Government Found in Contempt of Parliment

[Dave_ON]

Couldn't be more serious. Knowing something is wrong and not trying to do something about is indeed apathetic. Making excuses for it makes one partially responsible.

Who's making excuses? The examples I cited are excellent examples of what you want. You'll hear a lot of jabs towards Joe Clark and Dionne because it's fashionable to do so and is almost a part of our culture. However, many do admit that they were "decent" or "earnest" and often "too nice". Why is it we say this about these people, don't vote for them and then turn around and bemoan the lack of integrity in politics? Truth is nice (read honest) guys really do finish last in politics. I didn't make the rules; I'm just pointing them out to you. If you think this is a problem that can be solved in any real practical way, well I'm all ears.

They lost because people didn't like their policies. That is the way it is supposed to work. It seems you would rather people lie to get elected then impose those policies afterward. Again, you might as well put names in a hat because you don't know what you will be getting anyway. Seems you are fine with that. If we don't get honest discourse from a politician it is because we don't demand it and hold them accountable if we don't get it.

I never said I preferred anything, per usual you are forming opinions on unfounded assumptions and reading in subtext where none exist. Truth is politicians have to make difficult and unpopular decisions; decisions that people don't like, but nevertheless have to be made. Would Harper have been elected if he said he was going to tax income trusts? Or if he said he was going to contiue the Afghan mission? No, further perception is reality. You may think you can turn Ottawa upside down when you're sitting in opposition but when you're in government you realize things are quite that simple.

Whether obfuscating the truth is right or wrong is quite immaterial, the fact remains it happens and why? Well because as I've said the nice honest politians aren't particularly successful. If open and complete honesty were the recipe for success in politics we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

[Wilber]

Hell, the Athenians democratically forced Socrates to drink hemlock tea because he dared to tell them "Your woes are your own fault".

Politicians don't have that excuse anymore, we don't feed them hemlock. They just go out and get good jobs in the private sector or schools.

[ToadBrother]

Politicians don't have that excuse anymore, we don't feed them hemlock. They just go out and get good jobs in the private sector or schools.

Somehow I think you missed the point of the Socrates reference. I suspect you did so intentionally. You don't really want to have a reasonable conversation, you want to be angry and rant, and just as sadly, maintain this bizarre sense of superiority and self-righteousness that you have.

[Wilber]

Who's making excuses? The examples I cited are excellent examples of what you want. You'll hear a lot of jabs towards Joe Clark and Dionne because it's fashionable to do so and is almost a part of our culture. However, many do admit that they were "decent" or "earnest" and often "too nice". Why is it we say this about these people, don't vote for them and then turn around and bemoan the lack of integrity in politics? Truth is nice (read honest) guys really do finish last in politics. I didn't make the rules; I'm just pointing them out to you. If you think this is a problem that can be solved in any real practical way, well I'm all ears.

I never said I preferred anything, per usual you are forming opinions on unfounded assumptions and reading in subtext where none exist. Truth is politicians have to make difficult and unpopular decisions; decisions that people don't like, but nevertheless have to be made. Would Harper have been elected if he said he was going to tax income trusts? Or if he said he was going to contiue the Afghan mission? No, further perception is reality. You may think you can turn Ottawa upside down when you're sitting in opposition but when you're in government you realize things are quite that simple.

Whether obfuscating the truth is right or wrong is quite immaterial, the fact remains it happens and why? Well because as I've said the nice honest politians aren't particularly successful. If open and complete honesty were the recipe for success in politics we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?

The point isn't whether he said he was going to tax income trusts or continue the Afghan mission during the election, its whether he said he wouldn't. Not saying you will do someting is not the same as saying you won't, then immediately doing it after the polls close which is exactly what Campbell did. The is just a flat out lie made for one purpose only, his personal benefit and there is no excuse for it.

I don't obfuscate on whether the truth is right or wrong, that is your game. I know the difference between right and wrong.

As far as me being in Ottawa, well I guess I wouldn't get elected then, but neither would I be a liar. I'm fine with that.

[Wilber]

Somehow I think you missed the point of the Socrates reference. I suspect you did so intentionally. You don't really want to have a reasonable conversation, you want to be angry and rant, and just as sadly, maintain this bizarre sense of superiority and self-righteousness that you have.

Geez Louise, we have come to the point where telling the truth is being superior and self righteous. Pathetic.

[Dave_ON]

I don't obfuscate on whether the truth is right or wrong, that is your game. I know the difference between right and wrong.

Nor did I accuse you of that. I was referring to what politicians do to get elected. You really can't resist sniping can you?

As far as me being in Ottawa, well I guess I wouldn't get elected then, but neither would I be a liar. I'm fine with that.

So your solution to the dishonesty of politicians is what precisely? I'm looking for practical solutions, not altruistic notions.

[Dave_ON]

Geez Louise, we have come to the point where telling the truth is being superior and self righteous. Pathetic.

No being arrogant and pontificating about it makes it superior and self righteous.

[Wilber]

No being arrogant and pontificating about it makes it superior and self righteous.

I'm arrogant because I expect people to be straight with me. Guilty. You win.

[Dave_ON]

I'm arrogant because I expect people to be straight with me. Guilty. You win.

Thank you I accept your acquiescence.

[ToadBrother]

Geez Louise, we have come to the point where telling the truth is being superior and self righteous. Pathetic.

You're the one that declared you never lie. If that wasn't trying to be superior and self-righteous, I don't know what is.

For the record:

1. Lying is bad. It's bad if it's you cheating on your taxes, it's bad if it's just a clerk saying they're all out of green gummy worms because he wants the last bag. And it's bad when a politician says one thing and then does another.

2. Lying is going to happen, no matter how many times we say it's bad.

3. That being the case, when you go to design a political system, and keeping in mind that politicians are human beings, and they often have divided allegiances, you make allowances. You create checks and balances. I mean the very notion of checks and balances relate directly to the idea that one group in our governing system will, for whatever reason, but often simply self-interest, attempt to accrue powers that it should not, or to use its powers in a fashion that could be detrimental to other branches of government.

You still haven't actually provided any particular solutions to a problem that has been inherent in governance since, well, people started needing governments. If you have some way to stop politicians from doing self-serving things, including but not limited to outright dishonesty, now would be a good time to lay them out.

[August1991]

Non story.

I wish I had $100 for each time the Toronto English Canada media predicted the "End of the World, new/dramatic change".

The English Canada media is not biased Liberal - it is biased naive crazy. The Toronto media accepts any new scheme as God's gift to Canada.

Elsewhere in Canada, for example the Beauce... , people see things differently.

---

Smart federal PMs speak directly to people - they avoid (or use) the Toronto MSM.

Edited May 1, 2010 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

Smart federal PMs speak directly to people - they avoid (or use) the Toronto MSM.

I've said it many times. Toronto should not just it's own province, it should be its own planet!

[Born Free]

I've said it many times. Toronto should not just it's own province, it should be its own planet!

We are. You should leave here as soon as possible but no sooner...

[Wild Bill]

We are. You should leave here as soon as possible but no sooner...

Don't Panic! I'm waiting till you all head out on the "B" Ark!

[Born Free]

Don't Panic! I'm waiting till you all head out on the "B" Ark!

Its almost a 2 year wait. In the meantime, have a Tim Hortons coffee on me....

[msdogfood]

I wouldn't discount anything when it comes to Harper. He's reckless, but he's managed thus far to keep an edge over the opposition. Still, there seems to be some doubt that this will lead to an election now. If the same Parliament returned afterwards, no one would be any further ahead. It does appear that the Government is leaning towards letting select Opposition MPs to swear an oath of secrecy, emulating how such matters work down in the US with Senate hearings on matters involve sensitive information and state secrets. I think the Government knows that the polls simply do not reflect any possibility of an election returning a stronger result, and the Bloc's growing popularity in Quebec as the Liberal government collapses pretty much limit success for either the Federal Liberals or the Conservatives.

The only thing now remaining is to see how the Tories attempt to spin all of this as a great victory for them. Some have already tried to do that, calling the Speaker's ruling some sort of victory for Harper, despite the fact that the Speaker made it clear that this was a matter of privilege.

I bet the PMO will not comply with the Speaker's ruling if that is true than the opposition will not have to do anything!

the Speaker will find PMO non compliant than its bye bye PMO & party no confidence vote reciord as i understand???!!.

[myata]

No wait, Iggy may yet come out with a "compromise" whereby Parliamentary supremacy will be reaffirmed in principle, while government's - in practice! Keeps everybody happy (hasn't he alredy mumbled something to this extent?)

[msdogfood]

No wait, Iggy may yet come out with a "compromise" whereby Parliamentary supremacy will be reaffirmed in principle, while government's - in practice! Keeps everybody happy (hasn't he alredy mumbled something to this extent?)

The PMO seems hell bent on not obeying Parliamentary so NO!!!.

[myata]

The PMO seems hell bent on not obeying Parliamentary so NO!!!.

Not if Iggy makes it work anyways. What if LCP and CPC both vote for some sort of "compromise" to avoid an election "nobody wants"? Or would it require agreement of every single MP (TB may know)?

[ToadBrother]

Not if Iggy makes it work anyways. What if LCP and CPC both vote for some sort of "compromise" to avoid an election "nobody wants"? Or would it require agreement of every single MP (TB may know)?

According to the CBC's political blog, it looks like the House Leaders are in fact ironing out a deal, so we will have some form of compromise arrangement. There aren't any details, but it's suggested that the main sticking point right now is what documents get released to the public, so I think the Tories have abandoned the whole "we can't trust the Bloc" line.

As to any vote on this sort of thing, it's a simple majority in the House. If the Tories and the Liberals came to some agreement, even if the Bloc and NDP are against it, it would happen.

P.S. I'd like to add that if the majority of Parliament chose to look the other way (so to speak), that would not in any way suggest Parliament was abandoning its supremacy. For instance, during WWII, it's almost certain that the War Cabinet did not release any details of war planning and ongoing operations, and some were in fact top-secret for decades after the war. Parliament effectively agreed to not ask questions, taking the Executive branch's advice that there were many matters that would, if they got out, create crises for the security of Britain, its Empire and its allies in the war against the Axis.

The key here is that Parliament agreed to limit its gaze, which it had done at other times of crisis or war. It did not surrender its supremacy, it simply decided not to apply it, with the understanding that the Crown and its ministers were doing their job. That certainly did not stop furious debates in Parliament over events like the loss of Hong Kong or Singapore, nor, more historically, like the collapse of the Gallipoli in WWI which lead to a crisis in the British government, the collapse of Asquith's government and the rise of Lloyd George's (not to mention Winston Churchill's humiliation and the end of his substantial political influence for two decades).

So let's say that the Committee does unearth serious deficits in Mackay's performance. The documents would not have to be released unredacted to the House for Parliament to debate, and possibly even replace the Tory government with an alternative, just as the operational details of Britain's war plans and the plans of its allies didn't have to be revealed in full for Parliament to hold the government to account.

Edited May 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[myata]

Sounds right. Though the premise that anything in here would be as natinal security sensitive as to require our parliament to voluntarily limit its privilege (and responsibility) to hold government accountable, sounds a bit (a very large bit, to be precise) stretchy, of both credibility and imagination.

[Keepitsimple]

Sounds right. Though the premise that anything in here would be as natinal security sensitive as to require our parliament to voluntarily limit its privilege (and responsibility) to hold government accountable, sounds a bit (a very large bit, to be precise) stretchy, of both credibility and imagination.

What if there are several communications from Netherlands and Germany that indicated that their prisoners were abused and that we should be extra careful? That would put those countries in peril of going through the same political grandstanding that we are experiencing here? Countries would never trust Canada agin, fearing that any secure or confidential information could very well be made public - simply by the opposition demanding it.

.....and that's only one example. Who knows what is in those files?

[eyeball]

So let's say that the Committee does unearth serious deficits in Mackay's performance.

Isn't whether Canada is guilty of war crimes the issue? Are you saying that if Mackay's performance led to this that he should face charges and not the government?

The government has taken the best governing system in the known universe to the point of crisis for the sake of protecting one man? That in itself seems like a crime against humanity

[ToadBrother]

Sounds right. Though the premise that anything in here would be as natinal security sensitive as to require our parliament to voluntarily limit its privilege (and responsibility) to hold government accountable, sounds a bit (a very large bit, to be precise) stretchy, of both credibility and imagination.

I'm speaking in general. Specifically, no one in the Opposition ever said "We want these documents released in the next edition of the Globe and Mail." That's what I mean about Parliament choosing to self-limit. It certainly would be within Parliament's constitutional right to have every document read out in the House of Commons if it wanted to, but it would be monstrously stupid and damaging thing to do. It's looking like what should have happened all along will happen. The Committee will get the documents, they will be reviewed in-camera, so that what needs to be secret stays secret. If MacKay is revealed to have blundered so badly that confidence in him is questioned, the Opposition will have a chance to make their case, and the members of the Committee will be able to guide their caucuses on the general issues without having to reveal specific instances that could harm national security or the security of our allies.

The only questionable thing left is why the Tories almost invoked a crisis over all of this, if at the end of the day, they're basically going to let the Committee see the documents anyways.

[ToadBrother]

Isn't whether Canada is guilty of war crimes the issue? Are you saying that if Mackay's performance led to this that he should face charges and not the government?

Unless something serious is unearthed, I think this claim of war crimes is the most absurd and unsustainable hyperbole. I'm not really all that interested in arguing with fantasies. Having read as much as I have about wars and the conduct of soldiers, as horrible as it may sound to your ears, I'm willing to let them have a little more latitude, rather than turning our armed forces into mindless puppets on a string.

The government has taken the best governing system in the known universe to the point of crisis for the sake of protecting one man? That in itself seems like a crime against humanity

Do you ever get up in the morning without deciding "I think I'll be as outrageous as I can possibly be!"

As it is, I'm only invoking hypothetical situations here. It's possible that MacKay did nothing of substance wrong. It may simply be that Harper was picking a fight for no more reason than he wants to constrain the Opposition as much as he can. Or maybe he realizes that the only course he was taking was pushing towards another election, and that even if there is damaging evidence, it's much better to deal with it rather than risking a jaunt to the polls that would in all likelihood land his government right back where they started.