Guilty: Harper Government Found in Contempt of Parliament

[WWWTT]

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.

I don't think contempt of parliament is a criminal offence?But toad will correct me as soon as he sees the WWWTT.I think it automatically trigers something in his brain.

And I believe it is possible to have a federal election every year too!There is no rule against this.

WWWTT

[capricorn]

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.

The animosity we witnessed in the 40th Parliament will return with a vengeance should the Conservatives win another minority. The Liberals despise being in opposition.

[Jack Weber]

The animosity we witnessed in the 40th Parliament will return with a vengeance should the Conservatives win another minority. The Liberals despise being in opposition.

And Mr. Harper despises having to deal with those he deems ideologically unworthy....

[ToadBrother]

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

Well, there are penalties that Parliament can meet out. As I said, at one time, imprisonment was an option, and was even talked about for at least two Tory ministers before the Afghan detainee deal could be made, but a whole government?. Alternatively the offending members could be barred from the House, though that doesn't seem exactly a sensible solution either.

Ultimately, it strikes me that a vote of no confidence is the strongest and most rational measure Parliament could take against an entire government if they chose to find it in Contempt.

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.

That's a whole other topic. It seems highly unlikely that the Governor General would, for whatever reason, submit the electorate to another election within weeks or even a month or two of the previous election. If, for whatever reason, the Tories were again found in contempt (and the Opposition decided this was a confidence measure), or for any other reason were brought down by a no confidence motion, it's likely the Governor General, with previous precedents throughout the Commonwealth, would ask the leader of the next largest party to form a Government.

[ZenOps]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Parliament

Its definitely criminal in the British Commonwealth. But the penalties are different for individuals, and the actual members of parliament. Canada adheres to a strict version of parliament under British Commonwealth.

The penalty should have been placed on Oda, but was then shifted to Harper. It then forced a non-confidence vote.

Since this has never happened before in the Commonwealth (nevermind the history of just Canada) I do wonder if anyone truely knows what the penalties are. Bribery and accepting bribes as a MP or Prime Minister can be considered to be in contempt as well and criminally pursable. Lying is usually considered the weakest of crimes (Bev Odas "Not") but perjury is serious especially to other govt officials and the public. Imagine if the Finance minister lied and said we didn't make an extra $10Billion, but just pocketed it (it does happen in other countries)

[ToadBrother]

The animosity we witnessed in the 40th Parliament will return with a vengeance should the Conservatives win another minority. The Liberals despise being in opposition.

And the Tories despise Parliament. It strikes me that both sides are equally culpable here.

[Scotty]

And Mr. Harper despises having to deal with those he deems ideologically unworthy....

Both ideologically and intellectually...

[Jack Weber]

Both ideologically and intellectually...

Ideologically I'll give ya'...

There's not alot of brightly lit bulbs in that Tory bench...

[ToadBrother]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Parliament

Its definitely criminal in the British Commonwealth. But the penalties are different for individuals, and the actual members of parliament. Canada adheres to a strict version of parliament under British Commonwealth.

Breaches of privilege are not criminal offenses. They exist as natural extensions of the underlying constitutional concept that Parliament alone has the right to set its own rules, apart from any statute or other normal constitutional limitations. As such, it is Parliament's right alone to decide whether a breach has occurred and whether there will be penalties of some kind or not (normally, there are not).

But to repeat, in virtually all the Commonwealth Parliaments, findings of contempt and breach of privilege are not criminal acts. The internal goings-on of Parliament are not reviewable by the courts. That's why constitutional elements like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not applicable to Parliament itself. This is what is generally known as the Supremacy of Parliament (though only two Commonwealth Realms still have technical supremacy; the UK and New Zealand, because neither has a written constitution that puts limits on Parliament's legislative powers).

The penalty should have been placed on Oda, but was then shifted to Harper. It then forced a non-confidence vote.

I'm not sure why there should have been a penalty on Oda. There have been other findings of contempt that have not lead to penalties.

Since this has never happened before in the Commonwealth (nevermind the history of just Canada) I do wonder if anyone truely knows what the penalties are. Bribery and accepting bribes as a MP or Prime Minister can be considered to be in contempt as well and criminally pursable. Lying is usually considered the weakest of crimes (Bev Odas "Not") but perjury is serious especially to other govt officials and the public. Imagine if the Finance minister lied and said we didn't make an extra $10Billion, but just pocketed it (it does happen in other countries)

I'm not sure why you seem to think a no confidence motion isn't a penalty. Surely there is no greater punishment for any government in the Westminster system than being trounced out of office.

[capricorn]

There's not alot of brightly lit bulbs in that Tory bench...

So how would you describe the "bulbs" in opposition that allowed the longest running minority in Canada to govern?

[ToadBrother]

So how would you describe the "bulbs" in opposition that allowed the longest running minority in Canada to govern?

Broke...

[Jack Weber]

So how would you describe the "bulbs" in opposition that allowed the longest running minority in Canada to govern?

Equally dim...

[scribblet]

The animosity we witnessed in the 40th Parliament will return with a vengeance should the Conservatives win another minority. The Liberals despise being in opposition.

Agree,he doesn’t need a coalition to seize power. He can do what the Liberals and NDP did immediately after the 1985 provincial election in Ontario: Just grab power with an immediate non-confidence vote. No coalition needed, to hell with the voters.

The 1985 Ontario election was won by the Conservatives. They won more seats than any other party — but they still had a minority. Instead of accepting that result, Bob Rae, then leader of the NDP, phoned up David Peterson, the Liberal leader, and made a deal to grab power. It wouldn't surprise me to see that happen if Harper gets another minority.

BTW, there's a question the media needs to really ask Ignatieff and Layton, straight yes or no only, accepted.

If the Conservatives win a minority, will you respect the will of Canadians and allow for a stable gov't for a reasonable length of time seeking another non cofidence vote ?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Agree,he doesn’t need a coalition to seize power. He can do what the Liberals and NDP did immediately after the 1985 provincial election in Ontario: Just grab power with an immediate non-confidence vote. No coalition needed, to hell with the voters.

The 1985 Ontario election was won by the Conservatives. They won more seats than any other party — but they still had a minority. Instead of accepting that result, Bob Rae, then leader of the NDP, phoned up David Peterson, the Liberal leader, and made a deal to grab power. It wouldn't surprise me to see that happen if Harper gets another minority.

BTW, there's a question the media needs to really ask Ignatieff and Layton, straight yes or no only, accepted.

If the Conservatives win a minority, will you respect the will of Canadians and allow for a stable gov't for a reasonable length of time seeking another non cofidence vote ?

The fate of all minority governments is the same. They govern with the consent of Parliament. Failure to acquire that consent always has and always will result in an election. Those are the rules.

[g_bambino]

Agree,he doesn’t need a coalition to seize power. He can do what the Liberals and NDP did immediately after the 1985 provincial election in Ontario: Just grab power with an immediate non-confidence vote. No coalition needed, to hell with the voters.

The 1985 Ontario election was won by the Conservatives. They won more seats than any other party — but they still had a minority. Instead of accepting that result, Bob Rae, then leader of the NDP, phoned up David Peterson, the Liberal leader, and made a deal to grab power. It wouldn't surprise me to see that happen if Harper gets another minority.

BTW, there's a question the media needs to really ask Ignatieff and Layton, straight yes or no only, accepted.

If the Conservatives win a minority, will you respect the will of Canadians and allow for a stable gov't for a reasonable length of time seeking another non cofidence vote ?

You don't seem to quite grasp the idea of parliamentary democracy.

[g_bambino]

The fate of all minority governments is the same. They govern with the consent of Parliament. Failure to acquire that consent always has and always will result in an election. Those are the rules.

Not when an election has only just been held and the legislature is willing to put its confidence behind someone else.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Not when an election has only just been held and the legislature is willing to put its confidence behind someone else.

That would be the will of Parliament, or the consent of Parliament if you choose to call it that. In any case, the government has its fate controlled from Parliament, if the government does not have the numbers its all over but the crying.

[g_bambino]

That would be the will of Parliament, or the consent of Parliament if you choose to call it that.

Oops, yes, I see now what you were saying.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Oops, yes, I see now what you were saying.

There is no way around our system in this regard, short of cutting a deal with the G.G. of course. In our system the majority is "King",as it should be. Minorities are completely constrained in Parliament.

[Harry]

If the Conservatives win a minority, will you respect the will of Canadians and allow for a stable gov't for a reasonable length of time seeking another non cofidence vote ?

Once the votes are counted on election nite, and the number of seats decided for each party, that's basically it for the voters' input. Then it up to the MPs to decide by majority rule who is going to do what. If two or three parties get together and can command the majority of votes they rule. How is some party that only received 38% of the vote and does not have a majority of seats considered the will of Canadians? Answer: It isn't.

[blueblood]

Once the votes are counted on election nite, and the number of seats decided for each party, that's basically it for the voters' input. Then it up to the MPs to decide by majority rule who is going to do what. If two or three parties get together and can command the majority of votes they rule. How is some party that only received 38% of the vote and does not have a majority of seats considered the will of Canadians? Answer: It isn't.

Neither does a party with less than 30% of the vote.

[scribblet]

The fate of all minority governments is the same. They govern with the consent of Parliament. Failure to acquire that consent always has and always will result in an election. Those are the rules.

Yes, but no one wants to keep going to the polls, if the voters keep giving the CPC a minority gov't how long before the opposition will try to grab power forcing another election and how often would they be willing to do it for power at any cost. IMO if they tried to force another election right away the people won't stand for it.

[BubberMiley]

If the Conservatives win a minority, will you respect the will of Canadians and allow for a stable gov't for a reasonable length of time seeking another non cofidence vote ?

Can you explain how, if a party after four elections cannot get 40% of the electorate to vote for them, it is the will of the people that they govern?

[blueblood]

Can you explain how, if a party after four elections cannot get 40% of the electorate to vote for them, it is the will of the people that they govern?

Ask the liberals

[Harry]

Neither does a party with less than 30% of the vote.

And who is saying it is. Parliament works by majority rule, and the last time I checked no party had a majority. But if two or more parties can work together and get a majority of votes they rule. What's not to like?