Harper Government

[NAB]

The opposition-dominated committee is to report back to the House of Commons later today.

And that is some sort of surprise LOL? Besides, if I had to put up with those opposition clowns (particularly the IggyOtic Liberals) day in and day out, I don't think I would feel anything but contempt for them either. IMO they are not entitled to know "everything" but they seem to think they are. They wouldn't do any differently if, heaven forbid, they were the governing party (that has been amply demonstrated in the past).

Edit to add: I was watching some committee hearings, and if anyone needs a lesson in respect for parliamentary behaviour and procedure, it is Scott Brison (ya, he's a Liberal LOL).

Nab

[Merry]

There is no doubt in my mind Nab that the opposition will use this contempt charge for it's own political purposes. But the point is that, if the government hadn't given them the ammunitiion in the first place, the oppositition wouldn't have any bullets to fire.
It IS wrong to not tell Parliament how much we're spending on items Parliament is being asked to approve buying. And I can't see any good reason for Parliament not to be told, other than in an attempt to keep the information from the Public who are footing the bill. And, based on previous posts of yours in other threads, I'm sure you'll agree with me on that.
My point is that, while this may be an exteme example of trying to cut Parliament out of the picture, it is a process that has been going on for a while (under both Liberal AND Conservative governments) and it is not a process that is in the best interests of the citizens of this country. So, if this recent contempt charge results in meaningful change that places more power back in the hands of Parliament and therefore the citizens who elected it, then I support the charge.

[NAB]

There is no doubt in my mind Nab that the opposition will use this contempt charge for it's own political purposes. But the point is that, if the government hadn't given them the ammunitiion in the first place, the oppositition wouldn't have any bullets to fire.
It IS wrong to not tell Parliament how much we're spending on items Parliament is being asked to approve buying. And I can't see any good reason for Parliament not to be told, other than in an attempt to keep the information from the Public who are footing the bill. And, based on previous posts of yours in other threads, I'm sure you'll agree with me on that.
My point is that, while this may be an exteme example of trying to cut Parliament out of the picture, it is a process that has been going on for a while (under both Liberal AND Conservative governments) and it is not a process that is in the best interests of the citizens of this country. So, if this recent contempt charge results in meaningful change that places more power back in the hands of Parliament and therefore the citizens who elected it, then I support the charge.

In my view Merry, "Parliament" gets its full say on spending by supporting or opposing the budget, which incidentally the Liberals have supported year in and year out. If they don't like it they can vote against it, and if the other opposition parties agree with them then the governemt will fall and an election ensue.

I don't know what you have drawn from other posts of mine, but I will clearly state here that IMO it is NOT the business of the opposition (nor the public) to have free and unfettered access to information associated with the day to day running of the country. The real crazy thing is that even were that kind of detail fully and freely available, what would the opposition (or the "public") do with it any way? They probably wouldn't even take the time to analyse it and put it in a total context with all other areas of expenditure.

It's just more Liberal politicing and whining trying to make a case that they could, or would, govern differently, yet never tell us what they would do were they the government, and most of us know better by now. Why aren't we complaining about them withholding information that is very vital for the public to know as to their plans should they get elected? I think it is very contemptable that they would sabre rattle about forcing an election, knowing full well that if that happens they will immediately launch into a campaign that withholds vital information the public needs to make an informed choice.

Edit to add: The Liberals are trying to have us believe that the Harper government is untrustworthy, indeed Harper himself is untrustworthy. Well, if it comes down to deciding who I most trust right now to run this country, Ignatieff certainly wouldn't be my pick. In fact, I would trust Layton before I would trust Ignatieff, but Layton isn't in the running for PM.

Nab

[Urbane]

Given that:

1. We're at war now in Libya and that entire region is unstable

2. The financial recovery is still uncertain and it's important we stay the course

3. The polls all show the Conservatives well in front of the other parties in terms of trust and in terms of popularity

4. The polls show little respect for Ignatieff

5. People overwhelmingly don't want an election

I expect, given all those reasons not to have an election, that the opposition may well go ahead and defeat the government and force an election. Common sense would say no but the opposition may think this is their best chance. What if the economy continues to improve? That would be terrible. And Ignatieff isn't wearing well so it might be better to go to the electorate now before respect for him sinks even lower. We'll see but to some extent the opposition have painted themselves into a corner. If the budget doesn't include what Layton demanded he'll have serious egg on his face if he retreats after calling out Ignatieff for doing the same thing the last couple of years. I wouldn't bet money either way but I lean toward thinking we might be heading to the polls. Again, don't let common sense cloud your judgment.

Edit to add:

NAB wrote:
The Liberals are trying to have us believe that the Harper government is untrustworthy, indeed Harper himself is untrustworthy. Well, if it comes down to deciding who I most trust right now to run this country, Ignatieff certainly wouldn't be my pick. In fact, I would trust Layton before I would trust Ignatieff, but Layton isn't in the running for PM.

Very true. I used to vote Liberal federally and may well in the future but once Martin took over the party went down hill. They seriously need to look at what they stand for, and not just getting elected, and they definitely need a new leader.

[Merry]

IMO it is NOT the business of the opposition (nor the public) to have free and unfettered access to information associated with the day to day running of the country.

Obviously it would be unrealistic for the Public to expect free and unfettered access to all information related to the "day to day" running for the country, besides which I doubt many would even want access to that type of information. But my guess is that it's how one defines "day to day" that is the issue here. A large increase in one particular area of expenditure can hardly be described as "day to day". I would have put something like the hydro bill more into that category, or any other expenditure which is routine and repetitive. Not a large expenditure such as this one.
But that said, if Parliament feels there is good reason for them to know the cost of anything they are being asked to vote on, then Parliament should be provided with the information unless those in positions of power can provide a darn good explanation as to why they should not. But IMO national security is probably the only reason such information should be withheld.

[Merry]

Given that:

1. We're at war now in Libya and that entire region is unstable

2. The financial recovery is still uncertain and it's important we stay the course

3. The polls all show the Conservatives well in front of the other parties in terms of trust and in terms of popularity

4. The polls show little respect for Ignatieff

5. People overwhelmingly don't want an election

I expect, given all those reasons not to have an election, that the opposition may well go ahead and defeat the government and force an election. Common sense would say no but the opposition may think this is their best chance.

I also do not want to see an election at this time given the state of world affairs. Besides which, why waste all that time and effort on an election when the polls suggest the outcome will be similar to the status quo? But, that said, I don't think we should let this debate about the role of cabinet and the PMO versus the role of Parliament degenerate into a "for or against election" issue. There's more at stake than just whether or not we have an election right now. This concentration of power in the hands of a few threatens democracy as we know it, and needs to be addressed regardless of whether or not we have an election.
But nothing will change unless the people demand it, so I think it's time we let our elected officials know how we feel, which can be done in ways other than going to the polls. The Public should get more involved in the political process and not allow a few power hungry individuals to sieze total control of the decision making process (the way they often attempt to do) at every available opportunity. I believe in Parliament which, while often an unwieldy and imperfect process, is the best form of government this imperfect world of ours has to offer, and I hate to see it chipped away at piece by piece in the name of "what is best for us". We all need to stand up and defend our constitutional form of government, before it is rendered totally impotent and replaced with something even less attactive. And this need to defend our government should rise above our individual partisan preferences.

[NAB]

I definitely see such things as a replacement program for our fighter jets as "day to day" (or rather year to year) business Merry. It comes under budgetary funding decisions associated with our military. No different really than the previous decisions to upgrade our military transport capabilities or even our navy ship capabilities rather than having to rely on the USA to move our troops and equipment to and from a theatre of war, a war THAT THE LIBERALS PUT US IN AND AGREED TO KEEP US IN.

Or even to equip our military with modern equipment and UNIFORMs suitable for their use in that theatre. (You will of course recall similar decisions by the previous Liberals related to helicopters, or worse yet to purchase a bunch of obsolete and rotten submarines from the British, ...submarines which cost a life and threatened many more due to their horrific condition, and to this day are still costing us a fortune to try and get operational - and with no chance of success). Don't count on the Liberals to even suggest putting an end to that stupidity and huge waste of money. That would need them to admit they made a horrible mistake.

Let me put my views in another way.. It is Parliaments' job to create, debate, and enact LEGISLATION under which the country is run (by the bureaucracy and Cabinet). It is the governing party's job, led by the holder of the highest position in the land (not that of the opposition or even in conjunction with the opposition) ....to run the day to day affairs of the country within that legislation (i.e according to the law and parliamentary tradition). There are parliamentary committees formed and charged with overseeing that legislative process. On top of that we have a Senate charged with giving any resulting proposed legislation "sober second thought". (it would be even better if that Senate were elected rather than appointed, but you can only work with what you have).

Granted, should anyone suggest that the whole system is often being usurped BY ALL SIDES, and as a result the running of the country falling into unproductive disarray based on childish petty partisan politics (particularly from the Liberal ranks), ...I would have to agree with them.

I say again, if the Liberals seriously dispute any of the planned expenditures then they can disagree with the budget that includes them and vote against it. But they don't have enough votes to do it by themselves. To try and change the subject with all this petty stuff associated with "trust" and "ethics" is iggiocy at best, and hypocritical at worst. You will perhaps note that even Bob Rae is playing more statesmanlike than Iggy, hence the need to bring in that unparliamentary walking mouth Scott Brison to try and keep the foolishness going.

Edit to add: Even this Liberal bitching about the budget containing a tax reduction for business and wanting it removed. That item was put in place one or two budgets ago to gradually reduce taxes on business progressively over a number of years, and the Liberals SUPPORTED IT. Hypocrites. Yet we still have people willing to vote to to try to put that bunch of clunkers back in power? Unbelievable!

Nab

[Merry]

If the situation is that Parliament has allocated a certain amount of money to a specific area of government with no strings attached, then I agree that the particular government department receiving the funds has the right to conduct its affairs without having to report back to Parliament on every little expenditure made with the money allocated. No argument there.

BUT, if the item being purchased is one that requires a seperate vote in the House (in addition to the original budget allocation vote), then the people being asked to vote on the matter have EVERY right to ask how much it costs, and how the money is to be allocated. Because it isn't right to ask people to vote on things when they don't have all the facts, and then try to hold them accountable afterwards. If it is NOT necessary to provide those who vote with all the information they need to make a good decision, then it shouldn't be necessary to ask them to vote on whatever it is in the first place.

Using your logic Nab, Parliament need only approve the budget once a year and then they may as well all go home and let the PMO and cabinet get on with the job. And I'm sure the PMO and cabinet would absolutely LOVE it if that's the way things worked. But the truth is that our government consists of Parliament as a whole, and not just the PMO and cabinet. They are just PART of our government, not the whole of it, and as such they shouldn't be allowed to take total control of all the decision making processes, and should ALWAYS be held accountable to the body of which they are a part.

Concentration of power in the hands of a few is never a good idea. Our Parliamentary system, when allowed to function as it should, is the best method we have of keeping those at the top both honest and accountable.

[NAB]

The only rebuttal I can offer related to your comments Merry is that I know of no requirement for a governing party to bring such planned expenditures to the House to be VOTED ON by all parties. That happens at budget time - tomorrow and over the following days. If they truly don't like it, then let them vote accordingly. If both other parties sitting in opposition agree with them, then the budget will fail and an election result so the people can speak to the issue at the ballot box. If the budget passes, then democracy will be served and the Liberals will have been told what the majority in parliament wish. Full stop. But no, it almost appears that the Liberals are prepared to support the budget, then turn around and try to bring the Conservatives down on some hypocritical "trust" or "ethics" question of confidence. Talk about wanting your cake and eating it too LOL. The problem of course is that they cannot fight an election based on the economy (they are definitely not wizards in that department) , and an election right now fought on anything but is likely to backfire on them badly.

I would certainly agree however that if the opposition parties wanted to know some detail they have every right to ask for it, just not necessarily get everything they want, or even vote on it.

Consider that the Liberals are just playing loosy goosy with semantics IMO because the governing party is in a minority position. When there is a majority position, such as the Liberals have enjoyed for most of their previous governments since Pearson, they certainly didn't feel obliged to share information with the opposition members. In fact they went out of their way on many occasions to conceal what was going on (Sponsorship Scandal ring a bell?) Yet suddenly when another party does the same, they get all huffy puffy about it. Not because they actually believe it is wrong IMO, but merely because the governing party is in a minority position and the Liberals smell a chance (remote though it be) to win an election. And as you point out, about the best they could hope for is to find themselves also a minority government, with the shoe on the other foot. And that would DEFINITELY be very bad for Canada IMO.

Nab

[Russ79]

With everything the Liberals have done federally and provincially I will NOT be voting for them. I constantly encourage my friends to do the same. Years ago I voted for the Liberals but NOT anymore. The parties all suck, none of them are good. From Cambells HST to Harpers jet fighters and trying to increase penalties on marijuana all the way to the NDP general "my S@#t dont stink" attitude whos track record has to be the worst of all. I'm sooo sick of hearing about our Canadian politics. They are the most childish thing to watch and embarrassing, other countries must just laugh when they see our House of Commons broadcasts. Grown men acting like spoiled children yelling and calling eachother names. It would be reaally nice to go a full term without having to hit a damn voting station or being threatened with it every year!! We need new legislation that fixes are ZOO governmental system. Its too easy to topple the government and force a revote ever damn time and I'm sure the current legislation was not intended to be used and abused this way. I can safely say I speak for a majority of Canadians.... WE ARE SICK OF THE B.S. No wonder why voter turnout keeps getting lower and lower.....no one cares anymore.

[HP]

I don't even know how to begin to start replying to what I've been reading in this thread. I'll make a few observations though and see what plays out.

The first thing, and this is something I've rambled on about for years, is that QUESTION PERIOD IS NOT GOVERNMENT IN ACTION. Question period is a dog and pony show put on by the house of commons that gives the news media little sound bites they can air because the real issues are too complex and detail-important to hold most peoples' attention. It's a chance to grandstand in front of a camera and stomp one's foot at the attrocities of humanity.

I far prefer the method used in the UK of the "Prime Minister's Question Period" where the PM is actually accountable to respond to each of the questions posed.

Secondly, most of the real work done in Parlaiment is done in committee. The number of seats in a committee are determined by the government at the start of a session (it stands at 12 members per standing committee as of 2004). The number of members of any party in any committee are supposed to be roughly proportional to the number of seats that party holds in the house. I'm not extremely well-versed on the committee selection process but I can speculate that there is a maximum number of committees any MP or MLA could be a member of (and that the number is probably 1 or 2 tops).

A minority government WILL create situations where there are more opposition members in some committees than government members. Right now there are 28 standing and legislative committees (standing committees are committees that exist regardless of the activity going on in the house...'public accounts', 'national defense', etc... legislative committees are struck to discuss specific bills that require more dedicated focus than a standing committee can provide). If there are 12 members per committee that leaves us at about 336 seats to be filled. Consider that cabinet ministers and the PM don't normally sit on committees (or are ex-officio in that the finance minister would likely be a default member of the finance committee) and there are only 308 members... there are going to be situations where a particular party can't send all the members they would like to every committee. A majority government changes that a little bit depending on the size of the majority.

If I'm the government whip and I have to make choices, I would make sure I stack committees doing highly visible work with my own members (read that to mean 'committees doing work important to the government's agenda). I can envision, for example, the conservatives to be heavy on the "Justice and Human Rights" committee in support of their crime agenda. I was not surprised to see that there are 6 cons, 3 libs, 1 ndp, and 1 bloc on that committee. It wouldn't be suspected at the sart of a session that your government is going to need to rely on the 'procedures and house affairs' committee to prop your government up - just like the BC Liberals didn't expect to have to rely on the voter initiative committee (or whatever its called) to make a call on the HST referendum. The point is that calling a committee 'stacked' is BS.

The last thing that I'll remind people is that THE 'BC LIBERALS' HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FEDERAL LIBERAL PARTY EXCEPT FOR THE WORD 'LIBERAL' IN THEIR NAME. They are not a part of the same organization - donations to the provincial Liberal party do NOT filter up to the federal party. The BC Liberals are independant of any federal party similar to the Saskatchewan Party in Saskatchewan.

[butcher99]

There is no doubt in my mind Nab that the opposition will use this contempt charge for it's own political purposes. But the point is that, if the government hadn't given them the ammunitiion in the first place, the oppositition wouldn't have any bullets to fire.
It IS wrong to not tell Parliament how much we're spending on items Parliament is being asked to approve buying. And I can't see any good reason for Parliament not to be told, other than in an attempt to keep the information from the Public who are footing the bill. And, based on previous posts of yours in other threads, I'm sure you'll agree with me on that.
My point is that, while this may be an exteme example of trying to cut Parliament out of the picture, it is a process that has been going on for a while (under both Liberal AND Conservative governments) and it is not a process that is in the best interests of the citizens of this country. So, if this recent contempt charge results in meaningful change that places more power back in the hands of Parliament and therefore the citizens who elected it, then I support the charge.

In my view Merry, "Parliament" gets its full say on spending by supporting or opposing the budget, which incidentally the Liberals have supported year in and year out. If they don't like it they can vote against it, and if the other opposition parties agree with them then the governemt will fall and an election ensue.

I don't know what you have drawn from other posts of mine, but I will clearly state here that IMO it is NOT the business of the opposition (nor the public) to have free and unfettered access to information associated with the day to day running of the country. The real crazy thing is that even were that kind of detail fully and freely available, what would the opposition (or the "public") do with it any way? They probably wouldn't even take the time to analyse it and put it in a total context with all other areas of expenditure.

It's just more Liberal politicing and whining trying to make a case that they could, or would, govern differently, yet never tell us what they would do were they the government, and most of us know better by now. Why aren't we complaining about them withholding information that is very vital for the public to know as to their plans should they get elected? I think it is very contemptable that they would sabre rattle about forcing an election, knowing full well that if that happens they will immediately launch into a campaign that withholds vital information the public needs to make an informed choice.

Edit to add: The Liberals are trying to have us believe that the Harper government is untrustworthy, indeed Harper himself is untrustworthy. Well, if it comes down to deciding who I most trust right now to run this country, Ignatieff certainly wouldn't be my pick. In fact, I would trust Layton before I would trust Ignatieff, but Layton isn't in the running for PM.

Nab

pretty much it is the duty of the party in power to supply the costs of their projects so the opposition can make informed decisions. When the party in power cannot will not or does not supply the figures upon which government decisions are based ot as they did in this case , just give figures with no backing it does start a process can end up in the serious charge of contempt of parliament. case in point.

[NAB]

The opposition does get the figures it needs to make decisions. Those figures are in the budget and supplemental estimates, all they have to do is read them, and if there is something they don't understand question them and an answer will be produced.

The opposition did none of that, or even permitted the budget to get tabled, debated, and voted on. They can allege contempt of parliament all they want, but until that is proven it is just that, allegations and political games.

Nab