- Harper Government, Relate to This --'Impeachment'

Posted: 12:24 PM on March 17, 2011
Contempt battle sets stage for election, Steven Chase, Globe and Mail, Mar. 17, 2011http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/contempt-battle-sets-stage-for-election/article1944559/

Contempt of Parliament

Stages:

- allegations brought before the Speaker on Contempt of Parliament [statement of charges - Kings—Hants, 7 Feb.'11]
- Speaker find a prima facia case is made out for Contempt [vis.: indictment - 9 Mar.'11]
- Motion by Parliament to take it to Committee to determine if there was Contempt [vis.: trial]
- If so, it is brought back to Parliament to decide on how to proceed [vis.: sanctions, or 'punishment']

It is in reference to 'the government' but keep in mind:

- it is a person that commits the action or inaction and not an inanimate thing
- Harper de facto has complete control over what his Minister's and thereby their departments do or refrain form doing. It is very difficult to believe that this was all done without the direct and explicit approval and authorization of the PM given the seriousness of the allegations. However, when you consider the extreme and unprecedented control and Harper exerts over his Ministers and thereby their departments, it would be ludicrous to suggest that Harper did not approve and authorize this actions and inactions that are the basis of the Contempt allegations

It is Stephen Harper that is leading the government and so he is responsible. Also, Harper bring that responsibility home to wear it himself, personally, by demanding that it be referred to as the 'Harper' Government

- after all, it is the "Harper Government", is it ^not.

"Contempt of Parliament" - 'that which we call 'Impeachment' by any other name would smell as rotten'

The parallel to the Impeachment process in the US is in all essential aspects, pretty much exact - vis.:

"impeachment is only the first of two stages, and conviction requires a two-thirds vote. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office;

it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law.

An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

Dumping 10's thousands of pages does not answer the Contempt that has already occurred, obviously.

In fact, if anything it might be viewed as an admission of transgression, given Harper's previous position on the matter

Also, it in and of itself, and the way it was done, could possibly be viewed as contemptuous by the Committee

excerpt: Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
***
9 Mar.'11 - Parliament - Hansard

[Speaker's Ruling]

" While the Chair finds this in and of itself unsettling, what is of greater concern is the absence of an explanation for the omissions. At the very least, based on the indisputable right of the committee to order these documents, this is required. Only then can the House determine whether the reasons given are sufficient or satisfactory. The need to provide reasons to the House is clear. On page 281 of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, it states:

[Translation]


But is must be remembered that under all circumstances it is for the house to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient. The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional, and the reasons very cogent, when it cannot be at once laid before the houses.


[English]


The Chair has reviewed the debates on this question, and while initially cabinet confidence was cited as a reason not to produce any of the documents, despite this, the government saw fit to partially comply with the committee order and a tabling of some material did eventually take place. Since then, no further reasons have been given as to why the balance of the documents should not or will not be tabled.


It may be that valid reasons exist. That is not for the Chair to judge. A committee empowered to investigate the matter might, but the Chair is ill-equipped to do so. However, there is no doubt that an order to produce documents is not being fully complied with, and this is a serious matter that goes to the heart of the House's undoubted role in holding the government to account.


For these reasons, the Chair finds that there are sufficient grounds for finding a prima facie question of privilege in this matter."

***
[Motion brought:]

Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I move:


That, given your finding that a prima facie breach of the privileges of Parliament has been committed by the government for failing to fully provide the documents as ordered by the House, the matter be hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a final determination on the government's compliance, or lack thereof, and that the committee report back its findings and recommendations no later than March 21, 2011.

(1555)



. . .

Once again, accordingly, and given the finding that a prima facie breach of the privileges of Parliament has been committed by the government for failing to provide the documents as ordered by the House, we ask that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a final determination on the government's compliance, or lack thereof, and that the committee report its findings and recommendations back to the House no later than March 21, 2011.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=3&DocId=5027930#T1540

40th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 142

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

***
7 Feb.'11 Motion by Kings—Hants [Scott Brison, Lib]

I am therefore prepared to move an appropriate motion if, Mr. Speaker, you find a prima facie question of contempt.

. . .

On November 17, 2010, the Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion ordering the Government of Canada to provide the commitment with five-year projections of total corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate tax rates from the 2010-11 fiscal year until the 2014-15 fiscal year, inclusive.

The November 17 motion also ordered the government to provide the committee with certain financial information pertaining to justice Bills C-4, C-5, C-16, C-17, C-21, C-22, C-23A, C-23B, C-39, C-48, C-50, C-51, C-52, S-2, S-6, S-7, S-9 and S-10.

Among other things, the motion specifically requested:

detailed cost accounting, analysis and projections, including assumptions, for each of the bills and Acts, conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Guide to Costing.



The motion established a deadline of seven calendar days, which ended on November 24, 2010.


. . .

On December 1, 2010, one full week after the deadline, the committee received a letter from the Department of Justice regarding projected costs of the justice bills. Again, I will read the department's response in its entirety. It stated:

The issue of whether there are any costs associated with the implementation of any of the Government's Justice bills is a matter of Cabinet confidence and, as such, the Government is not in a position to provide such information or documents.


http://www.brison.ca/newsshow.asp?int_id=80928

Brison rise on a question of privilege in relation to the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.
Monday, February 07, 2011

Source : Hansard


House of Commons Debates

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)



Monday, February 7th, 2011

Hon. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, Lib.):