Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

One small step

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, October 7, 2010 9:05am - 0 Comments

Last night, after a proposed amendment was defeated, the House voted 235 to 44 to approve Motion No. 517, thus instructing the standing committee on procedure and House affairs to recommend changes to the standing orders and conventions governing oral questions. That committee has six months now before it must report back to the House with those recommendations.

Tags: , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • ChrisWPG

    6 months eh? Well seeing as we're only 2 months out from Stevie's annual perogie fest, I guess this will just die on the order papers with all the crime bills yet again.

    • hollinm

      6 mos is my understanding of how long they have to examine the motion. I could be wrong but we shall see what happens. At least the process has started.
      As for the shot about prorogation I doubt there will be any need for such an action. The next "prorogation" will be a call for an election. We will then see how the people of Canada feel about the leader of the Official Opposition. I suspect he will be on the bus back to Harvard.

      • ChrisWPG

        Talk about taking a shot….

        There was no need for the last prorogation, at least not a legitimate reason. And how long exactly is the CPC going to keep a leader that can't garner more than 30% of the vote? If they ever expect to command a majority in the house, the CPC is going to have to find somebody that doesn't make 2/3's of the population gag at the sight of them. How long will it take for true blue blooded conservatives realize they are being had by government that is spending us into the poor house faster and without logic than any previous government?

        • Dave

          As long as the CPC leader can garner more vote than No. 2, they will keep him.

          • Mike R

            Yes, a more relevant question might be how long the Liberal party will tolerate a leader who can't get them above 30% in the polls. Although perhaps they might be getting reconciled to that – in which case they might ask M. Dion to come back to run them after the next election.

          • Jan

            What's with the blind loyalty to Harper? What's the future in having a one-man party?

  • peter

    You need to cut off your right ear, gouge out your right eye and intone "nah nah nah" every time you hear something that conflicts with your pre-judged narrative. Hope this helps. :)

    • hollinm

      who crapped in your porridge this morning. Too bad if you don't like it. Just move on. There are plenty of others of your political persusian on this board.

      • MostlyCivil

        "However, what will Wherry blog about when there are detailed questions with fullsome answers?"

        Fulsome: It's one of those words politicians love to use. Incorrectly.

        First, it's one "L', not two.

        Second: It's does not mean what you think it means.

        ;

        • hollinm

          Thank you for correcting my spelling. Nice to see that you are so perfect that you have to pick out spelling mistakes by others. You must be a Liberal.

          All I know is if the question is a reasonable question there may be a reasonable response. Call it what you will.

          • MostlyCivil

            This spelling/definition error is a common one, but Bob Rae and Stephen Harper don’t seem to read my emails, so I’m resolved to save this word from improper use where I can. Comment boards included. This doesn’t make me a Liberal, it makes me a linguistic fanatic, and possibly less liley to be invited to parties.

            You took a simple correction and used it as an excuse to slap me with a partisan generalization. You must be lazy.

          • Jan

            That should read 'less likely' shouldn't it? It's hard to be perfect,

          • MostlyCivil

            Come on, I'm already doing the self-depreciation thing here…

          • Jan

            Sorry – I couldn't resist. I make both spelling and typing errors frequently. I blame it on keyboarding because I never had this problem on a typewriter, It can't have anything to do with ageing.

          • MostlyCivil

            Indeed. My wife keeps reminding me that a keyboard is NOT a manual typewriter, so please stop breaking the space bar.

          • YYZ

            What's a typewriter?

            ; )

          • Jan

            Shuddup kid! LOL

      • peter

        re-read my post…I was agreeing with you and explaining Wherry's MO…awful early in BC when I posted, apologies for the confusion!

  • LynnTO

    Time for the Question Period Pool! I draft…6 months of fulsome discussion but nothing changes because we are left in an all-party stalemate!

    Who else is in?

  • WDM

    I'm sure he's a decent enough guy, but I don't see anything changing, or any hope of anything changing, while Milliken is still the Speaker.

  • http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

    So why did the Bloc vote against? Because they want more chances to show off their leader? Because they want more chances to attack Harper? Because the worse Parliament looks, the more Quebecers are disillusioned with Canada? Has anyone seen any defense of the Nays?

    Agree that Milliken needs to go, and cameras need to show the full and fully fulsome spectacle.

    • Orson Bean

      "Because the worse Parliament looks, the more Quebecers are disillusioned with Canada? "

      That'd be it. The Bloc thrives on dysfunction, and exists to create and point to as much dysfunction as possible. That's why it slays me when certain people who consider themselves federalist in persuasion give big thumbs-ups to Gilles Duceppe. I guess that means they approve of his successful efforts to make our country and its institutions less functional.

    • Jan

      They probably voted against it because it's a joke. How naiive do you have to be to believe it will change anything,

      • c_9

        I'll wait for the product to decide whether it's wonderful or evil, but for anything to truly change it must start this way too. So we really can't judge this yet, all we can do is make assumptions based on past performance. Which only works sometimes. :)

  • http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

    What if, emboldened with this success, Michael Chong or some other maltreated backbencher with nothing to lose were to go even further in backbench revolt? What more could be done to strengthen Parliament as an instititution if the backbenchers were to ignore the leaders and force through their own rules?
    Could this then further empower them to bypass the party politics to such a degree that we could see intelligent, non-political legislation on actual matters of governance? What if an underground all-party network of MPs developed that could discuss such things away from the glare of leadership politics to decide on what actually makes sense? Admittedly, the range of issues which do not break down along party ideologies is small, but it does exist.
    Dare to dream, Big Dave, dare to dream.

    • Jan

      You're dreaming in technicolour.

  • Blacktop

    Perhaps not really a stalemate; after all the Cons have been in government 4 yeras; nothing to stop another four. Actually, I think a minority can be a good government, particularly if there is an opposition that is worth its salt.

Previous

Next

From Macleans