In the House’s hands (II)


The procedure and House affairs report is now available here.

In light of the testimony heard by the Committee on this matter referred to the Committee by the Speaker on March 9, 2011, the Committee concludes the following: 1) That the government has failed to produce the specific documents ordered to be produced by the Standing Committee on Finance and by the House; 2) That the government has not provided a reasonable excuse; 3) That the documents tabled in the House and in Committee do not satisfy the orders for production of documents; nor do they provide a reasonable excuse; 4) That this failure impedes the House in the performance of its functions; and 5) That the government’s failure to produce documents constitutes a contempt of Parliament.


In the House’s hands (II)

  1. Explain this away 'Harper Government'.

  2. im shocked! the opposition parties think Harper is a big meanie! who could have thunk it!

    so i guess now they will vote no-confidence.

    Iggy can prepare for his course load at Harvard in fall 2011.

    WK can write a sequel: how to suck @ss in Canadian Politics.

    good times…

  3. Easy:

    Opposition. Coalition. Taliban lovers. Socialists. Separatists. Hate the troops.

    The End.

  4. Democracy's such a distraction eh!

    WK can write a sequel: how to suck @ss in Canadian Politics

    Perhaps his conclusion should read:" I failed, yes. I guess i just wasn't prepared to go as low as the other guy. First law of Canadian poitics in this day and age."

  5. Remind me again if Harper did anything of note before entering politics. I mean except the Esso Oil mailroom gig…Naw didn't think so but he is angry and bitter enough to make a good talking head at Fox News, which is probably as good as it will get for a loser who couldn't get a majority when the economy was strong and the opposition leader was non-existent.

    Hey but there's a chance he will take the cowards way out and prorogue again.

  6. dont get me wrong, i look forward to democracy being exercised here. Iggy was pretty boring. i suspect his upcoming replacement, Bob Rae, to be slightly less boring.

  7. nicely done…. if your aim was to babble on without making a relevant point, nicely done sir.

  8. " i look forward to democracy being exercised here."

    Just not in the House, or in Parliamentary committees.

  9. He is a bit scattered there…reminded me of Cats, but angrier.

  10. I'd love to hear you refute points 1-4. I mean, whether the Liberals have an electoral ass-whoopin' in store or not, they did happen to be in the right on this one.

  11. I don't think Rae will be boring at all. They should have gone with him from the outset – he's the best politicain in the house IMO.

    Now with his record what do you think the Tory line of attack will be? His record in Ontario as Premier – or the "fact"that he shared a room in Oxford – that den of Trotskyism – with MI [ together, alone, without any chaperones – and you know what liberals boys are like?]

    And he just MUST have known that Ignatieff's Grandpa stole the Russian crown jewels.

    And they both HAD to have known Kim Philby. Birds of a feather. [ god someone should pay me to write this stuff. Wonder if there's any need for a good fabulist in Ottawa right now?]

  12. The opposition's willingness to abuse the sanctity of the House of Commons to throw mud on the eve of an election with trumped up "findings" that are purely politically motivated,

    is unprecedented.

    The public sees this political sham for what it is.

    And they will not be in a forgiving mood as they hand a majority to the Harper government.

  13. So, are we to understand by this that Mininster Oda is not to found in contempt of Parliament?

    If that is the case, at least the opposition has recovered half of its senses.

  14. i would go for the Ontario record myself.

  15. well, to properly refute points 1-4, i would need to study the documents in question, and quite frankly id rather live the rest of my life under an NDP government.

    besides, im not surprised by the essence of the ruling, that the government did not comply as well as it could have with an order for the production of documents – i think the government should comply, but that this motion for contempt is little more then a well orchestrated piece of political theater.

    i dont mean to use as an excuse that the liberals did it too – conservatives should be upfront about the cost of their proposed legislation, there is no getting around that, but to help keep things in perspective, the gun registry was projected to cost 2 million, and ended up costing 2 billion. that's off by a factor of 1000. if the house passed a motion to bring the past Liberal government in contempt for misleading the house on that one, it would be just about as significant as this motion.

  16. I don't necessarily agree with the contempt motion, but I do believe the government needs to be called out, if for no other reason than to defend MPs rights to see what they want to see to do their jobs. It's a dangerous precedent to allow for the government to say 'go pound salt.' Having said that… does the opposition have other political motives? Of course they do. They're trying to win an election on this, and are predictably going overboard. They won't win an election on this. That doesn't mean they weren't in the right.

    As far as the gun registry costing… you can't really compare the situations in that the Liberals had a majority government, and the Conservatives don't. I don't know if the Conservatives asked for those numbers, but if they did, they could refuse and get away with it, because there wouldn't have been a committee asking for a speaker's ruling in the first place. I'm not defending the Liberals… I hated, LOATHED the way Chretien handled his business. But, at the time, they also had the numbers. The Conservatives don't.

  17. The only thing clear about that report was its conclusions … I've read it and re-read it and I am still not sure what the Harper Government is being held in contempt for …

    Was it just the insufficient disclosure on the crime bills or was it also the insufficient disclosure on the fighter jets … did the Committee decide that there was no such thing as Cabinet Confidences or that there is but the govt couldn't rely on it in this case or that Finance lied when they flip=flopped about information being released … or did they flip flop?

    I'm all for Parliament flexing accountability muscles and if people want to burn an effigy for a contemptible government, I'd be the first in line to light the match … I'm somewhat disposed to anti-Harperism, but, I wish the Committee had given clearer reasons so that we could know whether we should agree with them …

Sign in to comment.