I was about to fall asleep when I suddenly realized that there is a small, but potentially significant difference in the wording for this week’s 106(4)-mandated Justice meeting.
I was about to fall asleep when I suddenly realized that there is a small, but potentially significant difference in the wording for this week’s 106(4)-mandated Justice meeting.
Last time around, the four members summoned the committee to discuss the motion to hold hearings into the Cadman Affair, which chair Art Hanger made short work of, ruling that he had already found the motion to be out of order, so any further debate on the matter would be moot. Procedurally questionable, given that there is still the outstanding issue of a vote not taken (and that, Robert Frost would suggest, could make all the difference) but close enough to allow him to adjourn the meeting properly, rather than simply bolt from the room.
This time, however, the meeting is to discuss proceeding to the vote on the Cadman motion – not, note, the motion itself – which would seem to be sound, as far as the rules of the committee. I suspect that’s exactly why the request was tweaked — if the meeting does proceed, it will ultimately get the committee where the opposition wants it to go, as far as calling the vote and overturning Hanger’s original ruling. That presumes, of course, that the Conservative contingent will let this latest motion go forward, which is a bit optimistic, given past history, but still.
Of course, if the vote does take place, and it leads to the overturning of the ruling on Cadman and, most likely, the ejection of the chair on grounds of non-confidence, there is no guarantee that the Cadman investigation will actually happen; instead, Justice will probably go on permanent hiatus, like Procedure and House Affairs, but at this point, it’s the thought that counts.