It would seem as though the Liberal Party has set Canada on a crash course in unchartered constitutional waters. For all the talk of "contempt of parliament" coming from the CBC, I'm not hearing past examples where these types of motions were used and interpreted. Can anyone tell me the historical context? How exactly can you interpret parliament declaring Government's contempt for it as anything other than a confidence motion?
The experts say that the motion, however you interpret it, is not legally binding. Hence why the Liberals would even introduce such a motion. Create a controversy, introduce a lack of confidence motion, but don't legally enforce that lack of confidence. It makes sense, whether I agree with the tactic or not.
The Opposition has no idea how many twists this motion could take for our soldiers, and Canada's place in the ongoing war.
ReplyDeleteThey were willing to play with that fire stick.
There is contempt here alright, but it is for those in The Opposition.
They can squeal "contempt of Parliament" all they like. The Liberals are in contempt of reality, and sorely mistaken if they think it isn't going to catch up to them.
ReplyDeleteIt's just the Liberals blowing smoke yet again, which shows that it is they who do not have confidence in their chances if an election were to happen.
ReplyDeleteThis morning, Kathleen Petty host of CBC radio's "The House", had Tom Lukiwski (alone), followed by Derek Lee & Jack Harris on ...
ReplyDeleteexcerpt:
KP: "... if the gov't decides to make the release of all documents, at the end of all this, a matter of confidence, are you prepared to fight an election over this ?"
Lee: "If the Prime Minister can't handle this, maybe he himself should resign, and have someone else in the Conservative Party take over (KP: that's not what I asked you)... I don't think Canadians are as engaged, as Parliamentarians are. So I would prefer NOT to fight an election on this issue ... so SOME of us have to speak and fight as Parliamentarians ... I MAY OR MAY NOT be one of those guys, or women. I DON'T KNOW ! ... blah blah"
Un-frickin believable ! The Libs point man, who wote the book on this parliamentary stuff, and won his riding by 14,544 votes (+35. 7 %), ISN'T SURE how he will vote !?! LOL
The Libs are going to fold like cheap tents. Their fear of an election hugely trumps their loathing of Harper.
link: http://www.cbc.ca/thehouse/
It's obviously a non-confidence vote. Drop the writ folks, and let's go!
ReplyDeleteSo if it is a confidence motion bring on the election Iggy. If you have the guts.
ReplyDeleteJust watched CBC Liberal biased chick interview That Liberal Menses guy again to get his Liberal position on the contempt charges comparing it to Louis Riel and that King that got beheaded as a example for the Harper Conservatives, It was an obscenely biased hit job at the government the CBC Liberal host even suggested it was our own impeachment proceedings
ReplyDeleteThe CBC's uncritical support of the Liberal Party is out of control and corrupt.
If the Libs continue with this motion you can be assured the PM will consider it as a confidence motion.
ReplyDeleteYes - it should. When the notion of "contempt" is as questionable as this one is.
ReplyDeleteGo for 'em, Mr. Harper.
Michael St.Paul's
I still have not heard anyone say if this contempt motion has ever been used. Are we in unchartered constitutional waters here?
ReplyDeleteIt was last used in 2008. No uncharted waters here.
ReplyDeleteHow was it used in 2008 and did it pass the commons?
ReplyDeleteIt was Barbara George deputy commissioner of the RCMP who was found in contempt for deliberately misleading a parliamentary committee. It was voted on by MPs. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/04/10/rcmp-contempt.html
ReplyDeleteIn response to some commentators, a finding of contempt of parliament is completely separate from a vote of non-confidence. To find the government in contempt is to point out it is breaking parliamentary rules and procedures and in this case, constitutional law. This is not politics, it's law. A vote of non-confidence is purely politcal.
This example is not the same thing as declaring the Prime Minister has contempt for Parliament. The opposition has been accusing the Prime Minister of war crimes and have forwarded a motion which could lead to criminal prosecutions of cabinet ministers. That sounds a lot like a confidence motion to me.
ReplyDeleteWell you can also believe Ghost Busters II sounds like confidence but that doesn't make it so.
ReplyDeleteYou can maintain your opinion but it is not true. If one looks at what a vote of non-confidence is and what a finding of contempt of parliament is the differences are clear.
A finding of contempt does not imply, necessitate, suggest, motivate, cause, or create a vote of non-confidence. A finding of contempt is just recognition of rules being broken, that's all.
Well Scott Ross, the one thing we agree on is that the other's opinion is not true. Perhaps you think that there is no difference between finding a single public servant in contempt and finding the entire Government in contempt, but just because you maintain your opinion, doesn't make it true.
ReplyDeleteIceman, your original query was whether the contempt motion has ever been used. I could provide more instances, each of which is unique in its own way.
ReplyDeleteThe assertion that the motion, if accepted, would find "the entire Government in contempt" is entirely incorrect. Given these days of lazy, yet excitable journalism, it's an understandable misconception. In fact, only one Conservative caucus member is named in the motion: Peter McKay. If the Speaker rules in favour of the motion it is he who will be considered in contempt of Parliament - and that is only if Mr McKay fails to act "to the satisfaction of the Speaker".
Iceman considering you were not familiar with previous examples where contempt of parliament was found, it seriously suggests your ignorance on the issue.
ReplyDeletePlease contact any professor, lawyer, or constitutional expert and I will bet money they will tell you you are wrong. If you think you are right put your money where your mouth is.
Absolutely I am ignorant on this issue, hence why I did it in question format. I find it odd that Peter MacKay would be the only politician named in the motion, considering the lion's share of the accusation of contempt in Question Period are aimed directly at the Prime Minister (who I think everyone agrees makes those decisions).
ReplyDeleteEither way, I do not agree that the government is in contempt because I do not think that sensitive information about combat operations should be released to the public while our troops are active in the theatre. That is my opinion. This is an opinion site. If you want news, read a newspaper.
There are only degrees between opnion and news. The important thing is finding out what is true and what isn't.
ReplyDeleteThe other reason that I did this post as one big question was because it was released with a poll question. "Do you think parliament finding the Government in contempt represents a motion of non confidence?"
ReplyDeleteI asked people if they thought it symbolized a confidence motion, legally binding or not. Sometimes I research posts and sometimes I just ask readers for their opinions. This is quite a common practice in blogging. Sometimes I want to tell people what I think; sometimes I want to know what other people think. Do you object to that? If I visited your blog Scott, I'm sure I could find several instances of you using the same type of practices that you accuse me of. This is a blog, not a newspaper.
I would suspect that the opposition would love nothing more than to have the Tories interpret this as a confidence motion and call an election. Then they could claim no responsibility in forcing an election.
Bring on an election pretty PLEASE. A minority govt is trampled on at every opportunity and it is like someone always having to look over their shoulder for fear of being knifted in the back.
ReplyDeleteI have my finger on the pulse of the Chinese, Indian and Iranian community in Toronto and boy oh boy, they have a story to tell at the next election. That is MY OPINION, could it be NEWS too? No big difference eh?!!
So bring it on. We are ready.