There are a lot Parliamentary hijinks happening this afternoon which I'll try to explain in a minute. For those you not named Kady O'Malley (I tease because I like!) let me cut to the chase:
The next and last vote of the Parliament (barring some routine procedural votes) will be Friday at about 1:30 pm on the following motion, tabled today by the Liberals:
“That the House agrees with the finding of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the Government is in contempt of Parliament, which is unprecedented in Canadian Parliamentary history, and consequently, the House has lost confidence in the Government.”
All three opposition parties will vote in favour of this motion and that will be that for the 40th Parliament.
And now for those of you, like my friend Kady, who have an abiding interest in all things Parliamentary …
What about a vote in the House of Commons that will find the government in contempt of Parliament? What about some votes on the budget presented by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty? What about votes on those supplementary estimates? Ain't never gonna happen.
Here's why.
This afternoon in the House of Commons, MPs began debating “concurrence” in the contempt report from the Procedure and House Affairs Commitee (PROC). Under the procedural rules, three hours of House of Commons time is allotted for that debate. At the end of that debate, MPs will vote to “concur” with that report which would mean that, for the first time ever, a government would be found in contempt of Parliament.
But there is simply not enough time in the House of Commons calendar today to squeeze in three hours of debate before the House adjourns at 5:30 p.m.
Under the rules, it is up to the government to schedule the remainder of time of debate on the contempt report and its subsequent vote. But the government can reschedule that any time over the next 10 sitting days. That will never happen because this Parliament ends Friday.
So bottom line here: This government will never be found in contempt of Parliament.
The opposition parties are happy with this — and are putting up speakers to run out the clock to 5:30 — because of another procedural side effect of spending all day today debating the contempt report, that being, we will not get to to any votes on the budget becausethose votes cannot happen at least until the second day of debate on the budget.
Had the House of Commons spent even 30 seconds today debating the budget, today would have been declared the first day of budget debate. The Conservatives were trying to do that, one more little way to show they are “focused on the economy.”
So on Thursday, we will have our first day of budget debate. Under Parliamentary rules, on the first day of budget debate (which now is not today) the Official Opposition (the Liberals) introduces a motion on the budget. Also on the first day of budget debate, the Bloc Quebecois gets to introduce a sub-amendment on that Liberal motion. MPs then spend the day debating the budget but the votes, by rule, on the Liberal motion and the BQ sub-amendment are held on the second day of budget debate. That day, too, will never come because Parliament will end on Friday.
Friday is a special kind of day in the Parliamentary calendar. It is known as a supply day and it is the last possible day that this particular supply day can be held. By rule, all other House business — such as the second day of budget debate or anything else — is put off until this supply day is done. The day will be spent debating the motion that the Liberals tabled today (the one at the top of this post) and then, at 1:30 p.m., three different votes are scheduled.
The first vote will be on the Liberal non-confidence motion. The second and third are votes on routine money bills that give the government the authority to spend money over the next few months. Those two money bills are also, by definition, confidence votes because they are related to the budget. But because the Liberal motion is first up the House will have declared no confidence in the government making votes on those money bills a moot point.
Why do the opposition parties like the way this unfolds? Largely because they will have been able to say: At the first opportunity they had this (even though it's an opportunity they kind of engineered) they voted to bring down the government.
So – a Friday 1:30 pm vote on a Liberal non-confidence motion – but which one? The contempt one or the budget one?
David,
I would re-read the Liberal motion. The determination of contempt does not require the report from the committee to be concurred in – it is up to the House to find the government in contempt. The notice of motion tabled by the Liberals does that, and indicates a loss of confidence. So yes, the government WILL be found in contempt if that motion is adopted.
The Liberal budget motion, to be tabled Thursday, would not be voted on until the second day of budget debate – a day that will never happen. The Liberal supply day motion — which was tabled today and reproduced here — will be voted on Friday.
Even opposition MPs themselves will tell you that the contempt charge requires the House vote concurrence with the PROC report (But please cite a source to prove me wrong.) That's the way, according to Parliaments procedural rules that people or governments are found in contempt.
Could the Liberals bring back the contempt charge after the election, and assuming the Conservatives don't have a majority, find them in contempt?
People are found in contempt by decision of the House. Whether that decision comes by concurrence in a report or by separate resolution is irrelevant. I would also note that the Liberal motion, in finding contempt, implicitly concurs in the committee report — so it would appear that no matter how you slice it, their motion would find the government in contempt. I'll try and post examples where contempt findings were made by separate motion later.
Does a contempt motion require that specific “concurrence” wording? It reads like a contempt finding, to me, as written.
What is the Parliamentary procedural rule that says it's not in the proper format?
Can't they reschedule the supply day on Friday, so that they have to debate the budget? I seem to remember the Martin government cancelling a supply day so that the Conservatives couldn't bring in a non-confidence motion, and as a result they were forced to vote against the budget.
Yes, Martin did that. The problem here is that we're at the end of the supply period. Unless thy sit on Saturday (which would require unanimous consent) they can't put it off any more.
Here are some examples of contempt findings being done by explicit motion rather than by concurrence in a committee report:
1. Keith Martin – April 22, 2002
2. Barbara George – April 10, 2008
Taking a look at O'Brien and Bosc, there's no reference to contempt only being found in concurrence motions. In fact, they repeatedly mention here (http://bit.ly/eZRoVI) events where the house acted on a motion that was not specifically a concurrence motion. The standing orders make no reference to findings of contempt at all.
So, the house will find the Government in contempt with that motion. What the house *WON'T* do, though, is find that there has been a breach of privilege of the house. The speaker has only ruled that there was a prima facie case to be explored, it's up to PROC to determine if there was a breach. As the Liberal motion doesn't talk to the finding of a breach of privilege there hasn't really been one unless the PROC motion carries. As an aside, an interesting discussion of Privilege vs Contempt is found in O'Brien and Bosc here: http://bit.ly/fqS6HK.
I agree in general, vut disagree as far as the finding of breach of privilege As you note, OBB has an extensive discussion of privilege vs. contempt. One things it notes is that all breaches of privilege are contempts, but not all contempts are breaches of privilege. However, as the contempt in question relates to a specific privilege of the House (ie. The power to send for persons, papers and records) a finding of contempt would be equivalent to a finding of a breach of privilege. Again, the determination of a breach if privilege or contempt is a decision of the House and can be made either by concurrence in a report recommending the same, or as in this case, by a motion to that effect.
I guess it's picky, but they really didn't refer to the specific report of the procedure and house affairs committee, so they aren't really making a finding of contempt on particular grounds (yes, I do know what they *mean*, but it's not what they say). As such, I certainly am curious as to whether the gnomes at parl.gc.ca will call this a finding of a breach of privilege.
So it's definitely a finding of contempt, but it'll be the historians who decide if it's a breach of privilege. I'm on the side of “no”.
Apparently, @davidakin, @kady and @scottfeschuk are all out partying the night away, so I expect we may see some backtracking tomorrow. 🙂
Here I completely disagree. The motion makes specific reference to the finding of the committee. The adoption of the motion would be a finding of contempt an of breach of privilege (and given the reasons therefor, the distinction is irrelevant).