| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: Martin drops parliamentary procedure bombshell |
 |
|
Damn, this is some big news. 
| Quote: |
Martin Drops Parliamentary Procedure Bombshell
Faced with declining numbers in recent polls and an increasingly aggressive political base, Prime Minister Paul Martin today launched a parliamentary procedure proposal that shocked and bored Canadian voters.
While campaigning at a doorstop factory in Newfoundland's voter-rich Humber Valley, Martin promised that under a Liberal government, Standing Order 16.5, paragraph 3, section (ii) would no longer be binding if the Clerk of the Standing Committee on House Procedure agreed to forbear from the introduction of motions to introduce non-binding amendment formulas.
"Canadians understand that the Liberal Party of Canada shares their values," proclaimed an emphatic Martin. "And Canadians know that Liberals share their commitment to streamlining the amendment formula and putting the power of non-binding forbearance back where it belongs, in the hands of the Clerk of the Standing Committee, or in his or her absence, in the hands of a suitable designate to be named during a period of time not to exceed 48 hours of the receipt of the request from the Speaker for an ad hoc extension," added the Prime Minister, to a smattering of applause and blank stares.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper wasted no time in branding Martin's promise "another pathetic Liberal attempt to weaken the ability of the Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole to extend at the close of sitting each the order of business for the following day. It's time for Canadians to stand up for Canada and reject this procedurally incomplete Liberal government."
When informed of Martin's bold procedural proposal, New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton told reporters, "the um, thing, about the the, um, timelines and um, procedures, yes. We're against it. I think. Or maybe not. I, um . . . what do you think about it?"
Telemarketer Karl Liberson was going to vote Liberal, but is now undecided with Martin's latest announcement. "Changes to paragraph 2, section (v) would be a much more important piece of procedure to rectify. Is Martin out of touch?"
Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, riding a wave of popular support in his home province, was careful not to rise to the Liberal bait and enter into a no-win debate on the sanctity of amending formulas and the extension of forbearance notice. A cautious but clearly cynical Duceppe used his closing statement to outline the nature of the Bloc's response to Paul Martin's audacious procedural vision. "Well, I think that when the people of Quebec look at Ottawa what they see is they see that the Liberals are promising what they know will only serve to extend the length of the time that it takes for the debate on the formula to amend the non-binding motions," Duceppe concluded.
Calls from Green Party leader Jim Harris to reporters were not immediately returned.
The election enters its final 10 days with a large number of Canadians still staying they're undecided over House Procedures, and remain deeply divided over just how much power should reside in the amending formulas themselves. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mithridates,
How can he do that? I don't understand the Canadian constition to well, but in the states, the supreme justices amend the constition. Why can the PM do it in Canada? That kind of freaks me out if he can go and change things on his own whim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajgeddes
Joined: 28 Apr 2004
Location: Yongsan
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's how democracy works. The people elect their representatives, and the representatives make the laws. Supreme justices aren't elected, and yet they are making the amendments??? That sounds a little more scary as they aren't even chosen by the people.
That does also happen in Canada, but at the same time, it is quite a big issue because it isn't right for the supreme court to make laws, and whatnot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiberious aka Sparkles
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: I'm one cool cat!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you guys missed something, namely that the above is a joke.
I know, I didn't find it funny either.
Sparkles*_* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyalucent
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: British North America
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiberious aka Sparkles wrote: |
I know, I didn't find it funny either.
|
I liked the Jim Harris line.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I thought he was talking about this,
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060109.wdebate0109a/BNStory/specialDecision2006/
Mr. Martin made the promise to amend the so-called notwithstanding clause in the second and final English-language debate in an effort to bring focus to Mr. Harper's opposition to gay marriage and the Conservative Leader's previous reluctance to state clearly whether he would use the clause to deny a same-sex couple's right to marry.
I am curious about how the P.M. can do this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's right, it was a parody of that.
Martin just made that up during the debate. Funny because revoking the nonwithstanding clause would make the system more American than it is now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Funny because revoking the nonwithstanding clause would make the system more American than it is now. |
To my knowledge, it would also be a meaningless piece of legislation, because the provinces would still be able to individually invoke a notwithstanding clause of their own.
This seems to be a current Liberal trick, to advocate making a law that's already a law, and then accuse the Conservatives of not supporting it. Martin did this in proposing a ban to handguns, which were already illegal.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That would make sense...more lies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
