Tuesday, April 12, 2011

More of Why I Hold Jack Layton in Contempt

What a bunch of self righteous bullshitters the NDP are. Can't wait for all the Dipper blog trolls to explain this. Cue Leftdog, Janfromthebruce.

Remember this when Jack Layton stares at the camera and bullshits about how "we've been calling for an inquiry all along"


Robert McClelland said...

It's easy to explain. Rob Silver is an LPC propagandist who isn't telling you the truth. For what really happened, check out @kady O'Malley's tweets from last night.

James Curran said...

Ahhh. That explains it then.

James Curran said...

Is that the hill you choose to die on? Not "enough notice"? Really?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Robert McClelland said...

You're right. Screw Parliamentary procedure. Let's all just do what is best for our party.

James Curran said...

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the Conservatives are not about Parliamentary procedure. Are they now? No, they're not. The Chair ruled the motion was in line. NDP Christopherson voted against the chairs ruling. It's really simple.

James Curran said...

Listen Anon, if you want to refute this post, go right ahead. If you want to preach some other sermon, get your own blog.

janfromthebruce said...

Hi James,
so good of you to ask me to comment. I have taken a parliamentary "indepth" procedures course, so let's me explain how this happen.

The main motion was brought before this committee for consideration. This committee has a rule that "new business" must be submitted 48hours ahead of time.

Two things could have happen here and both would end up negatively.

Although the chair ruled the motion in order, there would have been an appeal made. The appeal would be whether the committee members supported the rule of chair - motion in order.

Obviously it failed as the Liberals motion (a good one) was not in order because it was "new business" which needed to be submitted to the committee 48hrs a head of time, thus whether on a "point of order" or "appeal to the chair's ruling", it was voted down correctly.

Sure wish the liberal who supported the motion had got that motion there 48hrs in advance, and had been more aware of the rules governing this committee.

Although rules of order may seem at first blush to be social niceties, their principals underlie parliamentary law - and is about rights!

And this is all said without malice or with due regard to parliamentary law.

James Curran said...

Thank you Jan. Excellent explanation and true to the point.

While I except all of what you have written, it may have been nice if the NDP would even have THOUGHT of putting forward such a motion. I'm certain the Libs would have supported it.

Sometimes, just sometimes, you have to play dirtier than the bully in the schoolyard, which, in this case, is clearly the Conservatives.

sharonapple88 said...

Well Christopher explains his reasoning here.

From the article: "Of course I realized there was some partisan advantage for me, and other MPs, if I allowed this to happen. But it was not in keeping with the democratic traditions of Parliament nor was it respectful of the Office of the Auditor," he added. "The hypocrisy of the move was too much."

Going through the minutes, he just asked D'Amours to reapply in 48 hours.

Mr. David Christopherson:Well, again, I disagree with that. I don't think it's inadmissible. It's just that it's now been tabled and Mr. D'Amours, after 48 hours, has the right to move it at any subsequent meeting. That's not inadmissible. It's still tabled with the committee. We still take it in.