[Scape]

In a sense, it's perfectly reasonable that the government is severely restricting the amount of time Parliament can spend discussing a long list of complex bills that have appeared at various times in various forms in the past and will now, thanks to the Conservative majority, finally become law

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Quote:

One may note that almost one-third of MPs have never debated these issues in the House of Common

Given the "impressive" attendance record of various MPs from all parties, I don't find this statement all that shocking.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Quote:

One may note that almost one-third of MPs have never debated these issues in the House of Common

Given the "impressive" attendance record of various MPs from all parties, I don't find this statement all that shocking.

Looking at the Senate, it can be much worse.

[bootlegga]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Quote:

One may note that almost one-third of MPs have never debated these issues in the House of Common

Given the "impressive" attendance record of various MPs from all parties, I don't find this statement all that shocking.

I think that speaks more to the large number of new MPs, than it does to their attendance.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Quote:

One may note that almost one-third of MPs have never debated these issues in the House of Common

Given the "impressive" attendance record of various MPs from all parties, I don't find this statement all that shocking.

Looking at the Senate, it can be much worse.

True enough.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

bootlegga wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Quote:

One may note that almost one-third of MPs have never debated these issues in the House of Common

Given the "impressive" attendance record of various MPs from all parties, I don't find this statement all that shocking.

I think that speaks more to the large number of new MPs, than it does to their attendance.

Fair enough, but I think the title of the article is really laying it on thick about why have Parliament at all. I mean, that's a question that could have easily been asked many times during the Chretien and Mulroney years. And when one looks at the overall attandence record, it's a question that can be asked every day!
However, I'm willing to concede that the stated percentage could easily be a combination of newbs and non-attendance.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Parliament is one strange institution to figure out. The opposition is supposed to debate and improve government bills. Approximately the opposition is supposed to whistle Dixie while the government destroys that county. It's all this big game, and has to come across as dignified.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

Parliament is one strange institution to figure out. The opposition is supposed to debate and improve government bills. Approximately the opposition is supposed to whistle Dixie while the government destroys that county. It's all this big game, and has to come across as dignified.

Good thing not many people watch CPAC

[back_blastnet]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Quote:

One may note that almost one-third of MPs have never debated these issues in the House of Common

Given the "impressive" attendance record of various MPs from all parties, I don't find this statement all that shocking.

The quote does entirely speak to the fact that while many of the bills (or parts thereof) have been debated in previous parliaments fully 1/3 of the current MP's are new as of this parliament so they haven't had an opportunity to debate any of these bills previously. Nothing to do with attendance records.

As is pointed out later in the article, there are issues to resolve and this is one of the dangers with Omnibus type legislation. Each section is given less scrutiny because of the sheer volume that things can be missed and also there is a greater chance of there being conflicting clauses that can cause unforeseen consequences.

I also doubt the veracity of the conservative MP's statement that the minister clearly intended to correct the legislation but this is how the game is played.

Another thing not mentioned in the article is that most of the experts and organizations that had provided testimony in the various bills previous incarnations are not being invited to testify again as the "government has already heard what they had to say" thereby preventing them from bring new information/data to the table or possibly catch discrepancies. Also they maybe testified on one bill, but now have important information about a different bill, but as the bills are all wrapped up into one they won't get the chance

[eureka]

I wonder what proportion has not debated them outside Parliament, either. This has to be the most ill educated, uninformed Parliament in Canada's history. And, with ideology being the only guide for the CPC, there is nothing to debate.

Amusing, bu instructive, is the Gun Registry massacre. The chief argument that most government members can make is that a few opposition MPs are voting against the wishes of their constituents.

They do not see the irony, and the media is not pointing to it, that a large number of CPC Members are voting against the e4xpressed wishes of their constituents.

[back_blastnet]

Hey Eureka, as far as the Conservatives are concerned if something was a part of their election platform that's enough and all the debate there should be. That because they got a majority of MP's (with the confidence of 39% of the voters) they get to pass everything they want, with as little scrutiny as possible, little or no amendments and almost no debate.

They've already used closure or time allocation in 35 days sitting of the 41st Parliament then the previous record of Liberals using it 6 times over 2 years...

[bootlegga]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Given the "impressive" attendance record of various MPs from all parties, I don't find this statement all that shocking.

I think that speaks more to the large number of new MPs, than it does to their attendance.

Fair enough, but I think the title of the article is really laying it on thick about why have Parliament at all. I mean, that's a question that could have easily been asked many times during the Chretien and Mulroney years. And when one looks at the overall attandence record, it's a question that can be asked every day!
However, I'm willing to concede that the stated percentage could easily be a combination of newbs and non-attendance.

And I'd bet it was - after all, it's common knowledge that Harper criticized the exact same policy when Chretien was employing it.

In fairness about attendance, an MP's job is not only what happens in the Chambers, but encompasses a fair number of other duties. Sure, some of them are PR things like photo ops and kissing babies, but MPs do have other jobs outside of the House of Commons, like sitting on committees, working with various departments on programs, etc. Sometimes, those other duties actually interfere with a member sitting in the House while in session.

The only reason I know this is because I worked at the provincial Legislature here in Edmonton and many MLAs worked long days - from 7am sometimes until midnight. I'm sure Parliament is no different (seeing as how the Legislature is modelled on Parliament). So while some MPs may seem to have terrible attendance records, they are still actually working.

[OnTheIce]

Scape wrote:

In a sense, it's perfectly reasonable that the government is severely restricting the amount of time Parliament can spend discussing a long list of complex bills that have appeared at various times in various forms in the past and will now, thanks to the Conservative majority, finally become law

This is why I've become so disillusioned by politics.

It's all about saving your own ass. Forget what you stand for or what you claimed you did a few years ago and do whatever you can to save your job and make you look better.

The Conservatives are no different. All the same a-holes, different colour logo's.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

back_blastnet wrote:

Hey Eureka, as far as the Conservatives are concerned if something was a part of their election platform that's enough and all the debate there should be. That because they got a majority of MP's (with the confidence of 39% of the voters) they get to pass everything they want, with as little scrutiny as possible, little or no amendments and almost no debate.

Yeah, not like when we got the LGR shoved down our throats while the Liberals only had 38%. Or when Chretien decided that everybody will fund political parties, provided of course said parties have enough seats. Fucker even whipped that vote.
So yes, we're all aware that 38% for the Liberals is a clear cut mandate but 39% for the CPC, well shit, they don't represent the majority of Canadians and should quit acting like it.
But hey, why let objectivity get in your way of some good mental masturbation.

[Gunnair]

back_blastnet wrote:

Hey Eureka, as far as the Conservatives are concerned if something was a part of their election platform that's enough and all the debate there should be. That because they got a majority of MP's (with the confidence of 39% of the voters) they get to pass everything they want, with as little scrutiny as possible, little or no amendments and almost no debate.

They've already used closure or time allocation in 35 days sitting of the 41st Parliament then the previous record of Liberals using it 6 times over 2 years...

I'm not sure really what you expect. The CPC has a majority and frankly there is nothing illegal in what they are doing. It may smell stinky, however, they is nothing legally preventing them from doing it. This is done by any majority government and I note that though you mention it was done by the Liberals, you conveniently don't take them to task for it simply because the CPC has done it more.

I wonder if you felt the same ire when the LPC did this or if the NDP would do it if the ever got a majority.