Less Scrutiny

[Shakeyhands]

I must be reading this article incorrectly, right? I'd love to hear some opinions on this that are positive.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/427431

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet have exempted contracts with Parliament and Canada's spy agency from oversight by a new ombudsman's post that was central to the 2006 Conservative election campaign.

More examples of hypocrisy or have I missed something here?

Edited May 20, 2008 by Shakeyhands

[Wilber]

There might be a case for CSIS but there is no reason the Senate and Commons shouldn't be subject to scrutiny and plenty of reasons why they should IMO.

[CANADIEN]

There might be a case for CSIS but there is no reason the Senate and Commons shouldn't be subject to scrutiny and plenty of reasons why they should IMO.

Even in the case of CSIS, the ombudsman office could look at allegations of wrongdoing while subjected to security requirements.

[CANADIEN]

There might be a case for CSIS but there is no reason the Senate and Commons shouldn't be subject to scrutiny and plenty of reasons why they should IMO.

Even in the case of CSIS, the ombudsman office could look at allegations of wrongdoing while subjected to security requirements.

[jdobbin]

I must be reading this article incorrectly, right? I'd love to hear some opinions on this that are positive.

The Tory government is just trying to make thing more transparent.

[Michael Bluth]

There's nothing stopping Liberal and NDP MPs from voluntarily making the contracts to run their offices open to the public.

[eyeball]

The Tory government is just trying to make thing more transparent.

With emphasis on the word trying. I suspect they'll be as incompetent and incapable of rising above their own nature as any political party before them was.

Move along, there's nothing to see here at all, move along...

[fellowtraveller]

Even in the case of CSIS, the ombudsman office could look at allegations of wrongdoing while subjected to security requirements.

No, CSIS books should not be available to regular auditors or to an ombudsman. Secret is secret.

The operations of Parliament should be more transparent though.

[Kitchener]

More examples of hypocrisy or have I missed something here?

Well, that's a false dilemma. But yes, it's hypocrisy.

This is now a clearly established pattern of the Conservatives blocking, limiting, and tightly controlling access to government information that used to be more open. Does anyone remember their pious mouthings about openness and transparency? I hope we all remember it come election time.

[Fortunata]

Holy Schmoley, come on followers, tell us how this is actually good for democracy and this country.

[Shakeyhands]

Holy Schmoley, come on followers, tell us how this is actually good for democracy and this country.

I'm telling you, I can't think of one valid reason as to why this is good. I really think I must be missing something.

[CANADIEN]

No, CSIS books should not be available to regular auditors or to an ombudsman. Secret is secret.

The operations of Parliament should be more transparent though.

The CSIS is not above the law, and it to needs to be accountable. Secret can be secret even when our spy agency is audited.

[Shakeyhands]

I'm noticing a lack of posts from our friends on the right, I wonder if its because they agree with our questions?

[Michael Bluth]

I'm noticing a lack of posts from our friends on the right, I wonder if its because they agree with our questions?

Far from it. But as the only 'right' poster here I do notice that none of the participants in the circle jerk even stopped to acknowledge my post.

There's nothing stopping Liberal and NDP MPs from voluntarily making the contracts to run their offices open to the public.

So what is stopping them?

[g_bambino]

I must be reading this article incorrectly, right? I'd love to hear some opinions on this that are positive.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/427431

More examples of hypocrisy or have I missed something here?

CSIS seems obvious.

Parliament, on the other hand, is more tricky. I wonder if parliamentary privilege is coming into play here. Parliament oversees its own internal affairs, and disciplines internally. Wouldn't, therefore, contracts made by MP's offices (not the MPs personally) fall within that privilege?

Edited May 20, 2008 by g_bambino

[Shakeyhands]

I've yet to see anyone on the right comment on why this is ok? Am I to assume it's not in your minds as well? I have to say I am a little disappointed.

[g_bambino]

I've yet to see anyone on the right comment on why this is ok? Am I to assume it's not in your minds as well? I have to say I am a little disappointed.

Not that I'm necessarily "on the right," but I assume you didn't read my post on why it might be okay.

[Shakeyhands]

Not that I'm necessarily "on the right," but I assume you didn't read my post on why it might be okay.

I did read your reply, sorry. That would be the simple answer but how could the spending and not reporting of tax dollars fall under parliamentary privilege? It's too convienent.

Just look at the website below and see how this announcment is contrary to what is written here.

http://www.faa-lfi.gc.ca/index-eng.asp

[g_bambino]

I did read your reply, sorry. That would be the simple answer but how could the spending and not reporting of tax dollars fall under parliamentary privilege? It's too convienent.

Just look at the website below and see how this announcment is contrary to what is written here.

http://www.faa-lfi.gc.ca/index-eng.asp

Is it just a matter of reporting? Or, is it a question of an ombudsman position being placed above parliament, with the ability to scrutinise parliamentarians' actions? From my understanding of what's being said, this is just about limiting the ombudsman's jurisdiction, not hiding MPs' and senators' spending habits from the public. But, it's really just a guess; there's obviously a lot we don't know yet.

[Shakeyhands]

still no comment from our usual CPC Boosters. Thats ok, I would want this one to go away too!