Yesterday, the BQ and NDP voted in favour of a Liberal motion that bans the mass mailing of so-called "ten percenters" outside of MP's own riding. The motion passed, and the ban will save the taxpayers at least $10 million a year.
The Conservatives voted against the motion (I guess they like junk mail) and, while they've routinely ignored parliamentary motions, this one appears binding. It doesn't involve the executive branch of government. It's about Parliament directing a body of Parliament (in this case, the Board of Internal Economy) how to spend Parliamentary funds. It's completely binding.
So will the Conservatives obey the rules? That's the question the Liberals asked of them in question period today:
Hon. John McCallum (l): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, this house voted to end the practice of allowing members to send free propaganda outside their ridings. We voted to save taxpayers $20 million by eliminating this partisan junk mail. If the government is serious about reducing waste, it will surely leap at this opportunity to save $20 million. To the prime minister: Liberals have already stopped their participation in this program. When will the government also comply with the will of the house of commons?
Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I'd Like to congratulate the honourable member on his promotion through what appears to be the rapidry-dwindling leadership ranks. -- Rapidly-dwindling leadership ranks. Mr. Speaker, as you would know, this matter is under the board of internal economy, which you chair, but I will just see this having viewed a few of these Liberal 10%ers, I think the cancellation the program was a good idea.
Hon. John McCallum (L): So I take it the prime minister will indeed comply with the will of the house and save $20 million. I hope that's true.
That's certaintly the impression I got from the PM's response. Except the PMO apparently says otherwise:
A majority of MPs in the House of Commons voted this week to ban mass mailings outside their own ridings, directing the Board of Internal Economy to "end immediately the wasteful practice."
But the Conservative government says it considers the motion "non-binding" and the Prime Minister's Office says it will continue to use the controversial "ten-percenter" program to communicate with Canadians.
Clearly, the Prime Minister hadn't called the PMO to find out his position on this issue and get his talking-points.
How embarrassing.
But seriously, how can the government refuse to comply? Ten percenters are sent out though the Parliamentary mail office, are they not? If Parliament orders no 10%ers outside the riding, then the Parliamentary Post Office isn't going to send them out, no matter how many bags of junk mail the Conservative war room drops off, is it?
Someone really needs to give the PMO a remedial crash course on the branches of government. Maybe there's a Schoolhouse Rock video available.
UPDATE: I go to the Raptors game, they win in the dying seconds, I come back and the world is all Topsy-turvy. Apparently the Conservatives are now on board with the motion they voted against yesterday (although they disagree on its bindingness) as long as everyone else is onboard too:
But in a statement issued to the media late Wednesday afternoon, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the Conservatives support ending the program but the final word on the issue rests with the board.The board in question would be House of Commons Board of Internal Economy. But with the Conservatives now on board, and the NDP and BQ having all voted for the Liberal motion, even if its not binding (which I think it is) everyone is now in agreement so we should be golden, right?
"We support getting rid of out-of-riding 10 percenters so long as the restriction applies to all parties," PMO spokesperson Dimitri Soudas said. "However, we do not have a majority on the board."
Yeah, maybe not so much. For while the Conservatives now supposedly support the motion they opposed yesterday, Steve writes that the NDP may be getting cold feet (you can't tell the flip-floppers without a program on this one!). As CTV reports in the above story, Joe Comartin won't commit the party to supporting it, and Libby Davies seems almost outright opposed. Let's hope that's not the case, saner heads prevail, and we can all agree on no longer wasting (as much) taxpayer money on useless junk mail.
And, as an aside, I find it rich in irony that the NDP maintains the House of Commons motion wasn't binding on the board, a creation of the House of Commons, as it would seem to cast aside the notion of Parliamentary supremacy that the opposition parties, including the NDP, are fighting vehemently for in the torture document disclosure drama. Ralph Goodale put it well:
"If the House of Commons has the authority, which it does, to order government departments to produce documents on issues as crucial as Afghanistan, then one would think that the House of Commons equally has the authority to issue instructions to an administrative body to save money," Goodale said.
9 comments:
Doubly and trebly stupid of them for many reasons.
No one likes waste. No one likes junk mail. No one likes to get junk mail from politicians. No one likes to get junk mail from politicians that we pay for with our own money.
And the Conservatives just voted in favour of it.
And then they announce they will defy Parliament over this.
But the Board of Internal Economy is made up of 9 members, only three of whom are Conservatives. So even if they want to take the highly technical position that the motion is not binding on them because it is only directing the BIE to stop the 10%ers and it hasn't done that yet, it is clear that it will soon do that so why be seen to support this waste when it is out the window soon?
And add to that, the PMO contradicting the PM!
Stupid stupid stupid.
Are you suggesting a motion is passed in parliament it must be always respected, how novel.
Did the Liberals in Senate regularly block anything they did not like?
Didn't we hear the Senate was the sober second thought?
GG grants Royal Assent.
Are you suggesting Liberals, NDP motion passed in parliament don't need to follow the same processes?
If you are correct, will the Parliament vote contempt against the government and have the PM arrested for his 10%?
Has the motion passed the senate and given royal assent or is the motion something lower?
Did the legal opinions to the PMO suggest he can ignore the 10%, prorogue motions?
Jeff am I missing something?
The ongoing contempt for democracy that is being displayed by Harper and crew is a bloody disgrace. Every Conservative should hang their heads in shame and endure the wrath and disgust of Canadians. Bastards!
( ... I feel better now .... )
If the objective is to save taxpayers money, why not do away with public funding for political parties? This would save more than cancelling 10%ers but of course it would impact LPC, NDP and BQ budgets so they will find a way to see the idea as a great plot against them.
Let the board pass this so it is binding on all aprties for all time.
Board of Internal Economy does not have to listen to Liberal motion. They work on consensus, they don't take votes.
Board makes their own decision. Libbie admits they are independent body.
Are they going to put speaker, board, CPC in contempt?
oh no you didn't!
CanadianSense,not to answer for Jeff, but yes, you are missing alot. The HOC directs the activities of the BIE not the Senate. This is a motion, not a bill, therefore does not need Royal assent or a vote in the Senate. So you see, you do have a deficiency, one in understanding how the business of government operates. To me this is no surprise. It has become brutally obvious to most that Conservatives from the lowliest posting troll (see mirror) to the PM and PMO have no understanding of good governance.
Now onto you Tom, once again no understanding of governance or process. Has anyone in the CPC ever taken the most rudimantary civics class?
Tom campaign fianance is covered under the Elections ACT. I emphasize "act" because that means it is legislation, and therefore part of Canadian Law. We all know about the CPC, and there view of anything in this Act, but I digress. If it is money you want to save the taxpayer Tom, although I suspect different, the elimination of the 75% tax rebate status for contributions is the way to go. It is far more democratic to have a vote count for an equal dollar amount than to allow those with money to contribute at the expense of all taxpayers. You see Tom this rebate actually comes from all taxpayers no matter who they support, doesn't even seem right to you when you see that in print does it. It is actually by far and away the largest susidy to political parties, so that makes the CPC the most subsidized party.
Anyways Tom and CanadianSense happy St Patricks day from a Canadian of Irish descent.
CanadianSense,not to answer for Jeff, but yes, you are missing alot. The HOC directs the activities of the BIE not the Senate. This is a motion, not a bill, therefore does not need Royal assent or a vote in the Senate. So you see, you do have a deficiency, one in understanding how the business of government operates. To me this is no surprise. It has become brutally obvious to most that Conservatives from the lowliest posting troll (see mirror) to the PM and PMO have no understanding of good governance.
Now onto you Tom, once again no understanding of governance or process. Has anyone in the CPC ever taken the most rudimantary civics class?
Tom campaign fianance is covered under the Elections ACT. I emphasize "act" because that means it is legislation, and therefore part of Canadian Law. We all know about the CPC, and there view of anything in this Act, but I digress. If it is money you want to save the taxpayer Tom, although I suspect different, the elimination of the 75% tax rebate status for contributions is the way to go. It is far more democratic to have a vote count for an equal dollar amount than to allow those with money to contribute at the expense of all taxpayers. You see Tom this rebate actually comes from all taxpayers no matter who they support, doesn't even seem right to you when you see that in print does it. It is actually by far and away the largest susidy to political parties, so that makes the CPC the most subsidized party.
Anyways Tom and CanadianSense happy St Patricks day from a Canadian of Irish descent.
Maybe Parliament isn't supreme,
seems the board does have exclusive authority over MPs :
On June 26, 1990, Bill C-79, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, was introduced, [304] which closely followed the draft provisions of the Fourth Report. Bill C-79 was designed to give the Board of Internal Economy exclusive authority to determine whether any past, present or proposed use of funds, goods, services or premises available to Members had been, was or would be improper. The Bill received Royal Assent on April 11, 1991. [305]
The Parliament of Canada Act empowers the Board to make by-laws governing the use by Members of funds, goods, services and premises made available to them to carry out their parliamentary functions. [306] The Board determines the terms and conditions of managing and accounting for such funds by the Members and has exclusive authority to determine whether such use is or was proper. [307] Members may request from the Board an opinion with respect to such use. [308]
JthemM,
thank you for your opinion.Sadly it is not shared by MP's that sit on the board.
I watched Libby Davis admit when questioned about the Board of Internal Economy. (Votes in parliament are not binding)
They are "independent" and must have through the years ignored parliament.
So unless you have specific examples of Parliament exerting their "super duperness" over the board it is NOT binding.
Motions, standing orders, laws can't be ignored?
Really?
The opposition members on the board did NOT confirm the motion passed in parliament will PREVENT the 10% from continuing.
Moral suasion, peer pressure by passing parliament, the opposition can run to media and cry the "meanies" won't listen to us?
Parliament passes bills and they have been ignored.
We have regulations and laws on the books and they are not being enforced.
hmmmmm
Fees for long gun registry is an example.
The opposition have the tools to stop the government removing confidence.
I laugh when they repeat they stand up and state "we don't trust the gov't" and keep passing supply bills.
That is doublespeak.
Translation we don't like the gov't agenda but the people who vote don't like us enough to replace this gov't. We can't fire them because we suck more.
Cheapshot without facts to back up.
Sadly you were caught up in the smoke and mirrors called publicity stunts. It is NOT suprising being an apologist. That is what has happened since 2006 for the opposition parties.
They flail but can't muster the courage to vote "non-confidence".
Paul Martin got fired and the opposition went to the people.
The opposition claim Parliament is the people's house but refuse to act and seek their support.
Smoke and mirrors.
Post a Comment