And The Decision Is In

[ToadBrother]

Just watched the Speaker's ruling. The ultimate ruling, so far as it goes, is that the Government's refusal to provide unredacted documents is indeed a matter of privilege. He has given the Government and the House two weeks to come up with a mechanism acceptable to both, or he will return with a full ruling. He has largely rejected the Government's arguments, and in particular seems to have ruled that Iacobucci, who ultimate reports to the Minister of Justice, is not suitable (in effect, Iacobucci is acting as the Government's lawyer).

This is a great, great moment for our democracy. Regardless of your partisan leanings, it has been for over three hundred a keystone part of our constitution, perhaps even THE keystone aspect of our constitution, that Parliament is supreme over the Government. In particular, in this case, the Speaker notes that while the Government is the fundamental defender of the realm, Parliament has the role as the inquisitor, and thus it is within its privileges.

I think Milliken has once again demonstrated his eminent sensibility in giving both sides more time to find a solution. In particular he points out that this House, and indeed other Parliaments outside of Canada, have ways of reporting sensitive information without compromising security but still recognizing Parliament's role.

I feel pretty giddy about it. As I've said, I'm a strong constitutionalist. Our governing system is among the most successful and enduring in modern history, its institutions dating back centuries, but key constitutional concepts, put down in the great compromise of the Glorious Revolution, assuring good, responsible government with mechanisms in place to assure good conduct on the part of the Crown and its ministers, who are afforded such wide powers in our system.

[Jack Weber]

Just watched the Speaker's ruling. The ultimate ruling, so far as it goes, is that the Government's refusal to provide unredacted documents is indeed a matter of privilege. He has given the Government and the House two weeks to come up with a mechanism acceptable to both, or he will return with a full ruling. He has largely rejected the Government's arguments, and in particular seems to have ruled that Iacobucci, who ultimate reports to the Minister of Justice, is not suitable (in effect, Iacobucci is acting as the Government's lawyer).

This is a great, great moment for our democracy. Regardless of your partisan leanings, it has been for over three hundred a keystone part of our constitution, perhaps even THE keystone aspect of our constitution, that Parliament is supreme over the Government. In particular, in this case, the Speaker notes that while the Government is the fundamental defender of the realm, Parliament has the role as the inquisitor, and thus it is within its privileges.

I think Milliken has once again demonstrated his eminent sensibility in giving both sides more time to find a solution. In particular he points out that this House, and indeed other Parliaments outside of Canada, have ways of reporting sensitive information without compromising security but still recognizing Parliament's role.

I feel pretty giddy about it. As I've said, I'm a strong constitutionalist. Our governing system is among the most successful and enduring in modern history, its institutions dating back centuries, but key constitutional concepts, put down in the great compromise of the Glorious Revolution, assuring good, responsible government with mechanisms in place to assure good conduct on the part of the Crown and its ministers, who are afforded such wide powers in our system.

I agree..I watched it myself.I think you should take a little credit here because Miliken cited your late 1600's reference as it relates to precedent.

Personally,this was an extremely charitable AND pragmatic decision.The Speaker could have really hammered the Tories and basically demanded the documents at the end of business today,but he did'nt.He is basically giving the government a chance to atone(sp) for it's sins of attempted autocracy!The 2 week period is an out for the Tories to come to their collective senses and realize they(and the PM) are NOT supreme over Parliament.And,as you say,there are many ways to let opposition members see the relevent information,particularily sensitive stuff,and keep everyone in Afghanistan relatively protected.If they go through the Privy Council,no one in the Bloc will see anything at all!

As for the Honourable Yes Man from Niagara Falls,Mr.Nicholson...He must feel like a total tool today.If anyone has watched his annoyingly arrogant and dismissive attitude towards the opposition and its questioning of who Mr.Iacobucci is answering to.you know what I mean...Every one of his holier than thou responses in QP seemed to end with,"and it should have the full support of the member..."

[ToadBrother]

I agree..I watched it myself.I think you should take a little credit here because Miliken cited your late 1600's reference as it relates to precedent.

The Bill of Rights 1689, which capped off what was called no less than the Glorious Revolution, is the key foundation of the constitutional compromise which still exists in every single Westminster system today, and indeed has been emulated by numerous other countries from Ireland to India. It is not only the precedent, it is the founding principle of a responsible constitutional parliamentary system.

Personally,this was an extremely charitable AND pragmatic decision.The Speaker could have really hammered the Tories and basically demanded the documents at the end of business today,but he did'nt.He is basically giving the government a chance to atone(sp) for it's sins of attempted autocracy!The 2 week period is an out for the Tories to come to their collective senses and realize they(and the PM) are NOT supreme over Parliament.And,as you say,there are many ways to let opposition members see the relevent information,particularily sensitive stuff,and keep everyone in Afghanistan relatively protected.If they go through the Privy Council,no one in the Bloc will see anything at all!

The Speaker pointed out that the Government has allowed committees to deal with sensitive information before, and indeed other Parliaments in the Westminster system have done so to. There is simply no precedent for arguing that the Executive can hide anything from Parliament. It is a fiction, an invention with no foundation in history or constitutional law. The battle over who is the boss was won in 1688 when the last absolutist, James II, was sent packing. Maybe it's time the Tories actually learn something about how the system really functions, instead of simply inventing a governing system that is more and more becoming alien to the way Westminster parliaments actually functioning.

One thing it points out is that the new batch of Tories are not conservatives. Their radicals and reactionaries, with no respect for our constitution, our history or our system.

As for the Honourable Yes Man from Niagara Falls,Mr.Nicholson...He must feel like a total tool today.If anyone has watched his annoyingly arrogant and dismissive attitude towards the opposition and its questioning of who Mr.Iacobucci is answering to.you know what I mean...Every one of his holier than thou responses in QP seemed to end with,"and it should have the full support of the member..."

You know, I'm not even sure any more if the Tories are sitting on top of a ticking time bomb. Sometimes I think they're just obscenely arrogant and unwilling to accept the realities of being a minority government.

Edited April 28, 2010 by ToadBrother

[msdogfood]

MY good it worked!!.

I like the part of the speaker decision that stated if all party's can not reach a compromise than he will become involved agen

Hmm do i detect a motion of contempt if you dont play nice .

[Jack Weber]

The Bill of Rights 1689, which capped off what was called no less than the Glorious Revolution, is the key foundation of the constitutional compromise which still exists in every single Westminster system today, and indeed has been emulated by numerous other countries from Ireland to India. It is not only the precedent, it is the founding principle of a responsible constitutional parliamentary system.

The Speaker pointed out that the Government has allowed committees to deal with sensitive information before, and indeed other Parliaments in the Westminster system have done so to. There is simply no precedent for arguing that the Executive can hide anything from Parliament. It is a fiction, an invention with no foundation in history or constitutional law. The battle over who is the boss was won in 1688 when the last absolutist, James II, was sent packing. Maybe it's time the Tories actually learn something about how the system really functions, instead of simply inventing a governing system that is more and more becoming alien to the way Westminster parliaments actually functioning.

One thing it points out is that the new batch of Tories are not conservatives. Their radicals and reactionaries, with no respect for our constitution, our history or our system.

You know, I'm not even sure any more if the Tories are sitting on top of a ticking time bomb. Sometimes I think they're just obscenely arrogant and unwilling to accept the realities of being a minority government.

I don't think the historical nature of this is understated,but I think you points about the nature of the current government are even more salient.

The fact of the matter is that this "Conservative " party is not the old PC party at all.For the most part,it's mostly Reformers,with a few likeminded Harrisites from Ontario and a few old PC'ers sprinkled in to give the appearance of "taking the edge off".As it relates to this country,your term "radical and reactionary" is not far off the mark.Hardline ideological bullies of the extreme "democratic" right would be my terminology.

I don't necessarily look at this particular issue as solely about Afghanistan.This seems to fit into a long line of events with this party that shows an obsessive and scary compulsion for total power and control.In fact,I'm not certain they actually like this country that much.Particularily as it relates to the Reformers,my opinion is that they can't stand the left of centre/Trudeauesque underpinnings of this country,and want to do whatever they can to destroy it,and rebuild it in a Western Reform image.It must drive them absolutely crazy that they cannot seem to get the majority they so crave.They must have that taste of bloodlust in their mouths all day long and they must be frothing at the mouth about this decision because they've been thwarted again.

As far as the ticking time bomb goes,...Who knows?The main problem is the opposition is so weak and afraid of a fight that even if Harper flaunted this decision and basically flipped the bird to Parliament,the Liberals would find a way to try to weasel out of taking these people down.And frankly,I don't have any confidence that the Liberals would do anything terribly different if they were in power.On that note,I saw a poll earlier in the week that that showed that both the Cons and the Libs are losing supporters and it's the NDP that is gaining support from both parties.Frankly,it shows to me that it's not because the NDP are actually proposing anything that anyone really wants,but that they simply are'nt the 2 power hungry parties that seem to naturally lead this country.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not going to blame the Tories in isolation for this standoff. It's been coming for a long time, at least since the days of Trudeau. The Liberals were no better guardians of Parliament's rights than the Tories are now. We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was a majority government. Harper strikes me as having a management style little different from Chretien's, and seems to hold Parliament, and even his own MPs, with as much contempt as Chretien did.

What we're dealing with, even if it's simply to score cheap partisan points, is what I view as the inevitable showdown between Parliament and an increasingly presidential PMO. This is a battle that needs to be fought and one by Parliament.

[Jack Weber]

I'm not going to blame the Tories in isolation for this standoff. It's been coming for a long time, at least since the days of Trudeau. The Liberals were no better guardians of Parliament's rights than the Tories are now. We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was a majority government. Harper strikes me as having a management style little different from Chretien's, and seems to hold Parliament, and even his own MPs, with as much contempt as Chretien did.

What we're dealing with, even if it's simply to score cheap partisan points, is what I view as the inevitable showdown between Parliament and an increasingly presidential PMO. This is a battle that needs to be fought and one by Parliament.

Agreed...We've had a slowly devolving democracy since the Trudeau years.Perhaps it's taken an autocrat like Harper,in a minority position no less,to bring light to this increasing problem.I think this is a huge election issue on the simple question of how we would like our democracy run.The problem I have is that I'm not sure any of the opposition leaders would really want to change things back and give individual MP's more power.I think they really like them as they are...Namely willing and whipped nodders...

[Dave_ON]

Agreed...We've had a slowly devolving democracy since the Trudeau years.Perhaps it's taken an autocrat like Harper,in a minority position no less,to bring light to this increasing problem.I think this is a huge election issue on the simple question of how we would like our democracy run.The problem I have is that I'm not sure any of the opposition leaders would really want to change things back and give individual MP's more power.I think they really like them as they are...Namely willing and whipped nodders...

Agreed and there's no real push by the general public to restore parliament to its former glory. If the public impetus does not exist it will never happen. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical but I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that this will not change. Canadians either lack the will or the inclination to restore parliament, and therefore it’s highly unlikely that it will happen.

[ToadBrother]

Agreed and there's no real push by the general public to restore parliament to its former glory. If the public impetus does not exist it will never happen. Perhaps I'm being overly cynical but I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that this will not change. Canadians either lack the will or the inclination to restore parliament, and therefore it’s highly unlikely that it will happen.

I dunno. I still think an election over Parliament's rights might prove interesting, and may come to pass sooner rather than later, though obviously the Tories won't be framing it that way.

Still, I can't imagine why any Conservative calls themselves a conservative any more. There was a time when being a Conservative meant standing up for the traditional values, including the functioning of government, whereas the Whigs and their descendants always had a more reformist bent. And yet, other than rhetorical fag-bashing and moaning about socialism, I don't see Conservatives being very conservative at all. Like I said in another post, they're just reactionaries now. They seem to stand for very little.

[Jack Weber]

I dunno. I still think an election over Parliament's rights might prove interesting, and may come to pass sooner rather than later, though obviously the Tories won't be framing it that way.

Still, I can't imagine why any Conservative calls themselves a conservative any more. There was a time when being a Conservative meant standing up for the traditional values, including the functioning of government, whereas the Whigs and their descendants always had a more reformist bent. And yet, other than rhetorical fag-bashing and moaning about socialism, I don't see Conservatives being very conservative at all. Like I said in another post, they're just reactionaries now. They seem to stand for very little.

You're right!!

They're simply angry ideologues who want to implement their version of social engineering and there version of economic redistribution and whatever gets destroyed does'nt matter and whoever gets destroyed does'nt matter!Again,I would say that this is no longer about the Aghan Detainee issue but how exactly our democracy is going to operate going forward...

I have another scary idea ,as it relates to the documents that may(or may not) be seen...

Is it possible that Mr.Nicholson(not him specifically) might have the truly sensitive stuff shredded,a la Oliver North?They could use the plausible deniable defense and ask the opposition to prove the document were,in fact,shredded or ever existed?

[Born Free]

Is it possible that Mr.Nicholson(not him specifically) might have the truly sensitive stuff shredded,a la Oliver North?They could use the plausible deniable defense and ask the opposition to prove the document were,in fact,shredded or ever existed?

That task was given to retired General Boyle...

[Born Free]

One of the Afghanistan documents is on display from a Powerpoint presentation...

Afghan Document