The Canadian Political Thread - Page 507 - ehMac.ca
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Advertise


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Apr 29th, 2012, 01:00 PM   #5061
Honourable Citizen
 
screature's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 20,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
but you're excluding the part of this PMM being put forth by a CONSERVATIVE MP. That is the whole point of the argument. The Government is CONSERVATIVE. Of course Woodworth has every right to submit whatever PMM/PMB he wants, but by allowing Woodworth to do it as a member of the Conservative Caucus, Harper is breaking his election promise.

And the Guergis issue is no less a red herring than the Ruby Dhalla PMB which you used to try and discredit my argument (that bill never contravened any Liberal election promise, and was only not supported after the Liberal MPs discussed it). To try and use that as a precedent to what Woodworth is doing here is a totally faulty comparison.
Do you not see the self contradictory nature of your statement...? You are clearly wilfully disregarding the rules and rights of Parliament and Parliamentarians to justify your attempts at discrediting the government and the PM.

No the Dhalla Bill is a direct comparison relative to Private Members Business and how MPs are free to propose whatever they want despite the views of their Leader, Caucus and Party policy, not even close to be a red herring. Again Mr. Woodworth was not acting on the governments behalf he was acting on his own as his right as a Private Member.

Mr. Dion could have stopped M-312 form being made votable in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs but decided on principle that there was no legitimate reason to do so. Did he have some hidden agenda for doing so or was he simply applying the rules of Parliament as they are written despite his personal feelings regarding the Motion?

I am now done arguing this issue with you as you have no interests in fact and the rules of Parliament and Parliamentary Procedure.
screature is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old Apr 29th, 2012, 01:15 PM   #5062
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by screature View Post
Mr. Dion could have stopped M-312 form being made votable in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs but decided on principle that there was no legitimate reason to do so. Did he have some hidden agenda for doing so or was he simply appling the rules of Parliament as they are written despite his personal feelings regarding the Motion?
Talk about red herrings. This is a completely different subject. Dion didn't promise to not reopen the debate. Dion is not the leader of the Party who's member introduced the bill. His responsibility as a member of the committee is completely different than Harper's.

And you seem to be misrepresenting what i'm suggesting. Woodworth has every right to introduce any bill he wants. I'm not debating that. Harper even has the right to let it happen. I have no problem with debate in parliament.

But when he does let it happen, Harper (and his supporters) relinquish the defence that they didn't let it to happen. Clearly he could have done more to stop it (or to be exact, stop it happening at the behest of one of his very own caucus)
i-rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29th, 2012, 01:24 PM   #5063
Honourable Citizen
 
screature's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 20,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
Talk about red herrings. This is a completely different subject. Dion didn't promise to not reopen the debate. Dion is not the leader of the Party who's member introduced the bill. His responsibility as a member of the committee is completely different than Harper's.

And you seem to be misrepresenting what i'm suggesting. Woodworth has every right to introduce any bill he wants. I'm not debating that. Harper even has the right to let it happen. I have no problem with debate in parliament.

But when he does let it happen, Harper (and his supporters) relinquish the defence that they didn't let it to happen. Clearly he could have done more to stop it (or to be exact, stop it happening at the behest of one of his very own caucus)
No red herring merely pointing out that it is possible for people to operate on points of principle and the rules of Parliament even when they oppose a Motion or Bill, but apparently not in your mind when it comes to Mr. Harper.

Seems you want your cake and to it it too, Harper is a control freak... but seemingly not enough for you. I'm done.
screature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29th, 2012, 01:26 PM   #5064
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by screature View Post
No red herring merely pointing out that it is possible for people to operate on points of principle and the rules of Parliament even when they oppose a Motion or Bill, but apparently not in your mind when it comes to Mr. Harper.
if that is the crux of your argument against what i'm saying then you're way off. i never suggested that Harper not "operate on points of principle and the rules of Parliament". never. not once.

I suggested that if he really wanted to quash the issue coming from his party he would expel those from his own party who bring it up, which has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by screature View Post
Seems you want your cake and to it it too, Harper is a control freak... but seemingly not enough for you. I'm done.
that's exactly it! Harper is a control freak. The fact that this played out the way it did shows that he let it happen.

Last edited by i-rui; Apr 29th, 2012 at 01:37 PM.
i-rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29th, 2012, 01:33 PM   #5065
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,415
Send a message via AIM to bryanc
Quote:
Originally Posted by screature View Post
Seems you want your cake and to it it too, Harper is a control freak... but seemingly not enough for you.
This is the crux of the argument, and it comes down to a matter of judgement... do you believe that Harper either did not know of, or was not able to prevent the PMM? Or do you think it's more probable that Harper knew about it and chose to let it play out as a political ploy, knowing that it couldn't be pinned to him?

I guess it's a matter of how much you respect Harper's demonstrated abilities to control his caucus and use parliamentary procedure to his advantage.
bryanc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29th, 2012, 01:50 PM   #5066
Honourable Citizen
 
MLeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Left coast
Posts: 2,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
if that is the crux of your argument against what i'm saying then you're way off. i never suggested that Harper not "operate on points of principle and the rules of Parliament". never. not once.

I suggested that if he really wanted to quash the issue coming from his party he would expel those from his own party who bring it up, which has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure.



that's exactly it! Harper is a control freak. The fact that this played out the way it did shows that he let it happen.
I disagree.

The 'Conservative Party' is a coalition of people who have many similar interests, but also many opposing interests. A leader can't eject everyone from his party who doesn't agree 100% with everyone else agrees with, because there is nothing (aside from 'we don't want the other party to rule') that 100% of them agree upon. (And if Preston Manning were still in politics, you'd find out that he didn't even want to rule - he just want 'good government' and if the ruling party stole all his ideas and thus we ended up with better government - as happened with 'fiscal responsibility' when Paul Martin was finance minister.) As a result they'd end up with almost no one in the party because they'd all be ejected for having deviations from the middle.

In a situation such as this, all a leader can do (and in this case, has done) is to express extreme displeasure that someone within the coalition of the right, and the multiparty committee asked to rule on the motion, has seen fit to bring this subject before parliament again.

Leadership is more than control. It's also having a vision and a goal, and being able to bring others together to work towards that vision.
__________________
"Without ambition one starts nothing. Without work one finishes nothing." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
MLeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29th, 2012, 02:13 PM   #5067
Honourable Citizen
 
Macfury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Toronto Proper
Posts: 41,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by i-rui View Post
suggested that if he really wanted to quash the issue coming from his party he would expel those from his own party who bring it up, which has nothing to do with parliamentary procedure.
Maybe that's what you would do if you were in power. Last I heard, expelling people who have differing opinions is not the type of thing that's generally lauded.
__________________
"My life is my own."

Mac Pro 5,1 3.2 GHZ Quad Core; MacBook Pro 1,1; iPhone 4
Macfury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29th, 2012, 02:19 PM   #5068
Honourable Citizen
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeh View Post
A leader can't eject everyone from his party who doesn't agree 100% with everyone else agrees with, because there is nothing (aside from 'we don't want the other party to rule') that 100% of them agree upon.
of course no one agrees 100% with eachother, but the signifigant difference here was it was an election promise and that means something (or at least should). Also, it wasn't just a throw away issue where it's natural for a difference of opinion - and further to that it wasn't just a difference of opinion voiced, it was an actual PMM in Parliament!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfury View Post
Maybe that's what you would do if you were in power. Last I heard, expelling people who have differing opinions is not the type of thing that's generally lauded.
Harper has expelled MPs for less - i.e Helena Guergis (in essence for who she was married to), and Garth Turner for writing a Blog!
i-rui is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29th, 2012, 02:33 PM   #5069
Honourable Citizen
 
screature's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 20,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanc View Post
This is the crux of the argument, and it comes down to a matter of judgement... do you believe that Harper either did not know of, or was not able to prevent the PMM? Or do you think it's more probable that Harper knew about it and chose to let it play out as a political ploy, knowing that it couldn't be pinned to him?

I guess it's a matter of how much you respect Harper's demonstrated abilities to control his caucus and use parliamentary procedure to his advantage.
Sigh... Yes it is entirely possible he was not aware of the PMM at the time of its submission. PMBs and PMMs are not vetted by PMO it would directly contradict the very notion of Private Members Business and the reason for its existence.

People here who suggest otherwise simply do not understand the nature of how Private Members Business works. Clearly once it was submitted it would have come to his attention, but it is not within the nature and principle of the division between Government Orders and Private Members Business for Caucus or Leaders to either ask for or demand the withdrawal of a PMB or PMM or their expulsion from Caucus for submitting a PMB or PMM that they do not agree with.

It is a democracy and Private Members are entitled to their rights, what people here are suggesting is that Harper or any Leader should usurp those basic rights just because they don't agree with the contents of a PMB or PMM.

It seems that those who feel that way would wish to do away with this separation and the very basic rights of Private Members or at least in cases involving the Conservatives, Harper or PMBs or PMMs they disagree with.
screature is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29th, 2012, 02:35 PM   #5070
Honourable Citizen
 
screature's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aylmer (Gatineau) across the river from Ottawa
Posts: 20,720
.
screature is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
canadian political discussion

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What do people use to watermark pictures? krs Mac, iPhone, iPad and iPod Help & Troubleshooting 20 Oct 17th, 2010 10:17 PM
This Macbook is my first and last Mac, switching back Pat McCrotch Anything Mac 123 Apr 17th, 2009 10:13 AM
The Mythical Separation of Church and State in the USA zenith Everything Else, eh! 31 May 23rd, 2008 02:40 PM
Harpo's Little Dictator headspace surfaces..... MacDoc Everything Else, eh! 242 Mar 7th, 2008 02:46 PM
Moe Norman - Canadian golf legend MACSPECTRUM Everything Else, eh! 11 May 12th, 2005 05:15 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999 - 2012, ehMac.ca All rights reserved. ehMac is not affiliated with Apple Inc. Mac, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, Apple TV are trademarks of Apple Inc. Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

Tribe.ca: Urban living in Toronto!