- Harper's New Constitutional Convention - 'Protect My Bu[redacted]t'

Posted: 8/30/2010 11:28:18 AM The Globe and Mail
Opposition undeterred by Tory refusal to hand over emails, Globe and Mail, Aug. 30, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/opposition-undeterred-by-governments-refusal-to-hand-over-emails/article1689506/

Sorry Mr. Baird, but you do not make the rules, no matter what Stephen Harper thinks, Parliament does.

'Protect My Bu[redacted]t' may be a long standing political principle but it has never been elevated to Constitutional Convention.

The Fundamental Constitutional Convention is that Parliament is Supreme, as Speaker of the House, Peter Milliken, so dramatically and emphatically re-inforced a mere few months ago.

Why do Canadians have to spend months fighting tooth and nail to force Harper and the Conservative government to release information - I mean other than it might incriminate Harper or some other Con.

Rather than simply ranting and raving that "constitutional convention dictates" perhaps John Baird, Stephen Harper or any other Con state exactly what law, what convention, what precedent (other than one generated by them) they are relying on to withhold this information.

Another fundamental Constitutional Convention in Canada is the rule of law (not to be confused with the rule of Harper).

Thus, we arrive at a Fundamental Equation of Canadian Democracy:

Parliament has the right to the information + no law to bar release to Parliament = hand over the documents

The above is based on rationality, logic, law, and not the neo-rational pseudo-reasons put forth for Canadian consumption by Harper, Baird, Tony Clement and all the other Con's.

This Fundamental Equation of Canadian Democracy is in stark contrast to

The Fundamental Con of the Harper Government:

a core of die-hard, right-wing extremists with epi-centred in Alberta, who are the ones keeping him in power
+
polarized, non-consolidated opposition
=
Harper's 'I make the rules'

with corollary:

'Canadians be d[redacted]'.

"But constitutional expert C.E.S. (Ned) Franks does not believe the government can withhold the e-mails. 'I think the Parliament is entitled to know what instructions the minister’s office staff gives,' Mr. Franks said, 'and I also think the Parliament is entitled to know whether the minister has any knowledge of this.'

(Ned) Franks is right (morally that is) Parliament, and all Canadians, are entitled know what Harper and his Ministers' are doing; and, why they go to such great lengths to obscure, obstruct, obfuscate it.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html