Contempt of Parliament

[fellowtraveller]

I think that's what Harper wants the government to fall, have another election, while pointing out I didn't do it, THEY, the opposition did it!! Then having the arrogant attitude the Tories have they would be re-election and everything would start over again like before and he would get the chance to shuffle his cabinet , yet again.

Ah, it is Harper who is FORCING the Opposition to bring charges of contempt of Parliament, to FORCE them into having an election? Wow, that is deep, brother. I hesitate to point out that he or any PM does not need an election to shuffle VCabinet, he can do it to honour National Pickle Week is he so chooses.

[Smallc]

Ah, it is Harper who is FORCING the Opposition to bring charges of contempt of Parliament,

Yes, he is.

[ToadBrother]

Contempt of Parliament is a very serious charge, similar to treason.

No it is not.

If any Ministers or the PM is found guilty of this, the govt must fall.

I doubt you can justify this in any constitutional sense. I know of no expert on our system that insists that simply finding a Minister or the Prime Minister guilty of contempt of Parliament generates a confidence crisis. I openly challenge you right here to defend that statement.

Of course.

Any theories on how Layton and Ignatieff will scramble to abvoid forcing the govt out?

Let's deal with your claims.

[wyly]

Yes, he is.

I wouldn't call it forcing, more like leaving them no other option...release documents and the contempt issue goes away but then that create equally large problems for them

[wyly]

No it is not.

agreed, not even close...

I doubt you can justify this in any constitutional sense. I know of no expert on our system that insists that simply finding a Minister or the Prime Minister guilty of contempt of Parliament generates a confidence crisis. I openly challenge you right here to defend that statement.

but they may try turn it into that if they think it's less damaging option than releasing unredacted documents that may prove they lied to the public...if they feel a need to call an election early before their polls could fall what is the better choice, contempt issue or caught lying and covering up ...

[ToadBrother]

but they may try turn it into that if they think it's less damaging option than releasing unredacted documents that may prove they lied to the public...if they feel a need to call an election early before their polls could fall what is the better choice, contempt issue or caught lying and covering up ...

They can cast it this way, but from what I can tell, it's entirely up to the Speaker. A vote of this kind is not controlled by the Government, so the position that some commentators have taken that somehow the Government can turn a vote on a motion of Contempt of Parliament into a confidence motion eludes me. Surely the Speaker would be the one determining the nature of such a motion. Or am I totally misunderstanding this? I'm trying to find any kind of precedent where an actual Minister of the Crown anywhere in the Commonwealth has ever faced such a motion.

The closest I can find was one Peter Spyker, Transport Minister for the State of Victoria in Australia, who apparently was accused of misleading the House, but the Government controlled the committee the claim was referred to so it does not appear that anything happened. These parliament, at least, has an actual Privileges Committee (much like the UK).

[ToadBrother]

I sincerely believe that most Canadians don't give a shit about prooragtion, and they don't gice a shit about detainees either. They also don't give a shit about the latest Liberal/CBC 'crisis', which is curbing the power of the PMO. Pretty laughable, bringing this up with a minority govt, after watching Chretien run rampant over Parliament for years and nobody cared then. Odd, that.

Nope, if you want to manufacture a crisis, best to focus on what matters now: jobs.

So democracy doesn't matter any more? The rule of law doesn't matter anymore? Over three hundred years of Parliamentary supremacy out the door doesn't matter anymore? Just because of a temporary economic slowdown? Well, I know where you stand, anyways, on the side of the short-sighted and easily confused.

[ToadBrother]

And for those who aren't utterly dulled by my, here's a link to the CBC's Inside Politics blog entry by Neil Morrison, which goes back to the not-very-distant past, and which will likely inform the Speaker's ruling to be:

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/03/detainee-document-ruling-speculation-wwmd-what-would-milliken-do.html

In the case referenced here, let me pull out the key aspect of what the Speaker had to say:

It is a well-established and unequivocal power of all committees of the House to order the production of papers and records.

[Smallc]

I wouldn't call it forcing, more like leaving them no other option

I would say that by thumbing their noses at Parliament's authority, they are forcing them.

[wyly]

They can cast it this way, but from what I can tell, it's entirely up to the Speaker. A vote of this kind is not controlled by the Government, so the position that some commentators have taken that somehow the Government can turn a vote on a motion of Contempt of Parliament into a confidence motion eludes me. Surely the Speaker would be the one determining the nature of such a motion. Or am I totally misunderstanding this? I'm trying to find any kind of precedent where an actual Minister of the Crown anywhere in the Commonwealth has ever faced such a motion.

I never would've thought a government could prorogue to avoid a non confidence vote, I never would have thought a government could break it's own law on fixed elections...this government apparently thinks it can change or defy any law or tradition it so chooses at it's convenience...the speaker is in danger of making himself irrelevant should he side with the government...

Edited March 26, 2010 by wyly

[wyly]

I would say that by thumbing their noses at Parliament's authority, they are forcing them.

ok, different point of view then...it ends in the same result

[ToadBrother]

I never would've thought a government could prorogue to avoid a non confidence vote, I never would have thought a government could break it's own law on fixed elections...this government apparently thinks it can change or defy any law or tradition it so chooses at it's convenience...the speaker is in danger of making himself irrelevant should he side with the government...

I'll wait to see what the Speaker says. His biggest problem, I'm sure, is that the direct effects of permitting a motion on whether Ministers of the Crown are to be held in contempt may be an election. Remember, he doesn't side with anybody, except Parliament itself.

[wyly]

I'll wait to see what the Speaker says. His biggest problem, I'm sure, is that the direct effects of permitting a motion on whether Ministers of the Crown are to be held in contempt may be an election. Remember, he doesn't side with anybody, except Parliament itself.

he isn't supposed to side with anyone, will he uphold his position in the face of ultimate party discipline? I would like to think taking the position as speaker is more important than party loyalty, if not we have huge constitutional problem...he must side with parliaments best interest over that of the government...

[g_bambino]

I never would've thought a government could... break it's own law on fixed elections.

Good grief. Some people just never learn.

[myata]

I never would've thought a government could prorogue to avoid a non confidence vote, I never would have thought a government could break it's own law on fixed elections...this government apparently thinks it can change or defy any law or tradition it so chooses at it's convenience...the speaker is in danger of making himself irrelevant should he side with the government...

This is the direct result of persistent and ongoing tradition of near total domination of the federal politcal process by the government in power. The Parliament simply does not have neither independency nor practical and enforceable means to hold the government accountable (if it itself does not desire that) and the only fault of this particular government is that it decided to stretch its supremacy a little bit further. If we won't wake up now and make necessary changes to set strict and enforceable checks and balances between branches of government, this may be only a mild beginning (on the path from functioning democracy to one only in the name).

[g_bambino]

The Parliament simply does not have neither independency nor practical and enforceable means to hold the government accountable.

Ignoring the double negative in your statement, you've evidently never heard of a vote of non-confidence.

[ToadBrother]

he isn't supposed to side with anyone, will he uphold his position in the face of ultimate party discipline? I would like to think taking the position as speaker is more important than party loyalty, if not we have huge constitutional problem...he must side with parliaments best interest over that of the government...

He's a Liberal.

[ToadBrother]

This is the direct result of persistent and ongoing tradition of near total domination of the federal politcal process by the government in power. The Parliament simply does not have neither independency nor practical and enforceable means to hold the government accountable (if it itself does not desire that) and the only fault of this particular government is that it decided to stretch its supremacy a little bit further. If we won't wake up now and make necessary changes to set strict and enforceable checks and balances between branches of government, this may be only a mild beginning (on the path from functioning democracy to one only in the name).

And when you have any changes that make any sense whatsoever, you let us know. In the meantime, the Speaker is well and truly independent, and has been for centuries.

[myata]

And when you have any changes that make any sense whatsoever, you let us know.

The changes that are necessary to become a responsible, transparent and modern democracy has been stated and no less than a dozen times. "Make sense" is a different matter though, because it's in the eye of the beholder and there's no lack of entirely outrageous things that would make all the sense to somebody in this world.

In the meantime, the Speaker is well and truly independent, and has been for centuries.

Yes let's see if Holy Speaker would now prevail where (ostensible) Parliamentary Supremacy couldn't do a thing.

[ToadBrother]

The changes that are necessary to become a responsible, transparent and modern democracy has been stated and no less than a dozen times.

And back to the t-shirt slogans.

"Make sense" is a different matter though, because it's in the eye of the beholder and there's no lack of entirely outrageous things that would make all the sense to somebody in this world.

No kidding.

Yes let's see if Holy Speaker would now prevail where (ostensible) Parliamentary Supremacy couldn't do a thing.

If you didn't spend half your time blurting out crap like this, you might learn something.