The reason why you have never heard of a named Member being suspended for more than the remainder of the sitting day is because the vast majority of members who are named do leave the Chamber as required, and thus are suspended only for the remainder of that sitting day. It is a fairly common occurrence. Only Curling in 1995 and now Murdoch and Hillier have refused to leave the chamber after being named, and where thus suspended for the remainder of the session, as per the Standing Orders.

I ended that association over McGuinty’s attack on my community and democracy. His attempt to have me arrested for organizing a protest to at a partisan liberal event for hacks in Scarborough made it clear to me this guy could trip over the bar for what he considers democratic.

I get that you’re a partisan Liberal and if McGuinty told you to crawl to work – you’d at least try – but my support for democracy and democratic prinicples should not brand me as a member of any party.

Between 1999 and 2009 I have campaigned provinicially on one NDP campaign, severial Liberal campaigns and one PC campaign.

Just one question – is the scandal ridden koolaid all that good?

Whether or not you agree with this rule is not the point. The point is that the Speaker’s first and foremost duty is to apply the rules of the House. He had no choice but to suspend them for the duration of the session – had he not done that, he would have been violating the Standing Orders. Murdoch and Hillier were not defying the Speaker – they were defying the Rules of the House. The Speaker was simply applying the Rules.

That said, the Speaker can always adjust the penalty and lift the suspension at any time. However, given the games that both Hillier and Murdoch (and the rest of the PC caucus) continue to play, this isn’t likely to happen.

They had a choice – that’s democracy. They know the rules.

There is NO defence whatsoever for acting against the rules of democracy and grandstanding.

Try to have a democracy without any rules!

Alan – I’m not defending the PC position and think the NDP has a far more compelling case to present as the clear opposition to the HST.

ADHR – I agree that punishment is necessary, but this goes too far. 2emoving them for the day or following day might be reasonable as it limits, but does not prevent them from doing their jobs.

Peters handling of this has been terrible. It demonstrates why someone should just run for Speaker because they were dumped from cabiniet.

I’d go further. I’d penalize their salaries for the days they aren’t there.

You know, we have rules for a reason. If you don’t have rules and don’t live by them, you get this pathetic grandstanding.

It’s not undemocratic – it’s about rules, respect and doing your job.

Worth noting in passing that there is one party in the House that has consistently opposed the HST and hasn’t pulled ridiculous stunts in doing it.

You said that these MPPs have a right to do their jobs. But last I checked, I don’t know where in their job description it saids that they have to yell and scream and grind legislative business to a halt. Then they aren’t really doing a job that their constituents voted them to do. People in Owen Sound and Lanark voted those two guys in to go to Toronto and work, not go to Toronto to yell and scream and call people liars.

And one more thing. You know how this is also comparable to the Republicans in the States? The Ontario PCs have not stated even ONCE that they would repeal the HST. They have not stated what the alternative would be to the HST. Are they going to cut it in five years? What are THEY going to do? I would really love to hear you defend the Tories on that point.