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 House passes judgment, again

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, March 11, 2011 11:22am - 54 Comments

Last night, by a count of 145-135, the House of Commons passed the following motion.

That this House denounce the conduct of the government, its disregard for democracy and its determination to go to any lengths to advance its partisan interests and impose its regressive ideology, as it did by justifying the Conservative Party’s circumvention of the rules on election spending in the 2005-2006 election campaign, when the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism used public funds to solicit donations to the Conservative Party, when the Party used taxpayers’ money to finance a pre-election campaign under the guise of promoting Canada’s Economic Action Plan, when it changed the wording in government communications to promote itself, when it showed that it is acceptable for a minister to alter a document and make misleading statements to the House, when it refused to provide a parliamentary committee with the costs of its proposals, and when it improperly prorogued Parliament.

Debate on the motion begins here and continues here.

Tags: election, Election 2011, house of commons, in-and-out, Jason Kenney, KAIROS, Parliament, prorogation, Prorogue

More by Aaron Wherry

Wascally Wabbit

Seems I'm the first to tip my hat both to Mr. Wherry – and whichever member wrote the motion…

tobyornotoby

I'd have to agree. If this is so dire, they should have the courage of their convictions and move non-confidence.

And I think they should, by the way. I say let's find out if Canadians want elected members of parliament to have a say or not. What better subject to have an election over than the continual erosion of the legislative body by the executive?

Crit_Reasoning

when the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism used public funds to solicit donations to the Conservative Party

LOL. How did the wrong letterhead become "public funds"?

Lucky Luke

I assume 'public funds' means more than just stationery.
http://straittohell.blogspot.com straittohell

Was the person who wrote the letter a member of the Minister's staff, paid by tax dollars, or person compensated by the Conservative Party of Canada?

John D

Also, I assume this was sent via parliamentary mail

Mike T.

I recall hand delivery…

Crit_Reasoning

Ministerial staffers are allowed to volunteer for political parties on their own time. We're talking about guys who work 60 hours a week or more in their ministerial jobs, and who then volunteer to spend a few extra hours helping their boss (the minister) with party stuff. There's nothing unusual about it.

MostlyCivil

Indeed. But what ministerial staffers do in their own time has no bearing on this issue.

It's what they did on MY time. I try not to play the outraged taxpayer, but sometimes, in cases where it's just so bloody obvious that somebody screwed up, it annoys the crap out of me that nobody will admit to it.

Crit_Reasoning

It's what they did on MY time.

Are you saying that the Kenney staffer sent out letters on your time? As opposed to his own time?
MostlyCivil

Indeed. His pay comes from the parliamentary budget. Paid for by you and I. So, that's my time.
Crit_Reasoning

You said: "but what ministerial staffers do in their own time has no bearing on this issue."

At what point does it become the staffer's time instead of your time? Suppose the staffer is devoting 60 hours a week to his job within the ministry, and also volunteers for party stuff in his off hours. At what point is he "off the clock", so to speak?
MostlyCivil

He was in the office. He hand delivered the package. During office hours? Seems most likely. On the office computer? Office printer?

His own time is more believable if he's down at party hq, after hours, shot-unning red bull and doing whatever young people with energy and enthusiasm do these days.

http://straittohell.blogspot.com straittohell

I expected better from you.

John D

Unless Party headquarters keeps a supply of parliamentary letterhead for each MP I'm guessing this was done by a staffer paid by my taxes, in an office paid for by my taxes, with equipment paid for by my taxes.

tobyornotoby

Oh good, I thought my taxes were paying for it. I'll get the next one.

http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

Strange coincidence, those voting numbers are almost the exact same as the gov't vs opposition seats in the house. Eerie.

Crit_Reasoning

Just wait for the next motion: That this House condemns the government for once again concealing its hidden agenda, which includes regressive stances on abortion, capital punishment and putting soldiers in our streets..

The numbers will line up exactly the same way!

alfanerd

it's pretty funny to see those, like Aaron Whery, who try to pretend that this motion means something more than simply that we are in a minority parliament. we knew that after election night folks. but, hey, good on the opposition for doing its job.

i mean, passing motions declaring that the government is evil is the opposition's job right? if they dont do it, who will?

tobyornotoby

If this is just a function of minority parliaments, shouldn't we have seen similar motions during the Pearson, Trudeau, Clark and Martin minorities?

I bet they all breached member privilege and regularly refused to provide committees with inforrmation right?
former_ADB

Where does Wherry say this means something?

OriginalEmily1

We are in the post-shame era apparently.
John D

Our whole system of government rests on the idea that the Government has to hold the confidence of the House. So this resolution seems half-arsed to me. This motion sounds like they don't have real confidence, but the opposition parties aren't willing to make it a confidence motion. Confidence is binary – you either have it or you don't. If the opposition parties believe what they passed in that motion then they have a moral obligation to vote non-confidence in this government.

Crit_Reasoning

If the opposition parties believe what they passed in that motion then they have a moral obligation to vote non-confidence in this government.

Exactly. They'll look ridiculous if they pass a motion with that kind of language, and then refuse to vote non-confidence in the government.

Guest

That is why I don't understand the pupose of these motions. Not that I want an election right now because I dont know who I could vote for. I just think it looks weak.

Blues Clair

"That is why I don't understand the pupose of these motions"

One purpose I can think of – the media is reporting, and we are discussing.

Guest

The media was reporting & people that cared were discussing this before the motions. I think it looked better when the media was reporting on the speakers rulings, not on a partisan motion. I don't see how it helps. Thats just me.

alfanerd

the purpose of the motion is to pretend that the motion is somehow meaningful, and to allow hacks like Wherry to pontificate about it.

Lucky Luke

I assume you are not suggesting that last night's motion should have been a confidence vote? Since it's not a bill or budgetary in any tangible way.

What will be interesting is if the opposition bring forth a confidence vote if Harper designates an opposition day before the budget or if any of the opposition parties support the budget….because if it passes…they will indeed look ridiculous given the recent motion.

If I worked at Tory HQ I would suggest calling the opposition's bluff and give them a chance to vote down the government before the budget….if they did then the Conservative would ride on their existing and decent lead in the polls…control the narrative that the opposition 'forced' an election. If the opposition balked at the opportunity, then you one could call the opposition out as hypocrites and weak and have time to throw in some goodies for the middle class in the upcoming budget….raise the stakes for the opposition to take the gov't down.

All in all..despite Parliament's censure of the gov't (and richly deserved), the Tories are strangely sitting pretty here.
danby

Agreed

The opposition needs to stand up for what's right, and if they fail, they'll have to take their beatings as they go.
When your statements grandstand on principle, but you aren't prepared to back it up in deeds, then you are really no better than Mr Harper and his empty pledge of accountability

It can be argued that they're waiting for the perfect timing; for the perfect shift in momentum etc… but analyses won't change the fact that sooner or later they'll have to put up their fists and be bloodied. This next election is going to be a war whether they like it or not.
Stewart_Smith

I don't see the opposition as looking foolish for not bringing forward a confidence motion, although I certainly agree they would look foolish if a confidence motion was brought forward and they failed to vote against it.

So are you going to advise SH to bring forward a simple confidence motion? It would be in keeping with his tendency to periodically do the wildly unexpected when under duress.

Lucky Luke

I think they would (and by they, I mean the Liberals) would take the brunt of the Tory attack if they didn't take the chance at an opposition day. It's impact on the electorate would probably be minimal except for the Tory base…this is all hypothetical but by not taking the government down when given the opportunity it would give the Tories a chance to 'change the channel' and emphasize opposition weakness, etc, etc.

Again…only speculating…but I think you're right…SH has a habit of making bold decisions that more often than not (aside from proroguing and the whole party-subsidy issue) give him the upper hand. So yeah…I would advise him to call the opposition's bluff and call for a simple confidence motion…he's got more to win than to lose in that scenario.

john g

It's a bit rich for the Liberals to complain about Kenney using public funds to solicit donations to the party when the Liberals have an MP who is selling Liberal party memberships out of his MP constituency office.

Double standard?
former_ADB

Link please.

I guess it would depend on what funds are being used for this purpose and what are the normal limitations in their use.
gottabesaid

Absolutely it's a double-standard. It makes the Liberals look like hypocrites. As a taxpayer, however, I'd hope that this episode serves to cause our MPs and parties review their parliamentary and constituency responsibilities and their partisan activities and separate them as much as possible in the future. I might be naive in that hope, but that's my hope.
Guest

This is a surprise to you. This entire comment board is an exercise in double standard. No one here wants to see their chosen party questioned or criticized. This is not a place for discussion, just "CONbot" here, "LIEberal" there. Thumbs up for my side, thumbs down for the other side. And they wonder why nothing changes!
Sigh

Who is the MP?
john g

It doesn't depend on anything. MPs are expressly forbidden from selling political party memberships out of their constituency offices. According to House of Commons Members’ Offices By-laws and the Parliament of Canada Act, Members may not use their offices to sell party memberships or solicit partisan donations:

(1) Every Member shall be provided with goods and services as directed by and subject to the conditions set by the Board, including:

(g) printing or copying of material provided by the Member, except

(i) solicitations of membership to any political party[i]

It's amazing isn't it, with the multiple days of coverage about Kenney's aide using a piece of stationary, how difficult this "news" actually is to find? Even though the Ethics Commissioner has been requested to intervene?
former_ADB

Thanks for the information regarding the normal limits to what MPs can do from their offices.

So who is this MP?
Leo

This has to be the saddest, most lame group of opposition MPs ever. They should have added "and Harper smells like sulphur" which would have rounded it out the tone nicely.
former_ADB

I'd agree that comment boards don't change very much in the real world, but what is your evidence that
" No one here wants to see their chosen party questioned or criticized" ?
Who other than yourself has used the terms "CONbot" or "LIEberal" ?

Me, I'm just waiting to find out who this liberal MP is.
john g

Shawn Murphy, Charlottetown.

Despite wall to wall coverage for Kenney improperly using a piece of stationary, only the CBC has seen fit to report this so far.
former_ADB

Thanks.

You certainly have a point.
former_ADB

I guess other news agencies will get around to it eventually.

You're not crediting the CBC with being the only un-biased news source are you?
Guest

A question then. You were obviously concerned that a LPC member had done basically the same as Kenney that you requested a link. How would you like to see the LPC handle it.

Try either in Mcleans search engine. I guess you will be surprised. A who's who of Mcleans regulars
MostlyCivil

Now you're just being mean.
former_ADB

Well, thanks to the link (above) we now know who is the MP in question. Still, my knowledge of what happened is somewhat limited, so anything I suggest (below) might be subject to revision.

John g posts that this behavior was in contravention of the by-laws of the House of Commons. I suppose the by-laws must also describe a process to handle such cases, perhaps even indicating the type of punishment or censure that are appropriate. That process should surely be initiated.

Regardless, the LPC should ensure that there are no other similar cases and issue a warning to their caucus. They might even propose new mechanisms/rules for the house to stop such behavior in future.

Certainly there should be an admission of wrong-doing.

This case certainly shares some characteristics with the Kenney case, but is perhaps (slightly) less significant; here we have an MP mixing his constituency and party functions, while with Mr. Kenney we have a minister confusing his ministerial and party functions. I matter of degree perhaps, but still a matter of degree.
Guest

is "matter of degree" the same as saying Double standard.
wilson

For sure Leo,
Ig could have added his Harper= Charlie Sheen comment, and referred to the Harper Government as a bunch of knuckledraggers,
just to give it a little class.

My gawd, the Opposition is blaming their own impotence on Harper.
jmw

Not to mention Bob Rae calling the staffers in the PMO's office "jihadists". Haven't seen an apology there either.
former_ADB

Sorry for the delay in replying (real life you know).

And I still haven't found anymore information about the Shawn Murphy incident. In fact according to Google News search, the previously linked article is the only report so far on this story!

Anyway, you ask whether "matter of degree the same as saying Double standard[?]"

I don't think so, but I admit I could be wrong.
Holly Stick

And in Kenney's case it's the Minister of Immigration asking ethnic groups which may include many immigrants for money. Definite serious conflict of interest beyond that of an MP; though no MP should use government resources for partisan purposes including fundraising. But the Conservatives have been the most blatantly dishonest and abusive of their position in government, with their party logo on the giant cheques and Kenney's Minister's Award, sending 10-per-centers all over the place, the Election Canada charges, etc.
Guest

I think it is as simple as both are wrong.
Either way, there is a lot of outrage against one for something that all seem to be guilty of, arguably to different degrees. If you were going to include this in a motion to parliament I think you should make sure you were 100% clean of the same.

Earlier you were looking for evidence of partisan blindness here. Just read the next comment (holly stick) to see the blatant dishonesty & then do a search of the "holly stick" + Conbot in the mclaens search engine.
Holly Stick

I prefer Young Jurks; but 25-year-old jihadists is good too. No need to apologize for accuracy.