The Problem with Elections

[TimG]

I'm getting a little tired of this "contempt of Parliament" = "contempt of Canadians". The former is a constitutional procedure over three hundred years old. The latter is, well, a subjective political statement.

I getting tired of people ragging on this 'contempt of parliament' issue as if it mattered. It is a technicality at best. If you really care about governments being open you will need to have a solution that works with majorities as well as minorities.

[g_bambino]

The Canadian Parliament is thus the "voice of the people" and held as "supreme" in the Canadian Parliamentary system...

"Contempt of Parliament" is indeed Contempt of Canadians, which is why it's never happened before anywhere with a British based Parliamentary System...

Actually, only one part of parliament is elected by Canadians, and, even then, that body only represents the political majority. It's the Queen (one of the other two parts of parliament) and the governor general that, as non-partisan figures, represent all Canadians. Contempt of parliament is really just contempt of the House of Commons, which doesn't equal contempt of Canadians. Contempt of parliament is a fairly serious charge, but, ultimately, it was the confidence vote that mattered.

[sp]

Edited March 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[blueblood]

A majority of Parliamentarians found the Government in contempt. Even you admit that the Government breached privilege.

So you think constitutionality and legality are matters for polls?

Why would you give a pass on a violation of a constitutional precept? I'm curious. Are you really suggesting that governments be above Parliament?

Are you aware of why the notion of Parliamentary privilege exists?

I give a pass depending on which documents are withheld. If its a matter of national security/crisis, I wouldn't feel comfortable with the gong show we have now blabbing about secret documents that could put the country's security at risk. If there is no security there could potentially be no parliament to breech privelege of (very unlikely). Its the lesser of two evils.

Parliamentary privilege is second banana compared to the mandatory election the govt has to win. If he can sell that minority govts are not in the publics best interest, then that's his prerogative. At the end of the day its all about not upsetting the voters parliamentary rules or not. Look what happened in 2008.

Edited March 28, 2011 by blueblood

[capricorn]

Actually, only one part of parliament is elected by Canadians, and, even then, that body only represents the political majority. It's the Queen (one of the other two parts of parliament) and the governor general that, as non-partisan figures, represent all Canadians. Contempt of parliament is really just contempt of the House of Commons, which doesn't equal contempt of Canadians. Contempt of parliament is a fairly serious charge, but, ultimately, it was the confidence vote that mattered.

[sp]

What's interesting is that some people think the Speaker found the government in contempt. In fact, he referred the question to a House of Commons committee, i.e. he found a prima facie case of contempt that merited examination by a Committee of the House of Commons. bambino do you think I am correct in this interpretation of events?

[RNG]

What's interesting is that some people think the Speaker found the government in contempt. In fact, he referred the question to a House of Commons committee, i.e. he found a prima facie case of contempt that merited examination by a Committee of the House of Commons. bambino do you think I am correct in this interpretation of events?

You are right and thank you. I was starting to feel like a voice in the wilderness. I been preaching your hymn too.

[Wild Bill]

Red Hill creek expressway?Didn't the natives make a claim that it crossed certain areas that they had made claims too?And then the local police or OPP infiltrated their bands to get dirt on them?

Anyways,very good you have an opinion and you won't be voting liberal or NDP any time soon.

Nor will they spend a freakin red cent to try to win you over.As far as predicting their political future I am not too sure how well you will do there but good luck!

WWWTT

The native protesters actually got caught salting the area with arrowheads to make it look like a native archeological site! Whatever, doesn't matter. All issues had been resolved to the point where all the contracts had been issued and the bulldozers were digging at the site. Rae took power and immediately cancelled everything.

This is a bit of a drift but the outcry from Hamiltonians was huge! Rae felt the need for damage control and held a public meeting in Stoney Creek at a local banquet centre, which I attended. They had a microphone at each side of the hall, where citizens on both sides of the issue could speak to the attending "suits".

It quickly became apparent there was a problem. While there was a lineup out and down the hall of people wanting their chance to tear a strip off Rae's representatives for cancelling the Expressway (judging by the capacity of the hall there must have been 500-600 of them!) the "treehuggers" could only muster about a dozen or so! They had been alternating speakers of each view so they just let the Rae supporters keep speaking, over and over again!

So much for doing something truly popular! I laughed till the tears came.

Anyhow, I could see myself voting Liberal some day, at least federally. Provincially, MCGuinty has put a bad taste in my mouth after what he did at Caledonia. Being new you might not be aware but ever since the protests there happened I have said that while I actually support many of the Six Nation claims I have no respect at all for their protest TACTICS! They should have blocked McGuinty's streets, NOT those of the ordinary townsfolk in Caledonia!

As far as predicting the future for various parties, I would suggest that you could use a bit more objectivity if you want to be accurate. You come across as simply partisan. You don't like Harper. So what? I don't particularly care much for him either. Who cares what you or I think or how we're going to vote? Together, we only number 2!

As always, the real question is how the entire Canadian electorate votes. They have their own likes and dislikes. A good tea cup reader will know how THEY are going to vote!

Edited March 28, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Wild Bill]

Contempt of parliament is really just contempt of the House of Commons, which doesn't equal contempt of Canadians. Contempt of parliament is a fairly serious charge, but, ultimately, it was the confidence vote that mattered.

Good point! Contempt of the House is NOT the same as contempt of all Canadians!

Actually, if we counted noses we'd probably find that millions of Canadians hold their House in contempt!

[August1991]

I don't think that Bob had been in office a week when he cancelled the Red Hlll Creek Expressway project...

...

That's just the way it is. The sun rises in the east. Water flows downhiil. Ontarioans old enough to remember despise Bob Rae.

WB, that was one of the best rants that I have ever read on MLF! Controlled, but effective.

BTW, I think the Ontario's deficit reached $12.5 billion under Rae, not $10 billion.

Edited March 28, 2011 by August1991

[fellowtraveller]

I'm afraid the problem is as simple as these four words - "it's the media stupid"...

On Friday a Historic Event took place... Something never before seen in the History of Parliamentary Democracy, not just in Canada, but in the world, a Government was toppled by three opposition parties because it was found in CONTEMPT of PARLIAMENT...

Since Parliament is our, Canadians' voice in our Government system, the Harper Regime was found to be in contempt of Canadians, all Canadians, you and me, Joe and Jill ordinary Canadian, regardless of party...

BUT was that what the media portrayed as THE top news story of the day? Nope, it got barely a passing mention...

Why, because it was much more "interesting" to go after Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and ask an unanswerable red herring of a question put forward by none other than Stephan Harper himself...

Instead of talking about the Harper Regime's unprecedented waste, scandals and corruption which precipitated the current election the media "ran" with Harper's planned "topic" about a non-existant coalition...

In Harper's own words -

- We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians. -

Being an astute observer, you may have noticed that the Loyal Opposition outnumbers the government in the House of Commons, and has done so for the last five years. They can pass nearly any nearly motion they wish and defeat the government. There is no need at all to introduce any sort of factual base to the discussion or to the motion that they use to defeat the govt and send us to a pointless election. No doubt you'll blame the media and the stupidity of Canadians when they return a majority government not to your liking.

[ToadBrother]

What's interesting is that some people think the Speaker found the government in contempt. In fact, he referred the question to a House of Commons committee, i.e. he found a prima facie case of contempt that merited examination by a Committee of the House of Commons. bambino do you think I am correct in this interpretation of events?

That is a correct interpretation. Speakers do not make findings of contempt, Parliament as a whole does, or rather, the House where the charge is made does. I don't think there has ever been any contempt investigations in the Senate, though obviously it, being a house of Parliament, could if it so desired.

[ToadBrother]

I getting tired of people ragging on this 'contempt of parliament' issue as if it mattered. It is a technicality at best. If you really care about governments being open you will need to have a solution that works with majorities as well as minorities.

"Openness" means a lot of things to different people. Parliamentary privilege has a rather singular definition. Maybe you don't care that the Government tried to invent out of thin air the notion of executive privilege, but I do. This idea that because a lot of Canadians don't understand the underlying principles (sad but true) is not an argument against the finding of contempt. Depriving Parliament of any information that Parliament cares to ask for is a violation of Parliamentary privilege.

[jbg]

Being an astute observer, you may have noticed that the Loyal Opposition outnumbers the government in the House of Commons, and has done so for the last five years.

A minor quibble with your post. HM's Loyal Opposition is not all three other parties but the next-down party, the Liberal Party of Canada, with 77 ridings. The CPC has, I think, either 144 or 145 ridings.

[fellowtraveller]

A minor quibble with your post. HM's Loyal Opposition is not all three other parties but the next-down party, the Liberal Party of Canada, with 77 ridings. The CPC has, I think, either 144 or 145 ridings.

Sure. My point was that the Opposition chose to fabricate some nonsensical contempt allegation, run it through their partisan committee and onto the Commons floor, then use it to dump a govt. They could have picked any topic any time and done the same.

What pisses me off is they presume the Canadian public is a pack of morons, and won't see the transparency of their action. The next few weeks should sort their hash, my prediction is that they are already scrambling for something real to justify a campaign and an essentially pointless election. Well, it doesn't have to be anything real but it does have to grab the public by the short and curlies. The invention of a contempt citation (first in the history of Canada!!!) won't cut it . Ooops.

[jbg]

Well, it doesn't have to be anything real but it does have to grab the public by the short and curlies.

Could they try sayng that they simply weren't going to let the CPC government run to its natural expiry in October 2012? </sarcasm>

[ToadBrother]

Sure. My point was that the Opposition chose to fabricate some nonsensical contempt allegation, run it through their partisan committee and onto the Commons floor, then use it to dump a govt....

I keep hearing this from you guys, and I've just got to ask, how was it trumped up? Do you actually think the Government has a right to keep documents from Parliament? Now, I'll freely admit that the Opposition went looking for things that they thought the Government wouldn't want to release, but ultimately, whether you feel that the Opposition was wasting everyone's time or not, are you seriously asserting that the Government had any business trying to evade any such request, whether those requests may have seemed stupid or not?

The best you can say about the Government is that they fell into the trap laid by the Opposition on more than one occasion. What you can't say is that the contempt finding itself was trumped up, because, and I remind everyone of this, there is no notion of executive privilege in our system of government. Parliament's authority over the Government is absolute and without limit.