Tuesday, April 27, 2010

An election??

The speaker has ruled and has set things in motion for an election. HM Pm harper may make this am issue of confidence. I don't particularly want an election, but the Tories are ready,willing and able to fight an election on this issue. I doubt the opposition is ready, able or willing. iffy will back down.


The Speaker of the House of Commons has ruled that opposition members have the right to ask for uncensored Afghan detainee documents, and MPs must now decide how to view the records without jeopardizing national security.

It took Peter Milliken roughly 45 minutes to explain his historic decision, citing precedents that dated back more than a century.

He said the House has two weeks to create a system for viewing the sensitive detainee records.

6 comments:

Jen said...

I will go to an election to ask the public "would you surrend sensitive documents that could and most probably endanger the lives of our troops as well as the innocent afghans"

For four and half years, the opposition parties showed no appreciation nor concern for our military instead what the opposition parties chanted daily in the parliament is about the taliban detainees rights which may inform you was going on since the liberals years.
Day after day the opposition parties demanded to know the what's written in the sensitive documents ignoring of course the safety rights of our troops.

TALIBAN DETAINEES ARE THE OPPOSITION PARTIES MAJOR CONCERN THAN THE SAFETY OF OUR TROOPS, OUR COUNTRY AND CANADIANS.
Yes, bring on an election and let the public decide under which government they want to lead them. A TALIBAN COALITION led or the conservatives. the choice is yours.
We all know where the CBC stand with and that isn't you, me military or afghan innocents.
the taliban are fully aware where the opposition parties and their media loyalty lies.

Leo said...

Good point Roy. I am curious whether Ignatieff will cave in yet again.

Anonymous said...

Bring a motion requiring ALL documents to be delivered to the Committee and requiring an oath by all members of the Committee in the name of the Crown to maintain the confidentiality of the documents.

This would satisfy the Speaker and force the Bloc to forfeit ther right to sit in the Parliament of Canada.

Anonymous said...

Well actually all Bloc MP's aleady swear an oath to the crown when they become MP's.. so you're out of luck!!!

ck said...

My My, as usual, you all missed the boat. This stopped being about the Afghan detainee documents awhile ago.

Regardless of how Milliken would rule, the detainee issue, one way or another, would come back to bite Harper on the butt. Torturing detainees, or knowingly sending detainees in harm's way goes against the Geneva Conventions. If Canada didn't do an investigation, you can be sure that some international body would start nosing around.

Britain has it's own torturegate being played out in the courts. Their timeline of events is so similar to what ours' was alleged it's uncanny.

No, detainee issue would definitely come back sooner or later.

Besides, if there is nothing to see in those documents, as many of you along with PM Steve contend, then logic dictates there's nothing to hide, right?. Jen, spare the Americana paranoia. It's really unattractive.

No, this whole Milliken decision was about our democracy; about whether or not we still have responsible government: Who reigns superior? Parliament or government?

Someone once said, it's not necessarily the sin, itself that does a politician in, but rather, how the scandal around said sin is handled.

Harper going out of his way; twisting himself into a pretzel; proroguing over this; getting Frank Iacobucci side show in simply gives the idea to most folks that he clearly has something to hide.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't Harper orginally campaign on accountability and transparency in the government? Seems that he's done and still doing everything but be transparent and accountable.

been around the block said...

ck: " ... didn't Harper orginally [sic] campaign on accountability and transparency in the government?"

Yes, he did, presuming, also, that he wouldn't be hijacked at every turn by jackals in Parliament and hyenas in the media.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government ARE being accountable to the Canadian public and Canada's military by guarding documents which could harm our national security.

With three Opposition parties howling about "injustices" (sic) to Taliban detainees while gloating about finding fault, presumably, with our military who are risking their lives every day for our freedoms here in Canada, Prime Minister Harper has a duty to be very circumspect about releasing documents that would jeopardize Canada's intelligence -- especially to members of the Bloc who can hardly be said to be the most patriotic of Canadians, seeing as their main purpose is to separate from Canada.

What I don't understand is how anyone doesn't get this.

As for transparency: Every time our Prime Minister does explain what his government is doing, he's tarred and feathered by the Opposition and their toadies in the media. In fact, discrediting our prime minister has become the Opposition's main mission in life.

Under these circumstances, discretion is the better part of valour -- discretion being seen by the Opposition and the mangy dogs in the media as stonewalling.

Kyrie Eleison.

batb

I Support Lord Black