It may not be admirable, but it certainly isn't the monumental affront to justice and democracy the perpetual brain dead are making it out to be.
Government Breached Parliamentary Privilege: Speaker
- Thread starter FiveParadox
- Start date
The Government may feel that it is acting in Canadians’ best interest, but the national security excuse doesn’t hold water; our honourable senators and members of the House of Commons are able to hold proceedings ‘in camera’, which forces all non-members (pages, assistants, etc.) to leave the chamber, turns off the cameras, and leaves all deliberations off the Hansard. This would most probably be the method used to discuss any unredacted documents, whether in the House or at committee.
Actually, it is an affront to the principle of parliamentary supremacy. By precedent, if the Speaker had ruled that the Government was not responsible for producing papers at the request of the Houses of Parliament, it would have rendered that power of the Houses over the prime minister deprecated, and the Government would have gained the right to deny the production of any papers.
Actually, it is an affront to the principle of parliamentary supremacy. By precedent, if the Speaker had ruled that the Government was not responsible for producing papers at the request of the Houses of Parliament, it would have rendered that power of the Houses over the prime minister deprecated, and the Government would have gained the right to deny the production of any papers.
Irrelevant, it has historical precedent.
Of course it is, it's the Conservatives doing it...:roll:
Of course, because an issue was made in spirit of partisanship, to smear the Gov't. Now overriding historical precedence. The Speaker could have easily made note of historical precedent and been done with it. He chose to dismiss both historical precedent AND the Gov'ts use of a recognized legal expert to assist the Minister in determining the sensitivity of the remaining documentation. To further partisan politics.
Because lets not lose sight of the FACT that the Gov't has already handed over extensive documentation, without this partisan BS.
Thus eroding his supposed neutrality. He must step down, his continued presence is an affront to the principles of his position.
Speaking of partisan BS... :lol::lol::lol:
The Speaker’s role is not to defend the Government, it is to defend the rights of Parliament.
The House of Commons has the right to subpœna any documents it requires for its debates, full-stop.
This has always been the case, when an official motion is made to request papers.
CDNBear, why don’t we just do away with Parliament altogether? The prime minister can just make laws using Royal Proclamations through the Governor General. That should make everything a little more rosy in Conservativeland.
The Speaker’s role is not to defend the Government, it is to defend the rights of Parliament.
The House of Commons has the right to subpœna any documents it requires for its debates, full-stop.
This has always been the case, when an official motion is made to request papers.
CDNBear, why don’t we just do away with Parliament altogether? The prime minister can just make laws using Royal Proclamations through the Governor General. That should make everything a little more rosy in Conservativeland.
I partially agree.......in that I thought from the first of this mess that the government should simply have owned up to the problem, and created a Canadian detention centre, manned by Afghans under NATO supervision.....thus removing the problem of torture, and creating a facility in which Afghans could be taught proper and humane interogation techniques......
It should be realized, at the same time, that this constant chipping away at the gov't on this issue is melting Canadian resolve (what little there remains, and provides our enemies with a propaganda blitz.......if not hard intel, before this is over. Its a WAR, fer God's sake.......
Politically, the Conservatives could have pointed out that it was the Liberals refusal to become involved in a proposed NATO detention centre that led to this bloody mess.
Win-win.
The CPC is much too quick to duck and cover.
I concur, your position and MIllikens is identical. Partisan.
I agree, so why did he dismiss historical precedent in favour of a partisan ploy to embarrass the Gov't?
I have never stated otherwise.
Again, never stated otherwise.
Why don't you stay on topic and remain reasonable?
And I would fight that as steadfastly as I am here and now on this topic.
Perhaps you might want to take a little trip back through this thread where I laid partial blame at the feet of the Conservatives for failing to act timely and transparently.
For doing his job?
You mean favouring the opposition is his job?
Ignoring historical precedent is his job?
You are kidding right?
Have you ever cited historical precedence in defense of the Monarchy Paradox?
Have you ever cited historical precedence is support of other gov't action?
Suddenly, now when it's politically partisan and expedient to do so, you dismiss it?
Paradox, I think far to highly of you to believe that. Please tell me it isn't so.
Last edited:
I find it just as disgraceful that a seated government has to be rebuked to act within policy.
Like I've said numerous times now, they are acting within policy.
There is historical precedence that supports their position. They have acted in accordance with years of document handling in Parliament. This new batch of hyperbole is the same as the last batch over proroguing. BS.
Do they bear some responsibility? Absolutely. Are they acting outside policy? Absolutely not.
So ... what was this "transparency" all about? Sounds like another political bastardization of the English language to keep the gullible pacified.
Agreed, hence why I lay some blame at the feet of the Conservatives as well. They should have acted timely and openly. Keeping Parliament abreast of the circumstances as they went along. They chose to act like criminals in the night and brought the motion up on themselves.
Now, had Milliken not dismissed common historical practice, a sincere act, such as the use of Iacobucci to assess the material and make a ruling for the Minister. I would say the Gov't simply needs to catch up to their own rhetoric. But since Parliament has now been hijacked by the Opposition, with Millikens partisan assistance. I feel compelled to defend the Conservatives, as distasteful as that may be.
Hence my calls for Milliken to step down.
There is a difference between asking the Government to table documents, and a House of Commons order to produce them.
For example, if the Opposition house leader said during question period, “Will the prime minister table [whatever document]?”, and the prime minister subsequently says no, he has every right to do so. However, if the House of Commons passes a motion demanding documents, the Government (or any other agency, entity or individual in Canada) has no choice but to comply because Parliament is our supreme legislative authority.
For example, if the Opposition house leader said during question period, “Will the prime minister table [whatever document]?”, and the prime minister subsequently says no, he has every right to do so. However, if the House of Commons passes a motion demanding documents, the Government (or any other agency, entity or individual in Canada) has no choice but to comply because Parliament is our supreme legislative authority.
This entire situation could have been resolved on 10 December 2009, if Her Majesty’s Government for Canada had simply respected the authority of the Parliament of Canada and released unredacted Afghan detainee transfer documents to the House of Commons. I cite O’Brien and Bosc with the following, which seems to pertain perfectly to the present situation:
“The Standing Orders state that standing committees have the power to order the production of papers and records, another privilege rooted in the Constitution that is delegated by the House. Committees usually obtain such papers simply by requesting them from their authors or owners. If a request is denied, however, and the standing committee believes that specific papers are essential to its work, it can use its power to order the production of papers by passing a motion to that effect. [...] The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist—in hard copy or electronic format—and that they are located in Canada. [...] In practice, standing committees may encounter situations where the authors of or officials responsible for papers refuse to provide them or are willing to provide them only after certain parts have been removed. Public servants and Ministers may sometimes invoke their obligations under certain legislation to justify their position. These types of situations have absolutely no bearing on the power of committees to order the production of papers and records. No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect. [...] The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.”
A former justice reviewing the redactions of documents does not constitute the Government complying with the House order to produce papers. The Government cannot respond to a House order by doing something that does not satisfy the order, and then argue that the order has been satisfied. If the House ordered the production of documents, the only response that can satisfy that order is the production of documents. Anything else is simply insufficient, and is a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.
This is a good thing. The Executive has far too much power in our system. Because of all of our conventions, traditions, etc. we have a grossly unbalanced system.
Separation of powers is essential, are we to simply accept that the Executive is putting the interests of Canada ahead of their own political interests? That's not goona fly. If Parliament cannot hold the Government to account, then it has very little purpose except to be there to be counted.
Separation of powers is essential, are we to simply accept that the Executive is putting the interests of Canada ahead of their own political interests? That's not goona fly. If Parliament cannot hold the Government to account, then it has very little purpose except to be there to be counted.
Separation of Powers is an American concept......foreign to the Parliamentary system.
That would be contempt of Parliament, would it not? Akin to contempt of court?
As the Speaker referred to in his ruling, there is indeed a separation of powers in the parliamentary system; the only thing that blends the branches is the fact that the prime minister and his ministers are also members of the Commons, but it would not be unconstitutional to have Cabinet members outside of Parliament.
Yes.
Should the Government refuse to comply with the Speaker’s imposed timeframe of two weeks, then it would be in order for those who brought the question of privilege forward to table the appropriate motions in response to the Government’s failure. This would normally be a motion to refer the issue to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which would return to the House a report censuring the Government. The adoption of the report by the House would result in the defeat of the Government.