“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.”

This motion passed on March 25th in the House of Commons and ended Stephen Harper’s first government. It can hardly be how he hoped to enter the history books? Never in the Commonwealth has a government been defeated for being in contempt of Parliament. The question to be answered by the election is will this motion be his government’s epitaph?

There are many examples of the Conservative’s disrespect for Parliament and parliamentarians. One that keeps reappearing is their contempt for their former colleague and ex-cabinet minister, Helene Geurgis. This Question Period excerpt from Hansard March 10th is the latest example of their bewildering treatment of this woman:

“Hon. Helena Guergis (Simcoe—Grey, Ind. Cons.): Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the Prime Minister advised the country of unsubstantiated allegations against me and asked the RCMP to investigate. The result was a set of flimsy allegations that had absolutely no substance, and the RCMP file was closed. I have made an access to information and personal information request under the Privacy Act to receive a copy of the RCMP report to provide some insight to my constituents. It is an extremely frustrating process.
PCO, DFAIT, and the Lobbying Commissioner were all given the deadline of February 28 to respond. The Lobbying Commissioner has responded, but PCO and DFAIT have not. Could the government confirm that it will delay no further and release this information?
The Speaker:
Order, please.
The hon. government House leader.
Hon. John Baird (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised to see the member for Malpeque giving the member for Simcoe—Grey a standing ovation. I thought I had seen everything.
Let me say to the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey that I will certainly take her question to the appropriate authorities, and we will do everything we can to ensure that all of the access to information laws are followed. I can only tell the member for Simcoe—Grey that at least she does not have to make an access request to the CBC because then she would never get anything.”

House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken has been kept very busy ruling on questions of whether the Conservatives have breached the rules governing the House of Commons. Last year he had to deal with the government’s continued refusal to release the Afghan detainee documents. This year he has had two further issues to decide: twice he has ruled on the conduct of Minister Bev Oda and her explanation for the decision to “not” fund KAIROS by the Canadian International Development Agency, and he has ruled on the government’s refusal to provide the finance committee with the information needed to assess the costs of the government’s crime bills.

It was the crime bills’ cost issue that lead to the motion that defeated the government. Prior to the motion of non-confidence there was a ruling by the Speaker March 9th wherein he states very clearly that the government simply had not tried to play by the rules. Given the historical outcome of this issue it is worth reading his ruling. Note the Speaker refers to himself as the Chair:

“the power of committees of the House to order papers is indistinguishable from that of the House. With these well-established privileges and principles in mind, and in order to assess properly whether or not the order flowing from the Standing Committee on Finance has been complied with, I undertook a review of what was tabled. The Chair was helped in this by the committee's order, which was quite explicit in the information it sought, even going so far as to list the bills for which information was required. While the Chair does not judge the quality of documents tabled in the House, it is clear from a cursory examination of the material tabled that, on its face, it does not provide all the information ordered by the committee.
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 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.” (Hansard, Standing Committee on Finance—Speaker's Ruling, March 9, 2011)

To not be able to hold the government to account in our parliamentary democracy is a very serious concern. This government’s flagrant disregard of that principle is why all the opposition parties decided the gig was up and voted non confidence in the government. Stephen Harper does not respect Parliament. He believes he can govern without scrutiny and blocks access to information to MPs, to former colleagues, to the media, to researchers, to all of us. Now, it is up to Canadians to decide if that is the type of government they want.

Jane E. Burton is a freelance writer who operates her company Memorable Lines from her home in Fanny Bay. For more information on the services offered please visit her website at www.memorablelines.com.