Day 13 of 14 - Macleans.ca
 

Day 13 of 14


 

The only news today on detainee document negotiations seems to be that there will be a meeting of all sides tomorrow.

Barring a deal tomorrow, the parties would seemingly have to ask the Speaker for an extension. Or, conceivably, the Speaker could proceed as he warned he would when he made his ruling.


 

Day 13 of 14

  1. It is amazing how this story has completely fallen off the media radar screen for the past week….along with Helena and Rahim. I guess Canadians really do have short attention spans!

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

    • I think is because most of us feel this is just politically motivated by all parties and they ( all parties) don't truly care if anything wrong happend.

  2. Or, conceivably, the Speaker could proceed as he warned he would when he made his ruling.

    I hope he does. This has gone on long enough. Time to fish or cut bait, boys. (And girls.)

    • Spot on.

      Unfortunately, the real loss here should this extension be requested and granted will be in the respect for our Parliamentary institutions being forever stained by political posturing and opportunism from both sides of the house.

      This represents a fundamental breach in our parliamentary democracy and if no one stands up for it, then it is dead, and we will have idiots from all sides of the house governing our country for the next decade.

  3. It's amazing what will happen to a faux tempest when some one puts the lid on the tea pot. I'm confident there won't be a surplus of mea culpas at this location, or the seats facing the government. I'm thinking the "confidential documents" present a comprehensive damnation of another Party's policy, inaction in the face of evidence and failed attempts to sweep things under the rug of January 06.

    • If that were true, the Conservatives wouldn't have been able to resist the partisan urge to air the Liberal Party's dirty laundry.

      It's more likely the unredacted documents don't bode well for either party, the military, or the bureaucrats.

      • I've always maintained the PM was defending Canada's honour. In the broader world they care not for domestic excuses, we are all tarred by the same brush, Libs and Cons…to painfully extend an old saying "it seems all you guys want to eat sausage, yet find the process of manufacturing it disgusting." The complex geopolitical and economic reasons we are in Afstan are identicle for the Conservatives as they were for the Liberals, as are the reasons for the persistance of the roadblocks to success. While it may be expedient in the short term for the opposition to throw out the baby with the bathwater, the ruling government doe not have that luxury, they swear an oath to defend our interests and reputation. I have been very impressed at how relentles they have been in that duty. I'm sure it was tempting to throw Martin and Dhosanj (sp) under the bus and it would probably been very easy, it just wouldn't have been good for Canada and most importantly it would have been terrible for our soldiers.

        • It's hard to argue your points when you've so concealed them with cliches I can't make out precisely what they are.

          The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc aren't asking for the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater, whatever you're alluding to. They're seeking transparency, and for the government to cede to the supremacy of Parliament. They've not asked that the documents in question be published in the next edition of Maclean's, they've asked to see them, themselves, and not have to rely on "because we said sos" from a government that has consistently backtracked on its own promises of accountability.

          Furthermore, if we're going to talk about our troops' reputation in Afghanistan, I'd argue we're doing more damage by refusing to account fully for what's gone on. CYA maneuvers do jack squat to facilitate trust.

          • That's because they contain nuance. You are only representative of a gang here that rivals the Taliban for categorical/black&white thinking. There are no "good" solutions to the on-going grind in Afstan, there are however real opportunities for Canadian goodwill. In a complex and unbalanced world "dancin' with them what brung ya" is, in my view, a very prudent policy. We may have plans to meet later someone we meet at the dance but for now good manners and honor require us to keep dancing with our date.

          • I don't think "nuance" means what you think it means.

            Also, I didn't call you names, so spare me the Taliban comparison and argue my points using cogent thought. Otherwise, you come across sounding hysterical, which doesn't do anything for your credibility.

            There are indeed opportunities for Canadian goodwill. I would argue one of the biggest opportunities we have is to demonstrate to the international community that we do not fight using our enemies' techniques.

            Loyalty – or as you prefer, "dancing with them what brung ya" – only works if the partners to whom you are loyal are honourable. Some testimony has indicated that this hasn't been the case. How prudent is it to stay loyal to people who have done dishonour to your cause?

        • That might fly if the parts that have been unredacted that we have seen actually conainted something that might be injurious to national security. So far, none have.

          • Just so we're clear here, you understand "national security" is about 99% economic and 1% terrorism. As a trading nation with a high standard of living you'd be surprised at how quickly we could become poverty stricken pariahs, for peeing in our ally's cornflakes. When nations are pursuing very oblique policy objectives, with very uncertain outcomes in a very dangerous world in unprecedented times with no "certain" outcomes and lots of powerful foes it is good poker to keep all your cards very close to your chest. The brazen opportunism shown by the leadership council on the opposition side has been playing chicken with our national honor for blatantly obvious partisan gain and no clearly guilty parties except for when the music stops and someone has to defend the nation.

          • Alcan thanks you for your support.

          • There is a difference between accepting/understanding what is going on and privately doing what you can to improve it. In my opinion the strategy the government has been using is working…look at the polls. With no particular disprespect intended for M. Dion, the sensibilities of a sociology or polisci 101 seminar are pretty weak tea in the world of International relations. Just because the map is black and white doesn't mean the terrain it purports to represent is. In the meantime, in the real world, life and death decsions are being made without the benefit of perfect information, failure to make a decison (right or wrong) is worse than making the wrong choice, because then you have abandoned the initiative and become a mere pawn, moved by other's whims and needs and domestic considerations.

          • Goal post shift alert.

  4. I personally am quite impatient with the idea of an extension. The breach of privilege occured in December, not two weeks ago,

    And wouldn't it require some sort of vote to test whether the House is actually willing to wait? Otherwise how would the Speaker know that the members of the parties agree with their House Leaders? This is core to the role of the MP and maybe the backbenchers in all parties want action.

    • Perhaps. But on such a contentious matter, I don't doubt that Harper would name the vote a confidence motion, making it a whipped vote. A whipped vote would probably not have the desired result.

    • I'm just as impatient as you are but I'd be willing to hold out for another 7 days so that some wouldn't be able to use the refusal as an excuse.

      That being said, 7 days is way more than they need. I'm getting the feeling that some people are trying to run the clock.

      • Wouldn't 7 days put it right in the middle of a Parliamentary break for next week's constit week? (Or did I misread my calendar?)

  5. The opposition parties never should have embarked on their course of action if they didn't anticipate the government stalling and weren't prepared to follow it through no matter where it led. If it was nothing but a bluff, then they seriously miscalculated.

    • It's May. The complaint was lodged in December. I think they were aware of the potential for stalling, don't you?

  6. Forget this issue.

    Harper's won. Paul Wells was right.

    The speaker's ruling has been effectively set aside the precedent has been set by Harper.

    The palace coup has taken place, its a real CATastrophe.

  7. How can 14 days not be sufficient to arrive at a deal?

    • It's taken Harper several years of reintroducing law and order bills over and over again but you think he should be able to compromise in 14 days? You have higher faith in our PM than I!

      • Actually I don't. I have a hard time believing that he would compromise at all. I was fully expecting Harper to tell the Opps to go to hell. I have a hard time believing that he would accept being accountable to Parliament on this issue.

        I'm now wondering about this potential demand for extension. Is it legitimate or is it a ploy? Why wasn't 14 days sufficient to hash this out?

        • If it's a ploy I would expect at least one of the opposition parties to speak up if not scream out. But I agree, what can be settled in one more week that couldn't be solved in the first two?

          • "If it's a ploy I would expect at least one of the opposition parties to speak up if not scream out."

            I don't think so. I think that the Opps want to avoid the contempt citation because it would bring about an election they don't want.

            I just don't get why they ran out of time if everyone, as they've been claiming, is cooperating.

    • Preposterous, eh? Surely this is the first time in Canadian history that two weeks weren't sufficient to arrive at a deal.

      • For the sake of parliament having any point anymore, the speaker needs to bring the hammer down, and damn the consequences. In the end, the blame for the delay will fall to the governing party, as the speaker's instructions were "YOU have two weeks to figure it out". Not "you have two weeks to further delay the hammer".

        He's given the "my house, my rules" speech. Now we just wait to see if our young hero makes it home before or after curfew.

    • Arriving at a deal requires good-faith negotiations.

      • And a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.

    • "How can 14 days not be sufficient to arrive at a deal? "

      I'm going to guess that you don't do corporate/commercial transactions for a living.

  8. What has the Bloq got to lose?

    • You got me there. Duceppe is one politician that I can never figure out. He's the true Chessmaster on Parliament Hill.