Not quite a sleepover after all


As per the Speaker’s ruling this morning, there will be a maximum of 47 votes on C-45 at report stage. For the sake of comparison, there were 157 votes required to get through C-38 in the spring.

Kady O’Malley, meanwhile, notes Peter Van Loan’s argument from yesterday afternoon as the parties continued to debate procedure.

The independent member’s motions are an interesting question. They require some attention, because the independent member does not sit on committee. However, they should not be dealt with in such a manner that they represent, effectively, a harassment of the balance of the House. Compared to the several hundred amendments proposed by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in June, on Bill C-38, her proposals as of today’s date are slightly less unreasonable. However, the fact remains that the rights of individual members of Parliament must be balanced with the ability of the majority of the House to dispatch its business with some reasonable, practical speed. Allowing a single member of Parliament to hold the House hostage in a voting marathon is simply not reasonable.

I propose the following arrangement, which could, in future, extend to other government bills. Report stage motions submitted by a member of Parliament who is not part of a recognized party shall be selected in the manner provided for by our rules. The selected motions may be grouped for debate in the usual fashion. Subject to the next point, the voting patterns for the motions would be set in the usual manner, as required by the ordinary practices of considering legislative amendments. However, one amendment per independent member of Parliament would be chosen to be a test vote. The voting pattern for the rest of that independent member’s motions would only be implemented if the test motion were adopted. A rejection of the test motion would be inferred as a rejection of all that member’s proposals. Therefore, the balance of the independent member’s motions would not be put to the House.


Not quite a sleepover after all

  1. Margaret Thatcher ~ I love argument, I love debate. I don’t expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that’s not their job.

    Herbert Hoover ~ It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own.

    • Comparing Lizzy May to Maggy Thatcher and Herby Hoover is a bit rich, don’t you think?

      • “A rejection of the test motion would be inferred as a rejection of all that member’s proposals. Therefore, the balance of the independent member’s motions would not be put to the House.”

        Reading comprehension much?

        Really, this is going to be funny: you two arguing over this.

        For once, it seems, Tony’s quotes are relevant.

        • Shhhh, don’t get her going on the other half of the quote; the one about dictators, we’ll be here all day.

          • You are here most of the days anyways. What keeps you hooked to these comment pages if it weren’t for following me around?

          • Er…if you press that little icon beside my name you will see that i respond to many people. I certainly don’t follow you around. There’s a cure for paranoia – it is called perspective…it leads to a place called reality.

          • Good one, kmc2. Your buddies have given you two points for that one!

            Yes, yes, you respond to many people, but you like to respond to my comments also. Happy to see that. (And I’m happy for the points they gave you.)

            ps: Is my english up to par? Now I’m working on trying to defend everything posted by Wherry. Man, that is tough though!

        • I’m just happy they finally met …..maybe they can keep each other busy and spare the rest of us.

          • Still reading my posts, EmilyOne? Good girl!

          • Nope, just noticed my junk mailbox is getting full. And you’re the only name listed in it.

          • EmilyOne, you are so special: without being able to read my posts you still manage to comment on them. Good girl!

          • I can see them on the board if I run across them…..but not in my mail.

            It’s silly comments like this that get you dumped in the junk in the first place.

            Go sell your book elsewhere.

          • EmilyOne, that book-thingy sits high on your list of priorities. You keep referring to it. Are you the jealous type perhaps?

          • You again!

            If you’re using Macleans to sell your book, it’s not very ethical

            Now Ciao

          • No one else but you EmilyOne keeps mentioning the book, as if you are jealous or something. What’s your problem with my book? Why do you feel this need to keep mentioning my book?

            Something lacking in your own life. Go write a book yourself.

          • LOL Well it took awhile, but I finally got you to admit it. A romance novel at that. Figures.

            And it’s not ethical to promote it on Maclean’s site.

            I don’t like unethical people. Ciao

          • You behave as if you are a Liberal. You probably think that all Canadians should think the way you do.

            But really, I find you an interesting person for no other reason than for me to come to terms with the fact that some amongst us, but you in particular, are just plain, shallow thinkers. And it scares me to witness that you are even proud of the fact. You will respond to my posts again. Not this one perhaps, but others. You are that predictable.

        • What does reading comprehension have to do with anything here on the comment boards? People like TonyAdams post whatever comes up in their mind (see above post).

          Now I was thinking people like TonyAdams do so in order for others to react to that. Well, I responded to his post and again I’m wrong for doing so.

          Once again, I’ve come here today to see hypocrisy in action.

          Hey, what about Trudeau and his thinking that we should all come to believe in Quebec’s values. Read the newspapers on Quebec corruption lately (two new corruption reportings out today!).

          Ask Trudeau how he thinks about hypocrisy.

          • “Once again, I’ve come here today to see hypocrisy in action.”

            Given the context of Trudeau’s controversial comments about Alberta, you might wish to a) refrain from making similarly disparaging marks about Quebec or, alternatively b) look up the actual meaning of the word hypocrisy, then look in the mirror to see it personified.

          • Comparing Trudeau to Hitler is a bit much don’t you think?

      • Ms May is a numpty but that is no reason to silence her. It is outrageous listening to Van Loan claim the real business of parliament is to pose with novelty cheques to snow mobile clubs while Parliament is supposedly being held hostage if an actual debate occurs.

        • Lizzy May: I love argument, I love debate. I don’t expect anyone just sit there and agree with me, that’s not their job.

  2. “Allowing a single member of Parliament to hold the House hostage in a voting marathon is simply not reasonable.”

    Tell that to Elijah Harper Van Loan, you…you… great democrat you.

    Let’s consider for a millisecond whether there’s any chance the test vote could ever turn out in favour of the independent member…times up democracy!

    • Ms.May can’t get more Green Party members elected but pretends she holds the voice of Canadians. Get real!

      • At one time or another over a million Canadians have voted for her party – who needs to get real?
        Regardless, are you saying the house majority should simply vote down any independent member it wants prior to that member tabling any amendments other than the VL’s test case? Are you a democrat or a tory shill?

        • Read what Van Loan is actually saying. What? Trouble reading his entire statement?

          He’s NOT saying that independent members should have no say: he is saying that independent member’s amendments should have an appropriate place within the wider system of the House.

          • No he isn’t. He is explictly saying the majority of the House [ conveniently his side of the House] should be able to litmus test one amendment and reject all the rest if the majority govt doesn’t like.

          • Rather like an omnibus bill – anyway, rather like an omnibus bill as implemented by this government.

        • At one time or another millions MORE of Canadians have voted CPC. THAT is Van Loan’s point! (But if you want to compare numbers, go ahead and look them up and spit them out.)

          • But it isn’t a good one…that’s MY point.

          • Strange point to make when thinking about democracy at work.

  3. Dear Peter: You should consider each amendment on it’s own merit, not based on who’s name is attached to it. Your idea is illogical.

  4. Ms.May and the Green Party, actually believing that the average Canadian is concerned mostly with the GHG emissions. Ms.May will go on and on about everything she claims is also agreed to by most Canadians. But if that were so why did her party not win one seat in the last by-elections, and why oh why does her party have only one seat in the House? Comments would be most welcome but I won’t expect many to comment on what I have to say here, because Ms.May is wrong in asserting that most Canadians see her as the spokesperson for most Canadians.

    • Because all elections are single issue elections?

      • “Ms.May will go on and on about everything she claims is also agreed to by most Canadians.”

        Most people have an attention span greater than reading past the first line. Reread my post, if you have the mindset of a real liberal. Show us what you are really made off.

    • Because she’s lucky that our first-past-the-post system provided 4% of votes with even 0.3% of seats.

      • She’s lucky indeed! She claims, of course, that most Canadians would like to change our current electoral system into something else. She has been pushing that idea for a while too. Still, no extra electoral support for that idea either.

        • Evidence?
          Just kidding! I know your assertions are completely unrelated to evidence.

          • Yes, evidently, most Canadians do not support electoral change. Otherwise the parties advocating such change would have been more succesful in gaining seats.

          • Ahhhh, I see. Elections are actually just referendums on electoral reform!

  5. Stephen Harper 2004 would punch this Van Loan guy in teh face.

Sign in to comment.