Both @EvanLSolomon and @theJagmeetSingh on @ctvqp today gave the impression that BQ MP Alain Therrien rejected a *motion* moved by Singh. That's incorrect. Singh sought unanimous consent of HoC (i.e., unanimous permission of every MP in House) to move the motion he read out. /2
Unanimous consent is required to move a motion w/o having first given 48 hours' notice of the intention to do so. Notice is required so that the House is not caught by surprise. If no formal notice is given, the MP who wants to move a motion is supposed to consult the House Leadr
of each party. Therrien is the House Leader of the BQ. It is his *duty* to give or refuse consent on behalf of his party. Singh statement showed that he knew he might not get consent of all parties (see Hansard). He asked for u/c (as we abbreviate it at the HoC), Speaker asked if
there was consent and heard a no. So there was no u/c. That meant the motion could not be moved and put to the House for a decision. There was no motion (since Singh couldn't move one) and no decision was made on any motion. Why wld a House Leader refuse consent? Maybe the BQ
wasn't consulted adequately. Or maybe the BQ thot the motion deserved debate instead of being adopted immediately. Whatever, Therrien did not reject a motion; he refused consent for motion to be moved w/o notice. But Singh reacted as if Therrien had expressed an opinion.
#cdnpoli
#cdnpoli
