In response to a query from ITQ/DMA, a spokeperson for the Bloc Quebecois said that consent was denied by “Conservatives”, although he wouldn’t say (or perhaps genuinely didn’t know) exactly which one(s) were opposed to the motion, which – for anyone who missed yesterday’s post – would have recognized the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On The Origin of Species.
But last night, ITQ was chatting with a Tory staffer who shall remain nameless who pointed out that caucus members are instructed to deny consent to any motion for unanimous consent put forward by an opposition MP, regardless of the content, unless the fact that there is all party agreement is stated up front.
That may sound needlessly cautious, but it’s actually quite sensible: back when they were in opposition, the Canadian Alliance (or possibly Reform – I’m going from memory here) once managed to hamstring the then-Liberal government with a motion that suspended the use of time allocation for the rest of the session. How? With a stockpile of similarly mischievous motions close at hand, they kept a watchful eye on the government side of the House, waiting for a moment when there were no Liberals on the floor to object. (Former Reform staffer Russ Kuykendall recalls the tactic here.)
Not surprisingly, this didn’t go over well at all with then Government House Leader Don Boudria, who was forced to bargain with the opposition in order to gain the necessary House agreement to pass a subsequent motion restoring his power to limit debate. Oh, memories.
If I remember right, the Alliance – or Reform or whatever they were back then – turned out to be terribly naive parliamentary-hostage-takers; they ended up giving the closure stick back to Boudria in exchange for, like, a take note debate on drunk driving. I think they were too shocked at the fact that their trick had actually worked to come up with a decent list of demands.
Anyway, the upshot is that Darwin Day celebrants needn’t feel unduly targeted for petty consent-denying by the government — it could have been a motion to recognize that puppies are adorable and it still wouldn’t have made it through. Also, that ITQ has far too many tales of parliamentary shenanigans floating around in her head.
Print
Comment
Thanks, a useful explanation.
Truly a case where it makes sense to say: Move along, nothing to see here.
- JV
“That may sound needlessly cautious, but it’s actually quite sensible:…”
Actually it sounds fairly terrible to me. According to your account, the Cons previous incarnation took advantage of the rules, abusing them to achieve their goals, and now they’re intent on preventing anyone else from doing it to them. Seems like typical behaviour to me. Based on what I read about committee meetings, it sounds like the new Cons are just like the old Cons in this respect.
Well, it’s sensible if you happen to be the government. Anyway, opposition parties are free to do exactly the same thing that the Reformers did, and watch for a window of opportunity, although in a minority situation, it’s unlikely that any government would be so complacent as to not make sure it had at least one MP in the House at all times. It’s not abusing the rules; it is using them to your advantage, and I say this as a zealous defender of the parliamentary system.
The Mace (a medieval weapon) is directly opposite Mssrs. Harper and Ignateiff — signifying what — a standoff in their vigil for a window of opportunity?
“opposition parties are free to do exactly the same thing that the Reformers did”
This may sound trite, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. I’m a firm believer in the rules of order, and more importantly respecting the intent of the rules of order. That’s why it really bothers me when people use the letter of the rules in order to avoid the intent. Anyways, at least they were actually following the rules, and not just, say, walking out of committees they were chairing.
See, that’s a really good example of where I draw the line between procedural tricks, which are, IMO, a vital element of the parliamentary system, and actually trying to destroy the system itself by rendering it entirely dysfunctional. There is nothing inherently hostile to Parliament in a policy of denying motions for consent without prior agreement of the House — in fact, I’d suggest it actually protects the House, since it makes it far less likely that the Standing Orders could be amended on the whim of a single member or party. Holding a committee hostage to avoid losing a vote, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.
vital as in lively or vital as in necessary?
Both.
If anything I’d think the story explains why a blanket policy doesn’t make the least bit of sense.
Yes, they’d want to be careful about granting motions which might include a scheduling trick. But surely the logical answer to that should be to actually listen to what’s included in a proposed motion, not to reject all of them out of hand.
Yes, but in this particular instance – the Darwin motion, that is – it was raised in the midst of the post-vote exodus, as the House was returning to regular business, so most MPs probably *weren’t* listening to what was happening on the floor. Remember that a motion can be reintroduced at any point — sometimes the same motion will be put forward a half dozen times over a short period of time before it is finally given consent – so if it is rejected the first time, the sensible thing to do is talk to the other house leaders/whips to get all party agreement.
So they can be forced to disagree with anything the opposition can put on the record, no matter how reasonable? That could be fun, especially when mentioned without context. In, say, campaign material.
LOL,
Excellent point. Perhaps the opposition should try to “sneak by” a motion proclaiming that puppies ARE in fact, adorable. When the government refuses consent, the opposition can bombard the government with questions and ads! Just what DOES Prime Minister Harper have against puppies anyway?
Cutest attack ads ever!
There is a new law in Ontario making puppy abuse a criminal offense. Forget about the Cadman and In and Out affairs — Puppygate — I can’t wait !
I think a blanket policy on this makes sense for any government.
I assume that the opposition knows this policy, and if they seriously want unanimous consent, they can seek it in advance through the House Leaders.
If they don’t do this, and want to play “gotcha”, they are free to raise matters without notice and then try to jump all over the government for denying unanimous consent.
However, if the government lets media know of the policy, then any “gotcha” problem for the government disappears.
Kady,
Thanks for your explanation. This is a good example of why your blog is worth reading.
It’s interesting to note that many people come around to viewing what our politicians do as sensible because it makes sense…for politicians.
This is why we are doomed.
If nobody thought like politicians, nobody would be crazy enough to run for office & we’d live in an anarchy. As opposed to the current dementocracy, I suppose.
The blanket policy makes sense, but in this case, it bited them in the netehr regions. The opposition got out of that a newsbite stating that conservatives are against Darwinism.
Tough luck.
Maybe after reading Kady’s blog today, other reporters taken in by that tactic won’t be easily taken in next time.
- JV
For whatever the reason, I’m glad the motion was killed. I understand that the theory of evolution is a fully accepted scientific theory, but the motion sounded like a cheap attempt for the Bloc to pick a bun fight with social conservatives. The House of Commons has better things to do
Cheap tricks are one of the last weapons left in the Bloc’s arsenal. Pandering to their credulous base is one of the few things Bloquistes can do successfully. It’s the only reason they still exist as a party.
Hmm…if i were just to delete the word bloq, and insert conservative, what would that do? Render yr statement inoperative? Not entirely me thinks!
When it comes to tricks, this one is more upmarket than the ones one usually sees. At least this one is in the service of science and not wingnut delusion.
kc – lol! Way to deflect my rant. Can’t we just put petty partisanship aside for a moment and focus on Bloq-bashing?
Agreed! Except [ isn't there always one or two ] i doubt many Quebecers would agree with us. Still we do have a duty to bash the bloq. [ no snarkiness intended ]
No,kc, I don’t care who does it, I’m against pointless grandstanding – which the Conservatives do more than their share, I agree.
Say what you like about the people in parliament, they are extremely good at what they do.
Starting a pretend-war over an idiotic and pointless issue such as faith vs. science and then letting it degenerate into a squabble over the fine points of parliamentary procedure may look foolish – but it’s actually a pretty good way to distract and entertain the sheep while the real business of fleecing them is conducted.
Better things to do, indeed.
Interesting!
It reminds me of the old hidden ball trick, which we took advantage of with gleeful abandon one Little League season (only against our hated rivals, however) . . . until after about the fourth time the ump told us to cool it. Those were very satisfying outs, however.
denier?
Isn’t that a measure of the fineness of nylons?
Is ITQ releasing leaks about what Stock Day wears under his wet suit?
alright maybe I’ll stick around a little longer
Denier:
1. A small coin of varying composition and value current in western Europe from the eighth century until the French Revolution.
2. Archaic. A small, trifling sum.
I’m thinking of way too many bad puns, only some of which involve Canadian coinage. But now I’m visualizing ol’ Stockwell in swimwear. May you rot in hell forever . . . At least it’s not an image of Harper.
See now, were I an MP with the green light from my leader and whip I would routinely deny unanimous consent to this frivolous time-wasting irrelevant crap motions for the simple reason that they are frivolous time-wasting irrlevant crap motions. But, that’s just me.