Contempt of Parliament

[DrGreenthumb]

Liberal Derek Lee has introduced a motion to find the Conservatives in contempt of Parliament. I wonder which Con will be arrested first.

[cybercoma]

Care to elaborate for those that haven't heard the news and don't have a clue what you're talking about?

[DrGreenthumb]

Care to elaborate for those that haven't heard the news and don't have a clue what you're talking about?

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/privilegewatch-who-stands-for-parliament-the-ndp-and-the-bloc-quebecois-apparently.html

read it for yourself

[ToadBrother]

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/privilegewatch-who-stands-for-parliament-the-ndp-and-the-bloc-quebecois-apparently.html

read it for yourself

Going to be an interesting fight. Parliament's latitude is pretty wide, but it's an open book. Finding people in contempt is pretty rare, and almost inevitably never leads to punishment:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch03&Seq=4&Lang=E

[cybercoma]

I'll see if I can find some factual reporting, rather than one rife with conjecture and the dysphemisms of a blogger. Thanks anyway.

Edited March 18, 2010 by cybercoma

[wyly]

Going to be an interesting fight. Parliament's latitude is pretty wide, but it's an open book. Finding people in contempt is pretty rare, and almost inevitably never leads to punishment:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch03&Seq=4&Lang=E

not being an expert on Parliaments rules where is this all going? what are the possible outcomes? resignations? election?

[ToadBrother]

not being an expert on Parliaments rules where is this all going? what are the possible outcomes? resignations? election?

So far as I can tell, there are no technical limits on punishment (this isn't a Criminal Code offense). It's possible for a member to be jailed. According to the few news sites I've skimmed only one person in Canada has ever been jailed for Contempt of Parliament, and that was a businessman named R. C. Miller in 1913:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=42920e1a-7f36-4dbc-902b-8b6cf9ae96bb

They actually threw him in there for four months! But I doubt very much that the Opposition would go that far. I would think that it would foment a very serious political crisis if they did vote to send Harper to jail. I imagine they won't go any further than the motion and maybe some sort of censure. Not that that isn't bad. So far as I know, no Prime Minister in Canadian history has ever been held in Contempt of Parliament.

[fellowtraveller]

Liberal Derek Lee has introduced a motion to find the Conservatives in contempt of Parliament. I wonder which Con will be arrested first.

I guess the economy has slid to last place on the Liberal agenda.

Has Iggy inissted that this be a confidence vote?

Yeah, sure .

[ToadBrother]

I guess the economy has slid to last place on the Liberal agenda.

Has Iggy inissted that this be a confidence vote?

Yeah, sure .

How could Iggy insist it be a confidence vote? That's the Government's discretion. I'm not too sure that they could even call this a confidence motion, but if I were Harper, that's what I'd do.

[wyly]

So far as I can tell, there are no technical limits on punishment (this isn't a Criminal Code offense). It's possible for a member to be jailed. According to the few news sites I've skimmed only one person in Canada has ever been jailed for Contempt of Parliament, and that was a businessman named R. C. Miller in 1913:

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=42920e1a-7f36-4dbc-902b-8b6cf9ae96bb

They actually threw him in there for four months! But I doubt very much that the Opposition would go that far. I would think that it would foment a very serious political crisis if they did vote to send Harper to jail. I imagine they won't go any further than the motion and maybe some sort of censure. Not that that isn't bad. So far as I know, no Prime Minister in Canadian history has ever been held in Contempt of Parliament.

I suppose on how serious the contempt is judged to be determines whether it becomes a serious political issue.

who decides the punishment if someone is found in contempt?

you've mentioned jail as an unlikely result, is resignation from a post such as cabinet minister or loss of a seat possible? does this trigger a vote of non-confidence?

[g_bambino]

I'm not too sure that they could even call this a confidence motion, but if I were Harper, that's what I'd do.

It's difficult to fathom how the House of Commons voting in favour of finding the prime minister in contempt of parliament is not a vote of non-confidence in the prime minister. I doubt the prime minister would be the focus, though.

[fellowtraveller]

It's difficult to fathom how the House of Commons voting in favour of finding the prime minister in contempt of parliament is not a vote of non-confidence in the prime minister. I doubt the prime minister would be the focus, though.

Exactly.

Contempt of Parliament is a very serious charge and must by nature be a confidence motion.

Let us watch Iggy wriggle out of making it so.

[ToadBrother]

I suppose on how serious the contempt is judged to be determines whether it becomes a serious political issue.

who decides the punishment if someone is found in contempt?

By all accounts, Parliament. How exactly that happens, I'm not sure. If what I've found is true, usually it's just pretty much left at a censure (a sort of "this goes on your permanent record, young man" thing).

you've mentioned jail as an unlikely result, is resignation from a post such as cabinet minister or loss of a seat possible? does this trigger a vote of non-confidence?

First of all, I'm not precisely sure who exactly the motion is directed at. Some reports suggest Harper. Some just say the Government. Obviously if it's the latter, the motion will have little practical meaning. If the former, unless they actually vote to stick him in jail, I'd say the ramifications are going to be limited. I cannot foresee it compelling the GG to dismiss Harper (although she does have that power).

It really depends on how far the Opposition wants to go with this. I have a hard time believing that Iggy is going to want to foment some sort of Parliamentary crisis, so I still think it's grandstanding. If they were to send Harper to jail, I'd say, at the very least, his position as head of Government would become unsustainable, and just as likely, the government itself would be in jeopardy. But this is totally uncharted waters. I know of no sitting Prime Minister anywhere in the Commonwealth or in the UK has ever been found in Contempt of Parliament, and I doubt very much the current Opposition has the balls to be the first.

[wyly]

Exactly.

Contempt of Parliament is a very serious charge and must by nature be a confidence motion.

Let us watch Iggy wriggle out of making it so.

you seem to think that would be a bad thing by which you're assuming Canadians will agree it's ok to be in contempt just as the conservatives thought Canadians would be ok with prorogation...

[ToadBrother]

Exactly.

Contempt of Parliament is a very serious charge and must by nature be a confidence motion.

Let us watch Iggy wriggle out of making it so.

How does it follow that it is a confidence motion? Contempt of Parliament itself proscribes no particular punishment. I agree that if Harper were sent to jail over this, that this would create a crisis, but if they just choose to find him in contempt, without removal of privilege or any further punishment, explain to me how this constitutes a Confidence Motion?

Are you the first to trot out the newest version of the Conservative Party's Take On Our Constitution? Is this an example of what the spin doctors from party HQ will be telling their willing minions to spread about?

[wyly]

By all accounts, Parliament. How exactly that happens, I'm not sure. If what I've found is true, usually it's just pretty much left at a censure (a sort of "this goes on your permanent record, young man" thing).

First of all, I'm not precisely sure who exactly the motion is directed at. Some reports suggest Harper. Some just say the Government. Obviously if it's the latter, the motion will have little practical meaning. If the former, unless they actually vote to stick him in jail, I'd say the ramifications are going to be limited. I cannot foresee it compelling the GG to dismiss Harper (although she does have that power).

It really depends on how far the Opposition wants to go with this. I have a hard time believing that Iggy is going to want to foment some sort of Parliamentary crisis, so I still think it's grandstanding. If they were to send Harper to jail, I'd say, at the very least, his position as head of Government would become unsustainable, and just as likely, the government itself would be in jeopardy. But this is totally uncharted waters. I know of no sitting Prime Minister anywhere in the Commonwealth or in the UK has ever been found in Contempt of Parliament, and I doubt very much the current Opposition has the balls to be the first.

foremost for the opposition I think their goal would be the release of documents that are unredacted, then a sacrifice of Peter McKay...

[ToadBrother]

foremost for the opposition I think their goal would be the release of documents that are unredacted, then a sacrifice of Peter McKay...

I don't see how the motion itself (if passed) would compel either the release or Mackay's fall, although I think if this goes on too much longer, Mackay's position may very well become untenable regardless of Contempt or not.

[wyly]

I don't see how the motion itself (if passed) would compel either the release or Mackay's fall, although I think if this goes on too much longer, Mackay's position may very well become untenable regardless of Contempt or not.

isn't the entire issue over the failure to release unredacted documents? so if found in contempt wouldn't the documents have to be provided?

[ToadBrother]

isn't the entire issue over the failure to release unredacted documents? so if found in contempt wouldn't the documents have to be provided?

Let's put it this way. Contempt of Parliament is like a power saw, but the documents are a nail. Powersaws aren't terribly effective at hammering nails, though you might be able to threaten the the guy holding the hammer to hammer the nail if you wave the powersaw threateningly enough.

I've been trying to dream up ways short of a confidence vote that the Opposition could meaningfully compel the Government to release the papers. I suppose they could take the Government to court, but that would be rather long-winded, and it's hard to say how effective it would be if another election was called in the meantime. They could, theoretically at least, ask the GG to intervene, but there's no precedent for that, which means the GG is almost inevitably not going to intervene. The government pretty much controls the legislative end of things, so a lot of obstacles could be thrown up to a legislative solution.

You got me what a successful Contempt of Parliament motion is going to do here.

[ToadBrother]

Okay, this story seems to be a bit clearer:

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/03/18/parliament-afghan-detainee-documents.html

The Speaker is being asked to rule on a point of privilege, and it appears that it is directed Peter MacKay, Rob Nicholson and Lawrence Cannon, not at the Prime Minister. Not that trying to nail three senior Cabinet Ministers isn't a BIG DEAL, but it becomes harder for certain posters here to insist that this somehow constitutes some confidence motion (and I don't see how it would constitute that even if Harper were named).

Of course, this is all on the Speaker's lap now, and let's remember, regardless of the jersey he was wearing when he was elected to the House of Commons, the moment he becomes Speaker, his political affiliations go out the window. It's impossible for me to see how the Speaker cannot rule in favor of the Opposition on this one, there is absolutely nothing in our Constitution that allows a government to deny Parliament whatever it wants to see.

This could get really interesting, but it is conceivable that if the Speaker sides with the Government, the next logical step would be to start gunning for the Speaker, and since it is Parliament who ultimately decides who the Speaker is, they could dump Milliken.

A lot of it depends on how gutsy the Opposition is.

[g_bambino]

A lot of it depends on how gutsy the Opposition is.

It always has. Unfortunately, they've not shown themselves to be very intestinally endowed; their real job always seems to take a back seat to poll numbers and election prospects.

[wyly]

it seems to me the opposition is trying to pry the unredacted document from the government, it becomes an contempt issue if the government refuses...so it's actually in the governments hands where this goes in regards to contempt...

this is a battle for public opinion the opposition is quite certain where they can hurt the government in the publics view is lying and cover-ups...

[ZZelda]

How could Iggy insist it be a confidence vote? That's the Government's discretion. I'm not too sure that they could even call this a confidence motion, but if I were Harper, that's what I'd do.

Opposition Parties at work defending terrorists. Harper must be doing a great job for Canadians if this is the main complaint against the ruling goverment. Hope all is well in your part of Canada as the Opposition thinks it is. May these Terrorists stop killing our sons and brothers as they try to bring a better life to the majority. Have a good one ehh Edited March 18, 2010 by ZZelda

[ToadBrother]

Opposition Parties at work defending terrorists. Harper must be doing a great job for Canadians if this is the main complaint against the ruling goverment. Hope all is well in your part of Canada as the Opposition thinks it is. May these Terrorists stop killing our sons and brothers as they try to bring a better life to the majority. Have a good one ehh

So this is how it begins. The little Tory trolls come out, say the most moronic things, and the cycle of astroturfing begins again.

If you're not just some pathetic troll, I'll ask you, who is the boss, Government or Parliament?

[Topaz]

Derek Lee, has experience with this because he did the same thing to Mulroney when the PM wouldn't turn off documents then. Lets be clear here, the Tories made a mistake by NOT coming out in the open and saying that detainees were being tortured by the Afghans. Instead they hide it and then covered it up over and over again and its their own fault that the oppositions have to do this to get the truth. I think most Canadians want an honest government,(is there one)and the Tories are hiding behind security reasons. Perhaps they could hire Chretien and Mulroney along with the judge to look over the documents and give us the answers.