Toronto Star: Judge has no right to decide what parliamentarians can see

[tuvor]

...

Iacobucci has accepted a task which neither he nor any other person of however high repute and qualifications, has any business doing. Not the Prime Minister, nor the justice minister, nor a Supreme Court judge, can be the appropriate arbiter of what papers Parliament can order, and enforce release, from the executive.

The government "acknowledges that it is appropriate that its decisions on the disclosure of information in these circumstances be reviewed in an independent manner to ensure that parliamentarians have as full and complete access to government information as is necessary to perform the function of holding the government to account so long as injury to Canada's national defence, international relations or national security may be minimized."

The government alone, after hearing Iacobucci's specific recommendations, in secret, will decide how much parliamentary access is necessary to hold itself to account. The government alone will judge any harm to national security allegedly caused by disclosure. Iacobucci's "general" findings and "methodology" are all that will be presented publicly, in a "summary report."

In short, the government proposes to use independent review as a diversion and delaying device, while insisting that it be the sole judge in its own case against Parliament.

...

Besides wasting money, the Iacobucci ploy stands the fundamental notion of responsible government on its head. There can be no responsibility to Parliament when it is the executive that decides what Parliament can know.

...

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/781986

[Spazito]

1. Exactly!

Iacobucci should have told harper and his cabal no and stated publicly that neither he nor ANY OTHER judge, etc, has the right to review that to which Parliament has the FULL right of access.

Iacobucci, a former Supreme Court judge, knows full well Parliament is entitled to the documents, ALL the documents upon their request and I am totally disgusted by his behavior in becoming part of this sham by the harper cabal.

[HeresyLives]

2. You'll enjoy this one then.

Why is Iacobucci playing along? by Andrew Coyne, that dyed-in-the-wool Con.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/18/why-is-iacobucci-playing-along/print/

[Spazito]

3. Yikes, I agree with Coyne, damn...

and he is also right regarding the pathetic impotency of the Opposition in going along with this in ANY way. The Cons trying this scam to avoid the facts coming out is of little surprise as it is a bushite tactic from our wanna be 'President'. The sorry fact that the Opposition (Parliament) is abrogating their own responsibility by acknowledging Iacobucci's appointed role at all is disgusting as well, imo.

"Rather than enforce its own resolution, the opposition has been busying itself with a new demand, that Iacobucci be asked to conduct a full-blown public inquiry into the Afghan detainees affair. But that is a diversion from the broader issue of responsibility to Parliament. More than that, it’s a confession of impotence: in any self-respecting Westminster democracy, Parliament has all the powers it needs to investigate such matters itself."

[HeresyLives]

4. Well the Speaker has been asked to make a ruling,

on a privilege debate over this very matter. We'll see if he lets it go ahead. He loves Parliament so he may be inclined to show Parliament is supreme.

I understood the judge would be ready with a verdict in a month, now it turns out that it may be 2 years! THAT is definitely just a delaying tactic.

And Cons aren't helping the matter by saying MPs blab, so you can't trust them with national secrets!

I'm sure they'll all like being seen as a bunch of untrustworthy gossips!

[Spazito]

5. I am hoping the Parliamentarian backs Parliament....

which is his primary role and, if he, as you say, loves Parliament, I can't see where he would rule any other way than to affirm the wishes of Parliament are 'supreme'.

I hope he rules sooner rather than later.

[HeresyLives]

6. Supposedly he set his sites on the job at 10 or so.

But I dunno...he doesn't seem to do much of a job as Speaker as far as I can see. The place has been a zoo ever since the Harper crowd showed up.

[Spazito]

7. If Parliament is committed, on all sides, to doing the 'job' the Canadian

people 'hired' them to do, the Speaker should be asked to intervene only on rare occasions so being 'seen but not heard' is a good thing, imo. It is when scumbags like the Cons constantly try to subvert Parliamentary rules that the Speaker is heard as well as seen.

I must confess to being a process wonk who has read the 'rules of order' for not only Parliament but for other organizations as well and have acted in the role of Parliamentarian, on occasion, for both large and small organizations. I know I always hope I will not be called upon to 'rule' at all but am also prepared if called upon to do so.

[HeresyLives]

9. Well he manages 'not to see' a lot of things,

and there have been complaints from the MPs about the circus atmosphere in the place, however he keeps getting elected.

I certainly hope he's prepared to rule in this case...he's the last resort on the matter.

[Spazito]

11. Interestingly, up until 1965, a ruling by the Speaker (Parliamentarian) could...

be appealed. I know in other organizations a ruling by a Parliamentarian could be overruled by the majority by passing a motion to 'suspend the rules'. I wonder if that was the process re the ability to appeal prior to 1965.

If he rules for the harper cabal and against Parliament, I have NO doubt there will be very loud cries for his resignation as there should be, imo. I have been trying to research whether a motion of 'no confidence' in the Speaker would be in order but have yet to find anything concrete on this at all, am still looking though.

[HeresyLives]

12. Lemme know...this could get very interesting.

After all we haven't had a good constitutional crisis in a long time. :)

My guess tho is that if the Speaker rules against Harp...Harp really can't prorogue again...unless he's suicidal LOL... he may call an election.

Which would be the strangest election we've ever had.

[Spazito]

13. I haven't found anything at all, pro or con, re the admissibility of a

motion of 'no confidence' in the Speaker. Nothing that either explicitly forbids it or, conversely, states it is an acceptable motion. I am assuming one of two things are possible; either no one has ever moved a motion of no confidence against the speaker or, because it is not explicitly allowed in the rules, such a motion is 'out of order'. I lean more toward the latter than the former.

My bet is if the Speaker rules against the government on this, harper and his cabal will appeal this issue to the Supreme Court of Canada. Now, if the Speaker rules for the government and against Parliament, will the Opposition appeal to the Supreme Court? Either way, this will stall the production of the documents further. The real question is, imo, what the reaction of Canadians will be to the ever growing crisis.

[HeresyLives]

14. All I can find is the tie-vote breaker.

As far as I can see, the question has never arisen.

Much of Parliament is run on tradition, unwritten rules and gentlemen's agreements...

[Spazito]

15. Yep, same here, the only reference to no confidence motions relate...

to the government, the kind of motions with which we are already familiar. I am watching this with increasing fascination, putting aside my total disgust at the behavior of harper and his cabal, as to how this will end; an election? a capitulation by the harper cabal? an appeal to the Supreme Court by either side?

Fascinating.

[HeresyLives]

16. Might get even better. Apparently the Deputy AG

has suddenly resigned.

And it seems to be connected to this.

I'll give it a separate OP in a moment.

[Spazito]

17. Oh my, this is definitely heating up!

Will be looking in anticipation for your OP.

[daleo]

8. Some cabinet ministers have left their briefing notes at their girlfriend's houses

So, by that standard, cabinet ministers shouldn't be allowed to see documents either. Which leaves us with the Prime Minister alone being trusted, rather like the kings of old.

[HeresyLives]

10. Good point!

NATO confidential stuff too...really should never have left his office.

Apparently Bernier is now gunning for Harper's job...snowball's chance in hell I'm thinking.