The parliamentary system means government in Parliament and with Parliament, but not by Parliament. The Crown, as represented by the cabinet and prime minister, governs, but only retains its right to govern as long as it is supported by Parliament. It has taken many centuries for parliamentary government to reach its present form. It is still evolving as Canada, the Canadian government, and Parliament itself are forced to cope with changing demands, circumstances and stresses. Minority parliaments, with which Canada seems to be blessed (or cursed), increase the stresses and opportunities for confrontations between government and Parliament.
Speaker Peter Milliken’s ruling yesterday on the question of parliamentary privilege relating to the release of documents on Afghan detainees deals with one aspect of this centuries old, never-ending contest between Parliament and government. It addresses Parliament’s balancing the right to know – its right to call for persons and papers – with the Crown’s right to keep some matters of state confidential.
To listen to either side in this dispute, these rights are absolute and unconditional: Parliament claims it must be given anything it asks for; the government claims it can withhold any information it chooses not to disclose. Many commentators similarly made the Speaker’s decision into a choice between black and white: Speaker Milliken had to rule in favour of the government, or in favour of Parliament. There was no middle ground.
But Speaker Milliken made very clear in his ruling that this is not an either/or issue. There is a third option, of moderating the stark opposition of the claims of the two sides and finding a middle road that balances the conflicting rights and principles. Parliament and government should be able to do this in a process of consultation and mutual accommodation. Speaker Milliken has given them two weeks to do so.
[More]
Related:
Commons given two weeks to resolve detainee document issue
Milliken’s plea: Let’s not fail democracy now
MPs given two weeks to find Afghan files
Hebert has given up her pretense of non bias at last.
I agree with professor Franks. I think he’s correct. There is something in the ruling for everyone and as I said yesterday “It’s clear as mud”. Milliken spoke for over 40 minutes and said exactly nothing.
We’ll see what else he decides in two weeks but we all know the left will refuse to work this out and so no solution other than a general election is possible. The ruling needs to become a confidence matter and the left needs to “put up or shut up”. Either decision suits me because it appears the files requested are somewhere in the government food chain and should become available sometime around 2020.
Anyone who has ever served in the military knows that to be true. It can’t be helped, it can’t be changed.
It just “is” and that’s the bottom line.
“Yah but” — why is this just coming out now from this witness?
It’s coming out now because the left knew all along (they had the witness “will says”) but chose to try and embarrass the government (lefties control the committee and therefore the order that witnesses appear).
They could have spared a lot of expense by calling Maj. Denis Gagnon first but they didn’t. The hate of Harper on that committee is palpable.
And I suppose the documents relating to the liberal regime are at the very bottom of said container.
Taliban Jack Layton quoted: “This is a huge victory for democracy,” well compare yesterday’s Jack Layton with this one:
“What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?”
http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2008/11/transcript-of-ndp-conference-call/
Sure Taliban Jack! Before he runs a fake campaign, he makes deals with the other two skunk parties of our “democracy” to try to rig and then overturn a legitimate election result. No mention of the Coalition while they all ran as “separate” political parties.
You trust anyone in these political parties, even a Privy Council member like Jack! access to anything that would compromise our troops? This man can’t even operate his own “coup” under wraps! They then agree, because they don’t have the votes between them, to include the BLOC having a veto over all HoC legislation and agree to suspend confidence motions – for two years. Now that’s democracy at work!
What a bunch of amateurs!
When do some of these pensions become “vested”?
I do not understand why Franks says that parliamentary committees leak. They might do so sometimes, but on other occasions they have not. Frequently in the Second World War, the British House of Commons held in camera sessions — no records were kept and, to my knowledge, the secrecy of the proceedings was never undermined by leaks or public disclosures by MPs. It depends on circumstance, but it is not inevitable that, faced with a serious national security issue, a parliamentary committee would leak. If, however, the documents reveal something very different from national security — as I think we can all reasonably assume is a possibility — then it is certainly not in the public interest to allow the government to hide behind the national security claim.