Unbelievable. The supremacy of Parliament is an "arcane view." A reference to the SCC will still, somehow, include Iacobucci.If the Libs have the stones--always an open question--they'll just put an end to the BS and have Harper arrested. Iacobucci shouldn't even be a player, and Parliament doesn't have to sit around waiting for a SCC reference case.
I'm still not clear about one thing; someone obviously has to have the right to redact information. No country in the World operates on a different basis.If the Opposition is calling for unredacted documents and then Derek Lee insists MP's have the right to make them public, then what choice does the government (and by that, I mean any Canadian government) have but to seek clarification...somewhere?We've gotten a lot of similar examples from the US in the past decade, but unless I'm mistaken, congressthingies don't have the right to make public what still remain official secrets. Admittedly, that is also how the American administrations have been getting away with war crimes, so......ah fuck it. To repeat what Daniel Ellsberg called for recently: Whistleblowers...Leak!
I'm curious -- did Lee really claim that Parliament had a right to anything it wanted, and also had the right to make any of that public? Did he seriously say that? Because, yes, that strikes me as a moronic thing to say.Transcript, anyone?
According to Norman Speculum, he did:"On CBC radio last week, Liberal MP Derek Lee argued strenuously that he and any of his colleagues had the right to obtain any Afghan detainee document, and that MPs also had the right to make the documents public. No ifs, no doubts and no restrictions, according to Mr. Lee."As for transcripts, the CBC doesn't provide them automatically.I've gotten behind listening to The Current lately, one reason being what Speculum himself mentions: "This being The Current, his argument went unopposed."The other reason was "Olympics, Olympics, Olympics, Haïti, Haïti Haïti."
I just spent a few minutes with Teh Google and I have yet to find any corroboration that Lee was demanding the right to share anything Parliament wanted with the Canadian public, totally unredacted. So I think this needs to be resolved.Either Lee was overreaching in a ridiculous way, or Norman Spector lied. I'd actually like to know which of those two is true.
Lee is saying that the MPs with security clearances have every right to see what the government is doing with taxpayers' money.
I see nothing wrong with that position, but that's not what Norman Sphincter was claiming. I want to know the accuracy of this claim:"On CBC radio last week, Liberal MP Derek Lee argued strenuously that he and any of his colleagues had the right to obtain any Afghan detainee document, and that MPs also had the right to make the documents public. No ifs, no doubts and no restrictions, according to Mr. Lee."Is that what Lee said? It's a simple question.
Well, you'll have to wait 'til I get caught up The Current.wv: "pedardal" That just has to refer to Conservative. Has to.
Ok, it's the March 3rd episode of The Current, part 1, "Previously on Parliament." I listened to a bit and it sounds like Speculum misrepresented what Lee said. He basically stated that Parliament (not MP's) has the right to make anything public if it decides to and that no existing statute (such as the Evidence Act) binds it.I have to rush to the grocery store before it closes. I'll listen to the rest on the way.
Post a Comment