Harper defends right to secret cabinet meetings as 'a constitutional thing

[CHIMO]

Harper defends right to secret cabinet meetings as 'a constitutional thing'

OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canadians have no right to know when the federal cabinet is meeting.

In an ongoing battle with the parliamentary press gallery over media access, the Conservatives held the first unannounced meeting of the full cabinet in recent memory Tuesday. "Meetings of cabinet are private. It's a constitutional thing," the prime minister argued at a mid-day availability.

By holding the meetings in secret, Harper has now effectively banned journalists from the floor where cabinet convenes - allowing ministers to come and go unobserved.

A heavier than usual contingent of Commons security staff patrolled the halls Tuesday morning, barring reporters from areas they had routinely frequented under past governments.

"We're going to need hard hats pretty soon," said one guard, rolling his eyes.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/news/shownews.jsp?content=n032863A

More evidence of stirring the pot. If it ain't broke break it.

[tuvor]

1. So, does anyone know if it's really a constitutional "thing"?

[CHIMO]

2. Probably

If you want the Queen/King to rule.

It is a red herring. Start arguing about whether it is or isn't and they start making history while we write about it.

In my book anyway it is an irrelevant topic. If people get bogged down in the issue then it seems pretty clear that we are following others down the road of...

If the media doesn't jump on this, then we will know where they stand.

[HEyHEY]

3. Uh...

The media is freaking out about this.
For fuck sakes yesterday they had a mexican standoff with security and pounded on the doors while Harper was inside having an orchestrated photo-op.
Can you not see the biased slant in this article?
All of CPs articles on this have been openly atttacking Harper, and rightfully so.

As well, this is extremely important. And not a red herring by any means. The cons are trying to minimize any possible damage done to their party by keeping members as far away from the press as possible. They know there are a bunch of loudmouths in the party that could sink them.

As well, much of this also has to do with hill reporters who need full access to properly do their jobs and research. Harper has no business trying to keep what his party is doing a secret.

[CHIMO]

4. My Point

Is not that it is a small thing but rather that Harper is going to claim that the press is liberal. Look for the comeback that he wants to get his message across and the liberal press doesn't allow for that.

He is trying to polarize the issue. If the press keeps hammering him then he might back up but I wouldn't expect a fast retreat on Harper's part.

[IntravenousDemilo]

6. Wow, that sounds familiar, doesn't it?

There's this other guy nearby who doesn't like to give press conferences all that much, and who wants to bypass the media and talk directly to his subjects.

[Bragi]

5. Constitution has nothing to do with it...

The Canadian Constitution Act is silent on the subject of having Cabinet meetings in secret, or in the open.

- B

[MrPrax]

7. Smart move...

Same thing Bush does...as well as law enforcement...eliminate all media access and then use access as a 'reward' to those companies that agree to their 'terms and conditions' for coverage.

That's how they control their 'message' and you can be sure that the Media will be more than happy to comply if it means a boost over their competitors.

Global will get the access and exclusiveness until the other 3 or 4 companies 'sweeten' the deal for the Harpies by slowing slanting their coverage of Conservatives.

[Bragi]

8. I agree

That's the plan. Make the media whinge and squeal at first. The conservative base will love it, ordinary folks will get the message that Harper "is different" and that him and the media are at odds. Then Harper can start playing kissy-face with hand-picked media favorites and get them to report his message with little criticism. Anyone who is critical will be shut out and marginalized. It's actually a fairly low-risk strategy that has worked just fine for Bush.

- B

[MrPrax]

9. Actually,

the media isn't really whinning...on CBC radio,I think it was The House, they had their 'people' talking about it and one thing they LIKED was the fact that Harper has weekly press conferences and SO FAR has stayed and answered all the questions the reporters have had at the conference--he didn't cherry-pick.

They all agreed that this was a huge improvement over either Martin or Chretein...so who knows. Harper might think that caucus/cabinet have every right to meet privately without a 'speculating' media, so long as Harper/the government grants better access through the already established channels.

However, the big strike against all this that Harper has clamped down on his own party/cabinet and it would appear that 'non-politicians' like Gen. Hiller, for instance, or Marjory LeBreton have far more latitude than even the the Ministers in charge of the various portfolios, except for maybe Graham. Even MacKay is muzzled.

It might be much more of an indication that Harper wants to undermine any internal leadership candidates or issues that might hurt him in much the same way Preston and Day were backstabbed.

Gordo in BC is doing the same thing; the ministers are simply 'devices' to be used to frame debate. This happened last fall with the teachers' strike; the Labour Minister, played 'tough guy', the Education Minister was AWOL, the Attorney General got to 'read the riot act' and Carole Taylor got to be 'Ms. Concensus'. The tactic was to ensure that the government wouldn't be locked into a position and to test the waters for public sentiments.

(OH and it's good to see you have expanded your CanPol bookmarks folder to include something other than this ;-)

[Bragi]

11. Comments below

You write:

the media isn't really whinning...on CBC radio,I think it was The House, they had their 'people' talking about it and one thing they LIKED was the fact that Harper has weekly press conferences and SO FAR has stayed and answered all the questions the reporters have had at the conference--he didn't cherry-pick.

That may be what some commentators said on CBC radio, but the news stories I've seen on on this in the last few days have focused primarily on access complaints from the Press Gallery. Favoritism is also an issue for them, in that Harper uses the foyer of the House of Commons for his newsers rather than the press theatre precisely because his press secretary gets to identify questioners in the foyer, whereas in prss theatre a Gallery member chairs the event.

Not that all this resonates much with anyone beyond a kilometer of Parliament Hill.

An interesting read on all this is the transcript of the meeting betwen the Gallery and PMO comm flacks last week, which is reproduced here:

http://www.politicswatch.com/gallery2-mar27-2006.htm

It's quite an amusing read, actually.

As for muzzling Ministers, I suspect this will end next week once the House opens and QP resumes. If Harper tries to confine Ministerial statements to the House, and keeps them away from microphones outside the House, then the Opposition will have a field day. Harper isn't stupid, so I don't see that happening, at least not for very long.

- B

[SixStrings]

10. Well, what about this???

"Harper clampdown follows Chrétien example"

"It may come as a surprise to a new generation of political journalists but when it came to restricting media access, Jean Chrétien's installation in power in 1993 was every bit as rocky.

Until Chrétien came along, for instance, journalists moved relatively freely in and out of the government and opposition private lobbies, mingling with MPs almost at will.

Under him, the practice came to an end with the media restricted to the public area adjacent to the House of Commons"

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1143548501778&call_pageid=970599119419

OK for Liberals, but wrong for everyone else? Kind of reminds one of the Stronach/Emerson thing...

[HEyHEY]

14. Did anyone say when the libs did it, it was okay?

And for the record Hubert, can kiss my behind.

[ClusterFreak]

12. Who's the stupidest politician in Canadian history??

Well there certainly are many contenders to draw from since Confederation....but perhaps no more fitting a selection than Stephen Harper.

Yeah, that's right bud...hitch your wagon to a falling star. Do what the Monkey Boy King Chimpenfuhrer does south of the border. Copy his style, mimic his rhetoric, do what he does....monkey see monkey do.

One term and he's gone. I believe it. I absolutely do.

[Canuck55]

13. It doesn't matter what party says it...

It's an idiotic arguement, one that jerkoff is hoping has overflowed from down south from all of fucko's stances. Nowhere in the Charter does it mention anything even remotely close to this. He is going off the fact that the vast majority up here wouldn't have a clue if he was lying or not, and the vast majority would forget it and move on 10 minutes later anyways. Karl Rove is most likely at least #7 on our brand new Prime Minister's speed dial by now...oh well, good thing we taught the entire Liberal party a lesson.

The sick side of me hopes he lasts until at least 2008, because it could make 2008 a pretty exciting year if there is some house cleaning below the 49th combined.

[HuffleClaw]

15. utter crap

he's still trying to be george bush jr., and he's REALLY trying to silence dissent within his own party more than anything, of which there is a LOT. i think the rank and file have come to the realization that harper is gonna end up doing them serious long-term harm with his heavy-handed approach and bush-bootlicking.