More Charges of Contempt for Tory Secrecy

[Machjo]

This isn't about contemporary politics, this is historical practice we're talking about here.

You claim to have a problem with the process, but you heap all your scorn on one man.

Don't know, don't care. I see you focusing contempt on Harper for doing exactly what the Gov't has historically been allowed to do.

Just an observation.

And I think that tradition could be improved. We used to have the Divine Right of Kings too.

 

[CDNBear]

It's ust like when I talk of American politics. The focus is more on the Democrats currently in power. Would you then criticize me for being a closet Republican? For cryin' out loud, McCain is not in power, so how can I criticize his running of the country if he ain't runnin' it.

But we're not talking about how the Harper Gov't is running the country. We're talking about his Gov't exercising traditional privileges. If you don't like those privileges, then address them, not Harper's Gov't for doing exactly what many Gov'ts before him have done.

 

[CDNBear]

And I think that tradition could be improved. We used to have the Divine Right of Kings too.

The attack the policy.

You've been focused on Harper the big bad boogie man for a couple days now.

I'm not impressed with him and his Gov't. I certainly won't be voting for the CPoC anytime soon. But I won't chastise him for policies that have been around for decades.

 

[Machjo]

But we're not talking about how the Harper Gov't is running the country. We're talking about his Gov't exercising traditional privileges. If you don't like those privileges, then address them, not Harper's Gov't for doing exactly what many Gov'ts before him have done.

I thought that's what I was doing? I have no issue with Harper as a person, but rather the tradition of so much power in Cabinet. I realize other government's have done it too, but I don't see why it couldn't be improved.

If a Liberal Party were in power and the Conservatives were asking to have access to these government documents, I'd be saying the same thing: either all Parliamentarians ought to have access to that information or, alternatively, that they get to vote in a Cabinet a clear majority of Parliamentarians can trust. Especially when it's a minority government, but even if it weren't. And yes, the Liberals when they were in power could have introduced such changes too. If Cabinet has so much power, why should it not have more checks and balances against it?

 

[Machjo]

The attack the policy.

You've been focused on Harper the big bad boogie man for a couple days now.

I'm not impressed with him and his Gov't. I certainly won't be voting for the CPoC anytime soon. But I won't chastise him for policies that have been around for decades.

Fair enough. Perhaps the Conservatives should have been more insistent on having access to information too when they were in oppositon. Had they done so, I might have brought the issue up then and been defending the Conservatives and arguing that Chretien ought to either give them access to the documents or at least have Parliament choose the Cabinet, and not the Liberal Party. I would have said the same thing, except that Harper would have been Chretien.

So I wont' mention the H word anymore and just ask if you think Cabinet ought to be more accountable to Parliament if it's to retain the power of secrecy? Yes or no?

 

[Slim Chance]

Yes, among Parliamentarians, not necessarily the public? How did you get the idea that I meant the public from that statement? to represent us effectively, either they need to have access to the information or at least be able to elect a Cabinet they can all trust.

"We vote in individual MP's and we expect each one to represent us equally."

Then if it must be kept secret from Parliamentarians, then Parliamentarians must ensure that the PM and Cabinet are ones the vast majority of MPs can trust.

How would propose to achieve this trust without partisan politics getting in the way?

 

[Machjo]

"We vote in individual MP's and we expect each one to represent us equally."

'Represent us' does not necessarily mean revealing everything to us. It means however that either they are informed enough to be able to stand up for our interest or at least have a say in who forms the Cabinet so as to ensure that the people who do have power of secrecy are people our elected representatives, whom we are supposed to trust, trust in their turn.

How would propose to achieve this trust without partisan politics getting in the way?

If cabinet were elected by the House, including independent MPs, then that Cabinet would no longer represent just one party, but rather the House.

 

[CDNBear]

I thought that's what I was doing?

Didn't look that way from here.

I have no issue with Harper as a person, but rather the tradition of so much power in Cabinet. I realize other government's have done it too, but I don't see why it couldn't be improved.

I think you do have a problem with "Harper". That's ok, I do too. I just don't have an issue with him or his Gov't doing things that are traditionally acceptable and have been proven to be acceptable through precedent.

Now if we were talking about his election promises, then we could attack him head on.

I suggest you focus on the policy then.

Fair enough. Perhaps the Conservatives should have been more insistent on having access to information too when they were in oppositon.

They were, they just didn't use BS to force the Gov't to do something that wasn't right. Nor did they have the support of a partisan Speaker. Something to do with slightly better ethics I guess.

So I wont' mention the H word anymore and just ask if you think Cabinet ought to be more accountable to Parliament if it's to retain the power of secrecy? Yes or no?

No. It's a time tested method that has seen us through two wars, a Police Action and countless peace keeping missions.

 

[Slim Chance]

'Represent us' does not necessarily mean revealing everything to us. It means however that either they are informed enough to be able to stand up for our interest or at least have a say in who forms the Cabinet so as to ensure that the people who do have power of secrecy are people our elected representatives, whom we are supposed to trust, trust in their turn.

It's a catch-22 Machjo. Communication is necessary in order for a constituent to know if they are being represented... Trust requires, absolutely, that communication is the cornerstone.

Your ideas about cabinet representation are pie-in-the-sky (no offence). Based on the existing system, it wouldn't make any sense to have a Lower House at all.

If cabinet were elected by the House, including independent MPs, then that Cabinet would no longer represent just one party, but rather the House.

Then way bother have the House at all?

 

[Machjo]

Then way bother have the House at all?

The House still has to vote in laws. But at least those who do have access to secret files are people a clear majority of Parliamentarians could trust.

Maybe this would come in exchange for parliament being expected to trust cabinet with these secret files. Clearly it doesn't at this point in time, but since it has had no say in who forms the Cabinet, it's also unreasonable to expect them to either.

 

[Machjo]

It's a catch-22 Machjo. Communication is necessary in order for a constituent to know if they are being represented... Trust requires, absolutely, that communication is the cornerstone.

Your ideas about cabinet representation are pie-in-the-sky (no offence). Based on the existing system, it wouldn't make any sense to have a Lower House at all.

Now assuming parliament has access to all secret information, we'd have to make Parliamentary proceedings secret too. i do see an issue there and yes it's a catch 22. If parliament has access to info, then Parliament becomes secret to the public. And if the pubic has access to Parliament, then secrets may need to be kept from Parliament.

And that's where voting in cabinet comes in. If secrets must be kept from our Parliamentarians, then at the very least we need to ensure that our Parliamentarians trust those who have access to these secrets.

 

[Machjo]

And again, this has nothing to do with what party's in power. If the Libs or NDP or Libertarians or Greens were in power, I'd be saying the same thing.

 

[Slim Chance]

And again, this has nothing to do with what party's in power. If the Libs or NDP or Libertarians or Greens were in power, I'd be saying the same thing.

I understand what you're driving at and in theory (in it's purest form), it does make sense... Unfortunately, the wild card in this discussion relates to human nature and partisan politics.

I just can't see this system operating in any way that is parallel to the spirit that you intend.

 

[Liberalman]

The Conservative government has every right to act dishonestly because according to CDNBear all elected governments have acted that way since the beginning of time.

Dishonesty is very serious as far as the public is concerned and when a government does it they risk losing power so their only remedy is keeping secrets.

Don't get me wrong secrets are important to keep a country and their citizens safe.

The Afghan detainee documents are a good example national security applies and only only high level security cleared MPs should be the only ones to view it which Ignatieff just got his clearance this past week to the Privy Council.
Ignatieff named to Privy Council- Politics - Canoe.ca

This Conservative government seems to hide behind secrecy a lot of the time and it makes it worse that Harper ran on transparency and accountability.

This is why it puzzles me that his base is still supporting his government.

The Christian Right Harper's core base supporters are dragging themselves down into the abyss because they feel the crumbs the Conservatives are throwing to them is enough to abandon their values like if Stephen Harper is the Messiah himself to bring them to the promised land.

The Freedom of Information access is years away to find out about this government until then Canadians will have to settle for what they hear.

 

[CDNBear]

The Conservative government has every right to act dishonestly because according to CDNBear all elected governments have acted that way since the beginning of time.

That's not what I said, but leave it to a Liberal to spin it...:lol:

What I said was there is precedent to withhold certain information. Only is it now a big hairy deal, because the Liberals aren't in office.

Dishonesty is very serious as far as the public is concerned and when a government does it they risk losing power so their only remedy is keeping secrets.

You and you're favourite party would know, you've made an art form out of dishonesty, unethical morally bankrupt and criminal behavior...:lol:

Don't get me wrong secrets are important to keep a country and their citizens safe.

So why can't the CPoC keep some documents secret?

This Conservative government seems to hide behind secrecy a lot of the time and it makes it worse that Harper ran on transparency and accountability.

One instance is a lot of the time? :-|

This is why it puzzles me that his base is still supporting his government.

And after me posting over 200 acts of unethical, morally bankrupt and criminal behavior by the Liberals, you're still a Liberal shill?

The Christian Right Harper's core base supporters are dragging themselves down into the abyss because they feel the crumbs the Conservatives are throwing to them is enough to abandon their values like if Stephen Harper is the Messiah himself to bring them to the promised land.

:roll:

The Freedom of Information access is years away to find out about this government until then Canadians will have to settle for what they hear.

What's so important about the Federal real estate portfolio, compared to Somalia?

 

[Machjo]

The Conservative government has every right to act dishonestly because according to CDNBear all elected governments have acted that way since the beginning of time.

Dishonesty is very serious as far as the public is concerned and when a government does it they risk losing power so their only remedy is keeping secrets.

Don't get me wrong secrets are important to keep a country and their citizens safe.

The Afghan detainee documents are a good example national security applies and only only high level security cleared MPs should be the only ones to view it which Ignatieff just got his clearance this past week to the Privy Council.
Ignatieff named to Privy Council- Politics - Canoe.ca

This Conservative government seems to hide behind secrecy a lot of the time and it makes it worse that Harper ran on transparency and accountability.

This is why it puzzles me that his base is still supporting his government.

The Christian Right Harper's core base supporters are dragging themselves down into the abyss because they feel the crumbs the Conservatives are throwing to them is enough to abandon their values like if Stephen Harper is the Messiah himself to bring them to the promised land.

The Freedom of Information access is years away to find out about this government until then Canadians will have to settle for what they hear.

Now that's partisan.

 

[CDNBear]

Now that's partisan.

Not really, that post was just stupid.

 

[Slim Chance]

Dishonesty is very serious as far as the public is concerned and when a government does it they risk losing power so their only remedy is keeping secrets.

Physician - heal thyself

 

[YukonJack]

Tory secrecy?

With Trudeau, Chretien and Martin how can anyone talk about Tory Secrecy?

These three took Machiavellian secrecy and shady politics to unprecedented, brand new heights, or more properly, in their case, brand new lows.

 

[Tonington]

You know what's funny?

This sort of shyte goes on all the time on the Hill. Yet we only seem to here about it and see the hypocritical BS when Harper and company do it.

Proroguing, withholding documents.

Seems tradition and fair play are only for the LPoC...

It occurs to me that your membership, and mine as well, are pre-dated by the Conservative government. Current events...I'm sure there others who said similar things for the previous governments.

;-)