Conservative Van Loan Gives Finger To NDP Leader Mulcair on Floor of House of Commons - CTV News
A verbal altercation between Government House Leader Peter Van Loan and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair occurred in the House of Commons Wednesday, briefly disrupting proceedings.
It wasn’t immediately clear what transpired, but NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen accused Van Loan of giving the middle finger to Mulcair.
Heated exchange between Van Loan, Mulcair in House | CTV News
We also now learn that although the Conservatives insist that everyone else abide by the 'letter of the law' ... they always seem to want to bend rules for themselves:
iPOLITICS has more ....
"Fundamentally, the problem was one of attendance.
It was about much more than that, really, but basically, that was the issue New Democrat House leader took to the Speaker after question period Wednesday.
Cullen’s contention was that, prior to the final vote on C-45 that would send the government’s fall budget implementation bill to third reading, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty wasn’t in the House. Given that it was his bill, the NDP contested that he should have been there, and since he wasn’t, the vote technically didn’t count.
“The motion put to the House was moved by a member who was not in his place, and was therefore indisputably out of order, preventing a legitimate vote from being held,” Cullen told the House during his point of order after question period. “There are clear rules set out for all members to follow in terms of how motions must be constructed and proposed, so that we’re all working on a level playing field. Those rules even apply to a minister of finance.”
Rather than it being Flaherty who moved that the bill be concurred in on Tuesday night, Cullen said, it was the Government House leader, Peter Van Loan.
Van Loan disagreed, saying that the Chair at the time, Joe Comartin, “interpreted properly… the intention of the government. It was obviously the intention of the government that the bill be moved.” That is, just because Flaherty wasn’t there didn’t make the vote invalid. Rather, procedure dictates that any other cabinet minister can make the move on his behalf.
Outside in the Foyer, Cullen made his case to reporters.
“The rules of the House are incredibly simple, and for the most basic motions or bills that an MP moves, you got to be there,” he said. “The House voted incorrectly last night on the government’s implementation act.”
In the House moments earlier, Liberal interim leader Bob Rae pointed out that, whether there was a re-vote or not, the result was bound to be the same.
“It’s difficult to believe that anyone thinks that, whether or not the minister of finance happened to be in his chair or not, the result of that vote would have been any different in any way, shape, or form,” Rae said. “Either the House can vote again on the same issue and reach the same conclusion and the same result, otherwise let’s get on with the debate on third reading.”
In the end, Speaker Andrew Scheer pointed out that it was the case that any cabinet minister could have moved the motion prior to the final vote on Tuesday night, and that at the time the Chair had not noticed Flaherty’s absence – something he said was an oversight.
Following that decision, there was somewhat of an altercation between the two parties.
