I'll offer a succinct opinion. The Liberals MUST reject Iacobucci IMMEDIATELY, this is a farce, with the soul purpose being to take this issue off the table. The time for diplomatic response is over, before this SHAM gets off the ground, the opposition MUST cut it off at the knees. Anything less than outright rejection, amounts to CAPITULATION. It's spine time.
56 comments:
NDP as well, for that matter.
I feel your pain. And I suspect it's going to get worse.
You're 100% correct.
Dawg
Did you see QP today? NDP MP Leslie said she was in complete agreement with Goodale. Let's see who pushes hardest, and who follows. A pox on all their houses if they let this sham fly. I'm serious, this is a "moment" for me- anymore bending and I break ;)
Agree with everything you said Steve.
What are the odds of Ignatieff findind his spine?
As for your comments on the previous thread, the offer to swear some members of the committe to the privy council and have them view unredacted documents,was already rejected by the CPC
I'd offer it as our final OFFER. You can't force an election, saying you don't believe MP's have a right to information. That frame scares the shit out of the Conservatives, you're basically having a rehash of the prorogue question and all the negative sentiment towards the gov't. Call their bluff, that's not how they want to go, it would be our terms effectively. As a Liberal, I would be ecstatic to have a campaign centered around accountability, potential coverups and democratic will. Talk about a rallying cry for change.
I will agree that both the Liberals and NDP (along with the Bloc) need some spine. While Iacobucci might have been a respected judge, he is just a private citizen now. Heck, Harper could have given these documents to Rick Mercer. I can picture Mercer now.
"I can't let the committee see line five in paragraph three which mentions that members of the Taliban snuck into the Canadian base at Kandahar and each ordered a double-double at the Tim Horton's trailer. What makes this a matter of national security is that one of the Taliban r-r-rolled up the rim and won a Toyota. I gotta put the breaks on this document getting out in public to the committee. Toyota is a national security concern!"
And, if you want people to see you actually stand for something, an novel ideal might be standing up for something. Just a thought.
None of this has anything to do with the current arrangement of detainee transfers. It's all to do with ancient history based on the faulty 2005 Liberal transfer agreement.
So who cares if it takes another year, or ten? There's more important things to deal with, although you wouldn't know it if you vote Liberal.
If a Conservative supporter says that something is not important, then it must be important.
Raphael Alexander - yes, there are "other" important things to deal with. You see, a PM should be able to deal with many things at at time. That's his job.
If the Liberals are willing to let the chips fall where they may, why is Harper scared?
You know darn well if it was totally the fault of the Liberals and Harper was innocent and pure as the driven snow he'd be going after the Liberals - that's his passion. For that reason alone I think Harper has a lot to hide.
Since Frank's son, Edward Iacobucci is one of Canada's foremost proponents of deregulation and crown asset sales, this government and right wing liberals of the John Manley crowd, are trending toward continental corporatism, this gets stopped now, or a century from now when it falls apart. The Liberal Party itself will not act because it doesn't want contempt used against it someday.
There's more important things to deal with, although you wouldn't know it if you vote Liberal.
Really, so the Reformatories don't consider government transparency, parliamentary supremacy and international law to be important? Mr. Alexander, who is telling you what is important or not? Stop being such a patsy and start thinking for yourself.
If Ignatieff goes along with the Cons on this, if he backs down from a confrontation I'll be done with the Liberals. I'll go NDP or Green.
"There's more important things to deal with, although you wouldn't know it if you vote Liberal."
Just check out his blog to see what he thinks is more important. The failure of the media to buy into climategate,"unreasonable accomodation" in Quebec, and the failure of non-white people to join the army (a body Adrian also refuses to join, since it is not "for him") figure prominently as things Adrian believes is more important than our fundamental democratic principles.
The NDP has already made it clear that they are only giving the Government until Friday to get the documents after which they will bring a motion of contempt. I wonder if this will force Ignatieff's hand because he knows it will make the liberals look bad if the NDP steps up and the Liberals don't/
Ignatieff and his posse want Canadians to see him as a suitable prime minister when he's a chronic failure as an opposition leader. If he can't stand up on this he should pack his bags and get the hell out of Ottawa.
While not the largest of Ignatieff fans, I place the "chronic failure" label at the collective feet of this nation's citizens. If people are just too lazy or too whatever to catch a clue on what Harper and his gang of fucks are doing to this country then the resulting end game will be nobodies fault but our own.
Kady with an excellent post.
Ignatieff isn't in the House this week?! Jesus fuck. Maybe the chronic failure label isn't so far off after all.
Oh come on, these events are planned weeks ahead. Goodness.
Perhaps Steve, but you have to admit the optics are not good.
That assumes people are actually watching QP, which they aren't. Ignatieff can make comments, that will get coverage, from the road. To attack him for being on the road is pure silliness.
Anyways, the Libs said today we're "back where we started". If that is true, then why aren't we plowing ahead with our original response, namely Derek Lee???
Yep, don't let a potential contempt of Parliament get in the way of plans made "weeks" in advance. I don't know, perhaps such a change in itinerary would have looked like leadership?
"That assumes people are actually watching QP, which they aren't."
True, but they do watch the news and read people like Kady O'Malley who said this on Ignatieff's absence: Because really, when you've spent the last two months going on and on and on and on about the sovereignty and importance of the House of Commons, and the need to show respect for our democratic institutions, it just makes sense to abandon the Hill while said House is sitting in favour of yet another meandering speaking tour. Don't worry, sir -- we'll let you know how that whole battle for parliamentary supremacy turns out.
I don't believe THAT is a silly statement at all. Quite the contrary actually. You must do yoga as your bending doesn't seem to have any limits.
Omar
You're like a coiled snake waiting in the grass to strike. The problem with that posture, you continually overact to every little detail that fuels your disposition. Gee, I hope Ignatieff can find a mic on the road, like he did yesterday on The National ;)
A snake in the grass? Whatevs, Gumby ;-)
If that is true, then why aren't we plowing ahead with our original response, namely Derek Lee
Not trying to start anything, but I am hoping Mr Ignatieff could at least be in the house on Friday(?) when Mr Lee finally tables his motion in the house.
Is the Derek Lee motion going ahead?
I keep hearing varying accounts on that.
Why are the Liberals so afraid to push this.
Are they that afraid of Harper asking for dissolution.
It makes no sense.
I don't get it. I noticed today, the NDP was somewhat murky on what they would do going forward.
K
I'm not sure what his schedule is, whether it's until mid week or the whole week.
You're right Steve, these events are planned weeks in advance. So was Obama's Asian tour. That would be the one he cancelled in order to be in Washington for the healthcare vote. Ignatieff's "no show" is not going unnoticed, especially in the media. It does detract from the gravity of this issue.
This is such a non issue, that people who are predisposed are exaggerating. Nothing more, nothing less. Last time I checked, his tour is IN Canada. Let's move on to something relevant, rather than cheap potshots. I want to hear him, the location is meaningless.
And rather than bitchin about nothingness, why not take a second and do something productive:
LeeD@parl.gc.ca
That's how you push from the hinterlands, rather than venting about side issues.
Omar: While not the largest of Ignatieff fans, I place the "chronic failure" label at the collective feet of this nation's citizens. If people are just too lazy or too whatever to catch a clue on what Harper and his gang of fucks are doing to this country then the resulting end game will be nobodies fault but our own.
Couldn't agree with you more.
kirbycairo: The NDP has already made it clear that they are only giving the Government until Friday to get the documents after which they will bring a motion of contempt.
I'll believe that when I see it.
Skinny Dipper: I will agree that both the Liberals and NDP (along with the Bloc) need some spine.
I think we can forget about any kind of cooperation from Duceppe & the Bloc. Between planning for commemoration of the failure of Meech Lake and Lucien Bouchard shaking a stick, poking at that old sovereignty dog, Duceppe is pretty much devoting his time promoting Quebec sovereignty these.
Steve V: If the NDP doesn't make good on its Friday deadline, expect considerable noise on my part. The supremacy of Parliament isn't a partisan issue.
Dawg
I can't remember if it was CBC or CTV today, but Jack Harris was asked about the Friday deadline and said they "will decide next week" how to proceed. One thing I've noticed, watching him and Leslie, plus the Libs of course, there seems to be some hesitancy to take this issue "to the mat" so to speak. There is more here going on than we're privy to, lots of calculations. I'm just hoping all parties get enough pressure that they stop the second guessing.
I'd also add, for all the bull directed towards Ignatieff, Layton didn't even raise the issue today.
Oh bullshit. Is SOMEBODY going to stand up and say Iacobucci is a no-go, and that ALL documents relating to the hand-over of detainees to the Afghan authorities MUST be made available to parliament? All the rest is smoke. Public inquiry? Iacobucci? National Security???? And shame on those both in and out of the House who ignore the bigger question.
Canadians deserve to know what our government is doing in our name.
Simple as that.
Old Guy
For the life of me, I can't figure out why SOMEBODY hasn't? Is it some fear of an election? I don't get it. Like I said yesterday, if Harper really, really wants an election revolving around the issue of accountability and democratic supremacy, the opposition should say thanks for the gift, because you can put forward CHANGE in a compelling way. This whole thing is nuts.
The parties don't want to start off down the path to accountability, because they might be called to account themselves. I had such high hopes after Iggy's budget speech, but they're dying daily.
Jerry
You might be right, but I'm not so sure that's what is holding the opposition back. I mean, look at the prorogue reforms the Libs put out, it would have impacted their future powers as well. I'm not saying they were the most progessive thing I've ever seen, but it does speak to your criticism here. Honestly, I think it's about an election, nobody wants to look over the ledge. After the fall, the Libs are scared to force, and there is undoubtedly some consideration of "best possible window", getting Ignatieff some traction, this policy conference, clearly they aren't wanting to go now. If you ask me, the NDP positioning tells me the exact same thing. All this chest thumping seems to evaporate as soon as they can actually matter. After that gong show reversal last fall, nobody from the NDP should ever doubt politics before principle again. It's the same game, they're all playing it, to pretend otherwise requires leave of all objective sense.
Nero Wolfe said...
Agree with everything you said Steve.
Me too, Steve:
Bring this government down NOW!
Don't be afraid...just do it!
Looking at the new NANOS, I'd say we have little to fear Freddie ;)
Steve,
You have a Nanos poll?
Details plaeae
Steve,
I took your suggestion, & wrote Mr Lee, Iggy & a Senator I know urging them not to fear an election on this issue. I suggest others who agree with your post to follow suit.
Facebook group anyone?
You have a Nanos poll?
Nik's numbers just came out this morning showing Cons and Libs both shy of 35% and only 0.1% difference between them.
I'm certain our resident pollologist here is looking at the regionals now before starting a new post :)
Just want to echo what a lot of others are saying here. The supremacy of parliament is a non-partisan issue of highest importance and must be defended by the opposition …all opposition parties.
I know ottlib posted on his blog that the grits are not ready and shouldn’t push an election right now, as Harper will come back screaming ‘national security’ – which admittedly is an easier concept for the public to comprehend over parliamentary supremacy. He is quite correct, but also forgot two crucial elements here.
First is the contempt charges that will be placed on this government is a legal issue, not a confidence issue. If Harper wants to engineer his government’s defeat to go to the polls, then that is his decision …not the opposition’s. I’m not sure how the Liberals will be punished for an election they did not cause.
Next, alongside parliamentary supremacy is the issue of government transparency; which is a much easier concept for the public to grasp, as simple as national security actually. And it is one which the Harper government itself campaigned on to get into power in the first place – then quickly abandoned once there.
Regardless of the CPofC warchest, attack ads and the inevitable bullshitzkrieg that will infest the media, I just don’t see how Harper can even think of getting a majority if he chooses to go to the electorate over this. Hell, he’ll be lucky if he only looses 20 seats.
The opposition, all 3 parties, need to step up and call Harper’s bluff on this regardless of election readiness. At this point, Harper is the one who is a paper tiger. This government has nothing left but fear as their defence. Oh I’m certain he’ll push this to an election, but it is one he can’t win – because given the circumstances there are only degrees of loosing now for Harper.
KW
To be honest, I don't find ottlib's objections very persuasive. I believe his premise is false, as you say, Harper will decide an election and "national security" is a pretty flimsy defence. You will have all three parties rebuking the Con line, a rare synergy that will put the gov't on the defensive.
Of course by having all three parties rebuke the Con line it will put the government on the Liberal/socialist/separatist coalition offensive. Not that I think for a minute that would be any reason not to challenge Harper on the Supremacy of Parliament question.
Why do people assume that Harper can go back to the coalition line and replicate 2008? Far as I can tell, they keep using the line everytime they face a problem and it's not resonating anymore.
It's 2010.
Well, lets hope it doesn't resonate once again. I'm not so sure the electorate wont lap up the government's "scary coalition" rhetoric if it's blared often enough and loud enough during a campaign. Which I'm sure it would be. I like to believe Canadians wouldn't fall for it again, but I have little confidence in that belief.
… the Con line it will put the government on the Liberal/socialist/separatist coalition
I know you answered Steve, but this line is quickly rebuffed by Iggy when he reminds the media that if he wanted to be the leader of a 3-headed coalition government, he would be PM right now and Harper would be gone. And a look at the election posters would quickly show the Libs are running as the Libs, the NDP as the NDP, and the Bloc as the Bloc …there is no coalition. And really, the Harperites would only look desperate and foolish at this point to bring that up as a defence against government transparency and parliamentary supremacy. Which of course they will (I’m thinking of you Pee-Pee Poilievre) but it is not 2008 anymore, and will not resonate with anyone that has an IQ higher that that of the average houseplant. Sadly that cuts out about 25% of the voters of Canada.
But this does prove my point that all Harper has is fear tactics at this point if he thinks he can gamble on an election. And it is a gamble. The electorate is so volatile (latest Nanos shows over 19% undecided now) that he has no way of knowing how it will end any more than any of us. For all this ‘chessmaster’ BS, Harper has proven himself to be capable of making mistakes, plenty of pretty big ones really.
That coalition line comes up whether it's today, tomorrow or two years from now. It's simply not a reason to argue against, because it's a certainty no matter.
Post a Comment