Day 15 of 14 (II) - Macleans.ca
 

Day 15 of 14 (II)


 

I was otherwise engaged (sketch momentarily), but the parties apparently emerged from their latest round of negotiations with some kind of progress to report. Canadian Press seems to have the scoop.

Details have not yet been hammered out but sources say all parties are now willing to let a neutral judge or panel of experts vet which documents can be safely disclosed publicly without jeopardizing national security.

New Democrat negotiators had wanted MPs themselves to make that determination. But they got no backing for that position from either the Liberals or Bloc Quebecois, much less the governing Conservatives. Sources say the NDP now appears willing to go along with the consensus of the other parties.


 

Day 15 of 14 (II)

  1. And the opposition takes another step into the big "cave" from whence our democracy may never emerge.

    • Oh and how about those Habs!

  2. Ha! I knew the Conservatives were screwed. Try and f— with Parliamentary privi…wait…waht?

  3. This is a Tory leak. Because if this is the case, the govt's option of having Judge Iac. decide everything would be the outcome, which kind of negates the parliamentary-supremacy thing.

    Now, if the Committee gets to decide on who should be the Judge and/or the panel of experts, then it's progress.

    I just have difficulty seeing Harper give up control over which document gets released to anybody not named Stephen Harper.

    • I mean, it can't possibly be Iacobucci, for political reasons. Although, I believe Mr. Iacobucci would be entirely capable of recognizing who he would then work for, and complying with whatever terms of reference he were given.

  4. If Parliament decides that it should have a judge, or a panel of experts, determine which documents are safe to release and which aren't, then it's entirely democratic. The same way Parliament decides to have judges decide legal cases instead of doing it itself, and the same way it decides to have a government, rather than govern itself. The problem here was that the government was acting contrary to the wishes of Parliament, the only body that actually has democratic legitimacy.

    We don't choose a PM, so for him to choose a judge to decide things was wrong. But we DO choose MPs, and for them to choose a judge is entirely within bounds.

  5. So we're back full-circle? Back to what Harper proposed in the first place, with the appointment of Iacobucci?

    What the heck was the point? Momentarily slap down Harper, only to capitulate to his demands in the long term?

    • 'capitulate to his demands'
      or perhaps they reasoned that Harper was right in the first place.

    • Well, if Iaccobuci winds up reporting to Parliament (rather than acting as the Justice Minister's lawyer), that would be an improvement.

      I still don't think it would be appropriate – it needs to be somebody who's not already tangled up in this – it would be… oh heck, it would be a very poor outcome. It's only an improvement when compared to the appalling "solution" the government put forward prior to this.

  6. "Jeopardize national security"?

    The parties agreed to this premise? Funny, I thought that any refusal on the part of Harper was based solely on his totally evil evilish evilness.

    So full disclosure may endanger our national security, so says….everybody.

    In other words, Harper was right. And if he had reliquished to the demands of the hyperpartisan gotcha opposition and their cohorts in the media, our (read every man woman and child, but mostly the overseas troops putting their lives on the line for us) security would be threatened.

    Don't expect the leftist media to suggest anybody but Harper was playing political games with this issue though. That doesn't even enter the realm of the possible in the universe of the left.

    • No, Harper was wrong for claiming that he, as the executive, could do whatever he wanted and didn't need to answer to Parliament.

      Please feel free to go ahead and find a quote where someone credible in the opposition says "all of the documents should be disclosed to the Canadian public".

  7. I don't think this is necessary but if they all think it's best than that's their choice.

    But that's making the documents PUBLIC. They should have been disclosed to the committee itself months and months and months ago.

  8. Disclosing the documents to the committee (and the MPCC) is one thing, but disclosing them to the public is another. If the Liberals are caving on the former it means they are no use as an opposition.

    • My understanding from the NDP leaks is that the committee, or at least SOME committee, will review all of the documents. They're only still discussing how they decide what to release broadly.

  9. "Details have not yet been hammered out but sources say all parties are now willing to let a neutral judge or panel of experts vet which documents can be safely disclosed publicly without jeopardizing national security."

    No problem with this one as long as the appointment process doesn't take 3 months. I'm still annoyed that it has taken them so long to arrive to a solution that was proposed by countless people several weeks ago.

    This is like watching paint dry…