Politics in 2017

[Good2Golf]

Actually incorrect, G2G.

In Canada, the Question Period is unscripted and no questions are tabled in advance. However, since every body has a pretty reasonable idea of what the questions will likely touch on, the Government participants are briefed in advance on the "talking points" by subject expected to be raised and/or for those they do properly answer (there are some, even though not much) get briefs from their officials in preparation for QP. 

There is a second method to ask questions of the Government that is Written Question, but those are answered in the daily order of business process, not during Question Period.

It's all in here, from the House of Commons own site:

http://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure-book-livre/Document.aspx?sbdid=3F818022-AD6E-411C-B495-EC000CF32935&sbpidx=1&Language=E&Mode=1

Interesting OGBD.

If the House were, by its exemplary conduct, to actually follow written on the website (Principles and Guidelines for Oral Questions), then I might take the information provided as presented.  Perhaps you have greater faith than I, that QP is administered with 100% compliance to the information in the website.  Having seen pre-prepared QP questions from an opposition received by a Ministry prior to the date of the QP in question, I am less certain of rigidity to the aforementioned rules/procedures/traditions/trends.

Regards
G2G

 

[dapaterson]

We need to differentiate between opposition and government questions.  Thus, if a government member asks a Q, you can be pretty certain that the answer will be scripted well in advance.

For opposition questions, the Government is aware of what's in the news, and prepares accordingly, asking departments to prepare replies.  Hence why, often, the answer is not exactly for the question asked- but it's the answer that was prepared for the minister.

 

[Good2Golf]

We need to differentiate between opposition and government questions.  Thus, if a government member asks a Q, you can be pretty certain that the answer will be scripted well in advance.

For opposition questions, the Government is aware of what's in the news, and prepares accordingly, asking departments to prepare replies.  Hence why, often, the answer is not exactly for the question asked- but it's the answer that was prepared for the minister.

Was definitely an opposition question, not one of those hokey, colleague-to-colleague "Will the Honourable member please inform us as to why this [insert description] project was such a success?" clap rap.

Regards
G2G

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Perhaps, G2G. But look at the section I quoted from the Commons rules: There is a process that exists for Written Questions to the Government.

You may note that the process means that the actual written question, delivered at least 48 hours before hand appears on the regular order of business papers, and that the answer is also provided in writing on the order papers. The answer, when the Commons get to that point on the order, is then also supposed to be read into the record, though by tradition, the parties agree that the written answer in the paper is considered read at the mere request of the minister responsible for that answer. All this, however, takes place during the regular order work of the Commons, not during "Question Period", which remains for oral questions - spur of the moment situations.

 

[Rifleman62]

https://globalnews.ca/news/3889576/bill-morneaus-father-sold-200k-shares-capital-gains-tax/

Bill Morneau’s father (also) sold 200K shares in family company days before tax changes announced - David Akin - 30 Nov 17

As Finance Minister Bill Morneau is pressed in the House of Commons for details on the circumstances of the sale of shares he held in his family business, Morneau Shepell Inc., Global News has analyzed insider trading reports of the company and discovered that Morneau’s father sold a significant number of shares days before his son announced a major tax policy change.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

https://globalnews.ca/news/3889576/bill-morneaus-father-sold-200k-shares-capital-gains-tax/

Bill Morneau’s father (also) sold 200K shares in family company days before tax changes announced - David Akin - 30 Nov 17

As Finance Minister Bill Morneau is pressed in the House of Commons for details on the circumstances of the sale of shares he held in his family business, Morneau Shepell Inc., Global News has analyzed insider trading reports of the company and discovered that Morneau’s father sold a significant number of shares days before his son announced a major tax policy change that was a significant commitment in the Liberal platform, and a surprise to no one,.

Nothing to see here.  Move along.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Be that as it may, the optics are shitty nonetheless.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Be that as it may, the optics are shitty nonetheless.

One man's optics is another man's coincidence......or conspiracy theory.

I am happy to rely on the more reasonable approach of balance of probabilities.

 

[jollyjacktar]

One man's optics is another man's coincidence......or conspiracy theory.

I am happy to rely on the more reasonable approach of balance of probabilities.

It's a free country mate, fill your boots however you wish to.

 

[Rifleman62]

Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Where have I heard that before?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

It's a free country mate, fill your boots however you wish to.

Thank you for the license to view events through a non-filtered lens.

Much appreciated - now I can go about my business as an informed voter

 

[jollyjacktar]

Whatever

 

[PPCLI Guy]

It's a free country mate, fill your boots however you wish to.

Whatever

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.  Very enlightening.

 

[jollyjacktar]

It takes two to tango.  Perhaps while you've been cantering around the arena on your high horse it escaped your attention that l have not said the Hon. Minister has been up to any shenanigans.  In fact l conceded your point he is a Stand up guy.  I merely said the optics were shitty.  If you deem to be willfully blind to the thought that it wouldn't appear cool with folks, well as l said.  It's a free country.  And hey,  thanks for the equestrian show, they're always great to watch.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

You do understand that I may have been leveraging your original comment in order to further the discussion, right?  That it wasn't about you?

Full disclosure - I hate the phrase " whatever", and always rise to its fatuousness.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Well, apparently l failed to meet with your expectations in that regard.  You're not the first person I've disappointed.  C'est la vie. 

Please, "further on" without me in this particular subject of Ministers and Stocks.

 

[Lumber]

op:

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

It takes two to tango.  Perhaps while you've been cantering around the arena on your high horse it escaped your attention that l have not said the Hon. Minister has been up to any shenanigans.  In fact l conceded your point he is a Stand up guy.  I merely said the optics were shitty.  If you deem to be willfully blind to the thought that it wouldn't appear cool with folks, well as l said.  It's a free country.  And hey,  thanks for the equestrian show, they're always great to watch.

If the act was just but the "optics appear bad" than is the fault with the person who did nothing wrong or the one who doesn't understand the process well enough to understand it? I dont see any reason why someone who did nothing wrong would need to justify themselves to someone who doesn't understand the issue well enough to see that.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Ok.  He could have sold his shares at any time.  Before or afterwards.  If he had sold his shares well in advance (months or how's about this, when he became Finance Minister) of any changes that might affect their value, there would be no possible stink eye.  He was already under a cloud with the "blind trust" optics of earlier this summer.  To add fuel to the fire, his father up and sells right before the changes came into effect.

Don't misunderstand me as some have.  I'm not saying he did anything wrong.  I don't know if he did or he did not.  And he may very well have done so but neither you nor l know the full story. 

But, he did sail a little too close to the wind or they wouldn't have any ammo to do the evil Family Guy monkey imitation and point at him from the stairs.

His optics are already tarnished by the blind trust kerfuffel.  Lastly, he is not a private citzen anymore he is a Minister of the Crown.  He needs to appear whiter than white, cleaner than clean by virtue of his position.  Being a wealthy individual, some may say even privileged as well, adds to his burden of proof of being so far above board he'll look like he's levitating.  And that is why he needs to justify himself to those people who are apparently too thick to understand all the big words involved.

I'm sorry but l can't be clearer than that and l do apologize if it's not so to you BG45 or others...

 

[McG]

I have been on several government ethics classes that delivered the message “perception is reality, and so it is every employees responsibility to avoid anything that might create the preception of impropriety.” Is this one of those standards that applies to the plebes but not to the ministers?