header image
The world according to David Graham


acva bili chpc columns committee conferences elections environment essays ethi faae foreign foss guelph hansard highways history indu internet leadership legal military money musings newsletter oggo pacp parlchmbr parlcmte politics presentations proc qp radio reform regs rnnr satire secu smem statements tran transit tributes tv unity

Recent entries

  1. PMO Staff Run Government; Ministers Represent It
  2. On A Mostly Harmless Birthday
  3. The Trouble With Political Communications
  4. Politics: War By Other Means
  5. On the function of Social media
  6. C-18 is an existential threat, not a benefit, to democracy
  7. On Missing A Little More Than A Sub
  8. The Realpolitik Of Open Nomination
  9. What Is An Open Nomination, Really?
  10. Alberta election about identity, not policy
  11. The Trouble With Electoral Reform
  12. Mr. Bains Goes to Rogers
  13. Question Period
  14. Why do lockdowns and pandemic restrictions continue to exist?
  15. Parliamentary privilege: an arcane concept that can prevent coups
  16. It's not over yet
  17. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  18. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  19. Next steps
  20. On what electoral reform reforms
  21. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  22. 2019 Summer newsletter / infolettre été 2019
  23. 2019-07-15 SECU 171
  24. 2019-06-20 RNNR 140
  25. 2019-06-17 14:14 House intervention / intervention en chambre
  26. 2019-06-17 SECU 169
  27. 2019-06-13 PROC 162
  28. 2019-06-10 SECU 167
  29. 2019-06-06 PROC 160
  30. 2019-06-06 INDU 167
  31. older entries...

2017-02-09 15:38 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Electoral reform, Government accountability, Opposition motions, Political programs,

Imputabilité du gouvernement, Programmes politiques, Réforme électorale

Madam Speaker, in principle, most of the time in a parliamentary democracy, there is no need for a consensus in order to make a decision, since one can always backtrack in a future Parliament. When it comes to changing the electoral system, however, the whole game has to be changed. That requires a consensus verging on unanimity in the House.

When the unanimous consent of the House is sought and half the members say yea while the other half say nay, the NDP says that consensus has been achieved. That makes no sense.

Madame la Présidente, en principe, dans une démocratie parlementaire, la plupart du temps, on n'a pas besoin d'un consensus pour prendre une décision, puisqu'on peut toujours faire marche arrière dans une future législature. Par contre, quand il s'agit de changer le système électoral, on change le jeu au complet. Cela prend un consensus se rapprochant de l'unanimité à la Chambre.

Quand on demande le consentement unanime de la Chambre et que la moitié des députés disent oui, alors que l'autre moitié dit non, le NPD dit qu'il y a un consensus. Cela n'a pas d'allure.

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 13:26 on February 09, 2017

This entry has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

2017-02-09 15:27 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2017-02-09 15:41 House intervention / intervention en chambre

(RSS) Website generating code and content © 2001-2020 David Graham <david@davidgraham.ca>, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Comments are © their respective authors.