Guilty: Harper Government Found in Contempt of Parliament

[Topaz]

Today, some of us watch Bev Oda and again she makes more confusion or is she just saying what the PMO wants her to say. She has had plenty of time to bring forth the name of the person who put the "not" on the paper and she said he found out 24 hours after the last committee hearing. There has been 90 times she been asked that question in QP and she refused to answer. It's not to tell if she doesn't run her office well or if she lying. It doesn't help her when Kenney comes out and says the reason not to give the money to KAIROS is they are bias against Israel, which was cleared up today that they aren't.

[ToadBrother]

Today, some of us watch Bev Oda and again she makes more confusion or is she just saying what the PMO wants her to say. She has had plenty of time to bring forth the name of the person who put the "not" on the paper and she said he found out 24 hours after the last committee hearing. There has been 90 times she been asked that question in QP and she refused to answer. It's not to tell if she doesn't run her office well or if she lying. It doesn't help her when Kenney comes out and says the reason not to give the money to KAIROS is they are bias against Israel, which was cleared up today that they aren't.

I was left with the impression of, well, an unimpressive woman. I'm having my doubts she willfully mislead the House. I just think she's not terribly bright, probably easily confused and likely being put in front of a committee dominated by people who at the best of times would be jumping all over her, probably was destined to give inadequate answers. This is a person whose reputation as a cabinet minister has long been underwhelming. The question of interference from other ministers, while likely, seems on the face of it unprovable unless someone fesses up. I can well imagine a loud, braying jerk like Kenney bullying a quiet, unassuming person like Bev Oda, but without the evidence to that effect, all we can construct is a just-so story.

Frankly I think Jason Kenney should have been hauled into the committee to explain what role, if any, he had in all of this. It's quite likely, knowing his reputation, he was just blowing more hot air. People keep describing as a potential leadership contender, but all I see is one of the Prime Minister's trained attack dogs, who, I suspect, is in his own way every bit as underwhelming as Bev Oda.

At any rate, I think it's likely she will be found in contempt, and I have to say I feel sorry for her. She should be found guilty of being inept and inadequate and sent to the backbenches.

[Saipan]

How about Unreported Crime.

How about it?

Does it really matter.

Very much so. This is not Cuba. You have to be sentenced by judge or jury first.

The Cons want to build prisons for prisoners that don't exist.

No. The pinkos complain our prisons are overcrowded. Why do you think prisons became revolving door? How can someone acquire mile long criminals record??? Including armed robbery.

[madmax]

I was left with the impression of, well, an unimpressive woman. I'm having my doubts she willfully mislead the House. I just think she's not terribly bright,

She doesn't appear very bright. I am surprised the Conservatives would want her to run again.

[ToadBrother]

The Procedure and House Affairs Committee has just voted to find the Government in Contempt of Parliament. The motion will go to Parliament today, from what I understand, and there seems pretty good odds that it will be confidence motion, unless the Opposition wants to let the Tories release the budget.

[Evening Star]

Of course, the unknown right now is the NDP. Clearly they seem keen to go for a finding of contempt, but if the NDP and Tories are having backroom talks around the budget, then the NDP will object to any attempt to turn contempt into no confidence, and the whole show depends on them backing the Bloc and the Liberals.

This seems tricky. As Rosemary Barton said, it seems hard to square finding the government in contempt with a willingness to negotiate on the budget. Perhaps they could be placated on the contempt issue with an apology and evidence that things will be done differently? I kind of doubt they'll reach an agreement on the budget anyhow.

[ToadBrother]

This seems tricky. As Rosemary Barton said, it seems hard to square finding the government in contempt with a willingness to negotiate on the budget. Perhaps they could be placated on the contempt issue with an apology and evidence that things will be done differently? I kind of doubt they'll reach an agreement on the budget anyhow.

It really depends on what gets passed on to Parliament later today. If the report recommends a confidence vote, then that's probably it, and the Tory budget will be a moot point. If, rather, they choose to simply doing a little finger wagging (and note, most contempt motions like this end up being exactly that, with no repercussions other than Parliament entering that they were most displeased for posterity), then we get to move on to the budget, and then hit more opportunities for contempt motions.

A lot depends on whether the NDP are indeed making deals with the Tories over the budget, and whether anyone wants to bring the Government down with numbers that heavily suggest a duplication of the 2008 results.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm wondering whether Bev Oda or the government will sue someone like Pat Martin or David McGuinty if they now dare make a statement outside of the protection of Parliament accusing Oda of forging the document. If anything, the hearing at least puts to rest any idea that the document was forged. That had been well known for a long time but those two bozos kept repeating it anyway.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

What a surprise.

[capricorn]

Perhaps they could be placated on the contempt issue with an apology and evidence that things will be done differently?

I doubt it. The opposition has worked hard to establish in the minds of voters that poor ethics is a rationale to bring down the government. Settling for an apology would be counter productive to their efforts and the perceived gains they have made in getting the public on board.

I kind of doubt they'll reach an agreement on the budget anyhow.

I can't tell one way or another, with not knowing whether the budget contains items the NDP wants or whether the Bloc thinks winning a couple more seats will give them more clout in Quebec and in the House.

[ToadBrother]

What a surprise.

The Government asked for it. They tried to play the game like they were a majority, and, well, now we have the workings of a nice little precedent for the entire Commonwealth, a government found in contempt of Parliament. A genuine first, sort of like the prorogation to avoid a confidence vote was a first in 2008.

If the Tories get to set precedent, then surely Parliament is allowed its own little bit of history.

[ToadBrother]

I doubt it. The opposition has worked hard to establish in the minds of voters that poor ethics is a rationale to bring down the government. Settling for an apology would be counter productive to their efforts and the perceived gains they have made in getting the public on board.

Do you think the Government would actually apologize? The Government seems to behave like it's done nothing wrong. Certainly most of its supporters around here seem to believe that.

[Oleg Bach]

No one who needs to be held in contempt these days is ever held so..government is lax..parliment is lax...courts that should hold themselves in contempt no longer do so. I remember one incident when I sat in a court room...and suddenly all came to a stand still - a quiet filled the room...I had someone up on a charge......the creeps lawyer disappeared and the judge sat there leaving me in the dark...so using my instinct...I got up and left and went down the hall.... There was the advesaries lawyer attempting to lay a counter charge...while court was actually in session...I came up behind the creep ball lawyer and whispered..."You had better not be up to any scull duggery here my friend"..

I caught the jerk in the act...little did he know, was the fact that I had already dropped the charge...and what he was cleverly doing was redundant. I go back to the court...stand up and point to the rat lawyer...and said "This man should be reprimanded...he should be ashamed of his low down and shifty behaviour....and YOU - your Honour...(pointing at her) should also be ashamed for allowing such underhanded activity in your court"......The dumb judge just sat there like an fool...she had in here high bias and arrogance..been caught red handed abusing procedure....You would imagine that shaming a judge in here own court room would have at least brought a contempt charge against me? It did not...

Point of my anedotal tale is that you can piss in a persons face these days and they will swear that it is heavenly rain - everyone is corrupt and abuses protocol, and the rule of law...How can you hold anyone or anything in contempt when there are no longer any rules that govern the code of behaviour?

[ToadBrother]

Point of my anedotal tale is that you can piss in a persons face these days and they will swear that it is heavenly rain - everyone is corrupt and abuses protocol, and the rule of law...How can you hold anyone or anything in contempt when there are no longer any rules that govern the code of behaviour?

I think you're confusing Parliamentary contempt with some sort of judicial process. Parliament, traditionally, has not invoked any kind of actual penalty for findings of contempt. Generally it is seen as bad enough that Parliament found someone's actions sufficiently egregious to actually have a motion put to the House and to have that motion passed by a majority. The only case I'm aware of where there were stronger measures used in the Canadian Parliament was in 1913 when a businessman, R.C. Miller, was jailed for refusing to answer questions. He was released when that sitting of Parliament ended four months later.

[Topaz]

This Tory government has been on the road to contempt since the first time something didn't seem right, like the bribing of ones vote. The broken promise of the interest trust, not doing much on the environment, the spending and spending, the fact they were going to be different and accountable. When anyone says "trust me" watch out and not giving all the documents on the jet fighter, the detainees and not following the rules of Parliament. I'm sure the Tories have something up their sleeves to get out of it, or they will work harder to get that majority government.

[capricorn]

Do you think the Government would actually apologize?

No.

The Government seems to behave like it's done nothing wrong. Certainly most of its supporters around here seem to believe that.

Although I disapprove of some of the actions of the Harper government, as things stand this is still not enough for me to vote for another party. If that makes me partisan so be it.

[madmax]

Although I disapprove of some of the actions of the Harper government, as things stand this is still not enough for me to vote for another party. If that makes me partisan so be it.

Which is the best and most honest answer I have seen on this forum to date with regards to these issues.

[ToadBrother]

Although I disapprove of some of the actions of the Harper government, as things stand this is still not enough for me to vote for another party. If that makes me partisan so be it.

Fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with you, but I well understand it. I hold that this finding of contempt (which actually hasn't happened yet, the committee merely recommended it, it's up to the Opposition caucuses to decide now) is an important moment in Parliamentary history, underscoring once again that Parliament has supremacy over the Crown. It's not, to my mind, a question of who would form the better government, but more to the point enshrining, or at least strongly reiterating, a key facet of our constitution.

Edited March 21, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Scotty]

Yes, the greater number of people who VOTED in 2008, but if those people who don't vote did, Harper would be out!

Those people don't matter.

Quite literally, they don't count.

[g_bambino]

I hold that this finding... is an important moment in Parliamentary history, underscoring once again that Parliament has supremacy over the Crown.

Parliament can't really have supremacy over the Crown, given that the Crown is one of the three parts of parliament. Parliament has supremacy over the executive, however: the Crown-in-Council. When we talk about the "government" being considered in contempt here, we mean the ministers of the Crown who form the Cabinet and are responsible to the House of Commons.

[+]

Edited March 21, 2011 by g_bambino

[Keepitsimple]

The contempt charges put forward by the opposition can cut both ways. There is a reason why no government has ever been found in contempt of Parliament anywhere in the Western world. For waht?....because the opposition says they still don't have enough information on the Justice bills? I can see the commercial already:

The opposition Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition is back. They've banded together to abuse the authority of Parliament in accusing Canada's elected government of contempt - a ruse that has never been attempted in the entire history of Parliaments throughout the Western world. And for what purpose? To block 18 Law & Order bills - legislation that was promised to the citizens of Canada, some of which was requested by the Provinces. What manner of justice is this?

The Opposition Coalition - they're not looking out for you.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[ToadBrother]

The contempt charges put forward by the opposition can cut both ways. There is a reason why no government has ever been found in contempt of Parliament anywhere in the Western world. For waht?....because the opposition says they still don't have enough information on the Justice bills? I can see the commercial already:

The opposition Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition is back. They've banded together to abuse the authority of Parliament in accusing Canada's elected government of contempt - a ruse that has never been attempted in the entire history of Parliaments throughout the Western world. And for what purpose? To block 18 Law & Order bills - legislation that was promised to the citizens of Canada, some of which was requested by the Provinces. What manner of justice is this?

The Opposition Coalition - they're not looking out for you.

I'm unclear here. Since Parliament is afforded under the constitution the right to hold anyone, including but not limited to other MPs, in contempt, how is this precisely an abuse of that power? An abuse of power is the use of a legal power to an illegal end or the taking on of a power not explicitly afforded or granted. There is nothing illegal about what has happened, Parliament's supremacy over the Government is absolute, it's power to hold any or all members of the Government in contempt if they do not abide by its demands.

As to blocking bills, that is also Parliament's power. The Government has no particular right in and of itself to promise any kind of legislation. It puts forward legislation and Parliament agrees to it or does not. Parliament is supreme over the Government in all things.

Do you actually believe the crap you just copied-and-pasted to this forum? Are you that illiterate of our system of government, that bereft of even the smallest notion of what Parliament is to actually foist this kind of outrageous invention upon everyone?

Parliament has violated absolutely no tenet, it has abused no power, it has done everything within the rights that it won a long time ago. What you posted is, at the core of it, a dishonest slander.

Edited March 21, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Keepitsimple]

I'm unclear here. Do you actually believe the crap you just copied-and-pasted to this forum? Are you that illiterate of our system of government, that bereft of even the smallest notion of what Parliament is to actually foist this kind of outrageous invention upon everyone?

Parliament has violated absolutely no tenet, it has abused no power, it has done everything within the rights that it won a long time ago. What you posted is, at the core of it, a dishonest slander.

I'm just saying......abuse is in the eye of the beholder as the Ottawa Citizen article so nicely pointed out. Like I said - there's a reason it's never happened before in the history of Western Parliaments. Do you really think that the absence of enough information on the Justice bills to satisfy the opposition is the worst thing that's ever happened in the history of Western Parliaments? It doesn't even come close. As to whether I believe all the crap? I believe what I wrote as much as I believe that the government is truly in contempt.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[madmax]

I'm just saying......abuse is in the eye of the beholder as the Ottawa Citizen article so nicely pointed out. Like I said - there's a reason it's never happened before in the history of Western Parliaments. Do you really think that the absence of enough information on the Justice bills to satisfy the opposition is the worst thing that's ever happened in the history of Western Parliaments? It doesn't even come close.

First time for everything. And when your government campaigned on integrity and accountability and has been secretive and conspiring, its hard to have any sympathy for this government.

We have seen alot of firsts by this government. None of them have been positive. Most of the firsts of this government have undermined the democratic process. I'd say the Conservatives have been asking for it, and now that its coming, they don't enjoy not being able to bring the government down on their own terms.

Regardless, expect a strong campaign from the money soaked Conservatives. Fact is they have so much money, I dunno why they choose to steal from the public purse.

[ToadBrother]

I'm just saying......abuse is in the eye of the beholder as the Ottawa Citizen article so nicely pointed out.

It is solely at Parliament's discretion as to whether there is abuse or not. It is constitutionally Parliament's right alone to decide on contempt.

Like I said - there's a reason it's never happened before in the history of Western Parliaments.

Yes, it's because minority governments since the whole notion of party majorities were invented towards the end of the 18th century are exceedingly rare and generally shortlived.

Do you really think that the absence of enough information on the Justice bills to satisfy the opposition is the worst thing that's ever happened in the history of Western Parliaments? It doesn't even come close.

Whether it is or is not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Parliament alone decides. The Tories knew this when they tried to abuse the notion of cabinet confidence. They asked for it, and they got it, and frankly, I think having the precedent of an entire government being held in contempt is a good thing, and should serve other Westminster countries like Australia and the UK, which may be facing their own periods of minority or coalition governments, in good stead. Reiterating for all the world to see that government's in our system are there and wield their powers because Parliament lets them is a positive step.

What you posted was similar to the use of the word "coupe" when the erstwhile coalition was trying to topple the Tories in 2008. It is the careful use of inappropriate terms to make the application of constitutional and lawful powers seem somehow illegitimate. It shows nothing but contempt for a constitutional arrangement that has served Britain and those countries she founded very well indeed for centuries.

The Tories are merely, and I'll repeat this so you get the point, they are merely the Government. Parliament is the body that ultimately decides these things. We can agree or disagree about whether these were sufficient grounds for contempt finding, but Parliament is not beholden to the Government's narrative. The Tories wanted this fight, they've been picking it time and time again. The Tories were the ones that abused power by attempting to foist an alien notion of executive privilege upon Parliament. Even the idea that cabinet confidences could somehow be hidden from Parliament (under the bizarre notion that the two pieces of legislation that define it somehow actually bound Parliament), but more to the point the blatant abuse of the notion of cabinet confidence, were clearly nothing more than attempts to hide information and tweak Parliament's nose.

And then there's this invalid and ugly sort of rhetoric, that somehow Parliament has overstepped a bound. Well, let me tell you Mr. Keepitsimple, the whole point of the English Civil War and the Bill of Rights, 1689, which are the very foundation of our constitutional arrangement, was that Parliament is not constrained in such matters, that Parliament's capacity and right to demand anything of the King or Queen and His or Her Ministers is boundless in nature. Your side lost the debate 362 years ago when Parliament lopped of Charles I's head in a graphic demonstration that the Government persists and holds powers only as Parliament sees fit.

Edited March 21, 2011 by ToadBrother