Quote:
Originally Posted by FiftyBelow
Certainly they should. Was the nondisclosure enough to warrant a motion of contempt based on precedence? In my opinion not quite. If we define contempt as the obstruction of parliamentary functions, seemingly any scandal can be arguably framed as contempt.
|
That isn't how contempt of parliament is actually defined.
From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Parliament
Quote:
Actions which can constitute a contempt of Parliament vary, but typically include such things as:
- deliberately misleading a House of Parliament or a parliamentary committee;
- refusing to testify before, or to produce documents to, a House or committee; and
- attempting to influence a Member of Parliament, for example, by bribery or threats.
|
Bev Oda initially told parliament that she didn't know who inserted the word "not" in a government document but it was later revealed that she was responsible, so there's little doubt that she's in violation of the first point.
By not delivering documents related to the cost of Harper's new prison program, the Conservatives arguably were in violation of the second point (the CPC contend that they provided the requested information; the opposition parties contend that the info supplied was both insufficient and not timely).