Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The watchdogs

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, January 26, 2010 5:09pm - 54 Comments

The Globe, Canadian Press, Star, and CBC report from the appearances of the former president of the Nuclear Safety Commission, the former chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission and the former chair of the RCMP public complaints commission at a Liberal forum this morning. From the Globe’s account.

More diplomatic was Peter Tinsley, whose term as chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, was not renewed last year. The commission made news for probing the Afghan detainee controversy, the same hot-button issue that many observers say forced the Tories to prorogue Parliament this winter.

“The perception has become widespread that something is not quite right in the system,” Mr. Tinsley said. Too often, he said, political “horsetrading” and unelected staffers play key roles in hiring and firing watchdogs that serve at the whim of the government they are appointed to criticize. ”The potential for abuse itself does not bode well for good governance,” Mr. Tinsley said.

Tags: Linda Keen, Military Police Complaints Commission, MPCC, Paul Kennedy, Peter Tinsley, RCMP

More by Aaron Wherry

Dot

Actually, when I intervened, my side won. So, you're welcome.
Anon

de facto vote of non confidence<?i>

Do you know what de jure means?
Dot

Need I?
Dot

Oh, I get it. You're trying to justify this statement: "They lie, they lie, they lie… "

But, you qualified it with "the Opposition had lost confidence in Linda Keen. "

I think I'd side with the plaintiff in any libel trial. You didn't say "voted non confidence"
Dot

Oh, give it up!

BCer in Mtl

What would you be saying about the Liberal appointee if she said, 'OK, start 'er up, what could possibly go wrong' and then it had to be shut down due to some deficiency in the safety systems. The con trolls would be screaming bloody murder about Liberal appointees exceeding their mandate (hello, Rights & Democracy).

In fact the universe unfolded as it should. Despite our supreme Nuclear expert's (M.A. – Econ, Calgary) saying there was no danger, she was correct that it was not his call to make, as only an Act of Parliament would be sufficient to restart the reactor, a it fell outside CNSC mandate. Parliament heard from her and various other persons with expertise in the technology and the regulations, heard recommendations and took a vote.

Harper had her fired because she made him look like the puffed up martinet that he is. If he was in charge of a business with that approach it would have been run into the ground very quickly. His management style is more suited to something like the Sopranos.

Dot

Do yourself a favour and read hansard. Who cares what "someone else said". Get it direct.

Yes, it was an emergency meeting due to the isotope issue, but they voted to reopen it based upon safety evidence from experts. Safety was Keen's responsibility. Testimony contradicted hers. Her's was faulty. She was overruled. End of story.
http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

And the reactor was shut down for…
Dot

Go argue with your kids. I'm not interested in promoting ignorance.

burlivespipe

When you've perfected it, that would be kinda redundant.

Dot

Partisan fool.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

There is nothing in hansard that speaks to non-confidence although they certainly heard that immediate threat from turning on the reactor was negligible… they also had evidence about the medical need for the isotopes. I have a hard time viewing this as a non-confidence issue given that it is essentially what Keen asked for.

Since your getting testy and impatient, I will simply.

Employer. Go unlock the front door.
Employee. I cannot, when you hired me you only gave me a key for the backdoor.
Employer. I SAID unlock the front door, use your key.
Employee. OK, (comes back) Sorry sir it did not work, I think you have to do it.
Employer. (Goes down and unlocks door, writes memo to give key to Employee for next time around) Your fired
Employee. I did nothing wrong.
Employer. I know but you made me look bad.

Dot

Whatever. You've alrready put yourself in the corner with your earlier cheap shot at Soudas. An apology or admission that he may have a point would seem too much to ask.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

Wow, I didn't realize this was all about Dimetre and the exploding head thing. Just to be clear, in my own petty way I am looking out for that other Smith (Gordon) who was earlier smeared by Soudas and never received a proper public apology. (Sure there was an apology to some visiting Russian but why not Gordon?)

So in defense of Smiths everywhere, I will continue to take cheap shots at Dimetri every chance I get until he relents and apologies.
Dot

You stay classy, Stuart.

Guest

What about the Ethics Commissioner Dr. Shapiro?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Tceh Tceh

Does our Conservative government understand the concept of speaking truth to power?

No, they don't. This is one reason they are so very dangerous. They see everyone outside the chosen circle as agents looking to sabotage their vision rather than deal with ugly truths about their mismanagement of Canada's affairs.

This is a bad way to run any organization or country. You want the underlings to have balls to speak the unvarnished truth to the leadership. The unspoken agreement is you cover the leaderships back by telling the truth no matter how bad or good it is and let the higher-ups decide what to do next. Every time you fire a Linda Keen or try to discredit a Richard Colvin the other underlings are more likely to tell you what you want to hear, even if it is not factual and more likely a fantasy. Then you get a leadership who bases decisions on that.

It doesn't work. Bad decisions are made and people get hurt. They also get angry and look for payback. That is where the Conservative are right now and it looks good on them.
Dot

For all you deeply stubborn partisans who refuse to remove your blinkers, the closing comments of Bill Blaikie, NDP, sitting as Deputy Speaker when Linda Keen was overruled by Parliament:

The Deputy Speaker:
I might just say in passing from the Chair to the House that tonight was an awful lot like what I think a lot of Canadians think Parliament should be like every day.

It was more like the Parliament I thought I ran for 28 years ago, but it is too late for me.

I hope that tonight might be an example for all of us as to what Parliament can be when it is at its best: disagreement, but civility and everybody listening to each other. It was wonderful.

It being 11:35, pursuant to order made earlier this day this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:35 p.m.)
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Let me get this straight. Conservatives cannot replace any LIberal appointees even when their term is up because this might look like they are being partisan. So when (if) the Liberals ever were to return to power does this mean that they will promise not to replace any Conservative appointees?

If you believe this, I have a nice slightly used bridge over the Rideau canal to sell you….
http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

In Dimitri's defense, he has a rare medical condition and the rise in his blood pressure that would have resulted from an honest admission very well might have caused his head to explode.