Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The rulings

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, March 9, 2011 4:30pm - 165 Comments

Here is the prepared text for the Speaker’s ruling on the government’s refusal to produce documents:

Here is the prepared text for the Speaker’s ruling on Bev Oda’s statements to Parliament:

In both cases, the Speaker found a prima facie question of privilege. In response to the former, Liberal Scott Brison moved that the matter be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee and that the committee report back to the House by March 21. In response to the latter, Liberal John McKay moved that the matter be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee and that the committee report back to the House by March 25.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • Reverend_Blair

    So that's basically two counts of being in contempt of parliament. The Afghan detainee thing makes three. The Harper Party has no respect for our democracy.

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      They had a dispute. The Speaker ruled. With the Afghan docs, the Conservatives then came and settled the matter with the opposition, didn't they? How in the world is that not showing respect to democracy? Man, some of you are so desperate to oust what is in fact a democratically elected government. But go ahead. See if Canadians are as desperate. I doubt it.

      • Mike T.

        Um, showing respect for democracy would have been to produce the documents.

        • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

          And they are doing so, right?

          • Mike T.

            Not in anything resembling a timely manner, and after a fiasco where they shut down parliament.

            No, my boy, Harper was utterly contemptible on this file.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            They are in accordance with the Speaker's wishes, aren't they? In other words, they seem to have more respect for Parliament than you do. God.

          • Mike T.

            no.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Ah, you're back to your usual nonsense when you've obviously lost yet another argument. Thank you, come again.

          • Reverend_Blair

            No, actually, they aren't. That's what the speaker found today…that the Conservatives were not in compliance.

          • madeyoulook

            The opposition's stars are aligning as best they can for a campaign right now, on ethics. Will the country play along? Or, come summer, will the parties be casting a sideways glance at their respective leaders ("[expletive] evil aloof anti-democratic neo-con heartless corrupt thug, and we STILL lost to that guy?")

          • bergkamp

            "…. on ethics. Will the country play along? "

            The country is not caring too much about these scandals because they have heard/seen it all before.

            How many financial scandals were there under the Liberals – money laundering, billion dollar boondoggles …. etc. The scandals happening now are rather small beer compared to what went on under Liberals. I think it would be quite tough for Liberals to campaign on ethics.

          • MostlyCivil

            You know you're connecting with the kids when you use terms like "small beer'.

          • TimesArrow

            If Ignatieff,Layton and Gilles can't put a dent in this guy with 3 contempts of parliament in their tool bags, those of us who love democracy might as well pack our bags and head for places that do…i hear things may be looking up in Egypt.

          • brooster2

            If it comes to that, even Berlusconi might start looking like a beacon for democracy.

          • EeeOar

            "Contempt of Parliament" cards are won't be worth much during an election campaign.

            A couple more in and outs, though, then the opposition might start to gain some serious ground, especially if the other in and outs involve larger sums of money and are more clearly not "just" – as disreputable as some folks might find it – aggressive accounting.

          • EeeOar

            The latter.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            I suggest you pay attention. I was referencing the Afghanistan documents. The Conservatives have complied with the Speaker's wishes. With regard to today, it was the first time the speaker ruled on the two matters, isn't it? So how can they have been not in compliance with a ruling he was yet to make?

            Some of you just want to get rid of our current democratically elected government at all costs. Thank God you don't represent Canadian voters.

          • Keith in Brampton

            I replied to one further up, but the comment fits better here, so I'll repeat:

            Are you sure they "settled the matter" re Afghanistan docs? If so, why was rge BQ setting a deadline for delivery last week? http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/03/an-ultimatum/
            Sounds to me more like the CPC is trying hard to ignore the contempt ruling.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            and I'll repeat that no one has taken the Bloc seriously except those that supported its formal participation in a coalition to overthrow the government.

          • Keith in Brampton

            Whether you take them serious or not, they have nonetheless raised a serious point: the CPC are STILL in contempt and STILL trying to delay, obsfuscate, and otherwise bury the evidence.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            No, they are specifically not in contempt regarding the Afghanistan documents. You are not the Speaker, and thank God for that. Stop making things up.

          • Keith in Brampton

            The Speaker ordered them to produce; they have not. You are technically right, in that the committee members have not yet requested a formal declaration of contempt, but their continued foot-dragging has two of the threee opposition parties threatening to make just such a request.

            But in the eyes of any reasonable, non-partisan-hack observer, it is still contempt.

          • brooster2

            Jeez, Dennis, have you thought of sharing that insight with the citizens of Quebec? I encourage you to do so.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Are you saying you support Quebec separatists? Next.

          • brooster2

            Nope…not even close…silly idea.

            Try again.

          • Reverend_Blair

            They weren't in compliance there either. They had to be forced to comply. Now they are stonewalling, and it appears that they are drifting away from compliance again.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Drifting away from compliance. Now you're just making things up.

          • Reverend_Blair

            Duceppe noted that the government wasn't living up to its word last week and issued a deadline. The Liberals didn't say much other than that they also also weren't happy.

            Do you even watch the news, or do get all of your information in Conservative talking points memos?

          • LdKitchenersOwn

            Just wanted to point out that I don't believe any of the Afghanistan documents HAVE been released yet. Wasn't the Bloc just complaining about this last week, and threatening to re-activate (for want of a better term) the contempt charges if the Tories didn't start moving fast?

          • Reverend_Blair

            yes.

          • TimesArrow

            I believe parliament can revisit the speaker's Afhgan ruling if it believes the govt is not in compliance. Might be agood idea to so move in the next couple of weeks. I believe i see the possibility of a squeeze play for the opposition here.

          • Reverend_Blair

            Yeah, I think Ignatieff really needs to move on this. Layton and Duceppe are waiting for him to catch up.

          • filturk

            good point… more ammo for opposition

          • Mike T.

            Indeed. it is worse than I feared!

          • filturk

            imagine him with a majority ?

          • Keith in Brampton

            <shudder!>

          • M_A_D_world

            It shouldn't have come to the Speaker having to tell them to do the right thing.
            The Harper led Conservatives have been proponents in proposing tougher rules of conduct and accountability. To turn a blind eye to their own code of conduct is contemptible.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            What rules are you talking about? They thought they were abiding by the rules until the Speaker ruled otherwise, at which point they complied. This isn't rocket science. You also can't make up the facts as you go along here simply because you resent Conservatives.

          • Reverend_Blair

            The only way they could have thought they were in compliance would be if they had absolutely no grasp of how a parliamentary democracy works. Are you saying that the Conservatives are stupid?

          • Gayle

            Heh. Like a robber "thought" he was not doing anything wrong until a judge convicts him.

      • Reverend_Blair

        Wow. Do you have to screw your pants on in the morning, or is there some kind of velcro gizmo you depend on?

        In all three cases the Conservatives were found to be breaching the parliamentary privileges of others. They were in the wrong. They were found to be breaking the rules.

        The Conservatives refused to recognize those privileges until they were under threat, in the case of the Afghan detainee documents, and are still playing silly bugger with it.

        Gilles Duceppe has issued a deadline for them to smarten up. Layton recognized the snow job from the start. I suspect Ignatieff will walk away soon. The Conservatives will then be in contempt.

        • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

          You can throw at me all the personal insults you want. It only shows the desperation of your cause.

          The Conservatives have had disputes with the opposition. Regarding the Afghanistan documents, they believed that they should be held secret for national security reasons. Ultimately, the speaker disagreed, and the Conservatives came to an accommodation with the opposition.

          These are facts. I know they puncture your view of the world, but that isn't my concern.

          • Reverend_Blair

            No, the facts are that there are rules and precedents and the Conservatives refuse to follow them. That is a lack of respect for our democratic institutions.

          • brooster2

            "The Conservatives have had disputes with the opposition."

            Dennis, there's a quickly-amassing body of evidence that suggests it's more more accurate to say "they have a problem with democratic principles". It's gone way beyond a simple little "dispute with the opposition".

            But nice try.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            I'm sorry, but you not liking them is hardly a violation of democracy on their part. What utter nonsense.

          • brooster2

            My liking the Cons (or not) has nothing to do with this discussion, which is about how we interpret their behaviour. You called it a dispute with the opposition while I characterized it as a disregard for the principles of democracy. Given their pattern of misleading the House and withholding information to which the House is legitimately entitled (according to the Speaker's rulings), it's hard to reach any other conclusion.

            You (and the Cons) will need a stronger rebuttal than to dismiss that conclusion as "utter nonsense".

            Try harder.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            I think it's completely based on your contempt for Conservatives, since you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't a democracy. Parliament and Canadians are. The latter has voted our government in, and the former has made ruling by which this government has and will abide by.

            Why would I need to "try harder" when all you have is this self-congratulatory nonsense. It's like taking candy from a baby. Next.

          • brooster2

            I totally agree that Parliament is the arbiter of democracy in Canada (and long may it continue to serve the people of Canada in that hallowed role). That's why I'm perplexed by our government's apparent indifference regarding its obligations to that institution…aren't you?

            I suggest you should be.

          • filturk

            I"ll give you an E for effort Dennis, and I"m being generous.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Why in the world would I care what letter you give me? You can't even conjure up a coherent rebuttal. Next.

          • DerekPearce

            Take your fingers outta your ears and quit rebutting straw men instead of the actual issues. Next.

          • filturk

            don't need too, brooster and reverend blair are doing an excellent job

          • DerekPearce

            The fact that the Opposition plain don't like it when the government violates parliamentary privilege and rules doesn't mean that the government isn't still wrong, isn't still anti-democratic when doing this. "Not liking" (or in your case, liking) the government seems to be what this is only about for you. It's not. The Tories are rule breakers and misleaders, period. They deserve a real penalty of some sort.

          • M_A_D_world

            I did like them once Dennis but they've abandoned much of what they once offered in terms of good government. They passed the Accountability Act with fanfare to what? Ignore it?
            (Not that the current Liberals look much better than old liver on the other side of the plate.)

          • filturk

            kind of like an "administrative dispute" à la Poilièvre regarding the in and out scam…

          • Al O'Wishes

            The Conservatives have had disputes with the opposition.

            Well, yes, that's one way to look at it. It's a completely disingenuous, but it's one way. Can we apply that view to everything now? "I wasn't speeding, it was just a dispute on what constitutes a safe speed in a school zone. The "law" says 30 k/h while I say it's 240 K/h. No big deal. It's nothing! And I wasn't drunk, it was just a dispute with the breathalyzer. It claimed my blood alcohol was above the legal limit, while I claim my blood alcohol was awesome. But despite these minor disputes, I obviously have the utmost respect for the rules of the road."

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            What nonsense. According to you, a person is deemed guilty even before a legal preceding has taken place. Then, when a judge steps in and provides a conditional sentence, and the accused abides, that's still not good enough for you. They should be thrown in jail for life just for being accused.

          • Reverend_Blair

            We learned that from the Conservatives.

          • brooster2

            Hey, Dennis, I'll give you that point entirely, i.e., that we should all proceed on a presumption of innocence until a court hands down its decision (in the "In and Out" case) or the House committees move forward on their contempt recommendations. But politically, a reasonable person would conclude that, for the Harper Government (as they now apparently choose to be known), the optics of these rulings by the Speaker aren't good. They'll need to find a climb down or a way to sideline all these "faux" scandals until they can engineer an election on their own terms.

            That will, increasingly, be difficult.

          • filturk

            Well MP's should be a notch up on the trust and accountability scale, particularly ministers. They have titles to uphold, i.e. Honorable, Right Honorable. They shouldn't be let off that easy.

          • Thwim

            Similarly, when a burglar enters your house to take the silverware, he's having a dispute with you as to the ownership of said items. He believes they should be his. Ultimately, the courts will disagree and tell him to give them back.

            To bring the analogy up to date, he's been promising for a while, but you're still eating with your hands.

      • Keith in Brampton

        Are you sure they "settled the matter" re Afghanistan docs? If so, why was rge BQ setting a deadline for delivery last week? http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/03/an-ultimatum/
        Sounds to me more like the CPC is trying hard to ignore the contempt ruling.

        • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

          Look, I know some of you were really eager to see a separatist-backed coalition get power in this country. It doesn't mean you have to treat all their rants on every topic as the gospel, does it?

          • Reverend_Blair

            Oh drop the crap. The Bloc was never part of any coalition and coalitions are a perfectly acceptable option under our system of government.

          • Halo_Override

            You gotta admit, though, it was a time-tested way for him to dodge the question.

          • Keith in Brampton

            Yeah; "the artless dodger". I contemplated rsponding to him then realized there would be no point.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            What was I dodging again? God, some of you act like big-time sore losers when you don't get your way. You say you want democracy, but you lose in democracies. Other people get their way sometimes. Live with it already. This isn't Cuba.

          • Keith in Brampton

            The very real issue the Bloc (and NDP before them) have raised: That the Cons are still conning the nation and continuing their contempt of Parliament by STILL refusing to release the documents. You say they have; we demonstrated you were wrong; you dodged and dissembled by going off on a "coalition" rant.

            If they have truly provided the documents, give us the date and a citation to back it up. Otherwise, stop the disinformation campaign you're on.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            What question? I didn't realize anybody was taking the Bloc's position last week seriously, except for people who wanted the Bloc to support a coalition to overthrow the government. Right? I never dodge anything on here. In fact, it's people like you who seem unwilling to engage me with anything but this knee-jerk nonsense. Next.

          • Reverend_Blair

            The formation of a coalition isn't an "overthrow" of the government. It is a change of government by fully legal, legitimate, and constitutional means. Next.

          • D.D.S

            Dennis…the coalition boogyman just isn't that scary anymore….as long as they are a group of elected MP's …what's the problem…you may not like the Bloc…but that is Democracy too…and I know you love democracy

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            They were never part of any coalition except that they formally signed an agreement with that coalition without which the coalition can't exist. And you have the audacity to tell others to cut the crap. lol

          • Reverend_Blair

            The coalition could exist without them. It would be tougher to reach agreements, but it could still exist.

            By the way, no matter what you think of them, the Bloc MPs are duly elected and enjoy the same rights and privileges as every other MP in the house.

            Next.

  • psiclone

    unless of course we are in a election hmmmmmmmm !

  • McC_

    curious that Mackay moved that the committee report back to the House by March 25

    • danby

      Election wink wink

      • McC_

        but wouldn't a Liberal amendment to the Budget be debated and voted on the 24th (after the Bloc sub-amendment on the 23rd)?

        • danby

          I think the whole point is to release the budget and force a channel change – one that brings an election based on the economy – not ethics

  • ConBot

    At a time of economic uncertainty, Ignatieff want's to derail the royal wedding… Ignatieff only in it for himself.

    • tedbetts

      He should know that he has no chance with Kate Middleton so the effort is futile.

      • Halo_Override

        Why, what does she have against Americans?

  • http://twitter.com/TheHarperGov TheHarperGov

    "Privilege? Speaker? Huh! What? Oh.

    "Fercrissakes Nigel, didn't I say no freaking interruptions? Don't you know what's just happened?. Now I have to add a Chara chapter to my book.

    "Just send Baird out to screw with the pack. And for gawd's sake don't let Oda out of the limo.

    "Oh, and if Kenny is still screwing around with that Chinese restaurant thing, have him bring back some General Tao's and some dumplings. And tell him to make damn sure they're hot this time."

  • Reverend_Blair

    No. It's dishonest to lie.

    • Halo_Override

      Is it? Can you produce the document stating so? Has it been tabled? Has a committee studied and approved it? Has it passed the Senate?

      Or is it just some "principle" you made up yesterday? (Or three years ago, doesn't matter which…)

      Until then, I will continue to focus on jobs and the economy, like all real Canadians. (With the key difference that I don't have anything to say about "jobs" or "the economy", so I'll just keep repeating the words and trying to look busy.)

      • Reverend_Blair

        Funny thing, every time one of the opposition parties asks for consent to table a document showing the Conservatives to be dishonest, the Conservatives refuse consent to table the document.

  • Mike T.

    What the hell is in those documents that Harper is so afraid of releasing them?

    • Reverend_Blair

      That's the 1.3 million dollar question, isn't it?

    • http://twitter.com/TheHarperGov TheHarperGov

      Afraid? No stinkin' fear here. It's Harvard boy wetting his pants at this point.

      And besides, those papers are mine, Mine MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE! Finders Keepers.

  • ConMan

    Harper needs to drop the writ tomorrow morning… If this is what the opposition wants to fight the election on, there is no point in letting them spend the next two weeks hammering away at this… By dropping the writ tomorrow, Harper can use the budget to go and fight an election and neutralize any traction that the opposition is trying to get… And luckily, the election will be over in time for the royal wedding… Perfect

    • frobisher

      Yes. Heartening to know we can arrange our national affairs so as not to interfere with the nuptials of these parasitic remnants of feudalism.

      • Mike T.

        Even better knowing Harper passed an unenforceable law purporting to prevent THAT VERY THING.

        • Keith in Brampton

          Oh, Harper has passed a number of things, and they're stinking up the country.

    • tobyornotoby

      Umm … If he drops the writ tomorrow, there won't be a budget bill to pass or not pass. How will he "use" that?

      • McC_

        nit: "Budget Ways and Means Motion," the Budget Implementation Bill wouldn't be up until later in the Spring.

        • tobyornotoby

          Yes, good nit. +1

    • filturk

      Harper proroguing a third time could be seen as him again running for cover and not facing the music, which ultimately could add to the Opposition's arsenal against his regime's immoral character and corrupt nature.

  • tobyornotoby

    As much as I believe the Conservatives are contemptuous of parliament, everyone who is saying the speaker has ruled they are in contempt should know he has not done that, and it is not his role to do that.

    He has found a prima facie case for breach of privilege, or in other words, what appears on the evidence to be a breach of members' privilege. The matter is now referred to Procedures Committee for examination, and only upon return to the House, will the members themselves, decide whether it amounts to contempt.

    The distinction matters because that role to make the final determination by voting is itself a cornerstone of members' privilege.

    • Mike T.

      That being said, the government has obviously been in contempt from the get go. All we're seeing is the details of how it plays out.

  • McC_

    True story, the 2008 election totally derailed the Canadian economy, all summer, it was tickety boo (although not so hot to our south), then by then end of the campaign, whammy, our business went south too! Canadians: don't let this happen again…

    • Ryan

      And Harper since then has lowered corporate taxes twice.

      But hey, things are good, so let's throw away another $300 million to get back to right where we are now. Who cares, things are good!

      • Reverend_Blair

        The cost of elections is good for the economy. All those hotel rooms being rented, cars being rented, planes being rented, and so on. The government spends money, the parties spend money, the media spends money. The spin-offs are good.

        Maybe it will help to make up for Harper's mishandling of the economy.

        • Jan

          It's a job creator – from coast to coast to coast. We can't afford not to have an election.

  • chet

    This is massive. I mean huge.

    I mean the average family sitting around the dinner table doesn't care about their own well bieng.

    No, they care about the Liberal party, and the points of order and parliamentary motions, that further the Liberal cause.

    All Canadians think like the hyperpartisans that inhabit this blog, and I encourage the Liberal party to continue to operate on that assumption,

    corresponding Liberal poll numbers being at historical lows notwithstanding.

    • Halo_Override

      The average family understands the difference between lying and telling the truth.

      Which seems to place them in direct conflict with today's "transparent, accountable" Conservative Party/Harper Government™.

      • chet

        I agree. The average family thinks Harper is a "liar!!!" just like the liberal partisans here.

        Of course.

        I say go with that.

        It's so…centered. So on the ball.

        Time to pull the pin and force an election. After all, all Canadians think like you do.

    • danby

      That does not justify the belligerent and malfeasant behaviour of this government.

      That promise of Accountability was made to you too.

      Doesn't that bother you in the least?

      Do the ends always justify the means?

      They want to keep us all in the dark about numbers and policy, and you think that's ok? Really?

    • Reverend_Blair

      This is massive. I mean huge. Tuesday at the Agriplex. Monster Trucks. Motocross. Motocross on monster trucks. Just don't pay attention to the news.

      Come early and see Steve Harper ride an ATV.

      • MostlyCivil

        On Tuesday! Tuesday!! Tuesday!!!!!!

    • Gayle

      Hi biff.

      So are you saying that the opposition should simply sit back and not protest when the Government of Canada lies to the House of Parliament and to Canadian citizens? Should the opposition simply not point out when the Conservative Party of Canada uses a potentially illegal scheme to both violate the law AND fraudulently collect tax dollars?

      The opposition should play dead until there is an issue people like you think could topple the government? What you are saying here is basically political parties should always act in the best interest of the party, and not in the best interest of the country.

      Interesting.

    • Loraine Lamontagne

      And I encourage you to continue to think that the average Canadian family doesn't talk politics around the dinner table.

  • brooster2

    Someone may already have made this observation, but I can't help but wonder what James Travers would have to say about these developments.

  • HarveyMushman

    Well…let's all check back in about a week to see if/how the polls move following this.

    My guess…not an awful lot. I'm not sure parliamentary privilege even hits voter's radar…rightly or wrongly. Inner workings of the HOC stir up the political junkies…but I doubt they resonate with the average Canadian.

    Surely if the Con's don't drop a good 5-10 points in the polls…Iggy will (or should) get the message that their "ethics-based" campaign is doomed.

    If Harper is sitting 10 points (plus) come budget time…I think we'll see some opposition parties suddenly shift their own ethics come vote time.

  • Loren

    Canadians don't like their politicians to cheat on their Taxes. If they do it, they pay penalties. If Harper's jihadists do it, they thumb their noses at the Canada Revenue vultures.
    Canadians have died by the thousands in many Wars fighting for Democracy. They don't like Harper thumbing his nose at what they died for!
    Veterans don't like to give their limbs to wars for their country only to return and be told by this government that they won't get a proper pension for their families.

    This Government not only has created a huge Economic deficit for our grandchildren; it has created a DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT – which is far more dangerous for our country than an invading army!

  • Lou Ise B

    Women don't like being treated like second-class citizens, cutting their funding and legal rights to access to community and health resources, not to mention allowing a bunch of incoherent Tea Party Evangelicals holding foetuses posters praying on the Hill for their salvation!

    Pretty soon Harper will be handing out burquas to his female employees..

    This Bush Junior of a PM is the most misogynist despot we've ever had on Parliament hill.
    You can be sure women will be going out to vote in droves to make sure we kick this autocratic piece of rusty robotics out of his throne.

  • OriginalEmily1

    That's 3 contempt rulings in a year.

    Cons are in hip-deep in cowpies.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Cons are in hip-deep in cowpies.

    You've been saying that for five years now, haven't you?

  • filturk

    I would say the cons are up to their nose in it. Yep, that bad. The PMO has instructed MP's and staffers, all except Baird (all he does is bark) and Poilièvre (vacuous rhetoric) to keep a lid on things. "When you're up to your nose in sh_t, better to keep your mouth shut!"

  • Jan

    Tom Lukiwski is now complaining about the 'coalitions' (his term) attitude. He has no shame.

  • AM2010

    I love Lukiwski's argument that Oda was telling the truth because she was not asked, precisely, whether she new of the decision to alter the cabinet document. Therefore, when asked whether she knew who altered the document, she was telling the truth when she did not because she did not know which individual had carried out her order and printed the ink on the paper. If only they had asked precisely, "did you know of the decision to write the word "not," and/or were you involved in any way with directing the word to be inserted, she would have gladly admitted she was! Brutal. Bill Clinton was impeached for such hair-splitting.

  • Mike T.

    if it's true we get the government we deserve, then we are doomed.

  • Jan

    Now arguing that the Committee is at fault for not asking the right questions. Oda, therefore totally innocent. Why do they have this goof representing the government. He's as bad as Poilievre.

  • OriginalEmily1

    No, I said they've been stupid for 5 years….it's just catching up to them.

  • brooster2

    Which suggests they really need bigger shovels now.

  • Reverend_Blair

    He's an embarrassment to Saskatchewan. He's basically denying the speaker's ruling.

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    Again, it's the Mulroney defense.

    "I didn't mention, when asked to describe the nature of our relationship, that he gave me large envelopes stuffed with cash on several occasions because no one ever asked me explicitly 'Did he ever hand you large envelopes stuffed with cash?'"

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    They didn't need them before, so why would they need them now?

  • Reverend_Blair

    are going to the garden to eat worms now, Dennis?

  • brooster2

    Oh, they needed them…they were just oblivious of the need to look down at what they're standing in.

  • OriginalEmily1

    Probably. Dennis sulks a lot. LOL

  • LdKitchenersOwn

    I didn't mention the envelopes stuffed with cash that he gave me because no one ever explicitly asked "Did he ever give you any large envelopes stuffed with cash?".

    The Tories didn't learn ALL their tricks from Chretien. Some they learned from Mulroney.

  • Jan

    You would have thought they would have noticed the smell before now.

  • http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/ Steve Thompson

    Back in March 2010, the Board of Internal Economy promised Canadians that MPs would cease delivering ten-percenters to Canadian households. It looks like that practice of out-of-constituency mail outs by Conservative MPs has reared its ugly head once again as shown here:



    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/03/harper-government-return-of-ten.html



    Our MPs just love to spend our money for us particularly when it comes to campaigning. If MPs don’t respect each other in the House, how can we expect them to show anything but contempt for the Canadian public and the tax dollars that we “donate” to Ottawa.

  • Halo_Override

    You forgot "next".

  • TimesArrow

    I doubt if it would have ended there either.

    "Sir: Did you infact receive any cash from that gentleman?

    Brian:" Why yes i did as a matter of fact.

    "That's outrageous! How much?

    Brian:" Around $75.000 or so"

    "And that's all is it?"

    Brian" Oh, i thought you meant how much at a time?'

    "What!!"

  • danby

    "When I become prime minister I will undertake an unprecedented overhaul of the federal government" "That is my commitment to you."

    Stephen Harper November 5, 2005

    Can the Harper Government™ change the channel fast enough?

  • madeyoulook

    Afghan detainee documents: prima facie case found. Nobody allowed to move a motion.

    Finance documents: prima facie case found. Member immediately allowed to move a motion.

    Oda ado: prima facie case found. Member immediately allowed to move a motion.

    Two out of three ain't bad, Mr. Speaker.

  • MBToday

    Will the party of law and order follow the law? Can they order themselves to grow some spines and demand that their leader(s) be accountable and start demanding some resignations? This not honourable behaviour and the perpetrators should be stripped of their titles.

  • Reverend_Blair

    Right now it's looking like they lost the remote in the chesterfield cushions.

  • James Connors

    Harper Government™

    Nice touch with the trademark superscript.

  • OriginalEmily1

    Can't move a no-confidence motion though….the Speaker won't allow it….so it just goes to committee.

  • Leo

    .The Liberals stalled about the costs of the gun registry. They cited Cabinet confidence!

    It has never been established practice for any government to disclose Cabinet cost analyses of individual bills. Instead the Main Estimates were tabled in Parliament last week for all to see.

    Liberals are grandstanding demanding Cabinet documents instead so they can continue their smear campaign right up to the budget with help of the media

  • SanDiegoDave

    No, they won't. They're just like every other political party that has held power before them. They have turned into Liberals and Progressive Conservatives- more interested in power than anything else. What does a Conservative stand for? Just like the Liberal party before it- one thing only-

    Reelection.

  • ex-DeepRiverite

    One wonders about the significance of the March 18 court date for Finley et. al. Would a judge allow a continuance for a *prospective* election? One suspects not. But he/she might allow a continuance for an *actual* election – which perhaps gives Harper an incentive to visit Rideau Hall a couple of days (or more) before.

  • Reverend_Blair

    They can still introduce a separate non-confidence motion whenever they want though. That's better anyway because then they can list the whole long list of Conservative transgressions.

  • gottabesaid

    I never could understand why the government wouldn't hand over those estimates (the substance of ruling No. 1)… I mean, they had NO good reason to withhold them (though if somebody can give me a good reason, or any reason, I'm all ears). Why let it get to this point? Dumb. Crazy dumb.

  • Olivier

    I think it's because they know they can't back up their estimates.

    The government's jail plan makes absolutely no sense and they know it.

  • madeyoulook

    And as to the breach of parliamentary privilege, my understanding is that it is SUPPOSED to go to Committee for deliberation, recommendations, etc., and then, ultimately, a "contempt" vote in the House if it comes to that.

  • OriginalEmily1

    Yup they can….on an Opposition day, which is rare.

    Next up is likely to be the budget….which will be bland

    Harp can also try proroguing again. LOL

  • gottabesaid

    "It has never been established practice for any government to disclose Cabinet cost analyses of individual bills."

    So… the speaker got it wrong?

  • Jan

    Cabinet confidence is no longer an issue once the legislation has been introduced. How on earth does parliament make an informed decision if the costs aren't part of the discussion.

  • Thwim

    You do realize that "But mooommm! They got to do it!" is not a defence, right?

  • gottabesaid

    Maybe, but for the folks who support the GTOC plan, how much it's going to cost is secondary, they believe it's the right thing to do. I respect that, that's fine. As a taxpayer, though, I'd like to know how much it's going to cost.

  • frobisher

    Of course. He's a Lieberal…er…Librano? Liebrano? Libt…won't go there. Darn, this is so hard to get right. Um…he's only doing it 'cause he's retiring? He's a shining example of today's 'tolerant, progressive' left?

    No matter that he was unanimously re-elected by his peers in the house. Or an total geek, er, expert on parliamentary rules and procedure.

  • brooster2

    "I strongly doubt Canadians would be willing to derail the recovery for petty issues such as these."

    I take it you're seriously suggesting a) that any "recovery" will be "derailed" because a well-established, completely legal democratic process plays out and b) that the economy will go to hell in the hands of anybody by these shysters?

    Highly questionable assumptions, both. And that's a generous assessment.

  • danby

    Liebrano? Don't be so negative.

    [youtube hwP5fKSLOzA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwP5fKSLOzA youtube]

  • lgarvin

    I suspect they're hiding their costing data because they really haven't got any.

    Maybe some half-assed guesses and some rosy vague projections. But serious, rigourous data based on careful study and prudent planning?

    Naahh! They just don't roll that way.

  • danby

    You'd be better off asking an underfunded, understaffed and undermined PBO.

    Just imagine how more informed our voting decisions would be if Kevin Page was granted the access to the information he/we were promised.

  • Mike T.

    Unfortunately, statistics Canada was asked to do it, and …..

  • OriginalEmily1

    Yup, I figure Harp will stonewall until the budget… it'll be suitably bland with goodies mixed in….and then dare them to call an election.

    Sh*t all the way up.

  • Reverend_Blair

    To be reported back on the day before the budget.

  • Keith in Brampton

    Link isn't working.

  • Reverend_Blair

    I don't think Harper wants to go early. Once he does he loses all that highly partisan taxpayer funded government advertising, and he's under the same spending cap as the other parties for the election ads. Harper has an advertising advantage up until the writ is dropped.

  • Lou Ise B

    Reporter: Prime Minister, your government has been found in contempt of democratic principles three times in a year. No other government has been able to do this in the past. What do you have to say on this?

    Harper: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!

  • Macphee B

    So, some think that Canadians don't really understand nor much care for "democratic principles" and "parliamentary procedures", eh?

    Canadians do give a damn about spending $20 billions on building jails for "unreported crimes" and $30 billion for useless (single engine planes over the arctic!) fighter jets from crooked American contractors now investigated by Washington for overruns;

    Canadians don't like paying $500,000 "hush money" retirement packages for Integrity(?) Commissioner Ouimette appointed by Herr Harper who never investigated a single complaint from 265 whistleblowers who confided in her. Did you see the aviation person on the news who shouted "shame" at her?

    Canadians who voted for Harper thought they were buying an accountable, transparent government prudent with the taxpayers' purse–not spending like drunken sailors the $13 billion they inherited plus another $56 Billion deficit. Any moron can run a country with this money!

Previous

Next

From Macleans