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

Here we go again

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, June 1, 2010 1:05pm - 73 Comments

The ethics committee has issued a summons for Dimitri Soudas, the Prime Minister’s director of communications.

We shall see where this goes, but where it could go is a matter of some precedent.

Tags: dimitri soudas, ethics committee, house of commons, Parliament, parliamentary privilege

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Remember, Harper doesn't have to win these stupid fights, he just has to keep the system bogged down.

Wouldn't it be heartening to see Dimitri Soudas thrown in jail for contempt of Parliament.

The Real Jan

It would be very heartening. He couls report back to the others how bad the food is.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

And no pension!

John D

You beat me to it! Ha!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Wouldn't it be heartening to see Dimitri Soudas thrown in jail for contempt of Parliament.

Sounds like a Liberal wet dream.

TJCook

Nope. Just the wet dream of somebody who thinks Parliament deserves far more respect than this from the Government and a much stronger defense from the Opposition.

avr

Still haven't figured out yet that public gushing over political revenge fantasies rarely ends well, eh? Learned nothing from "Fitzmas," or Karlheinz Schreiber, or the last contempt-ruling fizzle?

I'll raise CR one and call it rhetorical masturbation: it may get you good and hot talking up your fantasies in public with fellow enthusiasts, but uninvolved onlookers don't understand why you're so excited and mainly want you to put some pants on, so to speak.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

I'm expressing frustration at the way our loose system of government is being exploited by people who don't care about its health, and wishing that – just once – one of these people would be held to account by an opposition that has utterly failed to do so for four years.

"Wet dream" was CR's characterization, not mine. I described the notion as "heartening" because it would represent some rare accountability not because I'm slavering to see anybody thrown in jail or nurturing some revenge fantasy.

I'm wasting my time here but seriously, grow up.

Crit_Reasoning

Just the wet dream of somebody who thinks Parliament deserves far more respect than this from the Government and a much stronger defense from the Opposition.

Sounds like a very noble wet dream. Thanks for clarifying that your wet dream flows from your profound respect for Parliament, rather than from baser instincts.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

I keep telling you dude, I'm not a Liberal partisan, no matter how many times you make the accusation.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Out of curiosity, why do you think I'm accusing you of being a Liberal partisan? You seem to have completely misread what I wrote.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

"Sounds like a Liberal wet dream."
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

That's because the "Soudas in jail" fantasy really does sound like a Liberal wet dream. I wasn't suggesting that you're a Liberal.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Fair enough.

Incidentally, given your tone: "Sounds like a very noble wet dream. Thanks for clarifying that your wet dream flows from your profound respect for Parliament, rather than from baser instincts.", I should never have gone along with your choice of words, since it gave you and AVR a chance to run around like cackling schoolboys.

Like I said to AVR: "I described the notion as "heartening" because it would represent some rare accountability not because I'm slavering to see anybody thrown in jail or nurturing some revenge fantasy."

Just so we're clear.
Cats

To be clear you are 100% a Liberal partisan.

If it walks like a cat, if it meows like a cat, then its a rabbit.

ERR ??

Your claims lack merit. Just to be clear, given your tone, fair ?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I can vouch for TJ. He may loathe the current government with every fibre of his being, but he doesn't have partisan affiliations with any of the opposition parties.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

*Somebody* is back on my Christmas card list…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

That's a relief.
Lord Kitchener's Own

You people send each other Christmas cards!?!?!?!

I feel so marginalized.
Crit_Reasoning

Well, the card I got from TJ last year wasn't a "Christmas" card, technically… on the front, it said "Secular Greetings", and on the inside, it wished me a "Happy Solstice!".
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Excuse me, it was addressed to you *and* your freely-chosen life partner.

Blessed be.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Glad you kids made up
Cats

Nah the dude protests too much.

How is that even possible ? Never mind a good thing (if true its horrible, complete abdication of personal responsibility and good judgment. I'm disgusted by this trend to declare non-partisanship a GOOD thing.)

How can you completely hate the Harper gov't and not be affiliated with some kind of constructive replacement ?

Some cats are nihilists I guess, they only have 4 and a half lives though.

Anon 001

Not really. Soudas is just the bilingual (and less obnoxious) version of Scott Reid. These are just people who do their masters' bidding. No reason to get mad at them.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

"These are just people who do their masters' bidding. No reason to get mad at them."

Unless Soudas has sacrificed his free will, he's responsible for his actions and should be held to account. "Just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse.
pdpd

Well, Soudas has repeatedly slandered people (Ignatieff vis a vis G20 comments, journalist guy with the 'doctored' tape, environment guy vis a vis the website hoax), with, er, hilarious results, so I can't see the easy comparison.

I'm sure Reid was no angel too, and he did make some condescending comments in the media, but you are at the absolute limit of cynicism (i.e nothing in political communications can be really deemed any wronger than anything else) to think that they are all the same and that there's "no reason to get mad at them".

tedbetts

Without question, Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien were heavy-handed leaders who centralized power in the PMO at the expense of MPs, committees and Parliament and even democracy.

But has there been a PM who has made so many direct frontal attacks on Parliamentary democracy and so many of our democratic institutions?

Do these folks have any idea or care about the kind of longterm precedent they are setting for an attempt at short term partisan gain?

Is there any other western democracy that would tolerate this kind of ongoing behaviour from their elected government?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

At this point, I'm starting to think that they're relying on the notion that whoever gets in isn't going to be as bad as them, so they can do what they like without fear it'll set precedent.
chet

has there been an opposition so desperate for their rightful return to natural power, so willing to utilize whatever means, whatever committees, and accompanied by a kindred left leaning press so willing to trump up every issue, and so willing to ignore the partisan motives of the users of these committees?

The Real Jan

God, chet you need some new material.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

has there been an excuse more lame as to why the government does not govern with integrity, foresight, or concern for the greater good?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Yes, the partisanship of the opposition is more than sufficient grounds to break the law and attack Parliamentary democracy itself for having elected an opposition that has the audacity to want to form government.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Are you comfortable with the behaviours of the government side?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

He's more comfortable with them then with the imagined behaviors of a government that isn't. But then again, reality has a liberal bias, so he'd prefer to live in an imaginary land anyway.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

As it relates to the imagined behaviors of a government that isn't I don't mind giving Chet the benefit of the doubt – perhaps a Liberal led government would be behaving worse, much worse.

But, as I'm sure you realize, the real question for Chet is "Is the Harper government behaving perfectly? Is there any room, any room at all, for them to improve their behaviour? If so, what's holding them back? Why limit your behaviour to be no worse than the other guy?"

Btw, then/than? ;-)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

I maintain that all grammar and spelling mistakes are intentional. They're my way of keeping Patels shut up. :)
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Good to see that you took that feedback in the spirit that it was intended.

The pull to highlight spelling and grammar issues is one of the (many) inner demons with which I struggle every day. :)

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

LOL – and Harper isn't desperate to hold on to power and control. LOL
http://intensedebate.com/people/aliasrus Incognito

They have a combined majority on the committees. This is the reality of Harper not being popular enough under the best of circumstances.

chet

Of course the Harper government isn't behaving "perfectly".

My point is that every such conflict is portrayed as pure partisan malevolence on the part of Harper, and white as the driven snow partisan free acts on the part of the opposition.

Only Harper's capable of political games. Indeed, in order to villify you need an opposition portrayed as lilly white. Otherwise Harper's response may be….gulp…understandable/explainable.

The one sidedeness and political blinders here are astonishing, as is your response to a lone commenter who dares to shine the light of scrutiny on the other side.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Two things:

1. No one is claiming the opposition aren't playing political games, especially the media which has been no friend to any of the opposition parties since the Conservatives were in opposition.

2. Everyone accepts that political games are part of what our juvenile leaders in Ottawa do for a living. The difference is the consequences of when the government – whatever the party – goes to far. It sets a precedent and erodes our fundamental democratic institutions. Not a Hitlerian dictatorship, nor started by Harper, but democratic death by a thousand cuts and Harper is more than happy to apply his own cuts until the limb is severed.

There is a big big difference when the political games result in breaking the law, the Constitution or specific fundamental principles and campaign promises.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Why are the opposition trying to bully this kid? He didn't sign up for this…why he's only there to make photocopies and go on coffee runs!

Charles H.

And unfortunately their photocopier is broken. Is it really his fault that it takes so long to produce a copy and that when it actually does work there are often these black smears all over it?

John D

Damn you Ricoh!

chet

That dastardly Harper. Flaunting the will of the opposition, who only have the truest of non-partisan intentions.

The notion that the ever politics-free Liberals would dare try to use such committees for purely partisan gain is utterly unthinkable

…or so the left leaning media would have you believe, by dutifully reporting with that premise.

The Real Jan

Poor chet, he must have studied (?) political science at the University of Calgary.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

It is sad, to me, that you think so little of Canada's democracy and its democratic institutions that you use an assumption that "the other guys would be bad too" as an excuse to abrogate from the powers assigned to Parliament in general, and the House and committees in particular.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Canadians spoke in 2008 and said that we want a minority government to keep the government in check.

If Harper doesn't like the results of democracy or accountability – a minority Parliament with opposition in charge of committees – then he should feel free to call an election to see if he could do better rather than erode our democracy.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Oh, I like that. That was brilliant how you just threw the whole "if you don't like it, call an election" rhetoric right back in their faces.

chet

Harper has the government, and apparantly the votes to maintain or even gain more seats – perhaps a majority.

It's pretty clear that the opposition has no intention of actually going to the people, because they know how the people will decide. So they play their partisan games with the committees, staying safely away from the electorate,

Desperate to avoid a democratic vote all the while they and their supporters decry the threat to democracy Harper's creating.

Interesting times indeed.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Harper has the government, and apparantly the votes to maintain or even gain more seats – perhaps a majority.

Why not reach out and acquire that majority, why stick with a minority and its (few?) limitations?
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Seems to me that Harper is the one who is desperate to avoid a democratic vote: both the democratic vote held in 2008 that produced the minority government and one that would change the make-up of the current Parliament.

It's pretty clear that the government has no intention of actually going to the people, because they know how the people will decide. So they play their partisan games with the committees, staying safely away from the electorate, and undermine and erode fundamental democratic principles and institutions.

Stephen Harper of 2005 would have organized another Reform Party if he met Stephen Harper 2010.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Stephen Harper of 2005 would have organized another Reform Party if he met Stephen Harper 2010.

Quoted for quotability.

Mike T.

Quick – time to prorogue!
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

Whatever! Those limp noodles that call themselves Opposition MPs won't do a damn thing about it all.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, this was inevitable.

Did the Tories think they wouldn't do this, or do they really just not care any more?

I thought Thwim's thought above was interesting. Perhaps the Tories don't care about setting really awful precedents because at this point they figure the precedents they plan to set will be so entirely beyond the pale that no sane and responsible government in the future would ever dare to follow them. If that's true, I'd advise Tories to consider the number of times recently that the PMO has followed a precedent set by Jean Chretien, or the many times Chretien followed a precedent set by Brian Mulroney. The next PMO will almost certainly be worse still. It's pretty much axiomatic.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

And, before they throw anyone in jail, we should advise the opposition to think about the precedent they'd be establishing (or introducing to post-War Canada).

The Real Jan

Or the Conservatives could go back to the position they held in opposition on staffers appearing before committees. There is always that.

Lord Kitchener's Own

To be clear, the staffers were LIBERALS back then. Throwing a Liberal in jail for ignoring a subpoena would be something else entirely from throwing a Conservative in jail for ignoring a subpoena.

Personally, I think ANYONE who ignores a subpoena ought to spend some time in the clunker, but that might just be me.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Yeah, and the Conservatives, quite rightly, left them in jail to rot. Come on, it sounds like a great idea to throw people in jail for arguing with you, but it's actually not a good practice to get into. The party leaders know this and they'll have to try and avoid it. Then you'll get upset at them for being spineless. If you can find an example of a Liberal staffer who was compelled to appear before a committee controlled by another party, I'll happily consider the case. I don't think it's all that common.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Ah, mustn't ask the little staffers questions. Heavens no. Soudas is 31 and people would have to have some education and brains to be staffers. I know people that age that are working, bringing up families and paying their mortgages.

So, it's okay to send a 19 year old to war, but don't ask questions of the 25 to 30 year old staffers.

Charles H.

What precedent would that be?

That staffers can be called to appear? Already exists.
That staffers can be ordered to appear? Already exists, in that they aren't specifically exempted from the powers of committees to order the appearance of someone.
That anybody who ignores a committee's subpoena can be thrown in jail? Again: already exists.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

I think the onus is clearly on the government to comply with the law and the Constitution. It is shocking that the point even has any discussion.

Any precedent that is set by the opposition in response to the government breaking the law or violating the Constitution is always going to be considered in the context of that non-compliance.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

The only reason Harper's playing this game is that's he afraid of what will come to light.

Lord Kitchener's Own

That's what really has me worried.

What ON EARTH could be so bad that they're working so hard to keep it from coming out?!?!?

Lord Kitchener's Own

I'm gonna have to go with the others who responded first that a government flouting basically 350 years of Parliamentary precedent is a bigger threat to Canada than an opposition that might hypothetically insist that we FOLLOW 350 years of Parliamentary precedent.

The Real Jan

Fun times over at the Ethics Committee today – Kady''s live blogging it.
John D

Dudes, stop feeding the chet – I mean troll.
chet

Apparently having 99% of the commenters here in lockstep with the liberal dogma, isn`t quite good enough.

More liberal progressive tolerance I see.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I've plenty of tolerance for a reasoned and well-supported argument.

I have no tolerance for your kvetching.

chet

Glad to see you admitting your intolerance.

However, given that the grand total of support and well reasonedness in your last commnt in the above thread, was that the CPC`s excuse is “lame“, not to mentione the myriad of one line cracks and taunts from others who are tolerated here,

I`ll just take that response as a full admission of the point I was trying to make.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

As if using the Liberal bias is any excuse or point.

If you're that paranoid – get help

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Unless the committee has knowledge that Soudas is involved in ATI requests and can add to the committees information it is simply a witch hunt.

There are many people who are in charge of ATI why not ask them to appear and find out if the government and its politicos are interferring in the process. Those are the people that would know and can either confirm or deny their involvement.

Harper is not sitting their picking and choosing what gets released. Although I bet some of you on this board feel that way.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the PM shows up on June 10th?. Would Szabo and the rest of the opposition clowns send him away?