Stephen Harper claims this week that Canadians don't care that his government was charged with Contempt of Parliament. And indeed, given it's toxicity, in some respect he's right. I've been a little contemptuous of it myself.
However, let's imagine for just a moment, a board meeting at a corporation, where the pitch for a new product line is being presented. Those involved in the design believe it to be a good product. But when board members notice that there is no cost analysis, they question those with the sparkly eyes.
"What's it going to cost?"
Now imagine being told that the cost was none of their business. Or when pressed, a box of receipts was dumped in the middle of the table, with the message "figure it out for yourself".
How long do you suppose it would take for board members to call security?
Here's another scenario. Your company enters into an agreement with a supplier. Contracts are drawn up and duly signed. But then an employee decides to change the contract AFTER those involved bargained in good faith.
By changing one word to 'not' it nullifies the entire thing. But worse yet, it is made to appear as though the signatories agreed to 'not' being paid, or 'not' being granted the contract for future services.
How long do you suppose it would take for that employee to be fired? Because that's what Bev Oda did.
As Thomas Walkom wrote recently in the Star: Yes, contempt of Parliament does matter
Contempt of Parliament means that you hold contempt for those that we elected to represent us. Thus it means that you hold contempt for us.
I would like to ask Conservative candidates this question. If your boss and your party have such little regard for Parliament, why do you want us to put you there? Wouldn't it be more like a sentence, than the honour it is supposed to be?