More Charges of Contempt for Tory Secrecy

[AnnaG]

And what are you the Conservative hack?

Nope. I am all for getting rid of parties period. I vote Independent because they are usually the only ones that can think clearly. Partisans all have their minds muddled with party rhetoric and dogma.

that in spite of the promise of transparency Harper used the house of commons as his den, completely neglecting the good of the country, sink the country into stupid red ink, shut the doors of the house and because the past Liberals did financially far better for the country they are schmucks? you seriously need political calibration....

Typical partisan dogma. "Ugh! Them bad, we good." Same old rhetoric.
Like I said, Martin is just as big an a$$hole as Harper, and Jack ain't no better.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Nope. I am all for getting rid of parties period. I vote Independent because they are usually the only ones that can think clearly. Partisans all have their minds muddled with party rhetoric and dogma.Typical partisan dogma. "Ugh! Them bad, we good." Same old rhetoric.
Like I said, Martin is just as big an a$$hole as Harper, and Jack ain't no better.

pssssssssssssssst

 

[AnnaG]

pssssssssssssssst

Your head leaking again?

 

[AnnaG]

I guess he can only whine about my post instead of rebutting it with facts. But then he can't rebut my post with facts, can he? There aren't any facts available to rebut my post.

New book examines Paul Martin's record as a guide to the future | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

 

[Socrates the Greek]

I guess he can only whine about my post instead of rebutting it with facts. But then he can't rebut my post with facts, can he? There aren't any facts available to rebut my post.

New book examines Paul Martin's record as a guide to the future | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

rebuttal what? your opinion on the subject is not facts, is self serving propaganda because you hate liberal ideology. Martin handed over $12 Billion in surpluses, and Harper will hand over to the next Government $100 Billion + of glue (red ink) that is fact. Anything else is smelly crap.
plus this video now that Harper has been in self-serving power for more then 4 years speaks volumes to clear facts, not crap.

YouTube - Demand - Conservative

 

[CDNBear]

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.

;-)

It also occured to me upon reflection, that many of the hacks I saw then crying the blessings of the LPoC, still are. Despite all the revelations...;-)

Partisan, stupid. What's the difference?

I stand corrected...:lol:

But your Honour. Why am I required to stand before you in court when others before me have done much worse? Is that not reason enough to grant me a pardon?

Now you're confusing crime with accepted, acceptable historical Parliamentary practice and rules.

I like how Conservative Party supporters here are suggesting that since there was inappropriate conduct on the parts of former governing parties, that we should allow up to the same level of inappropriate behaviour on the part of the Conservative Party without question.

Why is it inappropriate? It's only been made inappropriate now, by partisan force and coercion. Historically, it has been accepted, that a Minister could retain some secrecy, or documents without being forced to release them, solely on his word alone. Only now that it is politically expedient to do so, the opposition is making a big deal about it. With the assistance of a bias Speaker, they are now dismissing decades of precedent and common practice, to win cheap political points.

The point of general elections is to improve the standards of government that we enjoy, is it not?

Yes, and each and every time we get the same old shyte. Sometimes worse. And to date, the lists of wrong doing are not comparable.

As to the second ‘charge’, many members of the Commons were charging that the Government had held in contempt the Parliament of Canada over the refusal to hand over unredacted documents regarding Afghan detainees. It seems that this second issue has, fortunately, now been resolved.

Like I said, much ado about nothing, cheap political grand standing, with the aid of a partisan Speaker.

CDNBear, I did not say that there were legal charges levied against the Conservative Party—I’m simply using the word ‘charges’ as allowed in English, as opposition party members of the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics committee are charging that Mr. Togneri has held the committee in contempt.

I know that, which is why I said spin the sin. Your use of the word "charge" was to elicit a reaction. It will either feed the braindeads like Soc, or cause people like myself to point out the over exaggeration, knowing full well your intent.

And now, it also seems that Mr. Rahim Jaffer could face charges of perjury for lying to a parliamentary committee. I wonder when Mr. Jaffer’s Conservative Party membership will be revoked?

Good question.

His fumbles has obviously been high-profile enough to warrant an expulsion from the national party membership.

I'd say country, but then the Liberals mights get their balls in a knot and accuse me of racism. Seriously. I didn't believe Guergis' in her interview, so I must be sexist. I think Jaffer is scum, so I must be racist too, that's the line of thought, no? Not that I'm accusing you.

And CDNBear, once more, The Honourable Peter Milliken M.P. (Kingston and the Islands), the Speaker of the House of Commons, has been one of our most reconciliatory holders of the speakership in recent memory. If I was a diehard Liberal, I'd think so too. The Speaker of the House, in his usual and expected non-partisan manner, ruled both for the Government and the Opposition; he acknowledged that parties would need to come to an arrangement to respect the Government’s legal obligations, while upholding the principle of parliamentary supremacy.

:lol:...

No he didn't rule for the Conservatives on the matters related to historical precedent. He ruled in favour of abandoning them. He threw a bone to the Cons, to appear impartial. If he had tried to rule any other way on the letters/emails, he would have been fully exposed as a partisan hack, if it went to court.

I am not disputing the supremacy of Parliament. I am disputing how it got to the point where that ruling had to be made. I am disputing how it is he can dismiss in one sentence, without a single piece of precedent to support him, a litany of historical precedent that a Minister, solely on his word, can withhold some documents, especially when in regards to ongoing military actions, compounded by multinational relationships.

To rule against the Opposition in that case would have, by precedent, granted the Prime Minister’s Office an unacceptable control over the information that Parliament can access.

Bullshyte. He would have merely upheld precedent and historical tradition. It's not like it's been done without giving a valid reason and explanation, in the past. Which very much mirrored the Gov'ts present line of reasoning.

I don't care who's in power, when I see rulings that ignore or dismiss past precedent out of hand, I get very curious.

Guy marriage

Who's that?

What a jerk.

Quite.

you seriously need political calibration....

:lol:...Your posts seriously need to show more maturity. Your posts are the epitome of blind, partisan hackary.

Your head leaking again?

Now that's funny!!!

 

[FiveParadox]

I am not disputing the supremacy of Parliament. I am disputing how it got to the point where that ruling had to be made. I am disputing how it is he can dismiss in one sentence, without a single piece of precedent to support him, a litany of historical precedent that a Minister, solely on his word, can withhold some documents, especially when in regards to ongoing military actions, compounded by multinational relationships.

That’s the difference, though; the precedent you’re speaking of is related to informal requests by members of the Commons for documents, not an order of the whole House. The House of Commons has always had the right to insist on having its order respected; in the past, the House itself has always bowed to the wish of a minister to withhold information, but it has always had the right to say “No, produce it anyway.” Just because the House doesn’t exercise its power often, doesn’t render that power obsolute.

It absolutely would have set a precedent of greater control of the Prime Minister’s Office over Parliament, because it would have established that ministers actually have an absolute right to refuse to produce information for the Houses of Parliament. If the Speaker had ruled against the Opposition, then the House would no longer have had the true authority to insist upon one of its orders for the production of papers when there is a dispute between the ministry and Parliament.

There was no other ruling that the Speaker could have given, without completely throwing procedure out the window.

 

[CDNBear]

That’s the difference, though; the precedent you’re speaking of is related to informal requests by members of the Commons for documents, not an order of the whole House.

I'm well aware of that Paradox.

The House of Commons has always had the right to insist on having its order respected; in the past, the House itself has always bowed to the wish of a minister to withhold information, but it has always had the right to say “No, produce it anyway.” Just because the House doesn’t exercise its power often, doesn’t render that power obsolute.

Not in dispute. But on matters pertaining to the ones in question, the House has historically sided with the Gov't...Until now.

It absolutely would have set a precedent of greater control of the Prime Minister’s Office over Parliament, because it would have established that ministers actually have an absolute right to refuse to produce information for the Houses of Parliament. If the Speaker had ruled against the Opposition, then the House would no longer have had the true authority to insist upon one of its orders for the production of papers when there is a dispute between the ministry and Parliament.

Bullshyte. He could have cited historical precedent and sent the opposition back to the grindstone to try another tactic to make the Gov't look bad. Who knew they had the support of the Speaker to circumvent precedent and assist them in their partisan politicking.

There was no other ruling that the Speaker could have given, without completely throwing procedure out the window.

BS.

 

[FiveParadox]

So you wanted the Speaker to rule that the House does not have the authority to demand documents?

You know how precedents work, right? If the Speaker ruled on this case that the House cannot insist upon its orders to produce papers, then its power to insist upon those orders would lapse. Historical precedent is that the House bows to the discretion of the minister, but that is courtesy, not the rules of the House.

You’re basically saying that the Speaker should have ignored the constitutional rights of the House.

 

[CDNBear]

So you wanted the Speaker to rule that the House does not have the authority to demand documents?

No, the Speaker shouldn't have entertained the Oppositions request to compel. Even Megan McKee of the Jurist called it "an unusual measure", followed by Jaclyn Belczyk's comment "an historic ruling", when he ruled on it and pressed it forward. Simply because of the FACT that on matters such as these, the Speaker historically has not entertained such requests, and not compelled the standing Gov't, by an Order of the House, on matters of international military privilege. To which I have provided numerous pieces of evidence, as did the CPoC. Which of course Milliken dismissed out of hand without citing precedent, only quoting after the fact, rules of Parliamentary supremacy.

As I'm sure you are fully aware.

Hence why I fully believe he is a partisan hack, I hope that comes to light and he goes down in the annals of history as such.

You know how precedents work, right?

You know you're dancing without music right?

 

[FiveParadox]

The House did not just request documents, the House ordered documents to be produced.

The House then not just disagreed with the Government’s decision (and usually that is where it’s left at), it brought the issue to the Speaker, insisting that its order be carried out (as is the right of the House). The Speaker does not represent the Government, the Speaker represents the House; he had no choice in his ruling but to uphold the will of the House of Commons and sustain the order to produce these papers. We had never dealt with a matter the likes of which this was, and the Speaker ruled in favour of parliamentary supremacy (as was his function).

 

[Liberalman]

So, now, a Conservative staffer could face charges of contempt.

Has this Conservative Government learned absolutely nothing? [/quote]

Unfortunatly for the new Conservatives party dishonesty is the norm and when the PC wing of the Conservative party can gain control that's when honesty will return to that party.

 

[CDNBear]

The House did not just request documents, the House ordered documents to be produced.

You can try and dance around it all you want Paradox, but you know I'm right., and it's starting to show in your posts.

The House then not just disagreed with the Government’s decision (and usually that is where it’s left at), it brought the issue to the Speaker, insisting that its order be carried out (as is the right of the House)

Full stop. That's exactly where it should have ended. When the opposition parties forwarded their Commons Motion, the Gov't immediately cited precedent. The Speaker could have quashed it then, and not risked weakening the supremacy of Parliament. Instead he entertained their motion. Thus making it about the supremacy of Parliament.

The Speaker does not represent the Government,

Absolutely correct, at this moment, he represents the Liberal Opposition.

the Speaker represents the House; he had no choice in his ruling but to uphold the will of the House of Commons and sustain the order to produce these papers.

Agreed, because he didn't dismiss it when it was tabled. As he should have. Citing historical precedent of privilege on matters such as this.

We had never dealt with a matter the likes of which this was, and the Speaker ruled in favour of parliamentary supremacy (as was his function).

Of course, because historically, no party would be so stupid as to try and pull something like this off, without knowing full well that the Speaker would support the partisan move. Historically, it would have been cited that the Gov't has been granted the privilege of withholding documents on matters such as these, and the Speaker should have indicated that at that very moment when the Opposition put forth their motion.

So which is it Paradox, is Milliken to stupid to hold his post, or is he in the Liberal's pocket?

 

[AnnaG]

rebuttal what?

Your dumb dogma. All you gliberals can do is babble about Martin balancing the deficit. Whoopdedoo. You ignore the fact that he did it by crippling the provinces for decades to come.

your opinion on the subject is not facts,

Wrong. I posted facts. You just ignore them or haven't a clue what a fact is in order to recognize one.

is self serving propaganda because you hate liberal ideology.

Self-serving? Wrong.
Propaganda? Wrong. I posted facts, and some of my opinion.
Hate Liberal ideology? Not really. I just dislike it a lot ........ along with Con ideology and Dipper ideology.
I rather like classical liberal ideology, though. But, I am a minarchist by nature.

Martin handed over $12 Billion in surpluses,

By crippling education and health care for decades (among other things).

and Harper will hand over to the next Government $100 Billion + of glue (red ink) that is fact.

Like I said, you haven't a clue what fact is. The real fact is that he has added to the national debt and is running a deficit at the moment. But, he isn't finished doing what he's doing yet so the outcome isn't a fact yet.

Anything else is smelly crap.

and you emit a lot of it. I agree.

plus this video now that Harper has been in self-serving power for more then 4 years speaks volumes to clear facts, not crap.

Yes, They may be facts about what has happened so far, but how you can state anything factual about how his efforts will turn out is just nonsense and partisan propaganda.

 

[AnnaG]

So, now, a Conservative staffer could face charges of contempt.

Has this Conservative Government learned absolutely nothing?

Unfortunatly for the new Conservatives party dishonesty is the norm and when the PC wing of the Conservative party can gain control that's when honesty will return to that party.

lol Chretien and Martin showed him how to do that.

 

[JLM]

Your dumb dogma. All you gliberals can do is babble about Martin balancing the deficit. Whoopdedoo. You ignore the fact that he did it by crippling the provinces for decades to come. Wrong. I posted facts. You just ignore them or haven't a clue what a fact is in order to recognize one. Self-serving? Wrong.
Propaganda? Wrong. I posted facts, and some of my opinion.
Hate Liberal ideology? Not really. I just dislike it a lot ........ along with Con ideology and Dipper ideology.
I rather like classical liberal ideology, though. But, I am a minarchist by nature.By crippling education and health care for decades (among other things). Like I said, you haven't a clue what fact is. The real fact is that he has added to the national debt and is running a deficit at the moment. But, he isn't finished doing what he's doing yet so the outcome isn't a fact yet. and you emit a lot of it. I agree.
Yes, They may be facts about what has happened so far, but how you can state anything factual about how his efforts will turn out is just nonsense and partisan propaganda.

Give 'em both barrels, Anna. :lol::lol: Mind you I think you may have more luck with a sledge hammer. It's too bad we have this Charter that allows boneheads to abuse the freedom of speech, or perhaps more correctly "freedom of mutterings" I do not understand WHY it is such a hard concept to understand that ALL politicians are just a albatross on the necks of the electorate. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: I guess for an absorbitant cost we get lots of "cheap" entertainment.

 

[FiveParadox]

You can try and dance around it all you want Paradox, but you know I'm right., and it's starting to show in your posts.

Absolutely not.

Full stop. That's exactly where it should have ended. When the opposition parties forwarded their Commons Motion, the Gov't immediately cited precedent. The Speaker could have quashed it then, and not risked weakening the supremacy of Parliament. Instead he entertained their motion. Thus making it about the supremacy of Parliament.

What you are saying here, CDNBear, is that precedents dictate the supremacy of the Government over Parliament when it comes to orders for the production of documents, and this simply isn’t the case. Yes, the House of Commons has traditionally bowed to the discretion of the minister when he or she has chosen to withhold documents; however, that is not a rule of the House, only a courtesy that the House has tended to accord the Government.

Absolutely correct, at this moment, he represents the Liberal Opposition.

Not at all, he enforced a motion passed by the House of Commons. How many people voted for that motion, which parties they represented, and any other such details are completely irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that the House, as a whole, passed a motion that ordered the Government to produce documents for the scrutiny of the House of Commons. Ministers resisted, expecting the House to courteously acquiesce to their discretion, and were dumbfounded when the House exercised its rarely-used power to insist on its order. You seem to be suggesting that we should actually revoke the supremacy of the House over the Government, and let the Government decide when it does, and doesn’t, answer to Parliament.

Agreed, because he didn't dismiss it when it was tabled. As he should have. Citing historical precedent of privilege on matters such as this.

Ministers do not have the “privilege” of choosing when they answer to the House. It is not the Speaker who decides whether or not the House should insist on its order, but the House of Commons itself; the Speaker is only the representative thereof.

Of course, because historically, no party would be so stupid as to try and pull something like this off, without knowing full well that the Speaker would support the partisan move. Historically, it would have been cited that the Gov't has been granted the privilege of withholding documents on matters such as these, and the Speaker should have indicated that at that very moment when the Opposition put forth their motion.

And history may record that the opposition parties made a mistake in strongarming the Government on this one, but the mistake [if any] is not that of the Speaker. The Government has never had the privilege of withholding documents; there is no such thing as governmental privilege, only ‘parliamentary’ privilege.

So which is it Paradox, is Milliken to stupid to hold his post, or is he in the Liberal's pocket?

He is in the House of Commons’ pocket.

The House has the right to order the production of papers, full-stop.