Government Found in Contempt of Parliment

eyeball · May 3, 2010

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?

Why on Earth should any other country trust Canada if it's unreasonable to the point of naiveté to expect Canadians themselves to trust their own government?

I think if there are several communications from other governments of the nature you've described in these documents that we should be telling citizens of those countries to beware of what their governments might be up to in all of our names.

Us governed people have to start sticking together.

waldo · May 3, 2010

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.

are they? Or does Harper's latest emphasis on 'legal obligations' lead toward the Conservative tossers tossing it off to the Supreme Court... besides, why let the fundamental distinction of courts not intruding upon Parliamentary inner workings get in the King's way... what's good for the King must be... will be... good for all!

Andrew Coyne: “Legal obligations”

But a clue to the Prime Minister’s state of mind can be found in his repeated invocation of the government’s “legal obligations.” Responding to questions in the House Wednesday, Harper said, variously:

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we look forward to both complying with your ruling and with the legal obligations that have been established by statutes passed by this Parliament

The government has certain obligations that are established under statutes passed by this Parliament. We obviously want to proceed in a way that will respect both of those things, and of course we will be open to any reasonable suggestions to achieve those two objectives

You have delivered a decision. Obviously, the government seeks to respect that decision. At the same time, it seeks to respect its obligations established by statute and passed by this Parliament

The government seeks at all times to respect all of its obligations. To the extent that some of those obligations may be in conflict, there are reasonable ways to accommodate that and we are open to reasonable suggestions in that regard
The government cannot break the law, it cannot order public servants to break the law, nor can it do anything that would unnecessarily jeopardize the safety of Canadian troops

eyeball · May 3, 2010

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.

I wouldn't be surprised, I've often said this issue is about political security not national. No doubt Canada's military will happily accept having been made into a political football for the sake of their team. Of all Canadians I think our soldiers must be the biggest suckers for this sort of contempt.

I expect you'll soon be in here blaming the next wave of new non-voters for feeling even more worthless than the worthless Parliament they're supposed to elect.

ToadBrother · May 3, 2010

Why on Earth should any other country trust Canada if it's unreasonable to the point of naiveté to expect Canadians themselves to trust their own government?

I think if there are several communications from other governments of the nature you've described in these documents that we should be telling citizens of those countries to beware of what their governments might be up to in all of our names.

Us governed people have to start sticking together.

That isn't going to happen one way or the other. What's going to happen is that the Committee will review those documents in-camera. Any serious issues that could pertain to misconduct in the government will, unless they are extreme in nature, be dealt with in general terms, so as not to give away any operational information. If there such egregious violations of human rights or evidence of extreme ministerial or DoD incompetence or malice, then the House will have to deal with it more directly. But since I don't actually think anything that severe really happened, it's likely we'll see some knuckle-rapping. I doubt we'll even see cabinet changes, that would be reserved for something serious.

I'm willing to trust the Opposition, which has everything to gain if the Government well and truly was involved in a serious coverup. It's the balancing of powers here that works in our favor.

eyeball · May 3, 2010

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

I certainly don't get up wondering how to be more like a lickspittling toady to the pomp and pageantry of our glorious governing system.

So now you don't agree it's the best in the known universe?

ToadBrother · May 3, 2010

are they? Or does Harper's latest emphasis on 'legal obligations' lead toward the Conservative tossers tossing it off to the Supreme Court... besides, why let the fundamental distinction of courts not intruding upon Parliamentary inner workings get in the King's way... what's good for the King must be... will be... good for all!

Andrew Coyne: “Legal obligations”

All the news coming out today suggests the exact opposite. The house leaders are indicating that a deal is in the works, and there should be an agreement by Friday (well within the Speaker's imposed time limit). All the experts are in agreement, the Supreme Court is incredibly unlikely to even consider a question that involves Parliamentary privilege (which pretty much supersedes the Supreme Court anyways). Polling suggests pretty heavily that the Conservatives would likely be returned with another minority, thus ending them right back where they are now, or maybe, if the Opposition could make a big enough deal of their intransigence and general disdain for Parliament, they might lose.

They can gain nothing by further stalling, and if it comes down to a motion on privilege, they could lose a substantial amount.

ToadBrother · May 3, 2010

I certainly don't get up wondering how to be more like a lickspittling toady to the pomp and pageantry of our glorious governing system.

So now you don't agree it's the best in the known universe?

It fascinates me no end how, even when I say the opposite, some people decide that they know better than I do what I think.

I never said our system was best. If I had my way, we'd have a system more resembling the United States, where the Founding Fathers did a helluva bang-up job creating a system of checks and balances, right down to give the bicameral legislative branch certain overlapping powers. But that's about as likely as me winning the lottery, so I see no reason to occupy fantasy realms inside my head, but rather deal with the system we have. It has a lot of wrinkles and flaws that need fixing, but I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

ToadBrother · May 3, 2010

I wouldn't be surprised, I've often said this issue is about political security not national. No doubt Canada's military will happily accept having been made into a political football for the sake of their team. Of all Canadians I think our soldiers must be the biggest suckers for this sort of contempt.

Look, the grand sweep of our history has always been the battle between the Crown and Parliament. These issues will come up from time to time, though mainly in minority governments, which is fine by me. For the most part even majority governments had played nicely with Parliamentary privilege. In a way the Tories have done us a favor by creating a situation in which the privileges and rights of Parliament are reiterated and the reasons for why things are the way they are can be trotted out by dull, repetitive codgers like me. I'm hopeful that this, coupled with the clear political damage the Tories took in the last prorogation, will set a slightly different tone for this Parliament.

I expect you'll soon be in here blaming the next wave of new non-voters for feeling even more worthless than the worthless Parliament they're supposed to elect.

If you choose not to be part of the process, then I have no sympathy for you. You're damned straight I condemn the lazy, stupid and apathetic.

eyeball · May 3, 2010

I'm willing to trust the Opposition, which has everything to gain if the Government well and truly was involved in a serious coverup. It's the balancing of powers here that works in our favor.

As you know, it's a little naive to trust politicians.

How will you know if the Opposition hasn't done the same as Harper which is pick a fight for no more reason than to constrain him as much as they can? Say they come out and declare they have the evidence that under the Conservatives Canada has committed egregious crimes against humanity.

Who are we to trust then? More to the point how are we supposed to trust anyone?

Until such time as the documents are made public the public will have little more than it's worst assumptions to go on.

Edited May 3, 2010 by eyeball

ToadBrother · May 3, 2010

As you know, it's a little naive to trust politicians.

How will you know if the Opposition hasn't done the same as Harper which is pick a fight for no more reason than to constrain him as much as they can? Say they come out and declare they have the evidence that under the Conservatives Canada has committed egregious crimes against humanity.

Who are we to trust then? More to the point how are we supposed to trust anyone?

I would think if the Committee did uncover such things, all agreements about what would be released to the public would be off. We still wouldn't see a lot of specific information, but certainly the Opposition, who would be looking for a way to unseat the Government would want as much exposed as it could without harming our NATO allies.

Until such time as the documents are made public the public will have little more than it's worst assumptions to go on.

Give it up. You are never going to see those unredacted documents. It's an utterly unreasonable demand.

eyeball · May 3, 2010

Give it up. You are never going to see those unredacted documents. It's an utterly unreasonable demand.

All I really want is to see the truth being revealed in a trustworthy way but I'm afraid I've come to accept that's probably the most unreasonable expectation of all.

I think I'm going to have to give up giving a shit for good after this Parliament. It's just too depressing trying. Like I've said before it'll be interesting to see how you feel after another 20 years of trying to swallow so much crap.

ToadBrother · May 3, 2010

All I really want is to see the truth being revealed in a trustworthy way but I'm afraid I've come to accept that's probably the most unreasonable expectation of all.

I think I'm going to have to give up giving a shit for good after this Parliament. It's just too depressing trying. Like I've said before it'll be interesting to see how you feel after another 20 years of trying to swallow so much crap.

Don't blame Parliament for your own loss of interest. Like all idealists, you have absurdly high expectations, and like all idealists, you collapse into self-righteous cynicism when those expectations are not met.

Only an idealist on the verge of cynicism could see the Government and Opposition (finally) co-operating on the document release issue as a bad thing. To me, it allowed the Speaker to reiterate those hard-won and most treasured aspects of our system, as well as giving everybody a suitable rap on the knuckles for childish games when all that was required was a bit of will to find a compromise.

Frankly I don't think there would be any pleasing you, and that's fine, because I think the worst thing that could happen to any political system would be an attempt to appease the overly idealistic.

msdogfood · May 4, 2010

All the news coming out today suggests the exact opposite. The house leaders are indicating that a deal is in the works, and there should be an agreement by Friday (well within the Speaker's imposed time limit). All the experts are in agreement, the Supreme Court is incredibly unlikely to even consider a question that involves Parliamentary privilege (which pretty much supersedes the Supreme Court anyways). Polling suggests pretty heavily that the Conservatives would likely be returned with another minority, thus ending them right back where they are now, or maybe, if the Opposition could make a big enough deal of their intransigence and general disdain for Parliament, they might lose.

They can gain nothing by further stalling, and if it comes down to a motion on privilege, they could lose a substantial amount.

I am with Andrew Coyne: “Legal obligations”

I do not see The PMO handing anything over at all! it not him he is going down!!

he is to paranoid & to much of a control freak!!!!!!..

The Speaker will have to sanction the PMO

than take him down!!

ToadBrother · May 4, 2010

I am with Andrew Coyne: “Legal obligations”

I do not see The PMO handing anything over at all! it not him he is going down!!

he is to paranoid & to much of a control freak!!!!!!..

The Speaker will have to sanction the PMO

than take him down!!

First of all, the Prime Minister is not being called to the mat, so I don't know how this motion directly creates a problem for the PMO. Second, the house leaders have made it clear that they're making progress. If, by Friday, there isn't a deal, then we'll see, but I'm wagering Harper is backing down. The Government cannot win this one. Three hundred years of constitutional reality render the Government's view false.

myata · May 4, 2010

With all Harper government's recent foot shooting atticks:

- prorogation;

- detainee issue;

- Guerges affair;

- abortion issue

I can't stop wondering if perhaps a bigger plan could be in the works? E.g. Harper attracts all the negative attention to himself, then resigns and CPC comes up with a new shiny, better and friendlier leadear (like ???). And get themselves reelected to majority.

Not an unlikely possibility given Liberals dismal showing even when their chief opponent appears to be giving them all the cards.

ToadBrother · May 4, 2010

With all Harper government's recent foot shooting atticks:

- prorogation;

- detainee issue;

- Guerges affair;

- abortion issue

I can't stop wondering if perhaps a bigger plan could be in the works? E.g. Harper attracts all the negative attention to himself, then resigns and CPC comes up with a new shiny, better and friendlier leadear (like ???). And get themselves reelected to majority.

Not an unlikely possibility given Liberals dismal showing even when their chief opponent appears to be giving them all the cards.

The alternative, and more likely explanation is as follows:

1. Prorogation and detainee issue - Harper has consistently tried to run his government as if it was a majority, and had no small amount of success until the economic meltdown began in late 2008, which triggered the coalition. Since then, I think he's been fumbling, still trying to assert his government's dominance, to an ever-increasingly emboldened Opposition. It's also possible that MacKay will be compromised, and seeing as he's the leader of the Progressive wing of the party just as Harper is the leader of the Reform wing, it could spell trouble for the alliance between the two parties. Those on the outside tend to view political parties as monolithic, but most parties encompass a range of views, ideologies and philosophies and it can be a difficult balancing act for the leadership. Losing MacKay could do Harper some real damage internally.

2. Guerges affair - Well, every government (no matter what August1991 or Argus seem to think) is going to have its scandals. It's the nature of the game that some percentage of your MPs, small or large, is going to be crooked. In her defense, she still hasn't in fact been charged with anything, though I think she's guilty of having a no-good coke-snorting con artist for a husband.

3. Abortion - Well, that's playing to the Reform base. The social conservative Reform rump has been demanding action on abortion for some time, but clearly Harper has no desire to fight this on home turf, so he'll deliver his religious conservative wing a semi-victory by not funding abortions elsewhere. This might blow up in his face, but I don't see too much damage from it.

eyeball · May 4, 2010

It's the nature of the game that some percentage of your MPs, small or large, is going to be crooked.

Yes our Westminster system is predicated on the certain knowledge that power corrupts.

This is also why some commercial fishermen now operate with cameras monitoring our activities on deck and in some cases with actual human observers looking over our shoulders. We also use record keeping procedures that can be accurately and quickly audited.

There doesn't seem to me to be any activity that cannot be fitted with a similarly protocoled auditing system.

In the case of recording meetings between politicians/senior bureaucrats/lobbyists I'd borrow a page from Robert's Rules of Order - the minutes of every single meeting must be meticulously recorded. Basically if a meeting wasn't recorded then it didn't happen and if it didn't happen then decisions were not made and policies were not formulated. Every meeting these people have amongst themselves should leave an auditable trail of paper and if too many unexplained gaps appear in the trail the people involved are assigned human observers.

We can still use Privacy Commissioners to protect privacy but I'd also have Secrecy Commissioners to ensure secrecy doesn't become a euphemism for privacy and vis versa.

I still think if politicians simply volunteered to wire themselves up with audio and visual equipment that most of our problems with corruption would just disappear. We shouldn't shirk from forcing them to comply with our needs for transparency and accountability. We cannot afford to let governments lie.

Edited May 4, 2010 by eyeball

ToadBrother · May 4, 2010

Yes our Westminster system is predicated on the certain knowledge that power corrupts.

All power corrupts.

This is also why some commercial fishermen now operate with cameras monitoring our activities on deck and in some cases with actual human observers looking over our shoulders. We also use record keeping procedures that can be accurately and quickly audited.

There doesn't seem to me to be any activity that cannot be fitted with a similarly protocoled auditing system.

You are one scary guy. I'm more worried about someone like you reaching the highest levels of power than any crook out to line his own pockets.

In the case of recording meetings between politicians/senior bureaucrats/lobbyists I'd borrow a page from Robert's Rules of Order - the minutes of every single meeting must be meticulously recorded. Basically if a meeting wasn't recorded then it didn't happen and if it didn't happen then decisions were not made and policies were not formulated. Every meeting these people have amongst themselves should leave an auditable trail of paper and if too many unexplained gaps appear in the trail the people involved are assigned human observers.

We can still use Privacy Commissioners to protect privacy but I'd also have Secrecy Commissioners to ensure secrecy doesn't become a euphemism for privacy and vis versa.

Then all this does is give yet another individual enormous power. This is like Myata's citizens' assembly to control the Legislature. It simply removes power from one group, and offers it to another, in effect accomplishing nothing. Will we be voting for this new office? Who will he or she be accountable to?

I still think if politicians simply volunteered to wire themselves up with audio and visual equipment that most of our problems with corruption would just disappear. We shouldn't shirk from forcing them to comply with our needs for transparency and accountability. We cannot afford to let governments lie.

Politicians have private lives as well. If you forbid them that because somehow you believe that it can make people more honest, then you won't have much of a government at all. Besides, technology can be circumvented and its not as if a surveillance society like China or Iran has somehow magically made everyone obey social norms. You simply drive things further underground.

Quite frankly, I find your suggestion a recipe for a new kind of tyranny.

August1991 · May 5, 2010

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.

Bump.

msdogfood · May 5, 2010

First of all, the Prime Minister is not being called to the mat, so I don't know how this motion directly creates a problem for the PMO. Second, the house leaders have made it clear that they're making progress. If, by Friday, there isn't a deal, then we'll see, but I'm wagering Harper is backing down. The Government cannot win this one. Three hundred years of constitutional reality render the Government's view false.

If the PMO will not hand over the document's bye bye PMO!! he is not the type to back down oh stuff like this!!

he is to ideological for that!

msdogfood · May 5, 2010

With all Harper government's recent foot shooting atticks:

- prorogation;

- detainee issue;

- Guerges affair;

- abortion issue

I can't stop wondering if perhaps a bigger plan could be in the works? E.g. Harper attracts all the negative attention to himself, then resigns and CPC comes up with a new shiny, better and friendlier leadear (like ???). And get themselves reelected to majority.

Not an unlikely possibility given Liberals dismal showing even when their chief opponent appears to be giving them all the cards.

They will not go that root voters do not like people who just resin out of the blue!!

The first Question would be what are they hiding??

than CPC poling crashes because people fell very scow and they will remember that!! bad news for CPC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Edited May 5, 2010 by msdogfood

August1991 · May 5, 2010

If the PMO will not hand over the document's bye bye PMO!!

Are you serious?

According to you, if the PMO doesn't hand over documents about Afghan detainees, Stephen Harper will have to resign.

----

What planet are you living on, msdogfood? Planet Urban Toronto or Urban Vancouver?

msdogfood · May 5, 2010

The alternative, and more likely explanation is as follows:

1. Prorogation and detainee issue - Harper has consistently tried to run his government as if it was a majority, and had no small amount of success until the economic meltdown began in late 2008, which triggered the coalition. Since then, I think he's been fumbling, still trying to assert his government's dominance, to an ever-increasingly emboldened Opposition. It's also possible that MacKay will be compromised, and seeing as he's the leader of the Progressive wing of the party just as Harper is the leader of the Reform wing, it could spell trouble for the alliance between the two parties. Those on the outside tend to view political parties as monolithic, but most parties encompass a range of views, ideologies and philosophies and it can be a difficult balancing act for the leadership. Losing MacKay could do Harper some real damage internally.

2. Guerges affair - Well, every government (no matter what August1991 or Argus seem to think) is going to have its scandals. It's the nature of the game that some percentage of your MPs, small or large, is going to be crooked. In her defense, she still hasn't in fact been charged with anything, though I think she's guilty of having a no-good coke-snorting con artist for a husband.

3. Abortion - Well, that's playing to the Reform base. The social conservative Reform rump has been demanding action on abortion for some time, but clearly Harper has no desire to fight this on home turf, so he'll deliver his religious conservative wing a semi-victory by not funding abortions elsewhere. This might blow up in his face, but I don't see too much damage from it.

OK but all of this is piling up & if he will not comply with the speaker & i dont think he will... than the real fun begins!

August1991 · May 5, 2010

OK but all of this is piling up & if he will not comply with the speaker & i dont think he will... than the real fun begins!

Fun?

Do you see a revolution as fun? Msdogfood, I reckon that you were born in the 40s (or 50s).

---

I suggest that we revolutionize your pension. For example, let's abolish the CPP and other State pensions - that's what the Marxist Chinese and Russian revolutions did - they abolished financial obligations and debts.

No one owes anyone anything, including anyone paying a pension.

Whaddya think?

Edited May 5, 2010 by August1991

eyeball · May 5, 2010

Politicians have private lives as well.

So do fishermen.

Besides, technology can be circumvented and its not as if a surveillance society like China or Iran has somehow magically made everyone obey social norms. You simply drive things further underground.
Quite frankly, I find your suggestion a recipe for a new kind of tyranny.

Perhaps, but it would be a tyranny that was turned on its head and instead of trying to tyrannize tens of millions of followers we'd only have to tyrannize a few thousand leaders. The harm reduction alone makes it worth the effort. My biggest hope is that we'll see a trickle down effect - as more honesty and transparency is concentrated near the top of society the more we'll see trickling down throughout the rest.