Senators gone sort of wild

CBC looks into the case of a Senate committee run amok.

More somewhat entertaining tediousness here.




Browse

Senators gone sort of wild

  1. Thank you for the links. CBC doesn't seem to have this whole "interweb" thing yet.

    • The links at CBC are to the right. Under "external links."

      • haha! Well, that blew up in my face.
        CBC.ca – 1
        Aden – 0

  2. Can someone who has actually watched the whole video give a summary. I don't have the patience to watch beyond a couple minutes and all I saw was what seemed like a reasonable Chair trying to control a meeting with members who seemed bent on not following committee procedures. Perhaps they were following Harper's rule book on how to sabotage committees.
    If the Chair explodes later in the video, let us know.

    • It starts off with an argument between Kenny and Manning (Cons). Manning wants to say something and the issue apparently is closed (Kenny is ruling such). Manning keeps talking and yelling etc and Kenny has his mic turned off. Then Sen. Tkachuk gets into it, yelling along with Manning. It does seem like Kenny is heavy-handed. Eventually they get past a couple of votes, and then on to Sen. Day who tries to pass a motion. Tkachuk still irritated objects but he doesn't seem to be productive … just complaining that some dates were changed. The only one who does good work here is Banks, who says "no problem, let's change the dates so everyone can be accomodated" but he is cut off by Tkachuk who wants to get back to blaming someone for the original change of dates. Only Banks comes off well, but Day is OK just frustrated. Hard to blame the Libs, but maybe the Cons seem bullied so they are steaming … in which case it must be hard.

      • Thanks. Glad to hear there was one mature committee member (Banks). Since the clip started abruptly in the middle of proceedings, I assumed there had already been plenty of discussion on the issue before the Chair declared it closed.

  3. I doubt they're the first to blow up at Colin Kenny. Doesn't excuse their behaviour, but its not like Kenny is a calming influence on things either.

    • I found it particularly galling when he said that a vote was over while Pamela Wallin was still trying to find out what the vote was for. What an a**.

    • Don't assassinate his character with blanks — explain to us why Colin Kenny is such an impediment to Senate business.

  4. I like it when their mics are cut off. Manning was drunk.

  5. Tkachuk is a buffoon and an embarrassment. I partook in student politics of various sorts and it was more professional than this man's silly tantrums.

    Also, why has Don Martin still not released the copy of the CPC committee obstruction handbook he has in his possession?

    • Honestly, I think Don Martin either made the whole thing up or significantly exaggerated it. There's no other reason I can think of not to release the alleged document.

      • Revisionist.

        • So what's your explanation, James? Why hasn't Martin shown us the evidence?

          • It was the condition under which he was provided a copy from his source.

          • No doubt the CPC threatened to sue him for copyright infringement if he published it.

          • He could have published excerpts, but he didn't.

          • This is certainly possible.

          • Perhaps that question is better asked of Kady, Paul, Aaron, Andrew, etc.?

            I simply take issue with your speculation, "Honestly, I think Don Martin either made the whole thing up or significantly exaggerated it."

            And your explanation for such speculation, "There's no other reason I can think of not to release the alleged document."

            Can you, for example, cite a categorical denial from Harper or any of his minions to support your position? Or, even, some bullshit from them that leads you to believe Martin is a liar or something less than accurate in his work – as you imply?

          • Fair enough – I did phrase that speculation in a provocative way. Upon reflection it's highly unlikely that Don Martin made things up (though it's still possible that his portrayal of the document's contents was somewhat skewed or sensationalized). Unfortunately, we'll never really know for sure the extent of the allegedly obstructionist portion of the binder.

          • Nice to hear from you again, former Prime Minister Mulroney.

          • It's been a pleasure, Johnny Depp.

          • you're Brian Mulroney CR???????? If so, you think I can get in on some envelopes full of cash action? I want a vacay.

      • sure there is CR. He might jut be horse trading with a source. Think back to the Mulroney testimony. When the Globe had the goods, Mulroney, according to testimony says, asked them to sit on it in exchange for a better story. Who knows how he came in possession of the binder and what conditions he agreed to either to get it or to get something else.

        my sense is that in the early days of Harper where almost no one was talking as an inside source, you wouldn't cross the access you had.

  6. Maybe Manning had ulterior motives in asking his initial question, but to me it seemed like a reasonable question. Perhaps he was baiting. If not, then the chair was quite unreasonable, I thought. I would like to know what was wrong with the question. Anybody know? Pamela Wallin asked two or three questions quietly, and each time Colin Kenny cut her off saying she was out of order… I don't get it. And then, the dates of border visits were changed, without notifying the Conservative Senator who had planned to go. The chair's style seemed unnecessarily confrontational. Can't there be discussions in committee mtgs?

    • Yes, I agree that it was the chair that was failing to do his job properly, more than anyone else.

      • Because rules of procedure in a formal political institution are for ninnies. Right?

        • loud beats actual rules every time….it is the parliamentary version of paper-rock-scissors:

          constitutional beats everything

          loud beats actual rules of procedure

          rules of procedure as Ted notes are for sissies.

    • Not on points of order. Points of order are specifically to note that something is proceeding improperly with the discussion. Essentially they're discussion about how the discussion is being conducted. They're kept short because you can go miles down that road and wind up having done absolutely nothing about the true matter at hand. If he had a question about the motion, he is supposed to raise it during the main discussion regarding the motion.

      Unfortunately, Harper's party members in committee have tended to use a point of order as a way to get in extra speaking time, since their typical method of convincing people is to just keep saying something repeatedly until the person they're talking to gives up and agrees — if only to shut the other guy up. Heck, he even explains it there, "You may shut me out, but you can't shut me up" Too bad really.. after all, you don't learn when you're the one doing the talking.

  7. On at least the second vote, that's Pierre-Claude Nolin voting against caucus colleagues to support the chair. (Don't have the energy to watch the first vote again.)

  8. I don't have the energy to re-watch either, but it seemed to me that the Chair called for a vote on supporting the challenge to the chair's ruling, then the clerk asked for votes supporting the chair. Maybe the shouting caused a bit of a fluster, but it's possible a "yea" or a "Nay" may have been opposite of the intended vote. "I support the chair" is, of course, unequivocal.

  9. do committee chairs have the power to simply toss members from hearings? or do they have other disciplinary powers? gawd. do we need independent arbitrators of robert's rules of orders in every meetings?

    • has anyone seen a clerk act like a lunatic…. maybe we should just hand over the keys on committees to the clerks and send these dudes out to play for recess.

  10. That Tkakchuck is out of control.

    • It's really hard to take a guy seriously when he has a stringy weird comb over.

  11. That Tkakchuck is out of control.

  12. Fabian Manning is a joke.

  13. Hmmm……has essence of Harper's plan to mess up committee meetings.

    Has that Harper touch to it.

  14. Colin Kenney was just interviewed on CBC Newsworld – and came out pretty pointedly against the government side's antics.
    As he put it – they were happy when the committee was criticizing the Liberals for years – but now we are are criticizing them – they are playing all these games…

  15. And, Pamela Wallin on CTV whining and moaning – if you don't think this is all a set up you're crazy.

    The Cons are like a bunch of babies in a room – one starts to cry and the rest join in.

Sign in to comment.