Who is in contempt?

 Love that sneer.

CBC in contempt of Parliament if it doesn't produce documents Access Committee requests: Del Mastro - 'I think they understand that they’ve got a committee order to produce documents, I just cannot imagine that the public broadcaster is going to refuse to release documents to an in camera committee meeting,' says Tory MP Dean Del Mastro.

Here: let me help you with your limited imagination and memory, Deano –

The Conservative government is in contempt of Parliament, a report by a committee of MPs tabled Monday concludes.  Conservative MPs on the opposition-dominated committee did not support the contempt finding and issued a dissenting report..."The report tabled by the committee is simply a piece of partisan gamesmanship that diminishes the important work of Parliament," the dissenting report states.

Maybe your co-CON can help a little more:

 “Contempt, as we heard during the [committee] hearings is a very nebulous word,” Mr. Lukiwski said. “It’s almost like in the eye of the beholder. ... It can mean a lot of different things.”

Keep it up, guys.  Canadians love an underdog.

A Conservative MP tells a truth

Okanagan-Shuswap MP Colin Mayes admits the federal government has an image problem.

Then follows it up with a partial truth:

“The minister is not a rock star but she’s done a great job with that file.”

Then reverts to CPC true colours and tells an outright lie:

“The in-and-out issue is Conservative money being spent on Conservative ads.”

No, the issue is that the in-and-out scam (like the one Vic Toews was found guilty of provincially)  allowed the party to spend more than $1 million beyond its spending limit and permitted Conservative candidates to claim rebates for expenses that were incurred by the federal party.           

In other words, breaking election rules and stealing from taxpayers.

Complete contempt for Canadians

That's what harper keeps showing, over and over.

Two more Senators appointed.  During the holiday break.  Partisan as always.  Unelected.  One was rejected by voters.  Qualified?  At least one isn't.

The good Rev. Don Meredith -

He replaced Mark Warner as candidate for Toronto Centre after the CPC decided that despite Warner winning the nomination, he wasn’t the right stuff for the CONs.

What they wanted was someone like Meredith: social conservative, volunteer Senior Pastor at the Pentecostal Praise Centre, tough on crime, tough on sex for fun, tough on sex without proper legal documents, tough on gays, tough on same sex marriage, and tough on people who have the audacity to have bed bug infestations.  

And he really, really qualifies for harper’s promises of an elected Senate by having lost the 2008 by-election - coming fourth - in Toronto Centre.

Yet wingnuts are cheering in comment sections about how now, finally, we can have Senate reform.

WTF?????????

Now we have another ignorant politician who is so vapid he thinks bedbugs are the result of poor hygiene and that homosexuality is a choice.  Another who believes that laws should be shaped by inspiration we get from mythical beings.

Update: in his own words, h/t Alison

Larry Smith is qualified by CON standards because Larry does sports.  And Larry once toyed with the idea of running for the leadership of the CPC in 2004.  And Larry lives in Quebec.

So Larry, the talk goes, is qualified by harper standards to hold a cabinet post as yet another unelected, unaccountable guy making decisions concerning public funds and legislation.  Like Mike Fortier did.  Badly.

The CONs are not denying it out-right but are using that coyness we all love them for - there are no plans for him to join the Conservative cabinet, a Conservative official says. 

Uh-huh.  And harper will never ever appoint unelected people to the Senate because it’s so undemocratic.

More from the Flawed and Disordered party of Harper

There they go again…standing behind our brave men in uniform:

The federal government has lost its third attempt to delay a court ruling from taking effect next month that would allow RCMP officers to form a union. ..The ruling leaves the federal government with little more than a month to pass legislation that would allow Mounties to form a union, or it could go back to court to try to extend the already lengthy legal battle.

Those fiscally responsible, cop longing CONs!  Spending tax dollars to thumb their noses at the RCMP and the federal court.


In an April 2009, decision Judge MacDonnell cleared the way for a union. He ruled that a section of RCMP regulations that did not allow an independent group to engage in collective bargaining on behalf of officers violated the Charter of Rights.

Oh, that damn, troublesome Charter of Rights!  And really, what an affront that our brave men in serge should actually think it enshrines their rights! 

Yo!  Elliot!  Earn your partisan appointment!

If you gots nothin’ ta hide, why ya worried?

Right, wingnuts?

Or how about: If’n ya didn’t do nuthin’, what’d ya sweatin’ over?

Or how about Steve’s and Johnnie’s own words:
“We promised to stand up for accountability and to change the way government works,” said Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  “Canadians elected this government to deliver on that commitment and today the Federal Accountability Act has received Royal Assent.  From this day on, accountability in government is the law and we can all be proud of that fact.”

John Baird: “The Federal Accountability Act is a significant and substantive step by Canada’s New Government to help restore Canadians’ trust in government and the democratic process.”

Sure, but that was when Canadians were lead to believe that legislation applied to all Canadians.  Stevie has informed us that such is not reality.

That might explain why Baird thumbed his nose at his and his master’s promise of transparency and accountability by refusing the legitimate demand of the Information, Privacy and Ethics committee for the electronic correspondence of a political aide who – can anyone make this shit up? -  blocked the release of an Access to Information request. 

Mr. Baird defended the decision, saying cabinet ministers, and not their staff, are responsible to Parliament (and that) parliamentary and constitution convention dictates that the political communications related to decisions and actions of cabinet ministers are never disclosed.



What a fucking  troll.

Let’s look at that statement in the context of this issue.  The political staffer Sébastien Togneri “unreleased” documents requested by a Globe and Mail reporter when Mr. Paradis headed the Public Works department.

Togneri apparently wrote a series of e-mails relating to this.  Since Paradis as Minister is responsible to Parliament, any e-mails Togneri sent to him as Minister should be available for scrutiny.

As for e-mails to public servants within the department, Stevie and Johnnie passed through that nifty accountability act in December, 2006 giving us clear direction on that.

The accounting officer system was put into place in Canada after considerable debate about whether the traditional model of ministerial and public service accountability was satisfactory.  The adoption of the accounting officer system could clarify accountability and improve the dialogue between Parliament and the professional public service by specifying that deputy ministers are indeed accountable for a few select areas, such as ensuring that an effective system of internal control is in place and signing the accounts of their organization.  It may make deputy ministers devote more attention to their management responsibilities, and may provide deputy ministers with an incentive to say no to inappropriate political interference in departmental administration.  It could do this by making them aware that their actions could potentially be the subject of parliamentary inquiry.

And public servants are accountable to their supervisors, so through the deputy minister, are responsible to Parliament as well.

So any e-mails Togneri sent to public servants within the department should be available to the committee as well.

Basic common sense tells us as well that parliamentary staff are responsible to their superior, and ultimately, the elected member they work for.  Because of that, their e-mails sent in course of their job are no longer their own property, but belong to the transaction or issue which is managed by the elected member.  The staffer doesn’t own the e-mails.  So, Baird can dance around all he wants trying to please his portly master, but if he keeps to that line, it isn’t Togneri who is in contempt by refusing, it is Paradis.

By Baird’s account, Togneri is not really responsible for whatever action was taken.  He was simply the post man, and the post man doesn’t own the mail he delivers nor can he grant that mail some vague diplomatic-type immunity.

So Baird, Harper, quit trying to interfere with the legitimate demand of the legitimate Information, Privacy and Ethics committee.  Because -  ‘Such interference would be unprecedented and abusive!’ 

(But hardly unprecedented coming from the Hamper party of Canada)

Nice ruling if it applied to anyone who gave a damn about democracy

"It is the view of the chair that accepting an unconditional authority of the executive to censor the information provided to Parliament would, in fact, jeopardize the very separation of powers that is purported to lie at the heart of our parliamentary system and the independence of its constituent parts," Milliken told the House.  "Furthermore, it risks diminishing the inherent privileges of the House and its members, which have been earned and must be safeguarded."


The odds that the CONs will abide by the ruling - they have two weeks, are about as good as Velacott marrying McVety and holding their reception at The Lookout Bar.

Milliken offered them a few outs.  Two weeks to plan a challenge to the ruling by appealing to the Supreme Court; two weeks to form another tail-dragging strategy so that they simply go through the motions of trying to comply while putting up endless barriers to any info release and hope, as they have, people will tire of the issue; trigger an election (I doubt they'll do this considering their weak position).

Nicholson's words give a big clue as to the tactic the CONs will use immediately:  "Our government will not compromise Canada's national security, nor will it jeopardize the lives of our men and women in uniform."

Just what they've been using so far:  hiding behind the troops, and refusing based on security concerns without allowing impartial eyes to decide if such concerns are valid.

Not a hollow victory for democracy, but the battle to defend it ain't over yet.

Thank you, Ralph Surette

Two related articles came out today on how Harper is destroying our democracy - one by  James Travers, and one by Ralph Surette. 

Both bring out similar concerns:

Indeed, the Harper government merely gets worse: more controlling, angry, manipulative, contemptuous of Parliament, more suspicious of its own civil service - and more incompetent, in its Bush/Cheney way, on anything touching foreign affairs. It also represents a minority of Canadians.  - Surette

Coldly cynical and conveniently effective, the advantage tilts dramatically to the ruling party. Sharing only favourable factoids and fearing no challenge from an opposition frozen outside the loop, Harper, sounding like a U.S. president, speaks directly to the people over the heads of MPs, Parliament and, should the need arise - as it did during the coalition crisis - even the Governor General.

We are witnessing institutions crumbling under the weight of assumed personal power. After decades of whittling away the principles, precedents and even laws limiting their manoeuvring room, prime ministers are now free to do as they please, at least until voters next make their mark.  - Travers

Both provide examples of Harper`s contempt of Parliament, and his refusal to be open and transparent with the public.

However, Travers and Surette come to different conclusions.

Out there, where the undecided and skeptics are kept at arm's length, Ottawa's secrecy culture isn't a kitchen table worry. Out there it would be rude to ask when the buck last stopped at a minister, how civil servants became fall guys or how watchdogs lost their bark. Out there, if Conservatives have it figured right, the manipulation of an inconvenient Parliament will slide by with the same ease as the piece-by-piece deconstruction of democracy.  - Travers

The "issue of governance" is how to get rid of it - and what to replace it with. Although the Harper government has managed repeatedly to work its way up to the 40 per cent range in the polls, considered majority country by the pollsters, as soon as the cameras focus on that fact, something blows up and the lead sinks like a stone.  The problem is that when the cameras turn to the Liberals, they sink like a stone as well...The Liberals will have another shot at it at the next election. If they fail again, then something will really have to be done. Enough international humiliation and enough scorpions.  - Surette

Travers seems to have already buried the public`s ability to play their role in a democracy and force chage, while Surette fans our angry embers, telling us with his closing words that something will have to be done if the politicians don`t oust this abominable government.  There is little question that Surette is calling to us, the citizens of Canada.

That`s good journalism.  Respect for readers, not afraid to shake us up, not afraid to opposr government.

The turning point in events such as the French revolution that lead to commoners gathering together and fighting injustice was the invention of the press.  Information was able to reach many, and the corrupt leaders did not control those running the presses.  The writers of the releases understood their role not only to inform the public and making them aware of corruption, but to remind them of their role in shaping their own fate and that of their country.

So, thank you, Ralph Surette.  We need more of this to remind all Canadians that it`s not ``rude to ask when the buck last stopped at a minister, how civil servants became fall guys or how watchdogs lost their bark,`` and that we have the power to stop ``the manipulation of an inconvenient Parliament (sliding) by with the same ease as the piece-by-piece deconstruction of democracy."