- Reaction score
Brihard said:Oh, absolutely. But as I mentioned a couple posts back, if the vote had simply not been hell, JP or JWR would likely have hauled that fact out by now. The statement to the speaker that it was voted to be deferred to the party convention is both completely plausible, and easily refutable had that not been the case. By all means ask for receipts, but I don't see any room for deception on that particular point. It would be absurd to even try.
Except that it is improper for a voter - any voter in any type of vote - to actually vote on behalf of someone without that right to vote. It is for members of Parliament here to vote individually as part of their role as MP on how they want their caucus to work. It's not for them to defer and act for the party. If they had differed by a few weeks/months so they could each consult their constituent - that is people at large in their riding - that would be OK as they represent those people - not the party.
Also, I feel that there is more blame to go around here, as we are three years into the mandate: Those recorded votes are supposed to be forwarded to the Speaker. So why has his office not contacted the various party leaders yet to inquire of the votes and their records? I think that is the reason he ruled the way he did: He also screwed up.