• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Freedom Convoy protests [Split from All things 2019-nCoV]

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,549
Points
1,060
I'm not convinced our system is properly set up for legislators and policy makers to have access to sensitive information yet maintain effective safeguards. A policy of openness, Parliamentary Privilege and too much temptation to beak off with their thumbs for partisan gain, and not enough ''hauled off to the tower' repercussions.


Some of that for sure. But I think another part of the failure of that system is the failure to consider the other members of parliament as responsible, honourable members. If only they could accept that the other side's ideas are equally worthy of consideration then they could start to consider planning on the basis of which plan creates the least harm if it fails.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,242
Points
1,140
Some of that for sure. But I think another part of the failure of that system is the failure to consider the other members of parliament as responsible, honourable members. If only they could accept that the other side's ideas are equally worthy of consideration then they could start to consider planning on the basis of which plan creates the least harm if it fails.
If the information is real so super duper secret - then perhaps the Canadian Government should have a House and Senate Intelligence panel where those members are read into programs. That way a limited (and security cleared) members of both the ruling party andthe opposition can have access to the information, and inform their party without divulging sources and scope of the information if there is a credible concern or not.

I mean the idea that the MP's can't be trusted to vote on the why of the EMR is kind of a page from an authoritarian dictator who allows the people a show of democracy and never actually listens to the people that the public elected as MPs.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,365
Points
1,360
I'm not convinced our system is properly set up for legislators and policy makers to have access to sensitive information yet maintain effective safeguards. A policy of openness, Parliamentary Privilege and too much temptation to beak off with their thumbs for partisan gain, and not enough ''hauled off to the tower' repercussions.
Which may have elements of valid concerns, of sorts, HOWEVER, if they do, then prosecute them to the full extent of the Security of Information Act (prev. Official Secrets Act).

I still think that to respect the Parliamentary system, the committee members must be granted access to the information to be able to provide the oversight to which Sen. Gord says they have the responsibility to do. Otherwise, a CSIS or CSE operating without oversight isn’t anything I want to have happening in Canada.

“Read in, held accountable!”
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,173
Points
1,160
. . . If only they could accept that the other side's ideas are equally worthy of consideration then they could start to consider planning on the basis of which plan creates the least harm if it fails.

But that's not how our parliamentary system is designed. If the other side's ideas were "worthy", they'd be government. Any time that I hear a politician proclaim that he/she is willing to work with the other side, my brain automatically translates it to "I'll work with you but I'm still in charge, shut-up and let me do what I think is right want and I won't fuck you around too much".
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,549
Points
1,060
Possibly not. But at the same time it creates a system where parliamentary privilege et el is easily abused. Providing Canadians are actually compensated for banned firearms, that's a $1B cost to tax payers based on "evidence" no one is allowed to see. The current government has hardly behaved in an open transparent and trust worthy manner.

This emergency act is turning out to be the same thing. Feet dragging and inaction turned a 3 day protest into a month occupation. The situation is brought under control but the government is still going ahead with the temporary Emergency Act, of which the government will be making portions permanent, and the members of parliament we voted in to make decisions for us will not be given the full story to make their decisions. There's some ill defined ambiguous scary threat lurking out there that we just have to trust the government about. Is this intelligence from the same sources that apparently royally screwed up the threat assessment on the truckers? WMD in Iraq kind of stuff.

If I understand the timeline there was an online campaign that became active on January 14 when fundraising commenced.
8 days later, January 22, trucks started rolling from distant locations like Prince Rupert and Smith Falls.

7 days later, January 29, the trucks arrived in Ottawa
with, apparently, a useful contingent of local supporters waving them into town.
Also on January 29 Coutts border crossing blockaded by local truckers and farmers.

7 February, Ambassador Bridge blockaded
10 February, Pembina crossing in Manitoba blockaded
11 February, Biden calls Trudeau
11 February, Mayor of Windsor granted an injunction against the Ambassador Bridge blockade
12 February, a Saturday, a group of sympathizers from Chilliwack gathered at Vancouver's commercial crossing to Blaine on Hwy 15
13 February, the Hwy 15 crossing was open.
13 February, the Ambassador Bridge was cleared and opened - Windsor Police, OPP and available police reinforcements
13 February, Minister Blair "urged the (Ottawa) police to do their jobs, enforce the law and restore order".[393][251] Police enforcement of "layers of laws, injunctions, and emergency orders already in effect" was minimal,

14 February, guns seized at Coutts
14 Emergency Measures Act invoked
15 February, Coutts blockade collapsed and cleared. Site left the way the protestors found it according to the Mayor.
16 February, Pembina blockade collapsed and cleared.
17 February, debate on Emergency Measures Act postponed due to police actions to clear protesters
19 February, Ottawa cleared of truckers
21 February, Emergency Measures Act debated and passed

I suggest we are all victim of the Ottawa version of the Map of Canada. Only their view doesn't extend past Wellington Street.

The locals couldn't get to work and were having trouble sleeping and they didn't think the local constabulary was addressing their concerns adequately. Then they discovered the constabulary didn't actually work for the federal government. But they could fix that.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,549
Points
1,060
Says a lot about these protesters having a temper tantrum:





Oh geez. (somewhere between amused, unsurprised and face palming).

Have a great day. Its a glorious one in Southern Alberta. Blue skies as usual.

Cheers.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,196
Points
1,010
I guess after Jan 6th and seeing what happened in Ottawa they aren’t taking any chances.

In both cases authorities over-reacted and are over-reacting. Politicians and media, and many other people, know that keeping a sense of crisis going is a political enabler. The "permanent changes" the GoC is contemplating weren't really emphasized in public discussion - so obviously not particularly necessary - at any time prior to merely a couple of months ago. Now they are. Be harder to convince people the changes are merited if the GoC declared, "OK, crisis over, blockades cleared, EA off, back to customary enforcement".

Canada was doing just fine - not perfectly - and now suddenly a ball needs to be advanced because some politicians sense that an opportunity to advance it has opened. I say, wait 6 months, and try and sell the case to Canadians then.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,549
Points
1,060
Article 5 Bill of Rights 1689, which explicitly declared the "That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall."

Article 13 of the 1689 Bill of Rights "And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently." indicating that the right to petition is cognate with the right to redress of grievance in Parliament.

I suggest that the Governor-General as the Monarchy's representative should expect to be directly petitioned. She may choose to act or ignore on the advice of her Prime Minister, while sitting as Governor in Council, but ultimately, in Canada, it is the Governor-General that, in law, is the final arbiter acting in place of the Monarch, in loco Regis.

And, despite the discomfort it may cause the Government of the Day there is a right for Canadians to petition the Crown. In this case the Crown is represented in the person of the Governor-General.

Again, she can choose to act or not act on the advice of her prime minister but there is nothing incorrect about sending a petition to the Governor-General.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,549
Points
1,060
But that's not how our parliamentary system is designed. If the other side's ideas were "worthy", they'd be government. Any time that I hear a politician proclaim that he/she is willing to work with the other side, my brain automatically translates it to "I'll work with you but I'm still in charge, shut-up and let me do what I think is right want and I won't fuck you around too much".

And yet our working model, Westminster manages to incorporate an all party House of Commons Defence Committee and an all party Intelligence and Security Committee.



Defence Committee
https://members.parliament.uk/member/1487/contact
Rt Hon Tobias Ellwood MP
Conservative
Bournemouth East
Chair
Commons

Stuart Anderson MP
Conservative
Wolverhampton South West
Commons


Sarah Atherton MP
Conservative
Wrexham
Commons


Dave Doogan MP
Scottish National Party
Angus
Commons


Richard Drax MP
Conservative
South Dorset
Commons


Rt Hon Mark Francois MP
Conservative
Rayleigh and Wickford
Commons


Rt Hon Kevan Jones MP
Labour
North Durham
Commons


Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck MP
Labour
South Shields
Commons


Gavin Robinson MP
Democratic Unionist Party
Belfast East
Commons

https://members.parliament.uk/member/318/contact
Rt Hon John Spellar MP
Labour
https://members.parliament.uk/member/318/contact
https://members.parliament.uk/member/318/contact
Intelligence and Security Committee



Other options for secure cross party work

The Privy Council

The Lords (Senate)


At the other end of the spectrum of accountability the main parties have their own party committees that hold their members, including their prime minister of the day, to account.

The Conservatives have their 1922 Committee that currently is putting pressure on Boris Johnston, and historically has removed sitting prime ministers. Labour has similar capabilities to oust their leaders as Jeremy Corbin found out.

The Canadian system is not broken. But it is definitely bent.
 

Mick

Member
Reaction score
129
Points
530
If the information is real so super duper secret - then perhaps the Canadian Government should have a House and Senate Intelligence panel where those members are read into programs. That way a limited (and security cleared) members of both the ruling party andthe opposition can have access to the information, and inform their party without divulging sources and scope of the information if there is a credible concern or not.

Since 2018, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians has fulfilled a role similar to what you are suggesting.


From the website:

"The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act mandates the Committee to review:

  • the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence;
  • any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence, unless the activity is an ongoing operation and the appropriate Minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security;
  • any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister of the Crown refers to the Committee.
Committee members come from both Houses of Parliament. All hold Top Secret security clearances and are permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act. Members swear an oath or solemn affirmation indicating that they will obey and uphold the laws of Canada, and not communicate or inappropriately use information obtained in confidence as part their responsibilities on the Committee. On this basis, members are able to receive classified briefings and materials related to the conduct of the Committee’s work."

Current membership is comprised of 6 MPs (4 LPC, 1 NDP, 1 BQ), and 3 Senators (1 each from Canadian, Progressive, and Independent Senator Groups).

It should be noted that although composed of parliamentarians, this committee is not a committee of Parliament, and is housed in the executive branch, reporting to the PM.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,659
Points
1,090
Article 5 Bill of Rights 1689, which explicitly declared the "That it is the Right of the Subjects to petition the King and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such Petitioning are Illegall."

Article 13 of the 1689 Bill of Rights "And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently." indicating that the right to petition is cognate with the right to redress of grievance in Parliament.

I suggest that the Governor-General as the Monarchy's representative should expect to be directly petitioned. She may choose to act or ignore on the advice of her Prime Minister, while sitting as Governor in Council, but ultimately, in Canada, it is the Governor-General that, in law, is the final arbiter acting in place of the Monarch, in loco Regis.

And, despite the discomfort it may cause the Government of the Day there is a right for Canadians to petition the Crown. In this case the Crown is represented in the person of the Governor-General.

Again, she can choose to act or not act on the advice of her prime minister but there is nothing incorrect about sending a petition to the Governor-General.
Petitions are fine. What the GG is saying is that people can’t send in and register votes of no confidence that would lead to dissolution.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,549
Points
1,060
Petitions are fine. What the GG is saying is that people can’t send in and register votes of no confidence that would lead to dissolution.

Sure they can. They are free to request the GG dissolve parliament at any time. She is free to ignore the request. Or not.


"Get your dungarees off, Gough."
 
  • Like
Reactions: QV

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,549
Points
1,060
Since 2018, the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians has fulfilled a role similar to what you are suggesting.


From the website:

"The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act mandates the Committee to review:

  • the legislative, regulatory, policy, administrative and financial framework for national security and intelligence;
  • any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence, unless the activity is an ongoing operation and the appropriate Minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security;
  • any matter relating to national security or intelligence that a minister of the Crown refers to the Committee.
Committee members come from both Houses of Parliament. All hold Top Secret security clearances and are permanently bound to secrecy under the Security of Information Act. Members swear an oath or solemn affirmation indicating that they will obey and uphold the laws of Canada, and not communicate or inappropriately use information obtained in confidence as part their responsibilities on the Committee. On this basis, members are able to receive classified briefings and materials related to the conduct of the Committee’s work."

Current membership is comprised of 6 MPs (4 LPC, 1 NDP, 1 BQ), and 3 Senators (1 each from Canadian, Progressive, and Independent Senator Groups).

It should be noted that although composed of parliamentarians, this committee is not a committee of Parliament, and is housed in the executive branch, reporting to the PM.

And that is where I conclude that the Canadian system is not broken. Just, as I said, bent.

The Brits have this silly notion that Parliament is sovereign. And the PM serves at Parliament's pleasure. Her Majesty concurring.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,659
Points
1,090
Sure they can. They are free to request the GG dissolve parliament at any time. She is free to ignore the request. Or not.


"Get your dungarees off, Gough."
Lol. Ok. That isn’t what they are doing. They are trying to register votes of no confidence. There is no mechanism in place for that. They can petion sure but that isn’t what the GG is trying to clarify.

Just more protesters not actually understanding the law and being given false info. This isn’t recall legislation like in the US.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,296
Points
1,260
Lol. Ok. That isn’t what they are doing. They are trying to register votes of no confidence. There is no mechanism in place for that. They can petion sure but that isn’t what the GG is trying to clarify.

Just more protesters not actually understanding the law and being given false info. This isn’t recall legislation like in the US.

So like:

Pardon me if I don't think the public took enough civics classes.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,549
Points
1,060
Lol. Ok. That isn’t what they are doing. They are trying to register votes of no confidence. There is no mechanism in place for that. They can petion sure but that isn’t what the GG is trying to clarify.

Just more protesters not actually understanding the law and being given false info. This isn’t recall legislation like in the US.

I reckon that there is an honest debate on intentions that the pair of us can have. I doubt if we will find agreement beyond agreeing to set the question to the side.

Cheers. ;)
 
Top