Speaker of the House gives govt carte blance to mislead Parliament

[cybercoma]

In his ruling on the question of privilege by Nathan Cullen, Speaker Scheer states, "it's not for the speaker to determine the quality of answers from the government." In other words, the government is free to completely mislead or give answers that have absolutely nothing to do with questions from MPs.

Head to your local florist and send carnations to Parliament because it's officially dead.

Edited June 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[Fletch 27]

Cmon, aren't you putting words into the speakers mouth!? What about when the Tories asked the NDP about the position on Chinese exports and the "Answer" was "fuck you"???? Hmmmm... I would say please stop putting worrds into peoples mouths and maybe.... Have a listed to the "answers" provided by BOTH the NDP and Libs.... Really, really..

I typed in "refusal to answer questions. House of commons" and here is the first hit.

rtsp://v7.cache3.c.youtube.com/CjgLENy73wIaLwnaw2dDYke2VBMYESARFEIJbXYtZ29vZ2xlSARSB3Jlc3VsdHNgs5DWuaOg-OtODA==/0/0/0/video.3gp;interface=wifi

Simply shamefull the refusal to answer the Parizeau question... It happens...

In his ruling on the question of privilege by Nathan Cullen, Speaker Scheer states, "it's not for the speaker to determine the quality of answers from the government." In other words, the government is free to completely mislead or give answers that have absolutely nothing to do with questions from MPs.

Head to your local florist and send carnations to Parliament because it's officially dead.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Fletch 27

[Smallc]

In his ruling on the question of privilege by Nathan Cullen, Speaker Scheer states, "it's not for the speaker to determine the quality of answers from the government."

Well, is it? I don't think it ever has been.

[cybercoma]

Well, is it? I don't think it ever has been.

Perhaps not, but think about this. If it's not for the speaker to rule on the quality of answers, there is absolutely no need for any government ever at any time going forward to answer the questions put towards it.

[westguy]

In his ruling on the question of privilege by Nathan Cullen, Speaker Scheer states, "it's not for the speaker to determine the quality of answers from the government." In other words, the government is free to completely mislead or give answers that have absolutely nothing to do with questions from MPs.

Head to your local florist and send carnations to Parliament because it's officially dead.

Are you always this paranoid?

[Fletch 27]

Edd-Zackary... Its for the Voters to determine what makes a good leader and party with good answers and results... So Far... I like what im seeing! Results on the economy! Results on Imigration, Resuts on Jobs... Stupid questions deserve stupid answers...

Perhaps not, but think about this. If it's not for the speaker to rule on the quality of answers, there is absolutely no need for any government ever at any time going forward to answer the questions put towards it.

[Smallc]

Perhaps not, but think about this. If it's not for the speaker to rule on the quality of answers, there is absolutely no need for any government ever at any time going forward to answer the questions put towards it.

That's pretty much how it's always been though. If Parliament doesn't like the answers, they have to vote the government out.

[cybercoma]

That's why we need to go back to the days when the governing party's backbenchers held the government accountable just as much as the opposition parties.

[Fletch 27]

Ahhh yes, and go against the majority of Canadians? Go back to the days to witch burnin's too? C'mon, we are civilized now... Its called "democracy"... Deal with it...

Or "BURN MORE WITCHES"!!!! You know what the "wheel" is right?

That's why we need to go back to the days when the governing party's backbenchers held the government accountable just as much as the opposition parties.

[Smallc]

That's why we need to go back to the days when the governing party's backbenchers held the government accountable just as much as the opposition parties.

I agree with you. I'm simply saying that the Speaker was right.

[g_bambino]

[T]he government is free to completely mislead or give answers that have absolutely nothing to do with questions from MPs.

It's the opposition's job to keep the government in check; they're to point out lies uttered by ministers and/or make sure a minister answers the question asked. It's only the speaker's job to keep the House in order; he or she can't be expected to rule on what's true and what's not.

[g_bambino]

Ahhh yes, and go against the majority of Canadians? Go back to the days to witch burnin's too? C'mon, we are civilized now... Its called "democracy"... Deal with it...

What? How does having silent and powerless backbenchers allow for the full exercise of democracy? As I see it, right now we have a House of Commons that consists of seven people: the leaders of the five parties and the two independents; the rest could be dispensed with and nothing would change. I don't think that's makes parliament the most robust of democratic institutions.

[Fletch 27]

Really? They can push forth Bills that get passed? Ever watch CPAC?

What? How does having silent and powerless backbenchers allow for the full exercise of democracy? As I see it, right now we have a House of Commons that consists of seven people: the leaders of the five parties and the two independents; the rest could be dispensed with and nothing would change. I don't think that's makes parliament the most robust of democratic institutions.

[g_bambino]

Really? They can push forth Bills that get passed? Ever watch CPAC?

You'll have to rephrase your argument in a way I can understand. Simply casting a vote doesn't automatically equal usefulness; repetitious immitations of an individual's vote are redundant.

[CPCFTW]

You'll have to rephrase your argument in a way I can understand. Simply casting a vote doesn't automatically equal usefulness; repetitious immitations of an individual's vote are redundant.

Not when the number of iterations of that individual's vote represents the number of constituencies in which the voters, for the most part, voted for that individual.

[Fletch 27]

Countless examples of private member bills being proposed and passed. Bill C-268, C-304, C-211, C-478,, Mandatory minimums, The long Gun, The Wine act. On and on and on... Countless Private bills proposed by backbenchers that have passed. Seems to be working just fine!

You'll have to rephrase your argument in a way I can understand. Simply casting a vote doesn't automatically equal usefulness; repetitious immitations of an individual's vote are redundant.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Fletch 27

[g_bambino]

Countless examples of private member bills being proposed and passed. Bill C-268, C-304, C-211, C-478,, Mandatory minimums, The long Gun, The Wine act. On and on and on... Countless Private bills proposed by backbenchers that have passed. Seems to be working just fine!

I was under the impression that private members' bills hardly ever pass. Also that MPs are nearly always whipped into voting as the party leaders dictate.

Regardless, cybercoma stated we should return to having MPs, including those in the government benches, hold more influence in keeping the ministers of the Crown in check. You countered by labelling the proposal anti-democratic. Since the Cabinet is, according to the fundamental tenets of responsible government, supposed to be accountable to the House of Commons, it being the assembly of our elected representatives, how does denying elected MPs the ability to do that job fit the definition of democracy?

[Topaz]

This is one item that doesn't make the House work. When asked the seating government has to answer the question but i think they don't have to tell the whole truth and so its up to the opposition parties to let the public know that the MP didn't tell the truth but at the same time the oppositon can't call that MP a liar, when in fact the MP was lying. I think tougher rules for the House of Commons is you can not lie in the House of Commons when asked a question.

[cybercoma]

This is one item that doesn't make the House work. When asked the seating government has to answer the question but i think they don't have to tell the whole truth and so its up to the opposition parties to let the public know that the MP didn't tell the truth but at the same time the oppositon can't call that MP a liar, when in fact the MP was lying. I think tougher rules for the House of Commons is you can not lie in the House of Commons when asked a question.

There's no way of enforcing it. The problem is when the govt is asked a question and they don't answer it, instead reading some pre-scripted garbage unrelated to the Q or using the opportunity to throw out a bunch of ad hominems that answer nothing.

The problem Cullen raised was asking for the particular effects of pieces of C-38. He was looking for numbers and the govt refused to provide them. It's in these situations, where the MPs' ability to vote on a piece of legislation is contingent on the govt being forthcoming with this information, that there needs to be more of a reign on govt responses. There needs to be some mechanism in place, so that parliament can get all of the numbers and information that it requests. As it stands now, if parliament makes a request, the govt is only compelled to give a response, regardless of how ridiculous, inaccurate, or incomplete it is. In other words, they can completely mislead parliament and that's perfectly fine.

[g_bambino]

[T]he oppositon can't call that MP a liar, when in fact the MP was lying.

They can inside the House of Commons. Parliamentary privilege.

[Rick]

This is one item that doesn't make the House work. When asked the seating government has to answer the question but i think they don't have to tell the whole truth and so its up to the opposition parties to let the public know that the MP didn't tell the truth but at the same time the oppositon can't call that MP a liar, when in fact the MP was lying. I think tougher rules for the House of Commons is you can not lie in the House of Commons when asked a question.

Good idea as long as we have mandatory jail sentences for lying or telling half truths in the HOC. Make it the same as the U.S. has for people lying to a Grand Jury or committing perjury.

[Argus]

That's why we need to go back to the days when the governing party's backbenchers held the government accountable just as much as the opposition parties.

If the MPs got elected/re-elected because of how charismatic they are and how loved and respected they are in their ridings, they can, in fact, do pretty much as they like. The government can't fire them. It can only refuse to let them run again under their party banner. Most parties will be leery of doing that if they know the MP in question is probably going to hang onto that riding if they go. The problem is most MPs are bland nobodies that are virtually unknown in their riding. People vote for the party they happen to be a member of, not for them. And if the party boots them out they'll never get re-elected.

[cybercoma]

You raise a good point, which makes me wonder if this is just a symptom of the death of community. People go about their days, connected to people over vast distances through the internet, as the bond of local communities dies. Having a political figure adored by the entire community like that may be completely outdated and will probably become more scarce over time.