PM IN HOT WATER; The Prime Minister apologizes.

[Boges]

Even if the NDP MP embellished the contact, which is certainly possible if not likely. The PM's behaviour was needlessly aggressive and unnecessary. I elbow a woman at work, I'm sure I'd face some sort of discipline.

That being said, we apologized, we can move on. Unless the NDP want to embarrass him further and level charges (which they could do).

But if he continues this immature and impulsive behaviour as PM, the accusations levelled at him as a candidate may prove to be right.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Boges

[Smallc]

How does the court have any say in how long legislation takes to pass? Where do they get their authority from? That's bizarre. That would be like the House of Commons giving the court a deadline on when to rule on something.

The charter supersedes legislation.

[waldo]

Just in - Another camera angle...

yes, justin! just in! - a slo-mo review that clearly shows the NDP blockade in action... that shows both Mulcair and Brosseau actively moving in line with attempts by the Conservative Opposition Whip (Brown) to get by the blockade - the shame!

.

[Smallc]

Even if the NDP MP embellished the contact, which is certainly possible if not likely. The PM's behaviour was needlessly aggressive and unnecessary. I elbowed a woman at work, I'm sure I'd face some sort of discipline.

That being said, we apologized, we can move on. Unless the NDP want to embarrass him further and level charges (which they could do).

But if he continues this immature and impulsive behaviour as PM, the accusations levelled at him as a candidate may prove to be right.

It was impulsive, but I'd say the NDP were the ones being immature.

[scribblet]

The story should also be about why he cannot control his anger or impulses which speaks to immaturity and the need for anger management if nothing else.

Even Harper of the Toronto Star is recognizing the problems

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/19/liberals-had-been-elbows-up-before-justin-trudeau-got-physical-tim-harper.html

OTTAWA—Strip away the contrition, the high dudgeon and the blinkered Liberal apologists suggesting we should just get past the sorry spectacle in the House of Commons this week and you are left with an unassailable truth.

The Justin Trudeau Liberals have been treating the Commons as an annoyance, an inconvenient necessity that merely gets in the way of the Liberal show and its ever-burgeoning approval rating.

[Smallc]

Yes, even an NDP partisan can't see past what happened.

[Boges]

yes, justin! just in! - a slo-mo review that clearly shows the NDP blockade in action... that shows both Mulcair and Brosseau actively moving in line with attempts by the Conservative Opposition Whip (Brown) to get by the blockade - the shame!

.

TOWER NUMBER 7!!!!

[Big Guy]

Yesterday, during rush hour, a TTC bus had to stop suddenly to avoid a wayward child. The result was:

32 charges of sexual assault by females, 17 charges of "fondling" by both males and females, 66 cases of whiplash, 18 cases of hate crimes of assault of black by whites, Jews by Syrians, whites by blacks, Syrians by Jews, one complaint of a hate crime by a transgender against another transgender and 2 complaints of pedophilia contact.

Police are still investigating.

[waldo]

TOWER NUMBER 7!!!!

in adding fuel to, 'he who relishes American reference usage'... I understand there's a new video from some Zapruder guy - results analysis expected shortly! But really MLW member Boges, given the acrimony you've shown in this thread, I'd expect nothing less of you than your belittling of the seriousness of that NDP blockade action. Clearly you want to add-cover to the rapid-fire change of a chortling Mulclair reverting into his angry Tom persona...

.

[Argus]

Exactly, he clearly lost his temper and reacted with violence.........if done in nearly any other workplace in this country, Trudeau would be looking at far more stiffer stuff than an apology......in a (Government) union environment, at the very least, he'd be required to take part in an anger management program.

I member I represented got angry and punched a wall. Boy, what a fuss over that. Two other women claimed they were afraid to come to work, and the agency had to move her to another floor away from her group while various and sundry management flunkeys debated how to resolve the situation. She went on stress leave for a while, then one of the others went on stress leave. They eventually allowed her to transfer to another building.

[Boges]

in adding fuel to, 'he who relishes American reference usage'... I understand there's a new video from some Zapruder guy - results analysis expected shortly! But really MLW member Boges, given the acrimony you've shown in this thread, I'd expect nothing less of you than your belittling of the seriousness of that NDP blockade action. Clearly you want to add-cover to the rapid-fire change of a chortling Mulclair reverting into his angry Tom persona...

.

My previous post on the matter did nothing of the sort. I concede that an embellishment from the female MP was a distinct possibility. But to use video footage to try and conclude that this was a grand conspiracy to embarrass the PM, and goad him into assault, enters into a level of conspiracy theory I find laughable.

It would also mean that they had a pretty good idea that JT would act like a parent trying to scold a 3 year old, which, if true, might give some insight of the reputation he already has amongst other MPs.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Boges

[Argus]

I wouldn't normally agree with the tactic - but if this bill isn't law by June 6th, we could have a problem.

Not really. The courts will operate on the basis of the SC ruling, as they have been doing, as we saw from the Alberta court of appeals ruling last week.

[waldo]

How does the court have any say in how long legislation takes to pass? Where do they get their authority from? That's bizarre. That would be like the House of Commons giving the court a deadline on when to rule on something.

c'mon! As Harper Conservatives pissed-away most of the original 1 year period the SCOC put forward to enact legislation to support its ruling on doctor assisted dying... the SCOC granted an additional 4 months - and during that period, the ban on doctor assisted legislation remains in effect. So, no biggee, hey MLW member Shady? At the end of that 4 month extension, the ban comes off and the SCOC ruling granting a doctor's right to assist a patient's want to die comes into effect - the ban's off... but there is no law to support the ruling! So, no biggee, hey MLW member Shady?

as I wrote in reply to another member's 'what if - no biggee' query, without a federal law in place, onus falls on the provinces to have a covering law in place. You already came forward in this thread with your declaration that the SCOC deadline is "arbitrary"... clearly my reply sailed right over you - let me try it again:

...but will inform you that without the required federal legislation in place, with Canadians impacted (possibly on their death beds), onus will fall on the provinces to provide required legislation to support citizens/medical practitioners of their respective provinces in seeking remedy/resolution... which then, of course, opens the process to possible complainant appeal, to possible judicial appeal to the Provincial court, the Federal court... even to the SCOC itself. Tick Tock, Tick Tock... so arbitrary!

.

[waldo]

The fellow has a temper...get used to it.

perhaps... however, this was an agitation level reached!

.

[Argus]

c'mon! As Harper Conservatives pissed-away most of the original 1 year period the SCOC put forward to enact legislation to support its ruling on doctor assisted dying... the SCOC granted an additional 4 months -

Why did the Liberals wait until April to introduce the legislation?

[waldo]

Not really. The courts will operate on the basis of the SC ruling, as they have been doing, as we saw from the Alberta court of appeals ruling last week.

no - as you've already been apprised, that Alberta Court of Appeal put its ruling on hold - it isn't in effect... again, pending an expected appeal by the federal government to the Supreme Court itself.

.

[Argus]

no - as you've already been apprised, that Alberta Court of Appeal put its ruling on hold - it isn't in effect... again, pending an expected appeal by the federal government to the Supreme Court itself.

Which wouldn't change if there is legislation.

[Boges]

I find it amusing that the claim is that a majority government's bill can be completely derailed by opposition MPs standing in front of another opposition party's Whip. Isn't that form of Filibustering?

And the plucky aggressiveness from our brave PM was the only thing that kept this bill from dying on the floor.

Or he was just being an impatient child, that could be another theory.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Boges

[waldo]

Why did the Liberals wait until April to introduce the legislation?

you tell me - you tell me what activities have been ongoing... you know, involving committee level efforts to reach consensus. Wait, what's this - 16 meetings held... involving some ~15 HOC/Senate representatives all participating in attempts at arriving at consensus on the makeup of a bill... to present back to their own respective parties for further review/analysis - all working towards HOC passage to allow it to be punted on over to the Senate... and then on and on from there! To top that all off, we get these MLW hindsighters who presume to chastise the makeup of draft legislation not going "far enough"... not recognizing that there was a bona fide attempt to arrive at consensus, something that Conservatives could/might accept. I believe I already asked you once if you though Rona Conservatives would have actually lobbied for less restrictions than those that currently exist in this 'first attempt... baby step' undertaking? Why, I don' believe you answered that - go figure!

just so it's clear where the Harper Conservative (purposeful) delay centered... that committee wasn't formed in a Harper Conservative period of governance!

.

Edited May 20, 2016 by waldo

[waldo]

Which wouldn't change if there is legislation.

bullshyte! That federal legislation... which, of course, doesn't exist yet (presuming on HOC/Senate passage and Royal Ascent)... would still need to be reviewed by the SCOC itself. The Alberta Court of Appeal's hold on it's ruling presumes on the SCOC accepting and taking up the federal government's anticipated challenge to the Appeal's Court 'on hold' ruling... in the possible vacuum of that "eventual" federal legislation the SCOC rejects... or even against it if accepted. In any case, do you posit that anything brought forward by a single province carries forward as the rule of law within other provinces? Gee... wonder why all those provinces haven't just deferred to the Quebec 'Assisted Dying' legislation... I mean, that's your "logic" here, isn't it?

.

[Smallc]

Not really. The courts will operate on the basis of the SC ruling, as they have been doing, as we saw from the Alberta court of appeals ruling last week.

The ruling says that the old law remains in effect, and the court has been going on that basis, with a case by case recognition that the law is coming to an end, and that it will be allowed in some form.

[poochy]

Alternatively, maybe he thought Canada should have done things differently and that its actions warranted an apology. How is that any skin off your nose?

this is what, the third time he has done something like this in the house? How many times does he have to make an ass of himself before you might think that he doesn't really think he did anything wrong and his apologies aren't really genuine? How many chances would you have given Harper?

[poochy]

I find it amusing that the claim is that a majority government's bill can be completely derailed by opposition MPs standing in front of another opposition party's Whip. Isn't that form of Filibustering?

And the plucky aggressiveness from our brave PM was the only thing that kept this bill from dying on the floor.

Or he was just being an impatient child, that could be another theory.

It's the sort of thing that happens, angrily cursing while pulling on people and bumping others, not as much.

[poochy]

Even if the NDP MP embellished the contact, which is certainly possible if not likely. The PM's behaviour was needlessly aggressive and unnecessary. I elbow a woman at work, I'm sure I'd face some sort of discipline.

That being said, we apologized, we can move on. Unless the NDP want to embarrass him further and level charges (which they could do).

But if he continues this immature and impulsive behaviour as PM, the accusations levelled at him as a candidate may prove to be right.

All the talk about the accidental bump is just a way of changing focus and transferring blame to the ndp for complaining too loudly about what was, genuinely an accident, but it was an accident that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't angrily crossed the floor, cursing and grabbing at someone. Besides, it was probably her fault for being in his way, he had important liberal things to do you see.

[Smallc]

All the talk about the accidental bump is just a way of changing focus and transferring blame to the ndp for complaining too loudly about what was, genuinely an accident, but it was an accident that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't angrily crossed the floor, cursing and grabbing at someone. Besides, it was probably her fault for being in his way, he had important liberal things to do you see.

They were purposely delaying a vote that had to be brought to the house within 3 minutes, as per Elizabeth May.