More Charges of Contempt for Tory Secrecy

[FiveParadox]

It seems that the attitude of secrecy that Her Majesty’s Government for Canada is perhaps worse than many Canadians thought—not only has the Government been preventing the release of lawfully-requested unredacted documents by the House of Commons, but it appears that Government staffers are interfering in and manipulating requests for disclosure under the Access to Information Act. It’s also very clear that the Government will do whatever it can to prevent the Commons from getting answers—such as wasting nearly two hours of discussion time on points of order.

It seems that opposition parties have caught on to the fact that Mr. Sébastien Togneri, while he was a staffer for The Honourable Christian Paradis P.C., M.P. (Mégantic—L’Érable), the Minister of Natural Resources (then the Minister of Public Works and Government Services) ordered a document that had already been approved for release to be un-released, effectively revoking a disclosure under the Access to Information Act. When it became clear that Mr. Togneri would be brought before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, its chairperson made sure that the committee would have the resources that it needed to perform its functions of scrutiny.

Mr. Paul Szabo M.P. (Mississauga South), the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, met with Ms. Suzanne Legault, Information Commissioner of Canada, to ensure that it was appropriate for the committee to expect answers of Mr. Tegnori during her investigation (and she responded that it certainly was). Notwithstanding this conversation, and the very clear knowledge that the orders of the House trump notions of secrecy and confidentiality (one would think the Government would have come to learn this lesson by now), members of the Conservative Party of Canada did everything in their power to disrupt the work of the committee.

One particularly troublesome Conservative member was Mr. Pierre Poilievre M.P. (Nepean—Carleton), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who at one point needed to have his microphone cut to bring the committee to order. (This comes as no surprise, of course, to any Canadian who watches the proceedings of the Commons or its committees; Mr. Poilievre has always acted shamefully in the performance of his functions.)

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

Has this Conservative Government learned absolutely nothing?

Committee members from all three opposition parties said they were unsatisfied with the lack of disclosure at the meeting, and that they are not letting Mr. Togneri off the hook yet.

“He didn’t answer my questions, so he will have to come back, and he will have to answer all the questions,” said Bloc MP Carole Freeman (Châteauguay-Saint-Constant, Que.). “He will stay there as long as he doesn't answer... We won't give up.”

Mr. Easter said he walked away from the meeting “more suspicious than when I went in.”

“Yesterday's performance at the committee suggests to me [the Tories] were trying to prevent testimony,” he said. “I wasn’t satisfied by the answers I was given. I was dismayed by the efforts of government members, including the parliamentary secretary to the prime minister, to basically prevent a hearing on a very serious issue under the Access to Information Act.”

Source

• The Hill Times • homepage • article

 

[CDNBear]

I'm sorry, did I miss the first charges of contempt?

I mean if there's more charges of contempt, there had to previous charges of contempt.

Actually, can you show me the second charge of contempt?

I see threats, but no charges.

Charges are serious, threats of, are something completely different.

I love Liberal spin...

 

[relic]

You stevie lovers can claim spin all you like but this government{herr harpers}has nothing but contempt for pretty much everything,except meby,big oil and their bible thumping buddies in the riligious right.

 

[CDNBear]

You stevie lovers can claim spin all you like but this government{herr harpers}has nothing but contempt for pretty much everything,except meby,big oil and their bible thumping buddies in the riligious right.

Ya, I question the spin in a Liberal propaganda piece, so I must be a Harper fan...:lol:

 

[Slim Chance]

It must be a wickedly slow news day if this is the biggest beef that the lib supporters can muster.

 

[Machjo]

Certainly the right to government secrecy has to be counterbalanced with some kind of checks and balances. I could see two solutions here:

1. The PM and Cabinet decides what is revealed to Parliament and what is not; but Parliament, as the representative of the people, elects the Cabinet once a year. Or...

2. All Parliamentarians, as the representatives of the people, have access to that information, even if the public doesn't.

Since option 1 is currently not the case, then option 2 is the only option left. Unless of course Harper is willing to call a Parliamentary election for the PM and Cabinet positions? Highly unlikely.

Canada is not a dictatorship, yet Harper is acting like one.

This has nothing to do with his party membership and i'd be just as critical regardless what party he belonged to. Party's over.

 

[Machjo]

It must be a wickedly slow news day if this is the biggest beef that the lib supporters can muster.

The ability of a government to keep state secrets from the representatives of the people without at least some kind of checks and balances is dangerous for national security.

I'm not accusing Harper of anything right now other than keeping secrets, but the very ability to keep secrets could in theory allow a government to have the military engage in clandestine wars around the world, and then use these wars to manipulate the public however it wants. I'm not saying that is happening here of course, but I am saying that granting a government the power of such secrecy in the name of 'national security' is itself more dangerous to national security than any other threat.

This is a dangerous precedent, and just because Harper is not engaging in clandestine wars that we know of, what's to say that a future government could not exploit this same privilege of secrecy?

 

[Machjo]

Again, I'm not against secrecy per se, but the more the PM and Cabinet have a right to secrecy, the more accountable they must be to Parliament to compensate for that.

 

[Machjo]

Another question: why are government MPs, elected by their constituents in the exact same manner as their opposition and backbencher counterparts, any more trustworthy than them? What delusions of grandeur have they?

 

[JLM]

Another question: why are government MPs, elected by their constituents in the exact same manner as their opposition and backbencher counterparts, any more trustworthy than them? What delusions of grandeur have they?

Nah, they are pretty well all tarred with the same brush. "Trustworthy" is not a word that applies to any of them. Guess there's a lot of extra "perks" if your "boss" is Prime Minister.

 

[Machjo]

Nah, they are pretty well all tarred with the same brush. "Trustworthy" is not a word that applies to any of them. Guess there's a lot of extra "perks" if your "boss" is Prime Minister.

So if they're all equally corrupt, certainly we'd like more of them to know what's really going on so that they can keep each other in check.

 

[Machjo]

So JLM, what's your view of government keeping secrets from Parliament? Should it be allowed to, and if so, then what kind of checks and balances ought there to be to compensate?

 

[CDNBear]

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...

 

[CDNBear]

So JLM, what's your view of government keeping secrets from Parliament?

I'm not JLM, but I'd like to weigh in, the answer is yes, to some degree. As has been traditionally accepted.

Until now that is...:lol:

Should it be allowed to, and if so, then what kind of checks and balances ought there to be to compensate?

There are already all sorts checks and balances. We only see problems arise when partisan hacks, with the help of a partisan Speaker, want to force an issue. And of course this is also helped out by a ratings hungry media spinning it into news, and a hapless uneducated populace that hasn't clue one about the history and traditions on the hill.

 

[Machjo]

I'm not JLM, but I'd like to weigh in, the answer is yes, to some degree. As has been traditionally accepted.

Until now that is...:lol:

[quote[Should it be allowed to, and if so, then what kind of checks and balances ought there to be to compensate?

There are already all sorts checks and balances. We only see problems arise when partisan hacks, with the help of a partisan Speaker, want to force an issue. And of course this is also helped out by a ratings hungry media spinning it into news, and a hapless uneducated populace that hasn't clue one about the history and traditions on the hill.[/QUOTE]

Well it's about time we break with that tradition and have more democracy then. Never too late, right?

 

[JLM]

So if they're all equally corrupt, certainly we'd like more of them to know what's really going on so that they can keep each other in check.

Yep.

 

[CDNBear]

Well it's about time we break with that tradition and have more democracy then. Never too late, right?

Sure, if that's the objective...;-)

 

[Machjo]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/92406-voting-cabinet-good-idea.html

I've created this thread as a spin off idea, though I could see all the parties foaming at the mouth at this suggestion. Me Gawd, imagine the possibility of an independent MP having some influence as to who will form the Cabinet.

 

[Slim Chance]

The ability of a government to keep state secrets from the representatives of the people without at least some kind of checks and balances is dangerous for national security.

I'm not accusing Harper of anything right now other than keeping secrets, but the very ability to keep secrets could in theory allow a government to have the military engage in clandestine wars around the world, and then use these wars to manipulate the public however it wants. I'm not saying that is happening here of course, but I am saying that granting a government the power of such secrecy in the name of 'national security' is itself more dangerous to national security than any other threat.

This is a dangerous precedent, and just because Harper is not engaging in clandestine wars that we know of, what's to say that a future government could not exploit this same privilege of secrecy?

First, the documentation that the opposition is moaning about relates solely to the military and is further complicated by the fact that multiple nations are involved. There is a reason that all governments don't make public the details about their military operations and is has to do with the safety of their personnel and generating the intended results without announcing their plans to the opposing militants.

There are no "dangerous precedents" here, and seeing that you've dragged fundamental democracy into the picture, it'd be interesting to see if the public was truly as infatuated with this issue (or the detainee) as are the opposition parties.

 

[CDNBear]

First, the documentation that the opposition is moaning about relates solely to the military and is further complicated by the fact that multiple nations are involved. There is a reason that all governments don't make public the details about their military operations and is has to do with the safety of their personnel and generating the intended results without announcing their plans to the opposing militants.

There are no "dangerous precedents" here, and seeing that you've dragged fundamental democracy into the picture, it'd be interesting to see if the public was truly as infatuated with this issue (or the detainee) as are the opposition parties.

Well said.