Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Parliamentary officers free from interference: Tories

BRODIE FENLON

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 11:14 PM EDT 04/05/08

Concerns that independent officers of Parliament will be required to vet communications strategies through Privy Council Office shot down ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: And so the stifling of government continues.

    Is this what we really want?

    Is this the type of government we deserve?

    Is this the PMO our own version of The Ministry of Truth?
  2. Preston Jacob from Canada writes: So as Vic explained, the independence of the independent officers continues, in spite of a conflicting policy. (Law trumps policy)

    One question regarding the new government of Canada is why they are unable to learn their collective job. i.e. what they can and cant do by law.

    Why write a policy that contradicts the law; it makes the government and by extention the country look like fools.
  3. Calvin harrington from Canada writes: Harper is a Dictator, at least that is what he wants to be, but even more troublesome is that he is controlled by Findley and Flagan, neither of them elected but who control the party, they in turn are controled by the Bushes' Republican Party. Look into Harpers eyes and you will see the eyes of a Mad Man, Satlin, Hitler, etc had the same look.
  4. D. B. from Canada writes: Why, though, does Mr. Harper insist on seeing independence of these commissions, etc. as necessarily meaning partisanship, as in out to get the Harper Conservatives? We saw it with the Nuclear Safety Commission and with Elections Canada. We may have seen it in the Auditor General's office, with the dismissal of the Environment Commissioner.
  5. Brian C from Canada writes: Good on Gloria Galloway for getting the story out and selling a few newspapers before being contradicted by the facts. The G&M and LPC must be proud.
  6. puddin and pie from Canada writes: there are many arms of government
    some policy oriented
    some regulatory
    some independent

    this isn't unusual

    do you know who you ultimately speaks for your workplace?
  7. Trillian Rand from Canada writes: The communications limitations are not the only concerns the Auditor General has. Other media report that Ms Fraser told a parliamentary committee this week there are about 25 similarly problematic policies where the government wants to play a greater role in how officers of Parliament run their affairs. Don't look for this to go away any time soon.
  8. M. R. from Canada writes:

    Stevie will find another way to muffle these 'independents', we haven't heard the end of this new tactic.
  9. Daniel Cunningham from Victoria, writes: Heil Fuhrer Harper!
  10. Compos Mentis from in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West..., Canada writes: Brian C from Canada writes: "Good on Gloria Galloway for getting the story out and selling a few newspapers before being contradicted by the facts. The G&M and LPC must be proud. "

    I don't know about that Brian.

    I trust Sheila Fraser over Peter van Loan any day.
  11. Jim Goodwin from Canada writes: Nothing surprises me any more. The party of openness and transparency, is completely the opposite. This from a competing paper today. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/420873. This doesn't seem to end. God help us if they ever get a majority.
  12. D. B. from Canada writes: This is a very serious matter because it points to the possibility that the government really would like to exercise control over the independent agencies and commissions that are supposed to hold the government accountable for its actions. A kind of reversal there, I would say.

    This is not a new matter, either. Apparently, back in October 2007, the various agencies and commissions got together to write to Treasury Board to demand clarifications about TB's plans for them, which they said simply could not apply to them. So this has been simmering a long time and the government doesn't really seemed to have been very interested in backing down. That is, until Sheila Fraser made the whole thing very public.

    So the govenrment wants to control the agencies that are in place to make sure the government doesn't overstep its boundaries! And to try to set controls on the Auditor General . . . to what extent and why, who knows?
  13. Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Sheila Fraser disagrees with Van Loan and is looking for explicit exemptions written into the policy. Given a choice between taking the word of a proven liar or the word of the Auditor General, I choose the latter. Like the immigration file, it is irrelevant what the INTENTIONS of the existing government are, leaving the door open for abuse invites abuse.
  14. Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: I for one am pretty sick and tired of a Prime Minister who is putting his particular party and its agenda ahead of the governance of the country of Canada.

    Wasn't there an oath Stephen Harper had to recite? Something about pledging alliegence to Canada?

    Ah, simply another promise broken. Got it!

    What is it about 'independent' and 'arm's length' that the Stephen Harper Party simply cannot understand?
  15. Ruth Walker from Edmonton, Canada writes: The Harperites are modeling the federal government after the Alberta approach.

    Here in Alberta, we don't really go for all that parliamentary democracy stuff. The one-party system, popular with totalitarian regimes everywhere, is supported by the Public Affairs Bureau. Albertans are bathed daily in a stream of news, crafted and delivered direct from our government. Nothing bad ever happens, and things are getting better all the time. No wonder we vote in a trance.

    Once Canada sees the benefits of the Alberta way, I expect we will want Mr. Harper to stay on as PM, oh, for at least forty years.
  16. JustTheFacts, Jack from Canada writes: Interference, have we seen this before? Kelowna Accord, Child Care Funding, AIDS Research, Kyoto Treaty, Income Trusts, Chief of Defence Staff, Chuck Cadman, Democratic Campaign, Immigrants, Safe Injection Site...

    The Battles continue everyday with CAN institutions: the Media, CAN Wheat Board, Nuclear Safety Commission, Environment CAN, Elections CAN, Gov't of Ontario, Gov't of NFLD & LAB...

    After a decade of surpluses, CAN is now about to tread into deficit - 13 billion to 0 in only 2 years. CAN's New Gov't is spending like drunken sailors while agreeing to strategic assests like Alcan and Inco being sold off, forever decreasing our revenue base.

    Many of our best are doing the impossible in Afghanistan and paying in blood for a foreign policy that is not ours.

    Can our grandchildren afford this New Gov't?
  17. Slippery Slope from Canada writes: The only ones they should muzzle are Kenney and Baird. Those guy are scary looking.
  18. Elmo Harris from Niagara, Canada writes: Parliamentary officers free from interference: Tories

    We will never tax Income Trusts - trust me: Tories
  19. edward prior from Montreal, Canada writes: I just bought a bridge from a gentlemen in Florida selling same. Good thing there was a bridge because the land it crossed and which he assured me was prime agricultural acreage turned out to be swamp.
  20. tom g from upper ottawa valley, Canada writes: The policy seems another step in our march toward totalitarianism (defined as 'state control of communication'). The policy seems consistent with the recent decision to cancel the freedom to information requests system (CAIRS). Previous steps, such as Harper personally overriding his own regulatory agencies and boards, have been systematic. The national news media haven't had access to senior government officials for a long time. We've been marching to the beat of Harper's drum for a long while now. Time to fall out I think.

    Time to recognize that genuine citizen participation in their own governance is essential to this thing we call a representative democracy. The people can't participate in what there is no information about. We can only follow the leader in a march to nowhere--a choreography of democracy. Isn't Harper quoted as saying 'You won't recognize Canada when I'm done with it?'
  21. True North from Canada writes: Harper's government cannot be trusted.
  22. David Griffith from Canada writes: Damn! Stephan, this Scandal-o-Matic machine is a piece of junk!

    (Hypothetical Liberal caucus conversation excerpt)
  23. David Griffith from Canada writes: "Did you try that new contraption...what is it...oh, yes, the Policy-o-matic machine?"

    "Yes. All I got was 'file not found'. "

    (Continued, from hypothetical Liberal caucus conversation)
  24. David Griffith from Canada writes: Mrs. Whiggins from Canada writes: I for one am pretty sick and tired of a Prime Minister who is putting his particular party and its agenda ahead of the governance of the country of Canada.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You mean like how the Libs put party ahead of country during the sponsorship scandal?
  25. David Griffith from Canada writes: Bobby Dy from Canada writes: Sheila Fraser disagrees with Van Loan and is looking for explicit exemptions written into the policy. Given a choice between taking the word of a proven liar or the word of the Auditor General, I choose the latter. Like the immigration file
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Except that most experts on the immigration file seem to agree that the government's move here is justified, smart, good for Canada, and long overdue (read: Libs did nothing but pander to the immigrants).

    You're welcome
  26. Compos Mentis from in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West..., Canada writes: David Griffith from Canada writes: "...You mean like how the Libs put party ahead of country during the Sponsorship scandal? "

    David, if that really is your (and others) take on the Sponsorship scandal then I now understand.

    While I was dissapointed (I tore up my membership card) with the eventual outcome of the Sponsorship scandal, I understood that its core intention was to prevent the breakup of Canada (by countering the "Oui" forces in Quebec).

    That intention was hijacked by a few dishonest Ad executives and party zealots. But was this action condoned and organized party-wide?

    I never did believe that the LPC's sole purpose was to use the Sponsorship program for the exclusive use and benefit of the party. And I followed the Gomery Inquiry very closely.

    So, in the end, the Liberals were rightfully thrown out of office for allowing this kind of behaviour to occur under their watch.

    If Mr. Martin hadn't called the Gomery Inquiry, I might have agreed with you though.
  27. David Griffith from Canada writes: Compos Mentis from in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West..., Canada writes: David Griffith from Canada writes: "...You mean like how the Libs put party ahead of country during the Sponsorship scandal? "

    David, if that really is your (and others) take on the Sponsorship scandal then I now understand.

    That intention was hijacked by a few dishonest Ad executives and party zealots. But was this action condoned and organized party-wide?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of course it was! You think this all happened in a vaccuum? You are either sffering from acute partisan blindness, or acute naivete. It amuses me how a Liberal scandal happens "outside of the party proper", but all Tory ones orginate with the PM. What a sad, sad double standard. Luckily, people now can see through it.
  28. Compos Mentis from in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West..., Canada writes: David Griffith from Canada writes: "...You are either sffering from acute partisan blindness, or acute naivete. It amuses me how a Liberal scandal happens "outside of the party proper", but all Tory ones orginate with the PM. What a sad, sad double standard. Luckily, people now can see through it."

    Well, if I had my druthers, I'd chose naivete over party syncophant any day of the week.

    I don't buy into the partisan scandals (on either side). But yes, I do acknowledge that the Sponsorship scandal was a proven Liberal scandal.

    As for the recent Conservative "scandals" - I see them more as amateurish missteps. However, with respect to the election campaign financing in/out troubles... well, let's just see where all that eventually leads to before laying judgement, shall we?

    As for your comment "... but all Tory ones orginate with the PM".

    We have seen unprecendented control by the PMO during this government. Given that reality, it is logical to assume that no one in government does anything without first getting permission (bathroom breaks included). In this environment, it is logical to assume that most (if not all) Tory missteps originate with the PM.
  29. Harper-approved lies are scripted talking points from Canada writes: Tories do not "interfere." We merely "facilitate" others in seeing things our way, the right way. That goes for parliamentary officers, scientists, bureaucrats, artists, and anyone who is not under direct control of the PMO. You just need our help, is all.
  30. David Griffith from Canada writes: Compos Mentis from in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West..., Canada writes:
    We have seen unprecendented control by the PMO during this government
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I beg to differ...actually, the PMO had grown to be a controlling force long before Harper...long before Martin. Its just been better publicized now that a Conservative PM is at the helm. PMO has quietly been pulling the strings for decades. Some good books on this actually, that I read decades ago when I took my poli.sci. degree. Wish I could remember the titles, so I could recommend them to you, but alas, age and memory...not a good mix. Sigh.
  31. Compos Mentis from in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West..., Canada writes: David: if you mean "power", then I agree.

    But I am referring to the level of micromanagement that Mr. Harper has attempted to attain with this government. Not very healthy for democracy at all.
  32. David Griffith from Canada writes: Compos Mentis from in the Darwinian Wild, Wild West..., Canada writes: David: if you mean "power", then I agree.

    But I am referring to the level of micromanagement that Mr. Harper has attempted to attain with this government. Not very healthy for democracy at all.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Actually, it has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy refers to the system we use to govern ourselves, including the political freedoms we citizens possess, and how we elect our governments. How an individual admin runs the internal workings of government is really just a style of management adopted by that admin. This cuurent admin has chosen a tight ship method due to an entrenched bureaucracy and a hostile media. Now, if we really wanted to talk about democracy being unhealthy, it could be, and has been argued, that true democracy in our system ends directly after an election, especially with a majority. Pretty much carte blanche for a few years. But I digress...and must call it a night. Raked my yard all day and am hurting! Nite peoples!

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top