Asleep at the switch
Stephen Taylor poses the following, regarding the Ruby Dhalla nanny thing (which I absolutely refuse to "gate"):
Since this report is a faster page turner than the new Dan Brown novel, I'm sure everyone has gotten to page 26 by now (page 34 on the document viewer on Taylor's site), which contains the Liberals' disenting opinion.
And, as I'm sure you're all familiar with the House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2009) book (just $19.95 at Amazon.com - makes a great Christmas gift!), you'll know that you can’t amend the text to a committee report at concurrence in the House. Like, duh!
“When a motion to concur in a report is before the House, it is the concurrence in the report as a whole which the House is considering. No amendment may be presented to the text of the report.” Pp 1074
“A motion for concurrence in a committee report is debatable. No amendment may be presented to the text of the report (…)” Pp 459
So, really, who's the one asleep at the switch here?
Just a few minutes ago, the House of Commons unanimously endorsed a report produced by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration which included the following recommendation,
[snip]
The Liberals had a chance to amend the motion in the House today, but perhaps they were asleep at the switch?
Since this report is a faster page turner than the new Dan Brown novel, I'm sure everyone has gotten to page 26 by now (page 34 on the document viewer on Taylor's site), which contains the Liberals' disenting opinion.
And, as I'm sure you're all familiar with the House of Commons Procedure and Practice (2009) book (just $19.95 at Amazon.com - makes a great Christmas gift!), you'll know that you can’t amend the text to a committee report at concurrence in the House. Like, duh!
“When a motion to concur in a report is before the House, it is the concurrence in the report as a whole which the House is considering. No amendment may be presented to the text of the report.” Pp 1074
“A motion for concurrence in a committee report is debatable. No amendment may be presented to the text of the report (…)” Pp 459
So, really, who's the one asleep at the switch here?
posted by calgarygrit at
7:33 p.m.
11 Comments:
I've always had a feeling that Mr. Taylor was asleep. Never had proof until now.
Well, minus most of his posts.
By
Kyle H., at 7:54 p.m.
So what happens in the end. Is there an investigation or no? I thought this thing had basically died a couple months ago.
By
bigcitylib, at 8:01 p.m.
Sadly, the Tories have already changed the regulations in such a way, that no live in caregiver, and certainly no Filipina caregiver, will ever enter the country again.
It's horrific the way they have pretended to care about those women, then fucked them over completely. My own nanny is terrified her sister will not be able to come as a nanny and become a citizen someday and her friends are in tears regularly over the ridiculous regulations that have been imposed.
The CPC thinks they are buying votes from illiterate suckers. Meanwhile, by text and email, they hear what is going on, and the caregivers won't fall for a white wash.
By
Aurelia, at 8:19 p.m.
At the end of the day, the Liberals gave unanimous consent to a report calling for an investigation into their own MP. They could have denied consent. They could have voted against. Instead, they let it sail through the House.
By
Anonymous, at 8:21 p.m.
and they could have amended the text of the motion, not the report.
By
Anonymous, at 8:27 p.m.
Well, would it look better if the Liberals were seen to be against an investigation?
Wouldn't that prompt Taylor and co to trot out the "unethical", "corrupt", etc allegations?
By
calgarygrit, at 8:33 p.m.
Wait... he's criticizing the liberals for failing to attempt to amend a motion adopting a report that calls for an investigation into a liberal MP.
Is he saying that's what the tories would have done in that situation?
I honestly don't get it.
By
Gauntlet, at 9:20 p.m.
Geez, it wouldn't be deliberate timing for Taylor (sleaze-bag) to talk about this would it?
Harper - India, now this?
Also, avoid talking about prisoner abuse....detaineees....
By
Anonymous, at 11:04 p.m.
The Liberals had a chance to amend the motion in the House today, but perhaps they were asleep at the switch?
Amending the text is entirely CG's idea.
Whatever amendment ST thinks the Libs could have offered, surely it would not have been a rejection of the investigation. Perhaps to add a quarterly report from the investigators?
By
Anonymous, at 1:57 p.m.
I don't care if Taylor was right and CG was wrong. Taylor's a sleazebag
By
Anonymous, at 4:34 p.m.
And thus we see why Harper et al are in trouble today. Their M.O. is "try to quash any story that may look bad", as opposed to "examine bad stories and try to fix them."
This is likely why they are trying to smear Colvin rather than touting that they changed detainee procedures in 2007.. because they likely knew about it in 06 when Colvin says, and attempted to quash the story until the media got wind of it.
For Taylor, the idea that any group would actually allow an investigation into their own difficulties seems outlandish because it requires the mature attitude of admitting that difficulties can happen rather than the childish attitude of attempting to hide everything until you can't any more.
Attempting to do the right think all the time doesn't mean actually doing the right thing all the time. It means attempting to, and being adult enough to admit when things have screwed up and take steps to fix it. That's what transparency really means. If Harper's party could learn that single lesson, they might be worthy of governing Canada.
By
Anonymous, at 5:14 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home