentioning tabula rasa. LOL

          Mind you, ‘bad blood’ as a theory, which is what you mean by ‘genes’, died out years ago. We all have the same DNA.

          You do know Albert Einstein was a socialist, right?

          • And you don’t believe in genes because you don’t want to think about what it says about you, and other progressives, who are amoral cretins without conscience.

            That’s why Canada murders children, lets pedophiles roam free on early parole, Native situation is dire and all progressives do is claim that experts know what they are doing and get mad for pointing out their perfidy.

            “So Albert Einstein did not, after all, spend all his waking hours chalking up complex symbols on a blackboard. 

            According to letters newly released this week, he devoted quite a bit of it to chasing the ladies. And with considerable success.

            Einstein’s affairs should surprise no one, says Desmond Morris. It is all in the genius’s genes.”

            http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1684210/posts

          • Genes determine your physical characteristics, they don’t determine your personality.  It’s not a matter of ‘believing’, it’s science.

            Aaain I don’t know of any political party called ‘progressives’,
            but I’m a firm believer in progress. 

            I see you’re on a religious kick again tonight…..great religion you have there that allows you to call people names, and lie about them. What religion IS that anyway?

            I assumed you knew who Einstein was…my mistake.

          • Wow, that’s fascinating stuff about the DNA.  Thanks for sharing the link.  I’m in agreement with you on almost all the stuff you’re saying on this thread, except when you then conclude that ‘progressives . . . are amoral cretins without conscience.’  Or that ‘progressives claim experts know what they are doing’ with regards to the Native situation.  I’ve certainly never said that.  But then, I don’t think we have ‘experts’ doing anything with the Native situation right now, either.  Progressives, on the other hand, did manage to negotiate a Kelowna Accord, which would have improved things.  It was cancelled just as it was starting to be implemented–one could presume by “amoral cretins without conscience”.

            But maybe that’s one of those pesky truths that get in the way of a good narrative.

          • “Progressives, on the other hand, did manage to negotiate a Kelowna Accord, which would have improved things … ”

            2Jenn you provide evidence that we knew over 100 hundred years ago that Government should not control Natives.

            Why do you think Kelowna Accord would have accord when we have over a century of failure?

            “Gary Becker – Nobel Prize - presented evidence that discrimination is more pervasive in more-regulated, and therefore less-competitive, industries.”

            “While Canada routinely ranks in the top ten of the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) – a quality of life indicator … registered Indians living on reserves are ranked approximately 68th, somewhere between Bosnia and Venezuela, while off-reserve Indians are ranked 36th.”

          • “Mind you, ‘bad blood’ as a theory, which is what you mean by ‘genes’, died out years ago. We all have the same DNA.”

            Really? I thought progressives were guided by science and intellectuals and yet you claim moronic things like that.

            Research has been conducted regarding this debate which has resulted in a conclusion that both genes and environment do play a role in the criminality of an individual. 

            This evidence has been generated from a number of twin, family, and adoption studies as well as laboratory experiments. Furthermore, the research has stated that it is more often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior. 

            Having a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior does not determine the actions of an individual, but if they are exposed to the right environment, then their chances are greater for engaging in criminal or anti-social behavior.

            http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jones.html

          • Normal rational people are guided by science, yes….and there is no such thing as bad blood. Gawd, I haven’t heard THAT crap in at least half a century.

            All humans have the same DNA

          • “Gawd, I haven’t heard THAT crap in at least half a century. All humans have the same DNA”

            I don’t doubt your ignorance but maybe you should start educating yourself. Scientists have no idea how humans work, they are still trying to figure it out. Maybe DNA is same, maybe it isn’t. 

            You are not in favour of progress if you are proud of being a dullard for fifty years. 

            “Research by a group of Montreal scientists calls into question one of the most basic assumptions of human genetics: that when it comes to DNA, every cell in the body is essentially identical to every other cell. Their results appear in the July issue of the journal Human Mutation.

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715131449.htm

          • @Tony_Adams:disqus 
            Yes, actually, scientists do know. The genetic code was broken last century.

            Your misleading half-assed quotes notwithstanding

Sign in to comment.