It’s almost impossible to argue in good conscience with House Speaker Peter Milliken’s recent ruling – even the most conservative-leaning columnists and editorialists have been virtually unanimous in their support of it – but that doesn’t make it any more palatable. It’s tough to swallow the idea that the same opposition MPs who have been volubly smearing both the troops and the Afghan mission will be given access to classified documents pertaining to the war effort, in the name of parliamentary principle; after watching the opposition lob insinuative, damaging accusations about the mission, month after month, for political gain, principle isn’t exactly the first word – or the second, or the third – that comes to mind.
Even supporters of Milliken’s ruling seem to acknowledge the opposition’s true motivation. The National Post’s editorial noted that “….the opposition parties – far from being concerned just for the well-being of prisoners we capture or for the integrity of Parliament – truly are praying for revelations they can spin to bring down the government.”
Parliament reigns supreme nonetheless. Lorne Gunter, who also supports the ruling, writes:
Many Tory bloggers have railed against the Speaker’s ruling, insisting that the opposition contains several MPs sympathetic to the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamic extremists and terror groups. That’s true, but beside the point.
If there are opposition MPs who are sympathetic to the Taliban, allowing them access to classified information pertaining to a war against the Taliban would hardly be beside the point, but in fairness, Gunter goes on to point out that “while the Evidence Act may permit opposition MPs to see classified documents, it does not protect them should they tell our enemies what is in those documents.” Andrew Coyne too, who has a great knowledge of, respect for, and faith in our longstanding rules of parliament, also seems convinced that potential security problems can be obviated by holding in camera hearings and swearing opposition MPs to secrecy.
Let’s hope so, because it’s probably best in the long run – after all, the Liberals will be back in power at some point – to reaffirm that a parliament’s right to know overrides a government’s right to secrecy. It’s just…unfortunate that Milliken’s ruling, based though it may have been on a longstanding and important principle of our democracy, was forced upon him by people whose push was not motivated by anything resembling principles, parliamentary or otherwise:
This is not the first time that governments have withheld ‘secret documents’ from Parliament. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has simply done what many predecessors did in the past. The difference is that a minority government doesn’t control the House…once we have another majority government, we are going to be back where we were before with governments, again, withdrawing ‘secret documents’ from Parliament and abruptly and democratically shutting down sensitive inquiries like the Liberal government did with the Somalia scandal in the 1990s. This debate has nothing to do with ‘history’ but everything to do with cheap politics.
“Moderation in temper is always a virtue;
moderation in principle is always a vice.”
— Thomas Paine
Hmmm. In terms of the Speaker’s ruling, Paine’s statement could be interpreted two ways. In a sense, Milliken was moderate in his interpretation of principle – commendably so – but that would mean…
I’ll figure it out tomorrow.
The Liberals will be back in power some time?
Really?
No money…no ideas…no leadership
No guarantees of a return there.
Well, keep a good thought, Paul, but *some* was the operative word.
We know from previous experience that much of the blacking out is not done to protect any vital interest, but just to avoid bureaucratic and/or political embarassment. For men like Lt Col Hawn to pretend otherwise is incredible, and can only mean that he takes the general public for a bunch of bloody fools. He knows damn well that disclosures of blacked out portions that went in recent weeks to the media came from men and women who now wear the same uniform he once did.
What’s just as incredible is the intentionally false assertion that members of the Liberal or NDP are somehow beholden to Taliban or Al Qaeda interests. That’s a deliberate McCarthyist smear that would be cause for serious outrage were it not for it’s laughable corollary. That the Conservatives are the party of national security! The party of Bernier, Jaffer, Guergis and Coates is now the party of discretion and careful document handling. Right!
David,
If you marched with known and recognized terrorist organizations, spoke at their rallies and were lovingly surrounded at their events, would it be wrong to think that you were with them, rather than against them?
Well, that was a good try, David, but the terms “sympathetic to” (Gunter’s assertion) and “beholden to” (your attempted re-jigging of the assertion) are two entirely different things, and by several orders of magnitude. But I’m sure you knew that when you typed that out.
To the extent that it’s true that blacking out is not done to protect any vital interest but rather to avoid bureaucratic and political embarrassment, it’s equally true that the opposition’s demands for access to such documents are done to create bureaucratic and political embarrassment, and without any consideration whatsoever for vital national interest.
I’m sure – as in positive – that you know that too.
I mean, did you ever watch Ujal Dosanjh, in high dudgeon, in the HOC?
If you have, then you know it.
Excellent title EBD – why are we giving the Blocista traitors access to classified Canadian information?
Give Vladimir Layton a little power…..
For cynical people like me, it boils down to the old rule favoured by smart lawyers: “Never ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer”.
Or put another way, one might guess the opposition need public disclosure to parliament so they have cover to get on with smearing Harper and the armed forces without having to put at risk their leaky sources of the same probably already in hand but ill gotten information.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if the “loyal” opposition already run to the press with leaked documentation, imagine the implication of giving the kids they keys to the candy store.
Enough of moderate men and their moderation.
Stand for liberty and justice.
Barry Goldwater:
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
The opposition now have the chance to either prove Milliken right or wrong on keeping secrets.
If they fail to remain silent, all hell will be paid.
Milikin really said nothing in his ruling.He only said work it out yourselves.Why all this jibber jabber and different interpretations about what he said.The government is still the government and can just ignore any ruling or make up any reason at all not to give the documents to the opposition.And the only one i would use is the security of our soldiers who are fighting the war now.After the fighting stops,select a few opposition members except Blockheads that can be trusted (this may be hard to do) and let them look at the documents.Other than doing this ,get an election going and lets see if the Canadian public want these documents displayed to the world.
Simeon,
I tend to agree, but what penalties would MP’s REALLY face. Do they have any loopholes from being Parliamentarians? What if they spill the secrets in Parliament, arent they protected by priveledge? What could possibly be done to them.
This needs to be thought through very carefully.
It will be very interesting to see the timing of the decisions; the ones were made on Liberal watch, for example. The Opposition may rue the day they asked for the raw goods.
I think the Harper Gov’t was silly to not release the stuff in the first place. I have grave reservations about ANY government that hides behind security screens to withhold information from the public.
I don’t know what is in those documents, but time and time again it’s not the orginal crime that brings down governments, police officers, or Marine Corps colonels, it’s the coverups.
Layton may be a tiresome, posturing twerp, and Iggy a political opportunist of the most predictable (and inept)variety, but giving them both a bit of credit (admittedly a hard thing to do)I think they’re both smart enough to realize that the public interest that demands the release of the info, also demands responsibility.
And if any MP compromises national security, then we’ll have to wait and see if the gov’t and it’s enforcement apparatus have the balls to deal with it.
I don’t think the Liberals/NDP are concerned with national security; I don’t think the CPC consider that the documents refer to our national security.
The agenda is totally and completely political. The Liberals/NDP have one agenda: Power. They have no interest in governance other than that they have the power to Rule.
To achieve this goal, they have not moved into providing a set of principles and goals for Canada, and asked the people to consider and choose these. No. They actually consider the electorate too stupid (beer and popcorn) for such decision-making tasks.
Instead, they rely on emotional hysteria. Their tactic of achieving power is to set up a Mob Situation. A Mob Situation is one where you move a population out of its capacity for thinking and into an extreme emotional state – incapable of reason and individual action. A Mob Situation moves people out of being individuals and into, obviously, a mob. A collective who operate ‘en masse’ without thought and take extreme actions.
So, the Liberals/NDP have tried to achieve this Mob Situation. They’ve tried to link Harper to Bush; Harper to Schreiber. They tried ‘wafergate’. They’ve tried Bernier-and-his-girlfriend. They are trying Jaffer-Guergis. They’ve tried Afghanistan and Bush and torture.
We can even wonder about the Liberal shutting down of the inquiry on Somalia – open evidence of the military killing of a teenager; the Liberal evasion of Adscam and repayment of money to Canadians. The Liberals haven’t shown their commitment to the well-being of Canada but to one agenda only. Power.
Is the firing squad still the appropriate means for dealing with the unauthorized leaking of government secrets? Then I say, let them see it all.
“Is the firing squad still the appropriate means for dealing with the unauthorized leaking of government secrets?” Yes, but only registered long guns are allowed to be used. /rimshot
None of the opposition party leaders have demonstrated any (loyalty) to Canada.
Taliban Jack is a sympathiser, Iggy, B Rae change their loyalties at the drop of a hat, Duceppe and Ujjal Dosangh are communists, none can be trusted!
Certain people within the opposition parties will “never” see these un-redacted documents.
Milliken essentially said.. there is precedent to allow some to see, based on sworn to secrecy statutes, he also said.. come to an agreement as to who can, see what…or else..?
IMHO… Harper should ask the opposition to provide a list of candidates who can be sworn in to inspect these documents.
Since trust and loyalty to Canada are pre-requisits for consideration, there will be “NO” discusing these documents outside of these hearings.
The opposition will have to show their hand, agree and lose control of any (exposing) down the road, disagree or be unable to provide legitimate candidates and we’ll be off to the polls.
I loathe Layton more than Ahmadinejad,Kim Jong-il and Iggy combines. Jack would invite China in as long they set him up as PM.
“I don’t think the CPC consider that the documents refer to our national security.”
Then they should have released them in the 1st place.
“The Liberals/NDP have one agenda: Power.”
And it’s the same for every party, and every politician.
Politics: the acquisition and retention of power.
At the end of the day, does the average Canadian really give a rat’s anus that a few suspected Taliban were roughed up by the Afghans? I don’t really think so. Does the average Canadian see the difference between a legitimate concern and cheap Opposition theatrics? I believe that they do.
The Opposition is raising the pot while holding a very weak hand and are too stupid and power-hungry to realize that it will invariably come back to bite them in the ass.
I commented at the CBC that it is all right if they see the data but we get to shoot them if they leak it. Didn’t check the reaction. I’m pretty sure it will only be innuendo and no hard data released. A very small minority would endanger the troops.
jamie mcmaster – I disagree with your suggestion about releasing the documents.
The Liberal/NDP agenda is not about national security. We acknowledge that. But their agenda is not about principled governance of Canada. Their agenda is only about power. Their focus on the documents is to find something that will enable them to topple the govt – not to care for the military, for citizens, for any nation.
I disagree that ‘all politics is about power’. You are removing from the equation any notion of service and principles. I don’t accept your cynicism, that government is only about power. It has to be about principles and national services. I think that a lot of our MPs have principles and commitment to the nation.
Just for your perusal…
“Politics is an anagram of colpitis, an illness that results in inflammation of the vagina. This explains why most MP’s are irritating twats.”
But we all know that
I concede that the Liberals may someday form a majority govenment, at which time, all precedents from this ruling will be totally forgotten. Can one imagine Trudeau or Chretien agreeing to share executive documents with the opposition, a bunch of nobodies in Trudeau’s words. A majority government could simply defeat any motions injurious to it. This is one of the flaws of the ruling, it only applies to minority governments.
Does anyone else recognize the futility of discussions of like this.It only lends credibility to these otherwise impotent imbeciles like Jack and Iggy to have the nation engaged in a conversation of utter futility and irrelevance.We would do far more good to pressure these two into making policy statements and answering the more important questions that are besetting the rest of the world lets ask Jack how hes going to fund public sector waste and extravagance schemes while looking out for the littleguy.Ask Iggy how he is going to balance a strong and diversified economy while instituting dozens of new tax initiatives that are sure to cripple small business and innovation.Mainstream liberal biased media give these guys an easy ride can we not take the fight to them and put them on the defense.There seems to be precious few journalists in this country that know how to do anything new or innovative Harper cant do anything that appears too harsh or offensive but why cant the public at large change the focus and tone of these discussions by simply demanding these two offer more than cheapshots and tired rhetoric.
What happened to the rule that Cabinet documents
are classified forever?
I don’t accept your cynicism, that government is only about power.
Posted by: ET at May 3, 2010 10:02 AM
Then you and my 18 year old have something in common.
It has to be about principles and national services. Posted by: ET at May 3, 2010 10:02 AM
“Has” to be? Or “should” be.
You are removing from the equation any notion of service and principles.Posted by: ET at May 3, 2010 10:02 AM
Government? Politicians? Service and Principles? Come on now…which government? Which Politicians?
The sad thing is, as far as the average politician is concerned, long-term vision only goes as far as the next election.
And when the very odd exception comes along – politicians who speak their minds (Randy Hiller, Maxime Bernier, Danielle Smith and a few others come to mind) they stand out like sore thumbs.
If they leak the information to the media and several of our troops die then can we ask why was it acceptable for MPs who in the past publicly supported terrorists like Hamas to view said documents? Will they be charged with aiding a terrorist organizations?
The opposition is going to see the documents, then start the process of claiming there are scandals upon scandals hidden within… of course, they aren’t allowed to say what they are and the government can’t make them.
More fake outrage and it will be impossible for the Conservatives to defend against with the media taking the Liberal’s talking points as the truth.
biffjr
[…..At the end of the day, does the average Canadian really give a rat’s anus that a few suspected Taliban were roughed up by the Afghans? I don’t really think so. Does the average Canadian see the difference between a legitimate concern and cheap Opposition theatrics? I believe that they do.
The Opposition is raising the pot while holding a very weak hand and are too stupid and power-hungry to realize that it will invariably come back to bite them in the ass.]
And then there is the hard and fast rule, that budgets are devulged to trusted “journalists” only after they are locked into a room and searched for cell-phones etc.
Speedy
[….I commented at the CBC that it is all right if they see the data but we get to shoot them if they leak it. Didn’t check the reaction. I’m pretty sure it will only be innuendo and no hard data released. A very small minority would endanger the troops.]
Me? I kinda like the firing squad idea….that would improve Canadian politics/government swiftly.
Jamie:
In the interests of clarity, could you quantify the mindset of an ‘average politicial.’
Or, is this a projection of your fears?
You no more know the mindest of an average politician than any other human being knows your mindset.
May I be so bold as to ask,what does ET stand for Extra Terrestrial maybe Extremely Tiresome or Ever Timorous.ET you seem to want keep the political discourse stuck in a time warp from the 60s I would bet you could offer much more if you didnt cling so tenaciously to the notion that the Cdn. Conservative movement is the be all and end all.Step out of your comfort zone explore the changing world that is going sweep over you eventually whether you like it or not.Harper can watch his own back you dont need to.If I may offer some reading see whats going on at Mesopotamia West.
it’s equally true that the opposition’s demands for access to such documents are done to create bureaucratic and political embarrassment, and without any consideration whatsoever for vital national interest
—————————-
Not true at all, and everyone know’s it.
It’s an absolute and demonstrable falsehood for anyone to suggest on intimate that the governing party of the day, be it Liberal or Conservative, has somehow cornered a monopoly on responsible behaviour. In fact, it’s a laughable suggestion.
Make each one of those that have access to the info Swear in to the Official Secrets Act and sign the Oath before a Judge. If they leak any info at all, they could get an automatic 25 years in jail. That should cover them. In order to be eligible to Swear that Oath they have to submit to a full RCMP background check, going back to their highschool days and have a clean criminal record. That should solve the issue. This would also put them on the same level as all Military personel that serve us each and everyday, all over the world.
And yet the essence of the dispute is whether documents come from the bureacracy unredacted? Given that there is a law that Parliament put in place that said these things had to go through a redaction process then we have an apparent contradiction.
Anyway, if the parties decide that a select group of MP’s, and maybe a select group of staff (I have my doubts on that) to see the documents and be briefed in camera…like the US Intelligence committee’s then that is probably 80% of the right answer.
Of course leaking documents or contents is a breach of security clearance and would mean you lose your ability to be on the committee.
Now, how they decide what gets released is a seperate matter, in a majority thats not a problem, the government would have the votes. In a minority, well thats a different story since the opposition could compel the release of ANYTHING according to the speakers ruling.
And once again, once it is released to Parliamentarians it is released to the public if it reaches the floor of Parliament.
You have to assume that there are things that shouldnt be in the public domain…how and who decides that is another matter.
Some of the work of Parliament is goign to have to take place out of the publics eye, but the public will have to trust that Parliamentarians are being responsible. This would be an improvement over the crowns lawyers being the sole decider of what gets released. But once again the rules that would be in place for everything, including RCMP investigations and discussions with foreign governments etc or Adscam files etc. and not just whatever potenially embarrasses the government of the day.
Transparency and accountability are grea, but once the Opposition is allowed into full trnasparency, how will they be trnasparent, and how will they be accountable for decisions they now make with Crown documents and information.
There is a legitimate danger of going too far so lets see what the two sides come up with.
What I am bothered by though is the lack of analysis from most commentators accepting that there is a legitimate dilema to be solved, and one that isnt solved as easily as they think in the land of perpetual minorities.
Is the firing squad still the appropriate means for dealing with the unauthorized leaking of government secrets? Then I say, let them see it all.
===============================
Is that your idea of an appropriate penalty for revealing that one of the blacked out portions contained a joking chat about who was going to bring the liquor to the party?
For men like Lt Col Hawn to be playing the game they are is disturbing. Some of the blacked out portions have already been leaked, not by Opposition MPs, but by currently serving members of the Canadian Forces. Yet Hawn continues to pretend that this is a struggle between soldiers and Opposition politicos, when in fact he knows that soldiers are among those pushing information out there.
So who are men like Hawn trying to kid? Maybe they just want to fool the folks in the senior’s homes who are not in a mood to read the newspapers too closely these days, but who still have pretty close to a 100% turnout rate on E-Day.
Now, how they decide what gets released is a seperate matter, in a majority thats not a problem, the government would have the votes. In a minority, well thats a different story since the opposition could compel the release of ANYTHING according to the speakers ruling.
=================================
That’s pretty revealing.
Jamie MacMaster-ET debate.
ET has made this point many many times in the past: that the Liberals/NDP are only interested in power implying, and sometimes stating, that the CPC isn’t. Jamie is right: this is a naive, albeit charmingly naive, view. Related: Obama isn’t a marxist ‘cos he’s only interested in power, and not interested in helping the polity, confusing irrelevant academic marxists with political marxists.
While I believe Harper is about the best you can expect; while he seems to possess true personal integrity (you just can’t imagine him taking cash in an envelope at a bar), he wants POWER and will do whatever it takes to get and keep it.
Many folks here pine for Harper’s majority. Well, here’s the deal on that: as there’s no market in Canada for conservative/libertarian principles, he will have to make fatal compromises to achieve that goal.
Taliban Jack LaytoNDP/LibIffy/commie Ducppe Bloc ask for redacted video for showing on CBC/MSM.
Would be a blockbuster for CBC’s ratings, experts say.
…-
“Video Shows Pakistani Taliban Leader Hakimullah Mehsud Alive Threatening Attacks Against US
PAKISTAN, Islamabad : Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, who was believed killed in January, vowed attacks on the United States in a new video apparently made last month, the SITE monitoring group said on Monday. Mehsud threatened to retaliate against the United States within a month for the killing of Islamist militant leaders, according to a transcript of the video.
MORE VIDEO: Pakistan Taliban Leader Hakeemullah Mehsud Threatens US Cities”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/03/video_shows_pakistani_taliban_leader_hakimullah_mehsud_alive_threatening_attacks_against_us.html
David,
Care to try to square the cricle then between a varity of laws that Parliament has passed, official secrets, privacylaws etc and the speakers rulings?
If you dont think there is anything that should be redacted then fine, we know your position. But if you accept that some things need to be kept within the crown then what is your suggestion for how you decide, since it appears the speakers ruling enables any opposition in a minority to compel the release to Parliament of anything it chooses.
I am not quite sure if thats what Parliament wants to do all of the time.
jamie – your opinion of politicians is only your opinion. Others, such as myself, disagree and are not as cynical as you.
It is illogical of you to assert that IF one is ‘mature’, THEN one must conclude that all politicians are self-serving, unprincipled, etc.
mikeg- those are my initials and there is no need to move into insults. How are my comments ‘stuck in the 60’s? I’ll stand by my comments about the strategies of the Liberals/NDP, which are based in trying to turn the electorate into an emotional bloc rather than focusing on providing them with facts and allowing them to think about those facts.
“jamie – your opinion of politicians is only your opinion. ”
Boy, you’ve got a flair for the obvious.
“Others, such as myself, disagree and are not as cynical as you. ”
ditto….
It is illogical of you to assert that IF one is ‘mature’, THEN one must conclude that all politicians are self-serving, unprincipled, etc.
Wasn’t my assertion at all…funny the way some people take things though…
In the interests of clarity, could you quantify the mindset of an ‘average politicial.’Posted by: set you free.
God, you need help with this?
Or, is this a projection of your fears? Posted by: set you free
Oh, come on now, that’s not fair, does it have to be one or the other? Is there a third or 4th choice?
You no more know the mindest of an average politician than any other human being knows your mindset.Posted by: set you free
Sure I do. It’s as plain to see as my mindset is.
Some people like to be cheerleaders and shake pom-poms and wave placards, I don’t…for any party.
Posted by: set you free at May 3, 2010 11:14 AM
If you dont think there is anything that should be redacted then fine, we know your position. But if you accept that some things need to be kept within the crown then what is your suggestion for how you decide, since it appears the speakers ruling enables any opposition in a minority to compel the release to Parliament of anything it chooses.
==================================
This is a joke, right? Without knowing what’s been concealed, one is supposed to take a guess?
We know from past experience that much of what is blacked out has no real need to be kept private, and was obscured solely to avoid political or bureaucratic embarassment. And we also know that some things were legitimately kept back, personal details, financial positions being negotiated, and the like.
The question is who decides. I believe it should be an all-party committee as it would be in many other countries. Those MPs would have to be sworn to secrecy of course.
The crazy thing is the call for massive penalties — firing squads was one example — for any MP who then leaks ANYTHING, whether it’s an actual security matter, or just the usual booze and busty hookers that Lt Col Hawn doesn’t want the elderly party supporters in the homes to hear about. Why, … the shock would be so great they might have an accident on their walker!
What about the leaks that have come already from members of the military? Is there a demand here that THEY be punished? How severerly?
Jamie:
Since I’m obviously not as smart as you purport to be, I’d like you to quantify the mindest of the ‘average politicial.:
A factual answer would be a good start.
RE: the Liberals returning to power
I’ve posed this rhetorical question before:
Does anyone believe that a Liberal government intent on harming western Canada isn’t eminent?
Good point MND, the real political question is: what will happen when the Liberals finally form government? I have mused aloud that once the Liberals regain control of the government, putting the final nail in the coffin of the old Reform party, and marking its ultimate failure; that our leaders(western Canadian) should return home. This is the most likely time IMO that a real organized push for western separation will be mounted. I can always hope.
It’s been demonstrated time and time again that the voters in central Canada are unfazed by “politics at the expense of Canada” practiced by the Liberals. Central Canadian voters have proven untrustworthy, and quite frankly beyond contempt. Western Canadians at home have demonstrated proper and successful fiscal management; and, have tried to preach that message to the ROC in the system to no avail. We’ve been utterly ignored by central Canadians to put it politely. Why? Not because our ideas are not sound; quite the opposite. No, we’ve been ignored for one reason and one reason only, because of WHO WE ARE! I’ll say it again, central Canadians are content to reap damage to the Canadian economy and Canada’s sovereignty for the sole purpose of making sure that western Canadians DO NOT politically control the government of Canada.
So release the documents, whether at the Canadian soldier’s and Canada’s peril or not; so long as the ends are maintaining control of Canada’s purse strings. We expect nothing less of you.