Tories making 'mockery' of Parliament by withholding Afghan documents: legal expert

[fuji]

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/83495017.html

A constitutional expert says that it is unprecedented for the executive to claim that it is above Parliament, and that MP's should use the power of Parliamentary censure to bring the government to heel.

Errol Mendes, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, told an ad-hoc committee of opposition MPs on Wednesday that the government's refusal to hand over the documents is unconstitutional and "makes a mockery of Parliament."

He said they have a duty to hold the Conservatives to account, especially on questions as serious as the country's conduct during the war.

The government has refused to turn over defence and foreign affairs records to the special House of Commons committee on Afghanistan, saying the documents contain sensitive and classified information that can't be shared with MPs without secret clearance.

"The core complaint that I see that you have is that executive is really placing itself above Parliament, Mendes said. "For the first time I know in Canadian history, the executive is saying we are superior to Parliament."

 

[landscaper]

and the conservatives will have their own " expert" to say that it is not. If the documents are classified for operational reasons they break the law by releasing them,

 

[oldjones]

and the conservatives will have their own " expert" to say that it is not. If the documents are classified for operational reasons they break the law by releasing them,

And eventually either courts decide between the two opinions (Con's experts aren't scoring well these days), or the opposition has to put up or shut up and vote no confidence in a government that defies a parliamentary order. The security thing's a canard. As if this was the first time a parliamentary committee had ever demanded classified material and the first time any government had had to figure out how to deal with it. C'mon.

 

[fuji]

and the conservatives will have their own " expert" to say that it is not. If the documents are classified for operational reasons they break the law by releasing them,

Dude, Parliament makes the law. Would it satisfy you if the opposition altered the motion to read, "Notwithstanding any security law, etc."

More to the point Parliament has the power to censure those who oppose its will. Censure normally means calling someone up in front of the house for a tongue lashing, but can include imprisonment if the censured individual continues to fail to comply with a Parliamentary order.

Fail to obey the will of Parliament and an order of Parliament supported by 50% plus 1 votes can imprison you until you obey.

 

[basketcase]

On one side, confidential information should be kept confidential. On the other, we likely have some things to address about our conduct.

When it comes down to it though, this press attention has nothing to do with actual conduct but the political points each side wants to score before the next election.

 

[fuji]

When it comes down to it, if a majority of our elected representatives want it to be made available to them, well it seems like we elected them just so they could make decisions like that.

 

[Rockslinger]

Fuji, this thing has become an obsession with you. For your own sanity, let it go. I'm sure those Afghans have moved on with their lives, so should you (and Bob Rae).

 

[landscaper]

Dude, Parliament makes the law. Would it satisfy you if the opposition altered the motion to read, "Notwithstanding any security law, etc."

More to the point Parliament has the power to censure those who oppose its will. Censure normally means calling someone up in front of the house for a tongue lashing, but can include imprisonment if the censured individual continues to fail to comply with a Parliamentary order.

Fail to obey the will of Parliament and an order of Parliament supported by 50% plus 1 votes can imprison you until you obey.

You are right for a change, the parliment does make the law, now has a law been passed that requires the presentation of the documents in spite of the fact it would violate another law? The law proffesor was giving his opinion of what the law says, that is it his opinion , another opinion will show up saying he was wrong the law really means this. If you think somebody has the nerve to imprison an MP cabinet minister or teh P.M. you are delusional, it has not happened it will not happen.

You really should stop beating this dead horse its gone to the glue factory, nobody outside of you and the headline hunters in the Ottawa bubble really give a damn about the issue.

 

[oldjones]

…edit…
You really should stop beating this dead horse its gone to the glue factory, nobody outside of you and the headline hunters in the Ottawa bubble really give a damn about the issue.

How would you describe the time you're putting into something you don't give a damn about then? I'd guess you might have an overfondness for horseglue, yourself. The dogged repetition of points already addressed does suggest something stuck; it doesn't make them more persuasive.

No one has passed any law on this matter at this time, but the Commons has issued an order to some of its members to produce certain documents. And the law—which goes way back to beheading days—does provide for imprisoning those who disobey. Parliament is supreme.

Disregarding the will of a democratic parliament is a serious matter. It's what dictators do. For you to suggest this is only serious if Parliament actually jails the PM is the worst sort of childish sandbox brinksmanship. Constantly repeating it, just shows how bereft of any other justification the position is.

All sorts of better PMs than Harper have managed to find a line that satisfied security and inquiry both. But they worked with Parliament, and didn't go to bed every night with Cheneyesque visions of an Imperial HoG in their dreams.

 

[fuji]

now has a law been passed that requires the presentation of the documents in spite of the fact it would violate another law?

Parliament passed a motion ordering the government to produce the material. It is not clear under what basis the government can refuse an order from its superiors. Parliamentary privilege in general trumps every law. For example, you can't be charged with libel or slander for something said in Parliament. Parliament enforces its own rules.

 

[Rockslinger]

Disregarding the will of a democratic parliament is a serious matter. It's what dictators do.

WTF! First, Canada is a nation of war criminals and now it is a nation of dictators?

Allow me to paraphrase Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca: "This Afghan detainee shit is a tiny pimple on the ass of a huge beautiful stallion but then Bob Rae only focuses on the tiny ass pimple."

 

[landscaper]

Parliament passed a motion ordering the government to produce the material. It is not clear under what basis the government can refuse an order from its superiors. Parliamentary privilege in general trumps every law. For example, you can't be charged with libel or slander for something said in Parliament. Parliament enforces its own rules.

So parliment ordering the government to break the law is ok by your estimation?

 

[landscaper]

How would you describe the time you're putting into something you don't give a damn about then? I'd guess you might have an overfondness for horseglue, yourself. The dogged repetition of points already addressed does suggest something stuck; it doesn't make them more persuasive.

No one has passed any law on this matter at this time, but the Commons has issued an order to some of its members to produce certain documents. And the law—which goes way back to beheading days—does provide for imprisoning those who disobey. Parliament is supreme.

Disregarding the will of a democratic parliament is a serious matter. It's what dictators do. For you to suggest this is only serious if Parliament actually jails the PM is the worst sort of childish sandbox brinksmanship. Constantly repeating it, just shows how bereft of any other justification the position is.

All sorts of better PMs than Harper have managed to find a line that satisfied security and inquiry both. But they worked with Parliament, and didn't go to bed every night with Cheneyesque visions of an Imperial HoG in their dreams.

Interesting , you have managed to rephrase my whole post and still blame me for it.

The motion passed by parliment can not superced a law . Parliment can not order the government to break the law . My post said that parliment would not jail the P.M. , not that it was only serious if the P.M. was jailed. Your hatred of anyhting Conservative is showing once again.

As far as working with other parties if the other parties don't like the government they can vote it down, they have the power. The other thing would be this government has been in power for roughly 530 days. Of the 11 minority parliments only 4 have lasted longer, and the ones that lsted less for the most part were much shorter.

 

[oldjones]

You're ideas still come down to, "My way or off with your head". Which pretty much echos Harper's approach, and is the exact equivalent of the sandbox bully grabbing all the toys, daring all the other kids to fight him for any of them, then crowing he won because no one did. That's no way to run a democracy, and your momm wouldn't have allowed it in the sandbox. We trust.

It's idiotic to imagine the only possible compliance with the parliamentary order would be to break security laws. The order was only issued because the government refused to produce any part of any document requested, as they similarly refused their own —fully security-cleared—duly appointed Military Police complaints commissioner. And refused any compromise or discussion.

Do you really expect anyone to believe no previous inquiry has ever needed classified information to do its work?
Do you really believe no other government has ever found any better way to deal with that need?
Do you really believe this low standard is the best Canadians can expect?
Do you really belive everyone must meekly knuckle under to a petty dictator, a man who's only ever managed to get one vote in three in spite of blatantly manipulating the election call?

What we want is a government, not an endless string of one Harper election after another. If Harper would actually try to govern, he might one day earn a majority, instead of hoping he can sneak one by knifing the Opposition when there's an opening. Meantime, the job's still vacant for all there's a tenant at #24.

 

[fuji]

So parliment ordering the government to break the law is ok by your estimation?

By definition complying with a Parliamentary order does not break the law. If it turns out some legal expert says the motion must say "notwithstanding" then it can be re-introduced. The government cannot disobey a Parliamentary order.

 

[fuji]

As far as working with other parties if the other parties don't like the government they can vote it down, they have the power.

Yes they do, but that is not the only power they have. They also have the power to censure the government.

Parliament is not just some US electoral college that selects a dictatorial Prime Minister and then goes away. Parliament actually calls the shots, and has several options with which to deal with a disobedient Prime Minister, only one of which is forcing a new election.

 

[landscaper]

By definition complying with a Parliamentary order does not break the law. If it turns out some legal expert says the motion must say "notwithstanding" then it can be re-introduced. The government cannot disobey a Parliamentary order.

So youn are saying that the parliment can order teh government to break the law?

 

[fuji]

So youn are saying that the parliment can order teh government to break the law?

I'm saying a Parliamentary order is the law.

 

[searay]

i would just like to know what's so secret about handing over detainees to the Afghans? It already appears that we did it on at least one occasion, realized he was being swatted with a shoe, and we went and got him back.
I say, if the government calls the inquiry, then the onus is on them to provide the documents that the committee needs to complete it's work. To me, it smacks of guilt, and they are hiding something, I haven't yet heard on what basis the documents were declared ''secret''.

Don't shoot the messanger, produce the documents to show the where the truth is with respect to his allegations. To vilify him suggests that he had an alterior motive in trying to discredit his employer.

He was good enough to get this difficult posting, but now he's so low he can play handball against a curb. (The Cretien government did the same thing to our Hong Kong diplomat Brian McAdam and the Sidewinder report)

The last thing I wsh to say, is that the government's hasty and aggresive vilification of Richard Colvin, who after all, was posted there by this government to be the #2 diplomat in a war zone, smacks of something other than the truth being presented to the Canadian public by the government.

Whatever happened to the 'whistleblower' protection program???


This may be part of a larger effort to discourage other civil servants from coming forward.

That's troubling if true ...

 

[oldjones]

The 'whistleblower protection' like the accountability act and the fixed elections act are all showpieces of the Harper government's achievement. As well as the urgent 'war on crime' bills they's twice (three if you count an unnecessary election) killed by calling "Time out!".

Never occurred to them when they called for all this stuff while in Opposition, that they might be no better at governing than the LIberals or anybody else.

And it never occurs to any of them that this stuff is not for the pols but for the people. Those are our whisteblowers, and our only hope. Which is why we should all be vocal in protecting them, no matter what our politics.