Committee hearings start today for contempt

[Topaz]

Today, committees will start to find or not, contempt charges can be laid against the Harper government and Bev Oda. I'm sure this committee will be like a wrestling matches, with words going back and forth of "point of Order" being said many times. Depending on the topic of these meetings, they can be very nasty, I've watched enough of them to know, and I wonder if Baird is going to crash the meeting again with his 2 cents. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/hearings-could-trigger-contempt-of-parliament-finding-against-harper-government-oda-118065869.html

[capricorn]

I started watching the committee hearing. So far, the opposition has spent all its time grilling Walsh, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, trying hard to get him to make a declaration that the government is in contempt. Walsh tried hard to make the committee understand that it is their decision to make. The committee doesn't realize Walsh is not a politician but a procedural guru. What a waste of my time.

Next on the committee's agenda, Oda being thrown into the snake pit. I'll pass.

[ToadBrother]

I started watching the committee hearing. So far, the opposition has spent all its time grilling Walsh, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, trying hard to get him to make a declaration that the government is in contempt. Walsh tried hard to make the committee understand that it is their decision to make. The committee doesn't realize Walsh is not a politician but a procedural guru. What a waste of my time.

Next on the committee's agenda, Oda being thrown into the snake pit. I'll pass.

The Committee realizes it perfectly well. It was the Government members that called the rather large number of witnesses.

The whole thing is a farce, alright, a farce brought on by a government that is either ignorant of the fact that Parliament has absolute and unlimited power over it, or one that does not care and believes itself above a three hundred year constitutional principle.

[Keepitsimple]

I watched Toews, Nicholson and some of the public servants respond to the committee's questions. In short, the government (civil servants actually) provided the opposition parties (the committee) with a summary of costs for each of the Justice bills in February. It appears that the "problem" is that the committee simply didn't believe - or disagreed - with the costs that were provided. Now, at the request of the Speaker, they have provided mounds of supporting details - and the government, backed by the civil service, is saying that there are no substantial differences between what was provided in the summary and what was provided today. Scott Brison and another committee member tried to point out "discrepancies" but they were thoroughly explained by the government.

One exchange involved the bill that allowed judges to use "discretion" and be allowed to sentence multiple murderers to terms of more than 25 years. The committee member ranted on about the fact that the civil service report said that "incremental costs" were unknown. He ranted "where are the costs". Nicholson explained that the civil service concluded that first, it's discretionary so it's unknown how many times it will occur and secondly, any incremental cost would not be known until 25 years down the road. That's how assinine some of the questioning was.

If there was any contempt at this hearing, it was the opposition parties' dislike for the substance of the crime bills...as evidenced by repeated mentioning of "US style justice", the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich, etc.

[ToadBrother]

I watched Toews, Nicholson and some of the public servants respond to the committee's questions. In short, the government (civil servants actually) provided the opposition parties (the committee) with a summary of costs for each of the Justice bills in February. It appears that the "problem" is that the committee simply didn't believe - or disagreed - with the costs that were provided. Now, at the request of the Speaker, they have provided mounds of supporting details - and the government, backed by the civil service, is saying that there are no substantial differences between what was provided in the summary and what was provided today. Scott Brison and another committee member tried to point out "discrepancies" but they were thoroughly explained by the government.

One exchange involved the bill that allowed judges to use "discretion" and be allowed to sentence multiple murderers to terms of more than 25 years. The committee member ranted on about the fact that the civil service report said that "incremental costs" were unknown. He ranted "where are the costs". Nicholson explained that the civil service concluded that first, it's discretionary so it's unknown how many times it will occur and secondly, any incremental cost would not be known until 25 years down the road. That's how assinine some of the questioning was.

If there was any contempt at this hearing, it was the opposition parties' dislike for the substance of the crime bills...as evidenced by repeated mentioning of "US style justice", the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich, etc.

And yet, because some of these involve cooperation with the Provinces, there clearly would be cost negotiations.

I'm curious. Who is the boss of Government, in your view?

Edited March 16, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Topaz]

The reason for the 25 years before cost are known is, its going to be the PROVINCES flipping the bill and not the Feds. If someone is convicted of multiple murders, then lets bring back the death penalty for them because, one, the cost are going to go up as time goes by and that person will probably kill again. There no sense in killing a person in jail for murder for 75 years!

[William Ashley]

I watched Toews

You are clearly a Conservative Party of Canada Zombie in this response.

You actually prooved the point that the government doesn't know the costs involved but has danced around this.

Also the problem is not knowing the costs or having the estimates of such things is entirely ludicrist. If the government can't make a statistical estimate on the costing in terms of needed resources then it is entirely WRONG to propose sentencing at this time. If required 25 years down the road sentencing provisions could be extended, but why make laws that effect more than a quarter century from now?

If the government doesn't have a clear image for that period of time, and can't provide insight to their view of the costs, why make law on a period they have no knowledge or capacity to understand?

The CPC is only demonstrating they have no insight into the future, and thus should not be allowed to make law regarding it.

Part of making law is knowing the effec the law has.

The government is showing itself to be negligent in its law making capacity, and thus has lost the right to govern in terms of proposing laws that are absent in resulting effect on soceity.

It is firing off shots at random. A form of reckless endangerment of society.

Edited March 16, 2011 by William Ashley

[capricorn]

The Committee realizes it perfectly well.

Of course they do. I see I've given committee members way too much credit.

[capricorn]

It appears that the "problem" is that the committee simply didn't believe - or disagreed - with the costs that were provided. Now, at the request of the Speaker, they have provided mounds of supporting details - and the government, backed by the civil service, is saying that there are no substantial differences between what was provided in the summary and what was provided today.

The "problem" now is that the committee doesn't seem to know what to do with the documents supplied. One opposition committee member asked Kevin Page to evaluate the information in a binder provided to members and to present a summary of his findings as to whether the information is substantive. Just as the opposition members tried desperately to press the Parliamentary Clerk into making a finding of contempt, they hope Page will make a declaration that the information in the binder is garbage.

BTW, did you know that the opposition is working to canonize Kevin Page?

If there was any contempt at this hearing, it was the opposition parties' dislike for the substance of the crime bills...as evidenced by repeated mentioning of "US style justice", the Republican Party, Newt Gingrich, etc.

Evidently, a finding of contempt was arrived at even before the proceedings began. The remainder of their time will be used to voice as many negative terms to describe the government to adorn the committee's minutes of proceedings.

A similar fate of "guilty until proven innocent" awaits Oda.

However, opposition parties have signaled they likely won't be satisfied with anything less than Ms. Oda's resignation.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bowing-to-parliament-tories-hand-over-files-on-crime-agendas-cost/article1944559/

Oh well, spring is as good a time as any to have an election. I've heard it said elections are good for the economy. Money spent on ads, transportation, creating temporary jobs, etc.

[ToadBrother]

The "problem" now is that the committee doesn't seem to know what to do with the documents supplied.

Considering that the documents were tossed at them 20 minutes before the committee session started, it shouldn't be a surprise.

One opposition committee member asked Kevin Page to evaluate the information in a binder provided to members and to present a summary of his findings as to whether the information is substantive. Just as the opposition members tried desperately to press the Parliamentary Clerk into making a finding of contempt, they hope Page will make a declaration that the information in the binder is garbage.

This is the Government's fault. They could have done what Parliament ordered to do earlier. After all, Parliament is supreme, right?

BTW, did you know that the opposition is working to canonize Kevin Page?

And the Government is trying to have him declared the Beelzebub.

Evidently, a finding of contempt was arrived at even before the proceedings began. The remainder of their time will be used to voice as many negative terms to describe the government to adorn the committee's minutes of proceedings.

And why shouldn't there have been that finding previously. The Government did indeed withhold documents, not just in this case, but in a number of cases. That is, as the Speaker said, contempt on the face of it.

A similar fate of "guilty until proven innocent" awaits Oda.

They met let her off. She doesn't appear to be trying to hide things, she just seems to beinept.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bowing-to-parliament-tories-hand-over-files-on-crime-agendas-cost/article1944559/

Oh well, spring is as good a time as any to have an election. I've heard it said elections are good for the economy. Money spent on ads, transportation, creating temporary jobs, etc.

All of this could have been avoided, except that the Tories, and supporters like you, seem absolutely ignorant of the Constitution. The Constitution does not provide the Government with the ability to withhold information from Parliament. The Constitution, since 1689, has made Parliament supreme. Hopefully they'll get an actual constitutional expert in there to inform the Government and the Privy Council that even the notion of cabinet secrecy doesn't apply to Parliament.

We've been over this before. I stated then that the Government could argue that releasing certain kinds of documents could be harmful, but at the end of the day Government is absolutely and completely, and without limit, accountable to Parliament. Parliament's power over the Crown has had no limit since 1689.

Edited March 16, 2011 by ToadBrother

[capricorn]

We've been over this before. I stated then that the Government could argue that releasing certain kinds of documents could be harmful, but at the end of the day Government is absolutely and completely, and without limit, accountable to Parliament. Parliament's power over the Crown has had no limit since 1689.

I know. But it's more fun to be partisan.

[ToadBrother]

I know. But it's more fun to be partisan.

And more stressful to support the Constitution while thinking the committee meeting I watched today was a lot of grandstanding on both sides. But, at the end of the day, the Government does not have a leg to stand on. We got an interesting window on the internal workings of Government from Mel Cappe, former Privy Council Clerk. They truly do believe that they are beyond the reach of Parliament.

[Keepitsimple]

And why shouldn't there have been that finding previously. The Government did indeed withhold documents, not just in this case, but in a number of cases. That is, as the Speaker said, contempt on the face of it.

No - he did not say "contempt"....the speaker said that on the face of it, there is enough evidence that a breach of privilege may have occurred. Upon the committee's further examination, it is up to them to determine if such a breach did occur and whether it was serious enough to warrant a finding of contempt.....but in a non-partisan atmosphere, there COULD be a finding that is less punitive. In fact, it's POSSIBLE (again, in a non-partisan atmosphere) that there could be no finding other than a misunderstanding and an agreement that the issue has been settled. Fat chance of anything short of contempt happening of course.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[ToadBrother]

No - he did not say "contempt"....the speaker said that on the face of it, there is enough evidence that a breach of privilege may have occurred. Upon the committee's further examination, it is up to them to determine if such a breach did occur and whether it was serious enough to warrant a finding of contempt.....but in a non-partisan atmosphere, there COULD be a finding that is less punitive. In fact, it's POSSIBLE (again, in a non-partisan atmosphere) that there could be no finding other than a misunderstanding and an agreement that the issue has been settled. Fat chance of anything short of contempt happening of course.

Yes, my bad. Too much shorthand thinking here.

But that hardly lets the Tories off the hook. The appropriate thing for a Government that is restricted by a three hundred year old constitutional convention is to try to convince Parliament that certain documents shouldn't be disclosed. Even the much vaunted "cabinet secrecy" is an invention of legislation which I know of no constitutional expert (and no, a former clerk of the Privy Council is not a constitutional expert) who thinks that that is in fact meant to bind Parliament or Parliamentary committees.

If the government is found to have breached the privileges of Parliament, then it has only itself to blame. Either through the most extraordinarily bad advice or through a true contempt for our long-standing constitutional arrangement, it thought it had some right to defy Parliament. It does not, and so far as I'm concerned, regardless of how partisan the committee may be, I hope they roast the Tories. I want a message sent to every single future government that they only exist at the pleasure of Parliament, that Parliament commands the Government absolutely and without limit.

And I think you know me well enough to know that I'm not partisan in this at all. You know damned well that if it was the Liberals in Government and the Tories in Opposition sitting their tearing the Government a new one that I would be on the side of Parliament.

Edited March 17, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Keepitsimple]

To give the perfect illustration of the difference between a majority government and a minority - and the effect it has on committees and therefore, breaches of privilege....look no further than the Long Gun Registry. The Chretien "Regime" (that seems to be the popular term nowadays) claimed it would cost only $2 million. The opposition in the committee at the time said that was hogwash....and we all know it cost $1 billion or more. Chretien basically said "tough" and went ahead......and nothing could be done about it. Perspective.

[ToadBrother]

To give the perfect illustration of the difference between a majority government and a minority - and the effect it has on committees and therefore, breaches of privilege....look no further than the Long Gun Registry. The Chretien "Regime" (that seems to be the popular term nowadays) claimed it would cost only $2 million. The opposition in the committee at the time said that was hogwash....and we all know it cost $1 billion or more. Chretien basically said "tough" and went ahead......and nothing could be done about it. Perspective.

What perspective? A majority of Parliamentarians decided in such a case that there was no breach. Parliament decides matters of privilege. That entire section of our constitution really predates the modern notion of parties. This is about Members of Parliament as a group, not about specific parties.

[ToadBrother]

I'd like to expand a little bit on the spurious complaints about previous governments not being put through the ringer like this government is experiencing.

Behind it is this idea that somehow the Tories are being held to a standard that previous government have not been. Well, that is true. Seeing as we are a country that has tended until the last five years towards majorities, the situation where a government does not control committees has been pretty rare.

But none of this challenges the underlying notion that a Government operates with the approval of Parliament. In Westminster Parliaments where the ruling party or ruling coalition has a majority, it generally goes without saying that the Government enjoys the full approval and confidence of the House (unless things really go for a crapper in the Government benches). Since it is ultimately Parliament who brings forth complaints of breaches of privilege to the Speaker and Parliament that ultimately decides whether a breach has occurred, fundamentally there is nothing different between what is happening now and what could happen even to a majority government. It is, of course, much much less likely in the culture of the Canadian House of Commons to imagine enough government MPs siding with the Opposition to cause any complaint of breach reaching the point we're at now, but at the end of the day the principle that if a majority of MPs feel the government has breached their privileges, it is within their power, and in fact is solely their power, to hold the government of the day to account.

If the Tories want to blame anyone for this mess, blame the voters who have three times in the last seven years refused to give anyone a majority. Don't blame the Opposition because 1. it's their job to hold the government to account and 2. everyone damn well knows that if it was a Liberal minority we'd probably see all the Tories around here griping about how abusive the Government was (and by extension, you would probably see most Liberal supporters aping the current Tory line).

Edited March 17, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Evening Star]

Excellent post!

[ToadBrother]

Excellent post!

Thanks, and I'd like to add (and echo Professor Ned Franks, who is currently telling the committee that cabinet confidence should be used most sparingly) that the Government members of the Committee should be looking beyond narrow, short-term partisan interests (I also extend that to the Tory supporters here), and consider that at some point they will be on the other side. This is a bigger question than just some partisan tennis match, and I wish the Tories would see this. This goes to the heart of our constitutional arrangement, indeed of our whole system. Parliament alone sets limits on what it can request of the Government. The Government has no authority, not one tiny little bit, to hide anything. It is, after all, merely the Government. Parliament is supreme, and must be supreme.

[Keepitsimple]

I'd like to expand a little bit on the spurious complaints about previous governments not being put through the ringer like this government is experiencing.

Behind it is this idea that somehow the Tories are being held to a standard that previous government have not been. Well, that is true. Seeing as we are a country that has tended until the last five years towards majorities, the situation where a government does not control committees has been pretty rare.

............

It is, of course, much much less likely in the culture of the Canadian House of Commons to imagine enough government MPs siding with the Opposition to cause any complaint of breach reaching the point we're at now, but at the end of the day the principle that if a majority of MPs feel the government has breached their privileges, it is within their power, and in fact is solely their power, to hold the government of the day to account.

You replied to my post by saying "What perspective?" and then went on to describe exactly the perspective I was talking about. I'm not saying the Tories are without blame.....what I'm saying is the same thing as you are - because of the makeup of committees in a minority Paliament, the opposition will do everything they can to make political hay......and if the roles were reversed, the Tories would be doing the same thing to the Liberals. If you listened to Mr. Walsh, the Parliment Legal expert's testimony yesterday.....in response to David McGuinty's ramblings about "never before in the history of Canada, blah, blah, blah"....Mr. Walsh said about the committee process in these words: "too bad, so sad...either you have the numbers or you don't". And that's the bald truth - it's not the "will of Parliament" - it's whether you have the numbers - and in a majority government, you almost always have the numbers. Many might wish it were different, but that's the way the system works. As Harper said - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Perspective.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[GWiz]

To give the perfect illustration of the difference between a majority government and a minority - and the effect it has on committees and therefore, breaches of privilege....look no further than the Long Gun Registry. The Chretien "Regime" (that seems to be the popular term nowadays) claimed it would cost only $2 million. The opposition in the committee at the time said that was hogwash....and we all know it cost $1 billion or more. Chretien basically said "tough" and went ahead......and nothing could be done about it. Perspective.

Not really, the opposition could have challenged it in many ways but chose not to... I wish they had done something other than making it an issue to thrive on... It's one of the things I totally disagree with on the Liberal side and always have...

[ToadBrother]

You replied to my post by saying "What perspective?" and then went on to describe exactly the perspective I was talking about. I'm not saying the Tories are without blame.....what I'm saying is the same thing as you are - because of the makeup of committees in a minority Paliament, the opposition will do everything they can to make political hay......

And when there is a majority government, the Opposition has little enough opportunity to make hay. They are both different sides of the partisan nature of a democratic political institution.

and if the roles were reversed, the Tories would be doing the same thing to the Liberals. If you listened to Mr. Walsh, the Parliment Legal expert's testimony yesterday.....in response to David McGuinty's ramblings about "never before in the history of Canada, blah, blah, blah"....Mr. Walsh said about the committee process in these words: "too bad, so sad...either you have the numbers or you don't". And that's the bald truth - it's not the "will of Parliament" -

The will of Parliament is more properly expressed as the will of the majority of Parliamentarians, but at the end of the day if a majority of Parliamentarians vote in agreement, that is the will of Parliament. Therefore, if they vote to find Parliament in breach, that is the will of Parliament.

it's whether you have the numbers - and in a majority government, you almost always have the numbers. Many might wish it were different, but that's the way the system works. As Harper said - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Perspective.

My perspective is this. The Tories had no lawful, constitutional right to deprive Parliament of any information. Even the idea of Cabinet secrecy and privilege, which Mr. Cappe, former clerk of the Privy Council seemed to think an absolute, is not really. Government can try to argue, to convince, even cajole Parliament into accepting that Cabinet secrecy is essential, but Parliament is the ultimate arbiter. The fundamental rule, set out over three hundred years ago, is that Parliament is the ultimate arbiter of what Crown may keep secret and what it may not. Even the legislation that lays out what cabinet materials may or may not be publicly released cannot reasonably be seen to apply to Parliament, because, if you read the legislation, it does not specifically name Parliament, and thus long-standing constitutional convention means Parliament is immune from those rules.

The Tories violated a key constitutional precept. They should be found in contempt, not because they are any worse than a long line of governments before them, but because the principle that Government cannot and must not ever be permitted to defy Parliament is more important than the petty partisan bickering.

Do I like the mock outrage and partisan outbursts of guys like McGuinty? No, not one bit. But then again, I'm not a partisan person, so I find the whole sorry show kind of self-serving and pathetic, equally on the Government and Opposition sides. I even agree that cabinet confidences are important (but let's remember it is the Tories that abused the notion, so they deserve everything they get), but, and this is a big but, that notion is purely at the pleasure of Parliament. If Parliament says to the Government "We refuse to recognize discussion of this or that bill as a cabinet confidence", and demands every single piece of paper, every minute or memorandum, then it is within its constitutional rights to request the Speaker send the Sergeant-at-Arms to seize those documents, because Parliament has no restriction in this regard, and the Government is merely a Government, and has no authority under our constitution to defy Parliament.

That's why I want this government brought to task.

[capricorn]

I was flipping channels and as luck would have it, I fell on a repeat of the committee hearings on CPAC just in time to catch this jewel.

The Chair cautioned committee members they ensure they left room in their allotted time to allow for the Minister to answer their questions. Yvon Godin, whip of opposition members, questioned the impartiality of the Chair. Godin was rather incensed by the Chair's comments and declared: "Mr. Chair, I will decide if I want an answer or not". :lol:

Edited March 17, 2011 by capricorn