Tyranny

[ToadBrother]

Since there is no timeframe prescribed, then the government is within its right to take its time to prepare themselves or the documents or whatnot. Since a Contempt of Parliament motion has not been passed in Parliament, it would seem that there is no "breaking of constitutional law" going on. It would seem that the Members more or less agree. I am not saying that it can't or won't happen, I am saying that it hasn't. That is, it is a little too soon to proclaim a tyranny.

That's like saying "I'm not breaking the law by driving in a school zone at 80mph until I've been cited." The contempt charge would come because the Ministers in question are not doing as Parliament demands. It is the remedy to a question of privilege.

Should the Executive be able to conceal its actions from the Legislative? No, of course not. But I think there has to be some reasonable timeframes for the release of information or documents to Parliamentary Committees. What is reasonable is something the Opposition is going to have to consider carefully...

Come on. It would take no more time to deliver the unredacted copies as it would the redacted copies. I agree that timelines should be reasonable, but there should be timelines, and not infinitely long ones.

[bloodyminded]

It's a fair point. How much time is enough; and why not?

[ToadBrother]

It's a fair point. How much time is enough; and why not?

That should be something negotiated between the Ministers and the Committee. But the Government isn't taking that approach. They're taking the dual approach of claiming that Parliamentary privilege has some sort of definite limit, but that they'll deliver it to a third party who will, in due course, deliver a recommendation (whatever that means).

[bloodyminded]

That should be something negotiated between the Ministers and the Committee. But the Government isn't taking that approach. They're taking the dual approach of claiming that Parliamentary privilege has some sort of definite limit, but that they'll deliver it to a third party who will, in due course, deliver a recommendation (whatever that means).

Whatever that means, indeed: "a third party," in due course"....yeah, awesome.

[myata]

Harper is doing great job bringing home the truth that "Parliament supreme" mantra with no real means to assuere its independent work, forget "supremacy" for now, sounds empty like that drum that plays "O Canada" at the start of Parliamentary sessions. We'll find out the real price of that "supremacy" very soon and it'll be educational (in the sense of what our legislative independence; and by extension, the integrity of democratic governance is really worth) one way or the other (my bet is on the other; but I'd love to find myself mistaken, for once).

[MightyAC]

Since there is no timeframe prescribed, then the government is within its right to take its time to prepare themselves or the documents or whatnot. Since a Contempt of Parliament motion has not been passed in Parliament, it would seem that there is no "breaking of constitutional law" going on. It would seem that the Members more or less agree. I am not saying that it can't or won't happen, I am saying that it hasn't. That is, it is a little too soon to proclaim a tyranny.

Should the Executive be able to conceal its actions from the Legislative? No, of course not. But I think there has to be some reasonable timeframes for the release of information or documents to Parliamentary Committees. What is reasonable is something the Opposition is going to have to consider carefully...

The information was requested, the government took its time and handed over a completely blacked out document. This was done just prior to their spring break. Yes the same break that Harper said they'd do without to make up for proroguing. Since, parliament is not sitting the Contempt motion cannot be filed, but it will be filed very soon.

[eyeball]

It's a fair point. How much time is enough; and why not?

Given our pullout date is fast approaching and that Parliament will need time to digest the requested information, produce reports and make recommendations etc I'd say much sooner rather than later.

It'll that much more suspicious looking if Harper keeps everything secret until after we pull out of the alleged scene of the crime.

[ToadBrother]

Given our pullout date is fast approaching and that Parliament will need time to digest the requested information, produce reports and make recommendations etc I'd say much sooner rather than later.

It'll that much more suspicious looking if Harper keeps everything secret until after we pull out of the alleged scene of the crime.

It is possible that Canada is under enormous pressure from certain allies over all of this. I cannot imagine any other reason that Harper would be driving the government towards what may very well und up being a constitutional showdown.

[nicky10013]

It is possible that Canada is under enormous pressure from certain allies over all of this. I cannot imagine any other reason that Harper would be driving the government towards what may very well und up being a constitutional showdown.

Is it possible? Yes. Likely? I don't think so. The EU, NATO and other organizations have come out saying they warned the government about possible abuse. Could that be a show? Sure, but I doubt it.

If there's anything we know for sure about Harper it's that he'll do anything to hold on to power. He's already created a constitutional crisis when he first prorogued parliament. Why would he scoff at trying to pull the same move again?

[Pliny]

Nobody cares but this is larger than a simple cover up now. Operating outside the law, attempting to remove checks and balances, intimidating party members and the press, gag orders, firing those that have an independent thought, attacking science and reason.

For a minute there I thought you had lost track and were talking about Chretien!

[ToadBrother]

Is it possible? Yes. Likely? I don't think so. The EU, NATO and other organizations have come out saying they warned the government about possible abuse. Could that be a show? Sure, but I doubt it.

If there's anything we know for sure about Harper it's that he'll do anything to hold on to power. He's already created a constitutional crisis when he first prorogued parliament. Why would he scoff at trying to pull the same move again?

The problem here is that unless he makes it an issue of confidence, even the fall of three of his ministers, while possibly a political crisis, does not constitute a constitutional one. Let's just say that the Speaker agrees with the Opposition that Parliament is not under any particular legislative limitation in what it can demand from the government. The three ministers are then declared in contempt of Parliament. That, in and of itself, means very little, other than a waving of the finger. But let's say they go even further and, say, expel them from the House (somewhat likely) or even imprison them (highly unlikely). Harper loses three senior ministers, in particular Mackay (though I'll posit that Mackay is already damaged goods now). At that point, the government is still intact, it still holds the largest bloc of seats in the House, it hasn't suffered a loss of confidence. At worst, he has to find three new ministers.

The real concern those of us who are looking on the historical and constitutional ramifications of this showdown is not whether the Speaker will buy the Government's argument (which is nothing more than some rather bizarre non sequiturs and extremely stretched logical and metaphorical arguments), but rather what happens if the Government refuses to abide by the Speaker's ruling. I still have a hard time believing that Harper would go this far. This would be the most substantial strike of the executive branch against the legislative branch since Charles II dismissed the Short Parliament. It would most certainly produce a constitutional crisis, as the Speaker holds probably the most powerful and expansive position within Parliament and serves as the conduit between the Crown and Parliament.

I have no idea what happens at that point. Does the Opposition go to the Supreme Court? Do they attempt to communicate directly with the Governor General? Would the Governor General use her (or maybe his by the time it comes to head) invoke those substantial Reserve Powers and dismiss the Ministers, or even the Government?

This is why, no matter how rational the Government's position that exposing unredacted documents could damage our troops and or allies, it would be irresponsible to the extreme for the Government to push it that far. To go to the point where either the GG or the Supreme Court is forced to weigh in on Parliament's privileges seems to go beyond risk-taking and power-grabbing, and enter the realm of sheer madness.

But, to be honest, this was bound to happen sooner or later. For the last half century or so, Parliament's role has steadily declined as the Executive's powers have steadily marched forward. In Canada, unlike virtually any of Her Majesty's other realms, the constitutional compromise that has governed the system since 1689 has been eroded. Coupled with probably some of the severest party autocracy to be found in the Commonwealth, Parliament has faded. For the Opposition, this is for the most part simply another partisan strike at Harper, but for me, the issue is deeper... much deeper. The fundamental question that every single Canadian should be asking themselves as we await the Speaker's decision is what kind of government do we want? What role do we want our MPs to play? At issue is nothing less than whether the Parliamentary powers won by the shedding of so much blood during the English Civil War are to be abandoned. And if it is the case that the spirit and constitutional nature of the Bill of Rights 1689 are to be dispensed with, just what do we propose to replace them with?

[Shwa]

It is possible that Canada is under enormous pressure from certain allies over all of this. I cannot imagine any other reason that Harper would be driving the government towards what may very well und up being a constitutional showdown.

I think this is very possible. It could be that there are sensitive security concerns with allies or within the government that might require some negotiation that is being worked out in the background. As cynical as I can get over the government, there could be more than just domestic political concerns here. I mean, it is a highly risky venture to prolong the process for no good reason, however I sense that there is some complicity with the Opposition, even direct support behind the scenes while the public version is carefully played out in the media.

[myata]

Yes this is why some two hundreds years back people have thought of a concept known as constitutional separation of powers (and checks and balances associated with it). Now common in democratic societies all around us except maybe a few former British colonies still cherishing their colonial status and reluctant to ascend to full independence (and with it, responsibility for its own political process). Not to worry; in couple of generation (my educated guess) the idea may dawn even upon us. Thanks to our PM for incessantly bringing the issue to our attention no matter how hard we're trying to avoid it pretending that our system is working just fine.

[myata]

..however I sense that there is some complicity with the Opposition, even direct support behind the scenes while the public version is carefully played out in the media.

Yes I wonder if (in our endless governing duopoly) they have been in some complicity behind the scenes for awhile now, "while the public version", etc. We children simply cannot be trusted with knowning the truth anymore than could we be allowed to exercise our real political choices.

[nicky10013]

Yes this is why some two hundreds years back people have thought of a concept known as constitutional separation of powers (and checks and balances associated with it). Now common in democratic societies all around us except maybe a few former British colonies still cherishing their colonial status and reluctant to ascend to full independence (and with it, responsibility for its own political process). Not to worry; in couple of generation (my educated guess) the idea may dawn even upon us. Thanks to our PM for incessantly bringing the issue to our attention no matter how hard we're trying to avoid it pretending that our system is working just fine.

*facepalm*

[eyeball]

I think this is very possible. It could be that there are sensitive security concerns with allies or within the government that might require some negotiation that is being worked out in the background. As cynical as I can get over the government, there could be more than just domestic political concerns here. I mean, it is a highly risky venture to prolong the process for no good reason, however I sense that there is some complicity with the Opposition, even direct support behind the scenes while the public version is carefully played out in the media.

It's a quagmire. We sure waded into it didn't we?

I'm reminded of finding a baby who's realized they're sitting in a poopy diaper and without telling anyone decide to change it themselves....

The shit was just...everywhere.

[Shwa]

Yes I wonder if (in our endless governing duopoly) they have been in some complicity behind the scenes for awhile now, "while the public version", etc. We children simply cannot be trusted with knowning the truth anymore than could we be allowed to exercise our real political choices.

But on a question of national security. Disregard for a moment national security being used as a political ruse, would you agree that sensitive national security issues should be brought out into public, even if that meant that the information in question was being gathered as evidence in a terrorist plot?

[ToadBrother]

I think this is very possible. It could be that there are sensitive security concerns with allies or within the government that might require some negotiation that is being worked out in the background. As cynical as I can get over the government, there could be more than just domestic political concerns here. I mean, it is a highly risky venture to prolong the process for no good reason, however I sense that there is some complicity with the Opposition, even direct support behind the scenes while the public version is carefully played out in the media.

I don't really buy that. At the moment the delay is waiting the Speaker's ruling. Obviously both sides want to make their arguments as clearly as they can manage, and the Speaker, to one extent or another, is bound to listen to them. It's hard to see, all things considered, how the Speaker can rule for the government, but then again you can never know for sure until the ruling is made.

The Opposition is not in a position to go and get those records, though it is possible that if the Speaker sides with them, that the Sergeant at Arms could be dispatched to retrieve them. Like I said, this has never really happened before (mainly because minority governments tend to fall before things reach this degree of antagonism, and majority governments don't tend to argue privilege and procedure with themselves). We're treading into weird constitutional realms if the government continues to defy the Speaker. For the moment, because of strong polling, I suspect the Tories feel emboldened to take this some distance, but it would take a very brave or foolhardy leader to want to go to the polls with the argument they've put forth.

[ToadBrother]

But on a question of national security. Disregard for a moment national security being used as a political ruse, would you agree that sensitive national security issues should be brought out into public, even if that meant that the information in question was being gathered as evidence in a terrorist plot?

Why do you keep repeating this canard? No one has proposed releasing the unredacted documents into an open session of Parliament. The Foreign Affairs Committee surely sees all matter of sensitive material during in-camera sessions.

Beyond that, even if it what you say were true, the Government is not constitutionally allowed to deprive the Committee of those documents. It's that simple. Even if you're right, you're still wrong that the Government has any right in this matter to do what it's trying to do.

[myata]

*facepalm*

For the lack of a better idea? Yes we believe, Iggy has it in him (he only has to find it; forgot where he left it last time)

[ToadBrother]

Yes this is why some two hundreds years back people have thought of a concept known as constitutional separation of powers (and checks and balances associated with it). Now common in democratic societies all around us except maybe a few former British colonies still cherishing their colonial status and reluctant to ascend to full independence (and with it, responsibility for its own political process). Not to worry; in couple of generation (my educated guess) the idea may dawn even upon us. Thanks to our PM for incessantly bringing the issue to our attention no matter how hard we're trying to avoid it pretending that our system is working just fine.

A few weeks ago you argued our system was old and crotchety. Now you're arguing our system isn't enough like the way it once was.

At any rate, this isn't so much a separation of powers issue, but rather the ancient right of Parliament, it's privilege if you will, to demand Ministers of the Crown to provide any papers or testimony that it may require.

[myata]

A few weeks ago you argued our system was old and crotchety. Now you're arguing our system isn't enough like the way it once was.

At any rate, this isn't so much a separation of powers issue, but rather the ancient right of Parliament, it's privilege if you will, to demand Ministers of the Crown to provide any papers or testimony that it may require.

We've been here before. There's no constitutional mechanism for the Parliament to assure its rights in our system. It cannot even control its own schedule.

[myata]

But on a question of national security. Disregard for a moment national security being used as a political ruse, would you agree that sensitive national security issues should be brought out into public, even if that meant that the information in question was being gathered as evidence in a terrorist plot?

Yes of course security is a legitimate concern and there's no reason it shouldn't (and couldn't) be addressed in an appropriate manner in the Committee that will be reviewing these documents (if they ever make it there - in full and unedited form).

[Shwa]

It's a quagmire. We sure waded into it didn't we?

I'm reminded of finding a baby who's realized they're sitting in a poopy diaper and without telling anyone decide to change it themselves....

The shit was just...everywhere.

LOL!

I know some security folks in a well known federal department in a well known urban area of Canada. Did you know that there are lists of Canadian citizens who are considered to be 'terror threats' and that should their names pop up under sensitive alert type conditions within any federal department the authorised response is to be immediate and with full force? I have also had the pleasure to witness such a response, albeit a false alarm. One minute a nice spring day, the next minute a parking lot full of SWAT and uzis.

This was enlightening to me. Here I figured all the while that we were moving along, business as usual, as our peaceful little selves, minding our true north strong and free. I guess there is a price for that.

[eyeball]

A few weeks ago you argued our system was old and crotchety. Now you're arguing our system isn't enough like the way it once was.

At any rate, this isn't so much a separation of powers issue, but rather the ancient right of Parliament, it's privilege if you will, to demand Ministers of the Crown to provide any papers or testimony that it may require.

We're only seeing a modern version of the ancient Right of Kings - the PMO has developed the same basic mindset. Two hundred years ago and long before that most people probably still believed the fear of God's judgement would prevent the abuse of power and privilege at the hands of their betters.

Now even God's guardians on Earth themselves are guilty of abuse... Taken together with the public's loss of faith in so many other fundamental institutions these days...it's no wonder the times seem so weird, it's like we exist in some perverse state of official anarchy.