Today on the CBC, Margo McDiamerdid informed us that one of the reasons Speaker Milliken's decision to find the Government in contempt took so long, was that he carefully researched parliamentary precedence from foreign countries such as New Zealand. Mr. Ignatieff also made several references to international democracies that both influenced this decision and would be influenced by this decision. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't each democracy in this world supposed to craft their own unique set of laws based on the unique characteristics of their individual country? Or should all democracies be molded from the same cookie cutter where laws in various countries should be automatically applicable in others?
I'm sure there are a lot of laws in a lot of democracies around the world that I would not want having ANY influence over our judicial or parliamentary dogma. Yet, according to Margo, foreign precedence influenced Peter's decision. It is fine in principle to say that parliament should have access to Government documents, but when those documents outline in detail our combat operations in a war that thousands of Canadian men and women are currently fighting in, you are playing a dangerous game with our soldier's lives.
Do you know what precedence matters to me Mr. Speaker? Not some aged ruling from New Zealand, it is that when the Government did release a number of documents to the opposition parties, those documents were forwarded immediately to the CBC. Within days, CBC.ca had posted all the documents on the WORLD Wide Web and "journalists" like Kady O'Malley were encouraging anyone anywhere in the world to read them in detail. Hopefully Ralph will include “don’t forward documents to Milewski” in the deal that is supposed to be negotiated.
That Mr. Speaker is precedence that matters, especially while we are at war. Our combat operations will conclude next year. Once our soldiers are no longer raiding bomb making factories, then perhaps we can discuss some of the details of how we conducted those operations.
I agree. The Liberals sent our troops to war without consulting Parliament, or even allowing a vote on it, and that was just fine with lefties.
ReplyDeleteParliament has been able to vote twice on the mission since 2006 and that is why we are leaving, because of the opposition. Not happy with that, they want to pretend they are the government and want to see ALL documents the government sees. We are at WAR, they can't seem to get that through their heads. Our men and women are dying over there, and releasing those documents could put them in danger. Milliken might be right in the ruling, but he should have ruled that not all documents can be made available to MP's with a political purpose.
Let's not jump to conclusions here please.
ReplyDeleteThis an important issue that goes to the basis of our democracy. I would expect Speaker Milliken to research how other British based parliamentary democracies have ruled on similar issues. He could not have ruled any differently than he has, given our parliamentary history.
I also believe that parliamentary decisions supercede Supreme Court decisions. That is why I support the "notwithstanding clause". All such issues need to brought to the people through an election, regardless if the people understand the ramifications of the issue.
I denigrate the current opposition for bringing this particular issue to this point since secrecy is paramount when a country is at war. Especially as it was brought on us by the previous administration that composes part of that opposition.
The issue is important to many but should not be a political football for partisan purposes.
Point 1. Peter Milliken is a lawyer, and lawyers are trained to look for precedents. If a precedent doesn't exist in home jurisdictions, similar decisions may exist in similar jurisdictions, and a lawyer would be negligent if he did *not* check to see how said jurisdictions dealt with similar situations.
ReplyDeletePoint 2. Not only are both Australia and New Zealand parliamentary systems in the Commonwealth, they are also participants in the NATO mission in Afghanistan. So it's very likely that the subject of detainee handling would have cropped up in their parliamentary discussions.
Point 3. Speaker Milliken's research would also have included Great Britain, which happens to have a very sizable contingent in Afghanistan.
I disagree. Canada is old enough that we can draft our own laws. I don't feel as warm and fuzzy about the British Commonwealth as the Phantom, but that's just me.
ReplyDeleteBut hold on, Mr Speaker...New Zealand and other commonwealth don't have a Bloc Quebecois Party in their Parliaments. Great Britain won't allow the Sinn Finn in their House...so there is no "clear" comparison for a "clear" ruling!
ReplyDelete