capricorn Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 Harper personally appointed him to do this job.... I know that Rick. But Page does not report directly to Parliament as compared to, say the AG, Language Commissioner, Privacy Commissioner etc. Sources I consulted say Page reports to the Library of Parliament. My question is does the top dog at the Library of Parliament ever present Page's report(s) to Parliament? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 Yeah. The part where it says the government has to give him the info he requests. Except: Parliament of Canada Act Exception(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of any financial or economic data (a) that are information the disclosure of which is restricted under section 19 of the Access to Information Act or any provision set out in Schedule II to that Act; or ( that are contained in a confidence of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada described in subsection 69(1) of that Act, unless the data are also contained in any other record, within the meaning of section 3 of that Act, and are not information referred to in paragraph (a). Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Posted June 19, 2012 Except: Parliament of Canada Act For the what 4th maybe 5th time, the legal experts said the exceptions do not apply here, contrary to your opinion. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 I know that Rick. But Page does not report directly to Parliament as compared to, say the AG, Language Commissioner, Privacy Commissioner etc. Sources I consulted say Page reports to the Library of Parliament. My question is does the top dog at the Library of Parliament ever present Page's report(s) to Parliament? He reports to both Speakers and finance committees of both Houses of Parliment… Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) For the what 4th maybe 5th time, the legal experts said the exceptions do not apply here, contrary to your opinion. Care to demonstrate how? I’ve yet heard the “legal experts” explain his “case”………I don’t expect you to, but perhaps you could provide a link that refutes my reference from the Department of Justice? Edited June 19, 2012 by Derek L Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Care to demonstrate how? I’ve yet heard the “legal experts” explain his “case”………I don’t expect you to, but perhaps you could provide a link that refutes my reference from the Department of Justice? No, Derek. It's incumbent upon you to show how the information Page has requested contravenes the Access to Information Act or is contained in confidence of the QPC. Even then, the legal experts say it doesn't and Page himself has explained how the information is general enough that it wouldn't be traced back to individuals (as I exampled earlier). The information he's requesting simply isn't exempted. And it's pretty rich that the CPC is pretending in this case that it cares about privacy all of a sudden when they want to spy on your internet communications and conversations at border crossings without warrants. Whatever the reason is that they're withholding this information, it sure as hell has nothing to do with giving a crap about people's privacy or following some rules to do with the unions. Mind you the unions themselves have already given the government permission to release the information publicly. Edited June 19, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 No, Derek. It's incumbent upon you to show how the information Page has requested contravenes the Access to Information Act or is contained in confidence of the QPC. Even then, the legal experts say it doesn't and Page himself has explained how the information is general enough that it wouldn't be traced back to individuals (as I exampled earlier). The information he's requesting simply isn't exempted. And it's pretty rich that the CPC is pretending in this case that it cares about privacy all of a sudden when they want to spy on your internet communications and conversations at border crossings without warrants. Whatever the reason is that they're withholding this information, it sure as hell has nothing to do with giving a crap about people's privacy or following some rules to do with the unions. Mind you the unions themselves have already given the government permission to release the information publicly. But…but….but………In your OP, the Privy Council clerk said Mr. Page is full beans…..And his legal “experts” are quoted as only referencing a portion of his mandate……..Then there’s this: ”We don’t win in long drawn out court battle. Parliamentarians need this information sooner than later. There will be no accountability without this information because they don’t know the impact of the cuts,” said Page. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Posted June 19, 2012 Right. All that says is that Page isn't interested in actually taking the government to court. He just wants to be able to do his job. Something that the government is making extremely difficult right now. I should note for you from the article that not even the government is claiming, as you are, that the information falls within those exemptions. They're saying that they have a contractual obligation with the unions that prevents them from releasing the data. That contractual obligation was waived when the unions stated publicly that the government may release the information. The unions said everything other than people's names may be disclosed and Page isn't interested in names. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 Right. All that says is that Page isn't interested in actually taking the government to court. He just wants to be able to do his job. Something that the government is making extremely difficult right now. I should note for you from the article that not even the government is claiming, as you are, that the information falls within those exemptions. They're saying that they have a contractual obligation with the unions that prevents them from releasing the data. That contractual obligation was waived when the unions stated publicly that the government may release the information. The unions said everything other than people's names may be disclosed and Page isn't interested in names. And as stated from your link in the OP: Although buoyed by the opinion, Page said he is content for now to let his battle for information play out in the court of public opinion in the hopes that the government will reconsider its refusal in the face of political pressure rather than risk a lengthy legal battle. He’s Grandstanding and trying to influence the policies of the elected Government, clearly outside his mandate.... Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Posted June 19, 2012 That's bull, Derek. He's trying to get the government to give him the information he needs to do his job. He would much rather they just do what it is they're supposed to be doing per the law they wrote, than take it through the long and drawn-out process of going through the courts. However, he has sought the opinion of some pretty powerful legal minds evidently that agree: the info he seeks is not exempted. This has nothing to do with shaping public policy and everything to do with this government continuing to subvert watchdogs. In this case, the watchdog that they created. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 That's bull, Derek. He's trying to get the government to give him the information he needs to do his job. He would much rather they just do what it is they're supposed to be doing per the law they wrote, than take it through the long and drawn-out process of going through the courts. However, he has sought the opinion of some pretty powerful legal minds evidently that agree: the info he seeks is not exempted. This has nothing to do with shaping public policy and everything to do with this government continuing to subvert watchdogs. In this case, the watchdog that they created. You think his “legal mind(s)” know more about the law then a cabinet full of “legal minds”, with numerous “legal minds” working under them and unfettered access to “high priced legal minds” outside of Government? Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) You think his “legal mind(s)” know more about the law then a cabinet full of “legal minds”, with numerous “legal minds” working under them and unfettered access to “high priced legal minds” outside of Government?You mean do I think that the legal minds who don't have to win a popularity contest every 4 years are more honest? Yeah. I do.Since we're on the topic of Harper's legal minds, Bernard Valcourt has been suspended from the NB bar for not fulfilling their requirements. Edited June 19, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
dre Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 You think his “legal mind(s)” know more about the law then a cabinet full of “legal minds”, with numerous “legal minds” working under them and unfettered access to “high priced legal minds” outside of Government? Lawyer speak aside though... Why not just give the guy the information he needs? Do you have a logical case as opposed to a legal case? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Moonlight Graham Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 Check your fackts leftist... Check you facts.... Check your spelling. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 You mean do I think that the legal minds who don't have to win a popularity contest every 4 years are more honest? Yeah. I do. Since we're on the topic of Harper's legal minds, Bernard Valcourt has been suspended from the NB bar for not fulfilling their requirements. The same legal minds that would help formulate Mr Page’s opinion that he wouldn’t win in a drawn out court battle? Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Posted June 19, 2012 The same legal minds that would help formulate Mr Page’s opinion that he wouldn’t win in a drawn out court battle?They didn't say that. They said very clearly that the information he's asking for is not part of the exemption. Page is the one saying that he doesn't want to get involved in a court battle. He just wants to do his job. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 Lawyer speak aside though... Why not just give the guy the information he needs? Do you have a logical case as opposed to a legal case? It’s not within his mandate. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 They didn't say that. They said very clearly that the information he's asking for is not part of the exemption. Page is the one saying that he doesn't want to get involved in a court battle. He just wants to do his job. From your link: ”We don’t win in long drawn out court battle. Parliamentarians need this information sooner than later. There will be no accountability without this information because they don’t know the impact of the cuts,” said Page. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 19, 2012 Author Report Posted June 19, 2012 Look, Derek, there's obviously no convincing you of anything. You've got in your mind that the CPC is right to withhold information from Parliament and PBO. Moreover, it's clear from your responses that you didn't even read the article because your points are thoroughly addressed by that without going to any other sources. I'm not going to play the role of waldo here and continually bring you back on topic as you throw up red herring after red herring. It seems like you have no other substantive points to add here. So let's just be done with this, rather than going on and on for pages as you're wont to do. Quote
Guest Derek L Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 Look, Derek, there's obviously no convincing you of anything. You've got in your mind that the CPC is right to withhold information from Parliament and PBO. Moreover, it's clear from your responses that you didn't even read the article because your points are thoroughly addressed by that without going to any other sources. I'm not going to play the role of waldo here and continually bring you back on topic as you throw up red herring after red herring. It seems like you have no other substantive points to add here. So let's just be done with this, rather than going on and on for pages as you're wont to do. Hey, it’s your topic……….Perhaps well we’re at it, you might consider changing the title to "Conservatives withholding financial information from PBO" It’s more accurate and you don’t need the qualifying expletive... Quote
mentalfloss Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Was watching Power and Politics last night and the Conservatives admitted that they are withholding information, but they simply think that it is within their right to do so because that information is not pertinent to the budget. Obviously the parliamentary budget officer disagrees. Edited June 19, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote
PIK Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 Maybe if page was right every now and again, he would get the info. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Topaz Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 Page is in the right and the unions are backing Page so what excuse are the A/T's going to use now? http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/18/tories-have-violated-law-by-failing-to-disclose-budget-cut-information-lawyer/ Quote
westguy Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 The problem here is that youre trying to get the Harper government off by painting them as extremely stupid. Who on earth would create a "budget officer" that was supposed to have access to financial information? Roofus the stunt-bum? If they arent gonna let the guy do his job, then for god sakes shut the fluffy ass position down and stop wasting money on it. the Cons deny they have not complied with the Act Quote
Argus Posted June 19, 2012 Report Posted June 19, 2012 Is the Conservative government being transparent? Is this a trick question? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.