NDP Revision to Standing Order 11(2)

[cybercoma]

The NDP motion to revise Standing Order 11(2) received support from the entire NDP, Liberal, Bloc, and Green Party caucuses, as well as support from 3 Tory backbench MPs. The motion was still defeated by the Conservatives with a vote of 144-132.

Here is the original text of Standing Order 11(2) on relevancy:

The Speaker or the Chair of Committees of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her speech, and if then the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker shall name the Member or, if in Committee of the Whole, the Chair shall report the Member to the House.

And the proposed text from the NDP:

The Speaker or the Chair of Committees of the Whole, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, including during responses to oral questions, may direct the Member to discontinue his or her intervention, and if then the Member still continues to speak, the Speaker shall name the Member or, if in Committee of the Whole, the Chair shall report the Member to the House.

As you can see there is very little difference. They simply included "during responses to oral questions" which is the purpose of the already existing Standing Order anyway. In other words, the rules are in place to bring order to debate in the House, but the NDP moved a motion to make it explicit that the current speaker do his job.

The Conservatives argument was that the new standing order would not allow them to hold the official opposition accountable, despite the fact that this is not how Parliament works and is not the purpose of question period. The official opposition is not responsible for the government. Question Period is for the executive branch, not the entire Conservative Party but the governing bench, to answer questions from our representatives in the House. It's for the executive branch to be held accountable, not the parties.

This blurring of the executive and the party is a fundamentally undemocratic interpretation of the Westminster system and shows just how much power has been concentrated over the years in the PMO. It's a sad day when a motion that has support across party lines, including from members of the governing party's own backbench can't get passed. It's sad when the parties can't even agree that the executive branch should be held accountable for their answers in Question Period, that they shouldn't be allowed to stand and recite the alphabet in response to questions about deploying troops overseas or any other matter.

Harper ran on accountability, right? So where is his accountability platform now?

Edited October 2, 2014 by cybercoma

[Wilber]

Harper ran on accountability, right? So where is his accountability platform now?

Where it always goes once any party is elected. Accountability is an election platform, not a real policy.

[cybercoma]

I voted for Harper's Conservatives in 2006 because I was sick of the ridiculousness of what was going on with the Liberals back then. Chrétien was being an arrogant prick when it came to the Gomery investigation and Martin lost the fire that made him a great finance minister. The NDP were just lost in the woods back then, rebuilding under Layton, and had no serious policies worth considering. I voted for the CPC because I wanted a party that was going to create systems of accountability in Ottawa, as they promised in their election platform.

It has been almost 10 years and they've failed miserably to deliver on those promises. Even the positions they created, they fought against once they began operating as they should. Remember Kevin Page? He was a god damned hero to the public. Only the strictest partisan Kool-Aid drinkers took exception to him. As soon as Harper realized Page wasn't going to be a lapdog by following the PMO script, they did everything they could to discredit him and push him out. That's despite the fact that the PBO is supposed to be "independent." They don't want independent evaluations of their work at all. That's why they changed the accounting methods twice in as many years without going back and revising the historical record to the new methods. This makes it impossible to go back and track government spending on a year-by-year basis beyond 2010.

Accountability. What a joke.

[WWWTT]

Where it always goes once any party is elected. Accountability is an election platform, not a real policy.

That's it Wilber, set the bar nice and low for your beloved conservatives.

WWWTT

[PIK]

I voted for Harper's Conservatives in 2006 because I was sick of the ridiculousness of what was going on with the Liberals back then. Chrétien was being an arrogant prick when it came to the Gomery investigation and Martin lost the fire that made him a great finance minister. The NDP were just lost in the woods back then, rebuilding under Layton, and had no serious policies worth considering. I voted for the CPC because I wanted a party that was going to create systems of accountability in Ottawa, as they promised in their election platform.

It has been almost 10 years and they've failed miserably to deliver on those promises. Even the positions they created, they fought against once they began operating as they should. Remember Kevin Page? He was a god damned hero to the public. Only the strictest partisan Kool-Aid drinkers took exception to him. As soon as Harper realized Page wasn't going to be a lapdog by following the PMO script, they did everything they could to discredit him and push him out. That's despite the fact that the PBO is supposed to be "independent." They don't want independent evaluations of their work at all. That's why they changed the accounting methods twice in as many years without going back and revising the historical record to the new methods. This makes it impossible to go back and track government spending on a year-by-year basis beyond 2010.

Accountability. What a joke.

You are right, the accountability and transparency that people always cry for is impossible and if people think it will be any different under anyone else is a fool. And page IMO went a little to far, then what his mandate said and I think page was just out to make a name for himself.

[Smallc]

You have endless excuses don't you?

[hitops]

Harper the 'tyrant' allows his MP's to vote against the rest of the party. That would never happen with Mulcair, hard to know with Trudeau.

The spirit of this motion is good, I'm just not sure how it would really change anything. Nonsense can still easily be delivered, so long as there is some vague tie-in to the question. And it all rests of the speaker's opinion of it.

[Wilber]

That's it Wilber, set the bar nice and low for your beloved conservatives.

WWWTT

My "beloved conservatives". Where did you get that idea?

Harper is pretty bad but I've heard more different political parties than I can count campaign on a platform of openness and accountability and it is the first thing they all renege on when they get elected. Governments are naturally secretive, I think it is genetic in politicians.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Wilber

[Shady]

How is this anything at all like accountability? And how is this not just policing the use of language? This is absurd. Try tackling real issues, not the amount of times somebody can say something.

[guyser]

How is this anything at all like accountability? And how is this not just policing the use of language? This is absurd. Try tackling real issues, not the amount of times somebody can say something.

smallc Posted Today, 05:11 PM

You have endless excuses don't you?

[Shady]

Policing the use of language, which is completely subjective isn't at all tantamount to accountability. It should actually scare people that we have a party in our federal government that seeks to regulate speech in this manner. I'd expect this from the Chinese government. Not a Canadian one.

[PrimeNumber]

Policing the use of language, which is completely subjective isn't at all tantamount to accountability. It should actually scare people that we have a party in our federal government that seeks to regulate speech in this manner. I'd expect this from the Chinese government. Not a Canadian one.

They're regulating relevancy, its directly related to accountability.

Synonyms of accountability;

Responsibility, Liability, Answerability.

If someone asks you why you killed someone and you start talking about what you had for dinner, that is not relevant, unless of course you had the person you killed for dinner. If anything people should be applauding the NDP's efforts to make the governing party be relevant when asked a simple question.

I'd expect the exact opposite from the Chinese government. I don't know what world you're living in but in this one the Chinese government has never had to be relevant to the questions of its citizens.

[Shady]

They're regulating relevancy, its directly related to accountability.

Synonyms of accountability;

Responsibility, Liability, Answerability.

If someone asks you why you killed someone and you start talking about what you had for dinner, that is not relevant, unless of course you had the person you killed for dinner. If anything people should be applauding the NDP's efforts to make the governing party be relevant when asked a simple question.

I'd expect the exact opposite from the Chinese government. I don't know what world you're living in but in this one the Chinese government has never had to be relevant to the questions of its citizens.

Relevancy is also completely subjective. This whole subject and bill are utterly absurd and utterly unenforcable. It will appeal to the ignorant masses though. All it is is symbolism over substance. It's Orwellian.

[BubberMiley]

It's not surprising that someone who considers the truth to be subjective would think the same of relevance.

[On Guard for Thee]

Relevancy is also completely subjective. This whole subject and bill are utterly absurd and utterly unenforcable. It will appeal to the ignorant masses though. All it is is symbolism over substance. It's Orwellian.

I'll take from that you are a Calandra fan?

Subjectivity is usually used to avoid objectivity. Hence it is not relevant, usually.

Edited October 3, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Shady]

It's not surprising that someone who considers the truth to be subjective would think the same of relevance.

Who's truth? Will there be a Ministry of Truth to tell us what the truth really is?

[Shady]

I'll take from that you are a Calandra fan?

Subjectivity is usually used to avoid objectivity. Hence it is not relevant, usually.

Nope, no fan at all. But I'm even less of a fan of the regulation, policing, and criminalizing of speech under the false guise of "accountability/"

Edited October 3, 2014 by Shady

[On Guard for Thee]

Nope, no fan at all. But I'm even less of a fan of the regulation, policing, and criminalizing of speech under the false guise of "accountability/"

"Criminalizing" where did you come up with that idea? Anyway w/o some controls we will end up with more Calandra nonsense. You couldn't have got away with that in grade 1. Why should the people on the public payroll be able to get away with it when they are supposed to be adults?

[cybercoma]

Relevancy is also completely subjective. This whole subject and bill are utterly absurd and utterly unenforcable. It will appeal to the ignorant masses though. All it is is symbolism over substance. It's Orwellian.

Oh?

Questions are routinely shot down by the speaker in our Parliament for not being relevant.

So how does that mesh with your ridiculous argument that "relevancy is completely subjective ... and utterly unenforceable"?

Edited October 3, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

They're regulating relevancy, its directly related to accountability.

Synonyms of accountability;

Responsibility, Liability, Answerability.

If someone asks you why you killed someone and you start talking about what you had for dinner, that is not relevant, unless of course you had the person you killed for dinner. If anything people should be applauding the NDP's efforts to make the governing party be relevant when asked a simple question.

I'd expect the exact opposite from the Chinese government. I don't know what world you're living in but in this one the Chinese government has never had to be relevant to the questions of its citizens.

Correction: The government, not the governing party. This is about making the executive branch accountable. They are the ones who answer the questions in QP. It has nothing to do with the Tory backbench, other than giving them the tools to hold the government accountable to their constituents and party as well.

[PrimeNumber]

Who's truth? Will there be a Ministry of Truth to tell us what the truth really is?

It doesn't have to be the truth, they can keep lying, like they do. The lie just has to be on the same topic as the question. That's what Relevancy means;

Relevance

noun

1. the condition of being relevant, or connected with the matter at hand.

Edited October 3, 2014 by PrimeNumber

[cybercoma]

It's not surprising that someone who considers the truth to be subjective would think the same of relevance.

The truth is only subjective when it comes to others. He certainly wouldn't argue for moral relativism. He's an absolutist through and through, which is why this argument about "subjective relevancy," whatever the hell that means logically, is so bloody inconsistent with his past arguments.

[PrimeNumber]

Correction: The government, not the governing party. This is about making the executive branch accountable. They are the ones who answer the questions in QP. It has nothing to do with the Tory backbench, other than giving them the tools to hold the government accountable to their constituents and party as well.

You are correct! Although the only thing I see from other conservative MP's lately in QP is chest thumping about the Franklin expedition or some other thing that they think the PM has done well. Most likely questions handed to them by the PMO. I doubt any of them, save for independent conservatives would dare pressure the PM or his cabinet on something they are doing wrong.

[On Guard for Thee]

It doesn't have to be the truth, they can keep lying, like they do. The lie just has to be on the same topic as the question. That's what Relevancy means;

Relevance

noun

1. the condition of being revelant, or connected with the matter at hand.

Could you forward that to the PMO?

[cybercoma]

Who's truth? Will there be a Ministry of Truth to tell us what the truth really is?

No one's talking about enforcing truth. The Ministers can lie all they want. Hell the ministers don't even have to answer the questions put to them at all. They could even ask for time to get an answer to questions that are put to them. These are all directly relevant responses. What the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries should not have the luxury of doing is reciting the ABCs or singing a Neil Young tune in response to a question from Canadians by proxy of their MPs. That is literally the exact opposite of the government being accountable or responsible. That you would actually defend such patent absurdity as the show Calandra put on when asked direct questions about sending our troops into harms way is hilariously inconsistent with not only your past positions on various topics, but also conservatism as a political ideology.