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. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  2. January 17th, 2020
  3. January 16th, 2020
  4. January 15th, 2020
  5. January 14th, 2020
  6. January 13th, 2020
  7. January 12th, 2020
  8. January 11th, 2020
  9. January 10th, 2020
  10. January 9th, 2020
  11. January 8th, 2020
  12. January 7th, 2020
  13. January 6th, 2020
  14. January 5th, 2020
  15. January 4th, 2020
  16. January 3rd, 2020
  17. January 2nd, 2020
  18. January 1st, 2020
  19. December 31st, 2019
  20. December 30th, 2019
  21. December 29th, 2019
  22. December 28th, 2019
  23. December 27th, 2019
  24. December 26th, 2019
  25. December 24th, 2019
  26. December 6th, 2019
  27. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  28. Next steps
  29. On what electoral reform reforms
  30. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  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 15:26 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.