Government Found in Contempt of Parliment

[wyly]

An international court would be an iffy situation at best. First of all, there is no world government. The UN does not trump a nation's sovereignty. They could not send in UN policemen to grab Harper and haul him off to the Hague for trial.

Look what a long and complicated process it took to get true war criminals like Milosevic of Serbia to a UN court. The issue with Harper holding back some documents is nowhere in that kind of league.

Besides that, why would the UN CARE that Harper is withholding those documents? It is a purely internal affair for Canada. The world has its own problems.

It just would never happen! If by some wild chance something like it ever DID happen, there's a good chance that any political party that might become the government would be distrustful of the UN meddling in our sovereignty to the point where Canada's support for military roles like in Afghanistan or food aid might get re-thought. The UN has relatively few countries that actually give and contribute instead of just sandbag or take. They need Canada too much to threaten the relationship.

Milosevic wasn't found guilty of anything wild Bill he died...I don't know hat evidence they had on him other than knowledge of what the Bosian Serbs were up to...so the situation could be similar...even an investigation into the conservative government would be cause for embarassment...and it's an infringement of the Geneva Convention it is very much an international issue and not internal... Edited April 28, 2010 by wyly

[August1991]

Non-story.

As much as I want to believe this Harper has fully stated he intended to take an unsatisfactory ruling straight to the Supreme Court. His record of compromise isn't great. Hopefully it doesn't evolve into a constitutional crisis.

On the contrary, Harper has an impeccable reputation for compromise. In teh view of many (including myself to a degree), his reputation for compromise is a little too great.

I would prefer, and I think that he might be more successful, if he were more steadfast. Then again, politicians should be comfortable with their public persona and it seems that Harper is comfortable being a reasonable WASP.

----

PS. The media and opposition are really desperate for scandals and impending doom. What will they suggest next week? The limo of a Tory cabinet minister drove through a red light? Harper shook hands with a person who failed to pay a parking ticket last year?

[capricorn]

even an investigation into the conservative government would be cause for embarassment...and it's an infringement of the Geneva Convention it is very much an international issue and not internal...

There has already been a war crimes complaint to the International Criminal Court against the then Minister of Defence O'Connor and General Hillier. The ICC dropped it and nothing came of it.

[ToadBrother]

Non-story.

On the contrary, Harper has an impeccable reputation for compromise. In teh view of many (including myself to a degree), his reputation for compromise is a little too great.

Uh huh. That's why the Speaker just made a historic ruling on a matter of privilege.

You know, I don't know what's more pathetic, that you Harper worshipers think everyone else is deluded enough not to see through the crapola, or possibly that you actually believe it.

At any rate, this is a major blow for the creeping powers of the Government, and a major underscoring of that three hundred year old rule that Parliament trumps Government.

[capricorn]

I openly challenge you to state who on that Committee will leak the information.

If I may Toad, here's my two cents. Purely on a level of principle, I don't like the idea of Bloc MPs having access to any of this information. I doubt Claude Bachand or Francine Lalonde would blab on the contents of the documents, but given the Bloc's avowed mission to see Quebec secede from the federation, they should not have access to this security classified material. As for the other members of the committee, I have no problem granting them full access.

[ToadBrother]

If I may Toad, here's my two cents. Purely on a level of principle, I don't like the idea of Bloc MPs having access to any of this information. I doubt Claude Bachand or Francine Lalonde would blab on the contents of the documents, but given the Bloc's avowed mission to see Quebec secede from the federation, they should not have access to this security classified material. As for the other members of the committee, I have no problem granting them full access.

For better or for worse they are MPs and by our constitution they enjoy the same rights as anyone else in the House. On a practical level, Quebec separation is a distant possibility at this time, whereas the continued erosion of Parliament's constitutional powers at the hands of a series of Prime Ministers intent upon creating an autocratic presidential system are the issue at hand.

Don't you guys get tired of trotting out the evil separatist argument? Harper has been more than happy to do with business with them, and even wanted to get a formal coalition going when Paul Martin was PM. So let's cut the evil separatist crap. It was pretty idiotic two years ago, and now it's just plain pathetic.

Edited April 28, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Jack Weber]

He could try lots of things. None of them seem particularly likely to me, mainly because none have much of a chance of leading to success. To my mind, at this point, there are two scenarios:

1. Harper could simply honor the Speaker's request and instruct his ministers and their departments to negotiate a mutually-acceptable means for the Committee to view the unredacted documents (as the Speaker points out this has been the norm throughout our history, and indeed throughout the history of our system of government elsewhere).

2. The Government can stonewall for two weeks, wait for the Speaker to rule on the motion of contempt, and basically challenge the Opposition to a game of chicken by declaring that the motion becomes a confidence motion, thus setting his government up for defeat and an election.

The Government clear has its back up against a wall over this one. It's attempt to argue that there's some precedent and legitimacy to their claim that refusing the Committee access to the documents has been rejected by the Speaker, who has clearly stated that this is an issue of privilege. We've already seen that the current Government has little problem distorting truth heavily, and might decide to wage a war. The signals sent out thus far seem to suggest the Government is intent upon the continued arguing that legislation is what constrains their hand.

I'm thinking right now there are even odds this will end with an election.

Maybe he'll ask for another prorogation to recalibrate?

[Jack Weber]

Uh huh. That's why the Speaker just made a historic ruling on a matter of privilege.

You know, I don't know what's more pathetic, that you Harper worshipers think everyone else is deluded enough not to see through the crapola, or possibly that you actually believe it.

At any rate, this is a major blow for the creeping powers of the Government, and a major underscoring of that three hundred year old rule that Parliament trumps Government.

hehehehe...

spot on....

[msdogfood]

As much as I want to believe this Harper has fully stated he intended to take an unsatisfactory ruling straight to the Supreme Court. His record of compromise isn't great. Hopefully it doesn't evolve into a constitutional crisis.

The PMO will not take it to the Supreme court because they will say parliament is supreme comply with the decision!!!

[ToadBrother]

The PMO will not take it to the Supreme court because they will say parliament is supreme comply with the decision!!!

I find it unlikely that the SC would even get involved. Parliament's conduct is Parliament's business. If the Government were to go to the SC, it would be as a delaying tactic. Surely their own constitutional experts must be saying the same thing as all the others out there, including Milliken's, that the foundational principles of our constitution simply do not include the notion that the Executive has some specific power to keep certain things secret from Parliament. As I've kept repeating, one of the chief reasons we ended up with the Bill of Rights 1689 was because Charles II and James II believed precisely that, that the Crown had some capacity to act independent of the will of Parliament, and that Parliament's oversight was limited.

[msdogfood]

IF indeed there is proof that there was/is a cover-up, I would think Harper would want an election and then turn around and say its the opposition parties fault for the election, I was just trying to protect our troops etc.... OR give out just enough of the documents that suggest maybe torture but not enough for the committee to do any thing with. If I were the Conservatives I would be very cautious because the world is watching and they could be dragged to a International Court if they believe the Tories are guilty.

Yes The ICC has opened a file/ case on us already that is very big problem for the PMO.

[Jack Weber]

I find it unlikely that the SC would even get involved. Parliament's conduct is Parliament's business. If the Government were to go to the SC, it would be as a delaying tactic. Surely their own constitutional experts must be saying the same thing as all the others out there, including Milliken's, that the foundational principles of our constitution simply do not include the notion that the Executive has some specific power to keep certain things secret from Parliament. As I've kept repeating, one of the chief reasons we ended up with the Bill of Rights 1689 was because Charles II and James II believed precisely that, that the Crown had some capacity to act independent of the will of Parliament, and that Parliament's oversight was limited.

I agree...The Surpreme Court will most likely kick it back to Parliament and say it's their problem to solve.

Seriously,how serious is a Contempt of Parliament charge of this nature?Are we talking about censuring certain members?Are we talking about a few people possibly doing time?Or are we talking about the PM basically taking the easy way out and forcing an election over the issue?

[msdogfood]

Well obviously they'd never phrase it as such. In fact, it's pretty clear that they would try to claim that the legislation in question pretty much tied their hand. They'd be trotting out pictures of our brave men and women and of mad Taliban suicide bombers blowing themselves to bits. They'd openly declare the Opposition as being anti-military, pro-terrorist, and whatever else they could do. Take the unadulterated lies and distortions used to justify the last two prorogations and multiply by a factor of ten. They've got the money to turn this into the most jingoistic campaign since the Conscription Crisis of 1917.

It's Harper's best chance. The odds of the Supreme Court overturning the Speaker's ruling or a motion of contempt is about as likely as Argus turning blue and sprouting wings. They're arguments that legislation prevents them from revealing unredacted documents as patently absurd, considering how many times the governments here and throughout the Commonwealth have co-operated with committees, or even having mechanisms for doing so.

Harper, whether out of preservation, or just because he's arrogant almost to the point of insanity, will not simply deliver those documents. The only way that might happen is if his own caucus were to turn on him, and they're all willing little sheep these days.

In this case the SC can not overturn the speaker his decision is well with in his powers!!

[ToadBrother]

I agree...The Surpreme Court will most likely kick it back to Parliament and say it's their problem to solve.

Seriously,how serious is a Contempt of Parliament charge of this nature?Are we talking about censuring certain members?Are we talking about a few people possibly doing time?Or are we talking about the PM basically taking the easy way out and forcing an election over the issue?

In theory, the Ministers in question could be thrown out of the House, or even jailed. In reality, Parliament pretty much defines the remedies, from simple censure to more severe punishments. I don't think it's likely anyone would be put in jail. There are other possibilities as well. Imagine the Sergeant at Arms entering ministerial offices to seize documents. If Harper didn't make this a motion of contempt a confidence motion, it's possible that the Speaker could do such a thing. So far as I know, it's never been done, because no other government in the history of our system has ever so seriously tried to defy Parliament.

[ToadBrother]

In this case the SC can not overturn the speaker his decision is well with in his powers!!

I don't think the challenge would be on the Speaker's powers, but rather to float the notion that the Government, via its rather odd interpretation of security laws, can treat committees and Parliament in general like an average citizen. I can't imagine SC agreeing to that, considering the long-standing constitutional issues. I think it would be much more likely that the SC would refuse to hear it at all, because every aspect of our constitution puts this squarely in Parliament's court.

[msdogfood]

I find it unlikely that the SC would even get involved. Parliament's conduct is Parliament's business. If the Government were to go to the SC, it would be as a delaying tactic. Surely their own constitutional experts must be saying the same thing as all the others out there, including Milliken's, that the foundational principles of our constitution simply do not include the notion that the Executive has some specific power to keep certain things secret from Parliament. As I've kept repeating, one of the chief reasons we ended up with the Bill of Rights 1689 was because Charles II and James II believed precisely that, that the Crown had some capacity to act independent of the will of Parliament, and that Parliament's oversight was limited.

I know i am agreeing with you!!!.

[Jack Weber]

In theory, the Ministers in question could be thrown out of the House, or even jailed. In reality, Parliament pretty much defines the remedies, from simple censure to more severe punishments. I don't think it's likely anyone would be put in jail. There are other possibilities as well. Imagine the Sergeant at Arms entering ministerial offices to seize documents. If Harper didn't make this a motion of contempt a confidence motion, it's possible that the Speaker could do such a thing. So far as I know, it's never been done, because no other government in the history of our system has ever so seriously tried to defy Parliament.

I wonder if you get the sneaking feeling that Harper might actually want a showdown over this very issue,and that he has no intention whatsoever to hand over any of these documents without a fight.Because there was nothing from Mr.Nicholsons prepared speech today to suggest that there was alot of common ground.And I have'nt seen anything from Mr.Harper in 4 years that suggets he's interested in any form of comprimise for the reasons I laid out in the other thread.

[msdogfood]

I don't think the challenge would be on the Speaker's powers, but rather to float the notion that the Government, via its rather odd interpretation of security laws, can treat committees and Parliament in general like an average citizen. I can't imagine SC agreeing to that, considering the long-standing constitutional issues. I think it would be much more likely that the SC would refuse to hear it at all, because every aspect of our constitution puts this squarely in Parliament's court.

parliamentary power cancels out this posibelaty because of define the power of the parliament!!!.

[August1991]

Uh huh. That's why the Speaker just made a historic ruling on a matter of privilege.

Did he? Toadbrother, you don't know anything about politics.

---

This is a minority government. So, it is unstable.

Ignatieff is trying to figure out how to be an opposition. IMV, he's making a mess of it. If Ignatieff were a real Liberal, he would lie low and wait until Harper makes a mistake - and then pounce.

Instead, Ignatieff is turning into another Stanfield. Too decent to be PM.

Edited April 28, 2010 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

Did he?

Toadbrother, you don't know anything about politics.

Oh goody. Now I'm going to have Harper's High Priest around these parts telling me how ignorant I am.

Save that crap for the choir. You know that I'm right, that the Speaker declared this a matter of privilege, that our constitution contains no ability for the Executive to withhold information from Parliament, and that quite the opposite, our system was explicitly founded on the notion of Parliament's supremacy over the Crown.

The very fact that you don't even bother to supply an argument suggests that the Tory's position is weak, if not outright non-existence.

[msdogfood]

I wonder if you get the sneaking feeling that Harper might actually want a showdown over this very issue,and that he has no intention whatsoever to hand over any of these documents without a fight.Because there was nothing from Mr.Nicholsons prepared speech today to suggest that there was alot of common ground.And I have'nt seen anything from Mr.Harper in 4 years that suggets he's interested in any form of comprimise for the reasons I laid out in the other thread.

what would be the political advantage to doing that?? the Speaker's decision will still stand for the next parliament! as a standing president.

[atheistwars]

all just a complete waste of time...

[ToadBrother]

what would be the political advantage to doing that?? the Speaker's decision will still stand for the next parliament! as a standing president.

Consider the most likely end game of this scenario; namely an election. The Tories will likely set themselves up for a campaign based on the notion that the Opposition is attacking the military. They're going to try to frame this whole sorry episode as an attack on the army by a bunch of separatists, terrorist lovers and self-serving political hacks. Just look at how they framed the 2008 prorogation and the coalition (despite the fact that the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition clearly had its roots in Harper's own attempt to unseat the Martin government).

[August1991]

Oh goody. Now I'm going to have Harper's High Priest around these parts telling me how ignorant I am.

Save that crap for the choir. You know that I'm right, that the Speaker declared this a matter of privilege, that our constitution contains no ability for the Executive to withhold information from Parliament, and that quite the opposite, our system was explicitly founded on the notion of Parliament's supremacy over the Crown.

Bla, bla, bla...

Ignatieff will never become PM using a decision of the Speaker, unless Ignatieff were sharper than he is.

---

The federal Liberal Party has chosen a flake for leader. Is this the end of the federal Liberals?

I think not, but Dion was the first Liberal leader in a century not to be PM. If Ignatieff doesn't make PM, the federal Liberal brand will be on a Woolworth/Eatons path - a popular brand name of the 19th or 20th century, now old and lost.

Unlike Woolworth and Eaton, I think the federal Liberals will survive Ignatieff.

Consider the most likely end game of this scenario; namely an election.

Dream on.

----

ToadBrother, federal Canada has much graver problems than a WASP PM. At present, we do not have a stable federal government because of opinions in Quebec. Federal Canada is like Italy between 1960 and 1990, or so. Our federal parliament has a party with a large contingent of seats - and the other parties refuse to deal with them.

IOW, this thread entirely misses the point.

Edited April 28, 2010 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

Bla, bla, bla...

Ignatieff will never become PM using a decision of the Speaker, unless Ignatieff were sharper than he is.

As is so typical of extremist partisans, they cannot imagine an interlocutor that isn't one either. For the umpteenth time I'm not a Liberal.

---

The federal Liberal Party has chosen a flake for leader. Is this the end of the federal Liberals?

I think not, but Dion was the first Liberal leader in a century not to be PM. If Ignatieff doesn't make PM, the federal Liberal brand will be on a Woolworth/Eatons path - a popular brand name of the 19th or 20th century, now old and lost.

Unlike Woolworth and Eaton, I think the federal Liberals will survive Ignatieff.

Dream on.

----

ToadBrother, federal Canada has much graver problems than a WASP PM. At present, we do not have a stable federal government because of opinions in Quebec. Federal Canada is like Italy between 1960 and 1990, or so. Our federal parliament has a party with a large contingent of seats - and the other parties refuse to deal with them.

IOW, this thread entirely misses the point.

No, you miss the point. Our democracy is founded on Parliament's supremacy over the Crown. That is more important than anything else, including our soldiers in Afghanistan. A lot more people died to assure Parliament's supremacy.