The Speaker's Rulings - a Little Perspective

[Keepitsimple]

The majority governments of Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien would snicker at the latest Conservative Faux-pas. With majority control of committees, the Oda "affair" and the requests for additional information on Justice Bills would simply be quashed at committee......and God forbid, if something did make it back to the Speaker, it would be referred back to committee (just like Milliken did) where it would be swept aside by the Government committee majority. So....those that are of the opinion that somehow, the Harper government is "flouting democracy" - think again. How do you think that Shawinigate never blew up in Liberal faces? It was neutored at committee. Imagine if Shawinigate took place in the current minority setting? None of which excuses the behavior of the Conservatives but lets have just a little....perspective.

Still, a little perspective is warranted. Just how serious are the Tories' transgressions? How can we find them in "contempt" when the same label was never imposed on Jean Chrétien's Liberals?

In his twin rulings on Wednesday, Speaker Milliken correctly stated that the ability of the House to demand information from the government and the obligation of the government and its ministers to comply "goes to the heart of the House's undoubted role in holding the government to account." As it surely does.

But that role needs to be fulfilled equally under majority and minority governments, Liberal as well as Tory. And at the moment, it is not.

Majority governments ignore requests from Commons committees all the time. In the first place, few truly independent requests make it through the hermetic seal that committees throw up around majority governments. Secondly, when requests do make it through, the government uses its majority on committees, as well as in the House, to ensure no one ever files a contempt complaint when it fails to answer.

When the Liberals were in the majority, they used committees as a force field around the cabinet and government. When controversial issues arose such as global warming, welfare, crime, gun control, health care or abortion, the Liberals used their majority on committees to exclude witnesses with evidence contrary to Liberal policy and to shoot down opposition motions demanding the same kind of data that the Conservatives are guilty of withholding in this case.

Far from being independent and investigative, Commons committees under the Liberals (and other majorities) were mere rubber stamps.

Link:http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Milliken+minority+report/4420771/story.html

Edited March 11, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

scribbler already beat you to it... birds of a Harper Government™ feather...

same reply offered for your edification!

And your link? The most important word in it is 'majority'. It's the difference between the will of parliament and contempt of parliament.

ya, ya... clearly, scribbler's link to the NP's Lorne Gunter is gold, real gold... according to Gunter (and scribbler), the only reason we're hearing about the rash of ongoing Harper Government™ transgressions/scandals, is because they don't have that ever elusive majority. Apparently, the simple resolution is to have Canadians satisfy that elusive majority and the resulting ,"appropriate adjustments", to committee staffing levels would ensure we would never have to hear about the ongoing Harper Government™ transgressions/scandals again... a lil' ole, out of sight - out of mind!

[Mr.Canada]

Harper Government™

You do know that on the Liberal Ontario website their are over 2,000 mentions of the McGuinty Government don't you?

The media calls it the Harper Government.

[waldo]

You do know that on the Liberal Ontario website their are over 2,000 mentions of the McGuinty Government don't you?

bully... even if that were true. Whatever bearing you think that unsubstantiated nugget actually has on this Federal Politics forum thread, perhaps you should take up your concerns where they might be applicable/relevant - hey?

The media calls it the Harper Government™.

that may be; I certainly wouldn't take your verbatim, most generalized, all encompasing claim as such. Apparently... the media has reported on the Harper government's directives to formalize the title Harper Government™ within the vernacular of government title usage/designation.

[Topaz]

ALL Canadians should demand honesty from their Feds govt and the Libs adscam should be the last straw and its time Canadians vote out ANY government that takes advantage of the power in the PMO. IF we want a government that really is for Canadians first then if Canadians let Tories off, you will only have more of the same lies, cheating and schemes in govt. The Tories keep saying well they did it, why can't we? Two wrongs don't make it right and they are spinning and spinning hoping to hook some voters.

[capricorn]

Two wrongs don't make it right and they are spinning and spinning hoping to hook some voters.

Looking at the last 5 or 6 polls, it appears to be working. Isn't that a bitch?

[scribblet]

===================iImagine if Shawinigate took place in the current minority setting? None of which excuses the behavior of the Conservatives but lets have just a little....perspective.

Link:http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Milliken+minority+report/4420771/story.html

I posted that link in another thread, but I did think about starting a new one, it does speak to the issue of the need to reform parliamentary committees and the Liberal misusing their majority on them. There is definitely a lack of perspective here

the Liberals used their majority on committees to exclude witnesses with evidence contrary to Liberal policy and to shoot down opposition motions demanding the same kind of data that the Conservatives are guilty of withholding in this case.

Edited March 12, 2011 by scribblet

[waldo]

Looking at the last 5 or 6 polls, it appears to be working. Isn't that a bitch?

bookmarked... always heartening to catch one of the boosters qualifying Harper Government™ duplicity through poll results.

[waldo]

I posted that link in another thread, but I did think about starting a new one, it does speak to the issue of the need to reform parliamentary committees and the Liberal misusing their majority on them. There is definitely a lack of perspective here

that's right, scribbler... lap up anything Gunter throws out there, hey?

ya, ya... clearly, scribbler's link to the NP's Lorne Gunter is gold, real gold... according to Gunter (and scribbler), the only reason we're hearing about the rash of ongoing Harper Government™ transgressions/scandals, is because they don't have that ever elusive majority. Apparently, the simple resolution is to have Canadians satisfy that elusive majority and the resulting ,"appropriate adjustments", to committee staffing levels would ensure we would never have to hear about the ongoing Harper Government™ transgressions/scandals again... a lil' ole, out of sight - out of mind!

[scribblet]

Looking at the last 5 or 6 polls, it appears to be working. Isn't that a bitch?

More bad news for the Liberals Thursday, from the Globe and Mail

Jane Taber - Globe and Mail Update - Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2011 6:02PM EST

Michael Ignatieff is digesting some bad news on the eve of what could be a federal election. A new online poll has the Tories 16 points ahead of the Liberals, whose leader is described as “arrogant and out-of-touch.”

The Angus Reid/Vision Critical poll gives Stephen Harper and his Conservatives 39 per cent support compared to 23 per cent for the Liberals. The NDP is at 17 per cent, while the Bloc and the Green Party are tied with 9 per cent support.

and so it goes.....

from the Hill Times - PARLIAMENT HILL—The NDP is getting cold feet about bringing down the Harper Government anytime soon ( notice their use of 'Harper Gov't) LOL

[ToadBrother]

The majority governments of Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien would snicker at the latest Conservative Faux-pas. With majority control of committees, the Oda "affair" and the requests for additional information on Justice Bills would simply be quashed at committee......and God forbid, if something did make it back to the Speaker, it would be referred back to committee (just like Milliken did) where it would be swept aside by the Government committee majority. So....those that are of the opinion that somehow, the Harper government is "flouting democracy" - think again. How do you think that Shawinigate never blew up in Liberal faces? It was neutored at committee. Imagine if Shawinigate took place in the current minority setting? None of which excuses the behavior of the Conservatives but lets have just a little....perspective.

Link:http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Milliken+minority+report/4420771/story.html

So it's back to the "those guys did bad so it's okay if we did bad..."

Is that your definition of "perspective"? Are you saying it's okay for a government to withhold documents from Parliament because a previous Liberal government did it? Are you saying it's okay for a Minister to mislead a committee because previous governments have been less than forthright?

Edited March 12, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Keepitsimple]

So it's back to the "those guys did bad so it's okay if we did bad..."

Is that your definition of "perspective"? Are you saying it's okay for a government to withhold documents from Parliament because a previous Liberal government did it? Are you saying it's okay for a Minister to mislead a committee because previous governments have been less than forthright?

No......it's not all right. As I said, under a majority government like the Conservatives had under Mulroney and the Liberals had with Chretien, these kinds of issues would seldom see the light of day. In a minority government where the opposition controls the committee, the issues are partisanly magnified and have even recently been portrayed as "attacks on democracy". As the article says, it's a product of the make-up of the committees and perhaps the committee system needs some sort of overhaul. With the potential for a Conservative majority, would you rather the committee system stay as it is where the government gets to decide through committee majorities what's "right" and what is wrong? If you are all right with how the Mulroney and Chretien governments carried on, then I guess there's little reason to debate making changes.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Molly]

With the potential for a Conservative majority, would you rather the committee system stay as it is where the government gets to decide through committee majorities what's "right" and what is wrong?

Does it not occur to you that majority governments would also therefore have committee majorities, and those committee majorities would be exactly as representative of the will of parliament- of the will of voters- as parliament itself?

Minority parties do not get to hold majority control of committees because the voters didn't trust them enough to give them that control, choosing instead to keep them well-checked by the opposition. Majority parties do, because voters trusted them enough to give them that much weight.

Why would we wish to restrict the will of parliament, second-guessing our own ballots? Such restrictions fly in the face of democracy.

If the Conservatives can come up with the trust of enough voters to achieve a majority government, them I'd probably want to upchuck, but I'd still answer your question, "YES!" The voters, by way of parliament, get what they want. It's called 'democracy'.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Molly

[ToadBrother]

No......it's not all right. As I said, under a majority government like the Conservatives had under Mulroney and the Liberals had with Chretien, these kinds of issues would seldom see the light of day. In a minority government where the opposition controls the committee, the issues are partisanly magnified and have even recently been portrayed as "attacks on democracy". As the article says, it's a product of the make-up of the committees and perhaps the committee system needs some sort of overhaul.

I'm not sure what you're saying here? Leaving aside the question of Oda's misdeeds (or possibly just her stupidity), let's talk about the release of documents. Do you think a Government should have the right to withhold documents from a committee? This has in fact come up in majority governments, and was referenced by the Speaker in his decision on the Afghan detainee documents, and in previous cases it has been ruled that there is no such thing as executive privilege, that Government has no right to withhold documents. So are you saying that the Committee, partisan as it may be, was somehow wrong to ask for these documents?

With the potential for a Conservative majority, would you rather the committee system stay as it is where the government gets to decide through committee majorities what's "right" and what is wrong? If you are all right with how the Mulroney and Chretien governments carried on, then I guess there's little reason to debate making changes.

And how would you go about changing it? Always force the governing party to have less members on the committee? I see no particular way to reform committees to create some new magical non-partisan standard. All I see is sour grapes by Tories who seem to have this notion of our system of government that, is in fact, false.

At the end of the day, majority or minority government, Parliament's power over the government is absolute, and must be, or all we have is a thinly veiled dictatorship via the PMO. The Tories violated core precepts of our constitutional arrangements, that have stood for over three centuries, that Parliament is supreme over the Executive, that there are no limits save those that it sets itself on what it can demand. It's that simple. This is a fundamental precept that has been upheld in Canada and throughout all the Parliaments and legislatures of all the realms for centuries. If the Prime Minister and his Minister are too arrogant or stupid to understand that, then may I suggest that they are unfit for the high offices they have achieved. No?

[ToadBrother]

Does it not occur to you that majority governments would also therefore have committee majorities, and those committee majorities would be exactly as representative of the will of parliament- of the will of voters- as parliament itself?

Precisely. The problem exists only in the minds of the Tories and their supporters. Parliament is supreme over the Government, full stop.

[Keepitsimple]

And how would you go about changing it? Always force the governing party to have less members on the committee? I see no particular way to reform committees to create some new magical non-partisan standard. All I see is sour grapes by Tories who seem to have this notion of our system of government that, is in fact, false.

At the end of the day, majority or minority government, Parliament's power over the government is absolute, and must be, or all we have is a thinly veiled dictatorship via the PMO. The Tories violated core precepts of our constitutional arrangements, that have stood for over three centuries, that Parliament is supreme over the Executive, that there are no limits save those that it sets itself on what it can demand. It's that simple. This is a fundamental precept that has been upheld in Canada and throughout all the Parliaments and legislatures of all the realms for centuries. If the Prime Minister and his Minister are too arrogant or stupid to understand that, then may I suggest that they are unfit for the high offices they have achieved. No?

You're missing the point. As you've said, Parliament is supreme.....but in a majority government, the majority rules - in the house AND in the committees. That gives almost unbridled power to the ruling government. At least in a minority - as we've seen - the government can be rebuked and they do so at their peril. Even though the process DOES become partisanly charged, it's a good check and balance and the public will either agree or disagree with the Government's actions at the ballot box. But in a majority government - as we might have soon - your point of Parliament being supreme really means that the Harper Government would be supreme....where is the check and balance when committees are stacked in favour of the government - and issues are simply not allowed to see the light of day? I don't have an answer but I DO see it as a problem.

[g_bambino]

where is the check and balance when committees are stacked in favour of the government - and issues are simply not allowed to see the light of day?

Your problem lies with the weakening of MPs and thus parliament itself. How party leaders are elected should change so that the they are more accountable to the caucus, rather than just to the party membership every so many years.

[ToadBrother]

Your problem lies with the weakening of MPs and thus parliament itself. How party leaders are elected should change so that the they are more accountable to the caucus, rather than just to the party membership every so many years.

We should more strictly stick to the adage; the People pick the Parliament, Parliament picks the Government. The Prime Minister should be via a vote in the House. In most cases this will fall along Party lines anyways, but it does mean that the Prime Minister is more directly answerable to MPs, and less answerable to outside interests.