Guilty: Harper Government Found in Contempt of Parliament

[g_bambino]

Indeed, and in spite of the other provinces to agree to an amending formula that would allow Quebec to sign on to our Constitution.

Quebec is "signed on" to the constitution; it has been so since 1867.

[Saipan]

We have constitution?

I understand not even right to property.

[Michael Hardner]

We have constitution?

I understand not even right to property.

You should start a thread on this. I have heard that criticism before, and never understood it.

[g_bambino]

We have constitution?

Yes.

[Wild Bill]

You should start a thread on this. I have heard that criticism before, and never understood it.

Don't need a new thread, Michael. I can answer it for you in one simple post!

The right to property was deliberately left out of our system as a sop to Ed Broadbent, of the NDP. This puts a certain flavour to the legality of owning property in Canada. Usually, defenders of our system will make the claim that in the USA they have a Right to property and the government still can and does expropriate people's land when they need it, for a dam project or whatever. Then they point out that only very rarely does a government in Canada expropriate someone's land and take it away from them against their will.

The reality is that these statements are true but there are some details not mentioned. If a government in any country wants your land, using the excuse of "for the public good" the fact is that they will take it! The difference between Canada with no codified Right and America is that in Canada it is far easier. Expropriation in the States means big time court fights and the government usually has to pay the landowner far above the market rate for his trouble and inconvenience. Here in Canada the process can move much swifter on the government's behalf and the land or homeowner might have a hard time even getting the market rate.

Others can argue the legal differences but in the real world this seems to be the way it is. Here in Canada it's never been much of an issue, since it doesn't happen very often. So unless it's you yourself who is affected you don't pay much attention.

[TimG]

Expropriation in the States means big time court fights and the government usually has to pay the landowner far above the market rate for his trouble and inconvenience.

The standard required to justify expropriation is much less in the states. You see eminent domain (expropriation) invoked because the local council thinks it can get more tax revenue if the land was developed differently.

I don't see the US as a bastion of property right protections by any stretch of the imagination.

[ToadBrother]

The right to property was deliberately left out of our system as a sop to Ed Broadbent, of the NDP. This puts a certain flavour to the legality of owning property in Canada. Usually, defenders of our system will make the claim that in the USA they have a Right to property and the government still can and does expropriate people's land when they need it, for a dam project or whatever. Then they point out that only very rarely does a government in Canada expropriate someone's land and take it away from them against their will.

This notion that Canada (and several other Commonwealth countries, to boot) do not have property rights is a much tossed about canard in certain circles. While property rights are not enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982, there are literally centuries of statute and common law precedent that pretty much do the same thing. In most Common Law jurisdictions, it pretty much makes up its own law specialization, a funny thing for a concept that some folks seem to think does not exist.

[Scotty]

The problem being that twice now Quebec has voted not to split.

By a hangnail, because of the anglso and immigrants as Parizeau said. The majority of French Quebec voted to leave, though, and still votes BQ.

[Jack Weber]

This notion that Canada (and several other Commonwealth countries, to boot) do not have property rights is a much tossed about canard in certain circles. While property rights are not enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982, there are literally centuries of statute and common law precedent that pretty much do the same thing. In most Common Law jurisdictions, it pretty much makes up its own law specialization, a funny thing for a concept that some folks seem to think does not exist.

Well,there is the resident kook with no facts and many non-sequiturs that keeps bringing this ,"Canada is like Red China" stuff up based on his "theory" that he has no property rights in Canada...

[Jack Weber]

By a hangnail, because of the anglso and immigrants as Parizeau said. The majority of French Quebec voted to leave, though, and still votes BQ.

I did'nt have anything to do with an ambiguous question,did it??

It did'nt have anything to do with the fact that the secessionists buried the pompous A-hole that is Jacques Parizeau during the last month of that referendum campaign???

Do you think that most people that vote BQ are hardcore secessionists???

[ToadBrother]

Well,there is the resident kook with no facts and many non-sequiturs that keeps bringing this ,"Canada is like Red China" stuff up based on his "theory" that he has no property rights in Canada...

If you're referring to the fellow I'm thinking you're referring to, his grasp of our constitutional system even on basic points is so flawed that it's no wonder he makes such wild claims. But he's not alone. I've had this thrown at me several times over the years, despite the fact that property rights have existed in one form or another in our system since the Middle Ages, although some forms of property have become extinct, the underlying concepts have been around for the better part of a thousand years.

[Smallc]

By a hangnail, because of the anglso and immigrants as Parizeau said. The majority of French Quebec voted to leave, though, and still votes BQ.

The first vote was not even close, and the second vote barely counts, given the question that was asked. Francophone Quebecers are evenly split on their feelings for Canada, so Quebec isn't going anywhere.

[Jack Weber]

If you're referring to the fellow I'm thinking you're referring to, his grasp of our constitutional system even on basic points is so flawed that it's no wonder he makes such wild claims. But he's not alone. I've had this thrown at me several times over the years, despite the fact that property rights have existed in one form or another in our system since the Middle Ages, although some forms of property have become extinct, the underlying concepts have been around for the better part of a thousand years.

Of course it is,but our resident Ted Kascinski thinks that the "pinkos" are waitng at his door to take his land away...

Because it's pretty clear to me that we live in a totalitarian/authoritarian state exactly like China...

By the way,his handle rhymes with "Hi,Dan!"...

[Scotty]

I did'nt have anything to do with an ambiguous question,did it??

It did'nt have anything to do with the fact that the secessionists buried the pompous A-hole that is Jacques Parizeau during the last month of that referendum campaign???

Do you think that most people that vote BQ are hardcore secessionists???

I think that if you vote BQ you aren't a Canadian in any real sense of the word. You care about Quebec, and getting whatever is in Quebec's best interests, but you don't especially care much about Canada and don't really see yourself as part of it.

You know what the difference is between a separatist and a 'soft nationalist'? The separatist is what we used to call 'all balls, no brains'. He doesn't care about anything but having his own country. The 'soft nationalist' feels exactly like the separatist, but he recognizes that a separate Quebec would no longer have access to Canada's wallet.

[Saipan]

The standard required to justify expropriation is much less in the states.

Things legal can be made arbitrary illegal in Canada by one minister as "Order in Council". Therefore can be confiscated.

Did I say with no compensation.

Edited March 29, 2011 by Saipan

[ToadBrother]

Things legal can be made arbitrary illegal in Canada by one minister as "Order in Council". Therefore can be confiscated.

Did I say with no compensation.

Orders-in-council can only be used based on royal prerogatives and existing legislation. Going beyond that would put a government in dangerous territory. Orders-in-council are not unlimited statutory instruments.

Expropriation is defined by statute, and thus using orders-in-council to expropriate property could only be done under the requirements of the law.

Edited March 29, 2011 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

And all Canadians should be reminded of how the Meech Lake and Charlottetown failures lead to the 1995 referendum... and on and on back to the Fields of Abraham and on and on back to the Hundred Years War.

At what point would you like to stop this historical tour of blame?

The buck stops with the Liberals, evidently. Always.

[bloodyminded]

Louis Riel was a Metis from the Red River region. His connection to the Quebecois is tenuous, and his connection to Quebec nationalism is pretty much nil (other than a healthy amount of invention). Just because he was French-speaking doesn't mean he was Quebecois, any more than the Acadians and the Cajuns of New Orleans are Quebecois.

Yes, and people should come here to NB and inform the Acadians that they're actually Quebecois!

I'll duck my head and wait.

[ZenOps]

What I don't understand is why Harper is running again?

Doesn't contempt of parliament carry a penalty? I'd have to ask the Queen I guess, but she should have the power to require Harper step down for a at least a term.

Syria just kicked out their government, Portugal did a few days ago.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What I don't understand is why Harper is running again?

Doesn't contempt of parliament carry a penalty? I'd have to ask the Queen I guess, but she should have the power to require Harper step down for a at least a term.

Syria just kicked out their government, Portugal did a few days ago.

The Queen speaks through the G.G., and the G.G. is chosen by the Prime Minister of the day. Don't expect anything creative from that corner.

[ToadBrother]

What I don't understand is why Harper is running again?

Doesn't contempt of parliament carry a penalty? I'd have to ask the Queen I guess, but she should have the power to require Harper step down for a at least a term.

Syria just kicked out their government, Portugal did a few days ago.

Contempt of Parliament, at least in modern times, has very rarely carried any kind of penalty at all. Theoretically, at least, someone could be placed in jail for contempt, but that hasn't happened in Canada for the better part of a hundred years. It strikes me that using contempt to trigger a no confidence motion may actually be the sternest Parliamentary rebuke in modern times.

Another thing to remember is that Parliamentary privileges are the business of Parliament. They are not the business of the Queen. The Queen/Governor General have nothing to say on the matter.

As to Syria, the cabinet has little power in and of itself. The Younger Assad controls the show. Wake me up when he's gone.

Edited March 29, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Moonbox]

It strikes me that using contempt to trigger a no confidence motion may actually be the sternest Parliamentary rebuke in modern times.

Any rebuke by a committee of opposition members is going to be seen for what it is - a rebuke by a committee of opposition members.

[ToadBrother]

Any rebuke by a committee of opposition members is going to be seen for what it is - a rebuke by a committee of opposition members.

Which represent the majority of MPs, so what exactly is your point?

[Shwa]

Which represent the majority of MPs, so what exactly is your point?

This just in! This just in!

The Conservatives have just admitted that the 'Contempt of Parliament' was actually - and they have plenty of YourTube videos to show for is - actually 'Uncooperation of Parliament."

[ZenOps]

Well it should carry a penalty, at the very least a five minute major penalty to Harper (for highsticking, haha)

Because if this should happen again about two weeks after a minority government comes back together (with more than likely the same structure) does that mean that we will endlessly have $300 million elections every time they can't agree? This could be happening several times a year.