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

Down to three

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, June 15, 2010 9:58am - 81 Comments

The Afghan detainee document negotiations apparently have come to a conclusion—a deal announced in the House just now—but the NDP is out, citing exemptions in the new deal. They will now put their own proposal to the House, the text of which is here.

The NDP’s claim is that the current deal “excludes legal documents and cabinet records from review, contrary to the intent of the Speaker’s ruling.” The Liberals are countering that such claims to exemption will be reviewed by the panel of jurists.

More to follow, perhaps once the text of the deal is available.

Tags: Afghanistan, detainees, documents, parliamentary privilege, privilege, torture, transfers

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

So Parlaiment will speak and apparently will say they have a deal that they are comfortable with.

So the question is does the agreement now bind the NDP, as members of parlaiment. I would think so. But if the NDP think so does that rule them out of seeing it. Cant have it both ways, by the way. If the NDP think a vote in Parliament binds the governemnt then a vote in Parliament on a Parliamentary point binds them.

So what is their point other than proving that on issues of national security they arent really a responsible party. I guess they have a base to play to.

Mike T.

I would think it would bind them. but the order to release the documents also bound harper, so…

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

Is Parliament effectlively withdrawing its earlier request for the documents? The New Democrats would be right that Parliament could continue to demand them, but the other three parties could argue that it's unwise to exercise that right. What effect will that have on future Parliaments?

Bob

Parliament is not bound to itself in exactly the way you seem to be describing. If Parliament (a majority of the House) decides the government compromise is reasonable then it means that Parliament's original "demand" has been satisfied. If Parliament decided not to accept the Parliament, then you're right, it's well within it's right to hold the government to account. But a majority of the House determines that, which seems to be the case here…

Bob

wow… I meant "accept the compromise" not "accept the Parliament"… must be tired.

Mike T.

On second thought you may be right.

john g

If they don't sign the deal I'm not sure it's relevant if they are bound or not; they won't have any MPs on the panel that reviews the documents so they won't see anything that hasn't been approved for release by the panel.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Well thats the point now isnt it. Do they get to not sign the agreement yet demand to to be on the review comittee?

If they arent on the Parliamentary review committee then you are correct it doesnt matter. They are like Andre Arthur and Helana Guergis, in that they see whatever the Parliamentary Committee and the review panel decide they get to see.

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

Why can't they protest the agreement, propose their own, move a motion for contempt and then, if all that fails, participate in the framework agreed by Parliament? Generally, political parties aren't excluded from benefiting from or abiding by Parliamentary decisions because they voted against them.

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

The New Democrats should be able to move a motion to find the Government in contempt – based on Milliken's ruling. I don't recall anything in his ruling that said a majority of the House decided what constitutes Parliamentary authority.

Bob

"I don't recall anything in his ruling that said a majority of the House decided what constitutes Parliamentary authority."

What, exactly, do you think constitutes Parliamentary authority if not a majority of the House???

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

Parliament told the Government to produce the documents. The Government refused. The Speaker ruled that the Government did not have that right. Now, three parties apparently dispute that and have agreed that the Government may withhold documents from Parliament. The Speaker's ruling does not depend on the vote of Parliament. It depends on the definition of Parliamentary supremacy. I suspect I'm a bit unrigorous in my terminology today – authority, supremacy and privilege being used a bit too interchangeably.

Bob

But the Speaker's ruling also urged a compromise. Now, they were wayyy late on the 2-week deadline to reach such a deal, but how does a compromise of the three largest parties – a vast majority of the House – not satisfy the ruling?
Lord Kitchener's Own

The Speaker's ruling does not depend on the vote of Parliament.

Yes it does. The speaker has never ruled on a contempt motion, because no contempt motion has ever even been presented. The speaker was ruling on a POINT OF PRIVILEGE, basically as to whether or not a contempt motion would be in order were it moved. The Speaker can't simply find the government in contempt on his own if Parliament has never even put forward a motion to find them in contempt, let alone held a vote on such a motion. The Speaker's ruling basically said "Yes, under these circumstances, Parliament could indeed find the government in contempt for not producing the documents". Parliament still has to make that finding though, and they haven't yet.

An NDP member could certainly still move a contempt motion against the government, and the Speaker would doubtless have to rule that motion to be in order, but it would seem that were that motion moved today, that the majority of Parliament would vote against it.

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

A week ago, you were urging Parliament to throw people in the brig and send their stormtroopers after the documents. Now, with no significant movement by the Conservatives, it's all okay. What's going on?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

How can you say there is no significant movement by the Conservatives, when you don't know what the agreement says? The reports we've heard all seem to say there was significant concessions by the Conservatives, which I take as significant movement by the Conservatives. I haven't seen the newly-arrived-at agreement either, but at least I have some basis for my opinion that the Conservatives have, indeed, significantly moved. Why do you conclude they didn't?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

From the news reports, the agreement seems to be that the Government will now refer documents it wants to exempt to a panel of three jurists for review. Recalling that they already had Iaccobucci doing this, it struck me that it wasn't a significant change. As you say, the actual agreement might be far more impressive than that.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Well, the agreement really is all-important, isn't it? Kind of a good thing, in a way, in that all these weeks ironing out the details was because the details are important.

Because the referring to three jurists was part of the agreement in principle, wasn't it? The one tabled weeks ago?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Indeed – and why ponder the basis of the New Democrats' concerns when its published on their website: http://www.ndp.ca/press/reality-check-speaker-s-r….

What's wrong with their concerns and their proposed agreement?
Jenn_

"runs contrary to the inherent trust that Canadians have placed in their elected officials " Get real. That's all very nice and all that–I fully support the ideal, but if you honestly think more than, what, 50% of Canadians trust any politician at this point, I'd be surprised. That number (whatever it is) would drop drastically if the question was all politicians, I'm sure of it. I also have no doubt the politicians, themselves, do trust the courts more than they trust each other. That's what happens when all trust is lost.

I fully expect the agreement gives opposition members of the committee equal (or more) say in the membership of these jurists–thereby having Parliament delegate the chore, which is something that happens all the time and we (the citizens) do it too. Mind you, if the agreement doesn't give opposition members of the committee this power, all my comments on this subject can be safely ignored because I won't buy into them either.

Other than that, the only other problem is that vexing possibility that there really are national security concerns contained in these documents. It would be ludicrous for our own Parliament not to take that possibility seriously, and not do what is best for the country over what is best for getting a good partisan gotcha moment.

Bottom line, there is no trust among and between the parties. They really do need someone they can all have faith in. And because they don't trust each other, they won't trust the suggestion of one party–even if they have nothing against the suggestion, ergo have more than one person, and have them suggested by more than one party. My only confusion is why we don't need four.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Why are you quoting Speaker Milliken with such disapproval? He's just reiterating a basic assumption about parliamentary democracy. Anyway, the New Democrats' proposal does envision that there could be genuine national security concerns and allows the committee to refer any disputed material to the jurists for them to find an acceptable way to make the material available to the public, including by redaction or summary. So, I'm not sure why that's not okay with you. Also, they point out that the agreement has a blanket exemption for legal advice and cabinet confidences, which is a pretty broad class of documents and difficult to justify a blanket exemption when Parliament has ordered their disclosure. A week ago there was widespread concern about this blanket exemption. Now it's fine.
Jenn_

Whoa there! I'm not quoting Milliken with such disapproval. I'd adore it if he was right. I just look at the "inherent trust" he speaks about and could weep that it is currently not available. I truly hope we can get it back someday.

The part of my message you don't seem to be getting (surprising, really, since I said it three times) is the lack of trust. I don't believe a word you say, so saying more words won't sway me–kind of idea. That means that the Conservatives don't trust the Liberals, who don't trust the Bloc, who don't trust the NDP, who don't trust the Conservatives, and then you do it again with different match-ups until you get everybody not trusting everybody. So, national security would be at risk if you let ANY other party's MPs see the raw information, depending on which party you ask. No, I'd bet the Conservatives don't trust the Conservatives, either, come to think of it.

Having not read the agreement, if it doesn't have the jurists seeing the stuff "exempted" by solicitor-client privilege (or Cabinet confidences? That would be everything!), I'm with you. As you said, a week ago there was concern and now its fine. I just have to believe the agreement does allow the jurists to see that stuff at this point because I, too, thought that was the sticking point last week.

It is very difficult to base a decision on an agreement you haven't read. That goes for both of us.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

But the trust didn't evaporate since the motion to produce the unredacted documents was passed. Was the motion calling on the Government to set up a mechanism for jurists to review the material? Because Iaccobucci was already doing that (you can have any of the extra c's in that misspelling). Anyway, hopefully the jurists will see fit to release the actual agreement for us all to see sometime soon. If the New Democrats misunderstood and their concerns were totally misplaced, won't they be embarrassed? Or maybe vindicated. Who knows with these crazy politicians.
Lord Kitchener's Own

I was urging Parliament to "throw people in the brig" for contempt of Parliament, but I didn't mean that they should be thrown in the brig BEFORE PARLIAMENT FINDS THEM IN CONTEMPT.

Now, I may well wish that the Liberals and Bloc had held their ground and moved to find someone in contempt once I see the agreement that's been reached, but my reply to your comment above was merely meant to point out that the Speaker can't just find someone in contempt all on his own without a vote of Parliament finding them in contempt. The privilege is Parliament's, not the Speaker's, and PARLIAMENT has to make a finding of contempt… all the Speaker ruled on was, essentially, that such a motion would be in order. Parliament still has to move and pass the motion, and it would appear that that will not happen now.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

And the documents you wanted Parliament to send its handy-men after will not be shared with Parliament. Unless a panel of judges allows it. It's a weird way for Parliament to exert its supremacy. It's almost as if they trust the courts more than they trust themselves…
Lord Kitchener's Own

It may indeed be a weird way for Parliament to proceed, and frankly, I'm actually not to thrilled about it (though I haven't read the agreement yet) but that's Parliament's prerogative. I believe that Parliament is supreme, and that these decisions should fall to Parliament. That doesn't mean I'll always agree with the decisions they make, but, right or wrong, it's their decision to make, and it would appear to have been made.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Correct. Just like a majority of the House can remove the speaker at anytime, or a majority of the House voted that the documents must be released, but also that a majority of the house voted for the rules surrounding national security.

The contradiction of those two points, both voted for by a "Supreme Parliament" is the nexus of the discussion and the need for compromise.

It is curious to see how Parliamentary Supremacy only works one way when it is wielded as a weapon by some. Like most swords is cuts both ways.

Wascally Wabbit

I suspect that they had a bottom line – or a firm line in the sand going forward while other Opposition parties – if they had any line at all – had a faint wavy one!
This outcome was pretty easy to forecast – Harper ragging the puck as the time clock ran down – Ignatieff with no clear bottom line or resolve.
The NDP scored another political victory today – and Ignatieff accidentally made the chance of any agreements more unlikely.
Harper wins!
Democracy loses!
http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

It's time for Parliament to stand up for it's principles. The Conservatives certainly do.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

I think the NDP is right about the privilege. It either exists or it doesn't.

The conditions in the draft agreement are hypocritical given that the government has previously distributed some of the documents to retired generals to help with their testimony before the committee, referred to redacted portions of documents in the MPCC hearings, commented publicly confirming the content of at least one redaction (Mackay) and leaked some documents to a Globe columnist.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I think the NDP is right about the privilege. It either exists or it doesn't.

I'm as staunch a defender of Parliamentary privilege and supremacy as anyone, but people seem to be misunderstanding what the Speaker ruled on, and to whom the privilege belongs. The Speaker has never ruled on a motion to find the government in contempt. No such motion has ever even been moved. The Speaker's ruling was on a point of privilege, basically asking if a motion of contempt would be in order in the circumstances, and the Speaker ruled that yes, there's a prima facia case that the government was in contempt, and suggesting that were a contempt motion moved against the government, it would have to be allowed to proceed. That was the next step for Parliament – moving and then passing a motion of contempt – and they NEVER DID THAT. The Speaker can't find the government in contempt of Parliament if Parliament never passes a motion finding the government in contempt themselves.

As I mentioned above, I'm reasonably sure the NDP could go a head and move a motion to find the government in contempt still, but that hardly seems worth the effort, given that it now seems that a majority of Parliament would vote against such a motion. Parliamentary supremacy belongs to the majority, and it would seem that the majority now thinks differently about the government's current position than they did about the government's previous position at the time of the Speaker's ruling.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

Where is the misunderstanding in what I wrote? I said nothing about a contempt motion.

I'm arguing that the NDP is defending member privilege by resisting all sorts of spurious conditions the government wants to put on disclosure. Someone else may have the opinion that they are defending privilege by acceding to those conditions.

I would suggest that the concept of privilege is weaker today than when the Speaker ruled.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Well, I suppose the NDP has the right to require member privilege trumps all and if they want it, they can see the documents. I don't disagree with that stance at all. However, IF THEY WANT is the particular issue here. The MPs (most of them, anyway) do NOT want to jeopardize national security and I for one respect them for that. On the other hand, they don't want to just take any 'national security' response from the government because for one thing, we've already seen national security invoked for reasons having nothing to do with national security. So, it is a balance, it requires compromise, and in another parliament it would have a lot of trust involved. We don't have the luxury of trust. But it is equally possible that not EVERY SINGLE THING the Conservatives say is a lie. I expect if I looked hard enough I could even find evidence of them telling the truth on something.

http://www.tennisvagabond.com Big Dave S

You know, you often make sense despite having a name that kind of ends weird.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Well, I suppose the NDP has the right to require member privilege trumps all and if they want it, they can see the documents.

The NDP can do many things still, but they can't require the privilege of individual members to trump the privilege of Parliament as a whole. The privilege in this instance belongs to Parliament, not individual MPs, and it would appear that a vote in Parliament would not go the NDP's way now, as they are the only party not onside. PARLIAMENT is supreme, individual members are just parts of that whole.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Absolutely correct, and is how I meant it, although I was using tobyornottoby's language. And of course now that you mention it I'm not actually positive he meant it as "all of MPs together privilege " i.e., Parliament, the way I did. Certainly I did not mean that whatever the NDP demands, the NDP gets, which is what I see now that I read my comment again.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I'm arguing that the NDP is defending member privilege by resisting all sorts of spurious conditions the government wants to put on disclosure

In this context, the privilege belongs to Parliament, not the individual members. If Parliament is fine with a member, or any group of members, being denied access to the documents, then that's that. PARLIAMENT is supreme, not individual MPs, so defending "member" privilege is sort of meaningless in this instance, as Parliament's privileges would trump those of the individual members anyway. Even if the NDP wanted to argue that the government should be held in contempt for violating the privilege of individual members by not letting every single member of the House of Commons (or by not letting any particular member of the House of Commons) view any individual document they want (an argument I'm sure the NDP would never make) it would be a moot point anyway, as it would appear that the majority of Parliament would now vote that said privilege (if it actually existed) is not being violated by the government.

In short, PARLIAMENT's privilege allows them to view anything they darned well please, and they can find the government in contempt and start throwing people in jail if the government tries to violate that privilege. However, if the majority of Parliament is all hunky dory with the government's plans for disclosure, then I'm afraid individual members of Parliament are SOL if they disagree.

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

You are correct. Seems people want blood rather than what is. I think the NDP planned all along to pull this stunt for political posturing and were making sure all other parties were in agreement so the onus, again, wasn't on them.

Orson Bean

Yes, so as usual, the NDP are essentially useless, impractical and irrelevant. Quelle suprise.

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

Man, you keep impressing me for a while, and then ruining it with something like that. Stop playing with my heart.

TwoYen

The Liberals have won one today by demonstrating that they are not rigid ideologues. This is good news for the Liberals as it helps to distinguish them from the NDP and reminds voters why there is a real reason for the Liberals not to merge with the left. I congratulate Ralph Goodale and Michael Ignatieff for understanding the long term interests of the Liberal Party.

Mike T.

this is a tad rich seeing as the terms of the agreement aren't even known yet. There's every possibility they just caved to one of the most disgusting affronts to the parliamentary system in Canadian history.

And what kind of "ideology" was ever going on here? the idea that serious allegations of misconduct should be investigated? The idea that orders of parliament should be respected. A big reason why this is so ugly is that ideology is far from the heart of these issues.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Perhaps one should say, allegations of serious misconduct rather than serious allegations of misconduct.

As it stands right now I dont think there is anything substansive, which is why some want to see the documents. We have allegations, unproven to date and faced with contradictory evidence from others, that maybe we didnt do what we were supposed to do. The allegers have escalated that to say there are war crimes potentially involved, so an allegation of serious misconduct….how serious the allegations are is another matter all together. We will see where this goes.

I still think someone needs to ask Bob Rae and Ujal Dosangh how happy they are with the deal, and will they show up to vote for the deal?

Mike T.

You're underestimating the seriousness and credibility of the allegations, quite possibly deliberately and disingenuously.

Hopefully the documents will be examined in a meaningful matter and it won't ultimately be important.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

I am not underestimating the seriousness of the misconduct or its implication….that was my point…..but the credibility of the allegation and the weighing of all the evidence remains to be evaluated.

There may be a smoking gun here, but until that is revealed you have to take account of other testimony that contradicts or places the other testimony in a significantly less serious light.

So once again, I think a more accurate description at this point is allegations of serious misconduct, not necessarily serious allegations of misconduct, the second pre judges the evidence.

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

I wonder how "legal documents" are defined for the purposes of this agreement. I seem to recall that the Cons were copying their lawyers on as much as possible, then claiming solicitor-client privilege. It's the oldest trick in the book, I hope the Liberals didn't accommodate that.

The devil is in the details here, as usual, and I'm looking forward to seeing the text of the agreement.
Crit_Reasoning

Ralph Goodale's opinion:

As for the NDP, Mr. Goodale dismissed their concerns as "horsefeathers."
“They have been trying to make this process a failure from the beginning,” charged Mr. Goodale.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta…

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

Aw, does that mean he doesn't want to merge with them after all? Honestly, I never thought all this confrontation was about persuading the Government that having a single jurist review the exempted documents was unacceptable – it absolutely had to be three jurists. That would have been an election to witness. "One is enough!" v. "Three is barely adequate!"
http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

Seriously, is there anyone else in the entire world who still says "horsefeathers?"

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

I estimate that a Maclean's commenter would, every so often, to avoid the automatic-curse-scrubber embedded in ID.

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

I believe that it was around 1956, that the last flying horse in Western Canada passed on. It was a tragic occurance for the biodiversity of the planet, although it did dramatically reduce the need for protective headgear when walking outside. Ralph is now, the last of a dying breed for whom horses and feathers are forever linked through childhood memories.

gar

Layton and most of his MPs are phonies.they think they are impressing the Canadian people by this phony moral stand on this detainee issue.Do they not realize that most Canadians do not really give a damn about it.Our military comes first and Jack your trying to discredit them isnt working.The other opposition agreed under the threat of serious punishment not to release any thing they saw that was secret and could endanger our troops,This is not your party"s way .Unless you can bleed every negative point out of anything you are lost.You and your party are finished because the Liberals refused to form a coalition with you and your socialist demands.You alone of all three opposition parties including the Bloc refused to play fair and now you will have to live with it. When the next election is called.You may get the Raging Grannies vote but most Canadians find your party a laugh

Greg

Ah, lunch time at the PMO I see.

http://intensedebate.com/people/BGLong BGLong

Yup. Now we know what the MEP says.

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

"perhaps once the text of the deal is available." Is it still with the panel of jurists or is there a link somewhere?
Orson Bean

Once again, the NDP are left to sit at the children's table. Where they belong.

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

Tsk.

shouldIsellyourwheat

Going through the documents is grungy hard work especially in summer. Dion, for all of his deficiencies, is a hard worker. Rae and Dossanjh loves cameras, not hard work.

Plus, if Rae took the job, it would take him away from his conspiracy to get rid of Ignatieff.
http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

CTV says that a deal is now done with the other 3 parties, mostly through concessions by the Conservatives, and that nobody is happy with how the NDP conducted themselves in the negotiations.
John D

I hope "mostly through concessions by the Conservatives" is true, but I'm still guessing the Liberals folded.
Wascally Wabbit

As I read the NDP proposal – assuming that you have linked to the right document Aaron – because there is no clear identification – sections 6 and 7 seem to be the critical ones.
Seems here – the panel of Parliamentarians read the documents – and the jurists were the ones who helped them decide what could be revealed to the public.
The way I heard it explained by Mr. Goodale – the panel of jurists will decide what the Parliamentarians see. If I have understood this correctly – Mr. Goodale and the Bloc have clearly caved!
http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

Did you see who the Liberals appointed to the committee? Stephane Dion and Byron Wilfert. You have to wonder if the Liberals are appointing Dion so they can abandon him if the thing starts to go south.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Yup, always the Liberals fault. The BLOC, who probably would love nothing better than to get the Cons and Libs are in favour of the agreement.

Your statement, well nevermind.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Oh, please. Everyone knows Dion is a man of principle, integrity and can be trusted. Stop trying to make contraversies where none exist.

He didn't do well as leader, but that doesn't mean his "good" personal traits have gone away.

Give the man a break, he's been through enough
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Maybe they appointed him because then there's no worry about him communicating any secret information to Canadians. Because of his communication skills, as much as his integrity…
danby

starts to go south

A wise leader will have such an outcome on his radar and thus have a plan for directing and amplifying the blame… you know, like the EI meetings last year……
Other than that, this will likely be kinda personal for Dion and he will undoubtedly pour great energy into every single detail. The key is to keep him out of the glare of the spotlight and keep him focused. If it disintegrates into bickering, the Conservatives may well accuse Dion have having a vendetta and smear him yet again – but Dion is capable of good work (separation question framing) and will do a thorough job.
http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Not Rae and Dosanjh? Thats interesting.

I would take it as an honest effort on the part of the Liberals. Which leaves them a back out position if nothing is found. If Rae of Dosnjh were the Liberal appointees then how could they possibly back down or be seen as even neutral.

Maybe Ujall and Bob couldnt pass the security clearance requirements.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

I didn't knock Dion, or suggest anything about his integrity. I'm wondering if the Liberals are trying to quarantine Ignatieff from the situation by appointing his former rival.

Turn off your keywords reaction filter, sheesh!
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Why are you so concerned that they appointed Dion and then twist it into some conspiracy theory? Sheesh – stick with the subject
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

That's a low blow and unnecessary. Stay classy
http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

Because the Liberals have been trying to back away from the issue for more than a few weeks. Which IS sticking with the subject. They have just now agreed to all sorts of government conditions on the release of documents, and they haven't exactly put a rising star in charge.

Maybe you are reading something else into my comments that isn't there. Have you mistaken me for a Conservative (or some other) partisan who tries to find mean things to say about Dion? That would be truly amusing.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

I think toby's point is totally worthwhile, and I like Dion. You might be reading it the wrong way.
Style

Hey, I don't endorse Mr. Ignatieff's opinion of Mr. Dion's communication skills, but if you're going to depose a guy for making bad videotapes, I thnk you should get teased about it for a long, long time.
john g

Come on. That's nothing compared to what gets said about Harper around here. And it was pretty funny too.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I tend to agree. He's got a history as a former minister responsible for forming the Clarity Act (Intergovernmental Affairs?) and IIRC, was once upon a time, Environment Minister when the environment was still a sexy issue, as it were.

As long as he can stay focused and out of the spotlight, he's at least as good as any to do good work on this file.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

His defining quote about his achievements as Environment Minister was "You think it is easy to make priorities?" (when Ignatieff pointed out that he didn't get the job done). So, maybe that's not the best reason to send him into a locked room to negotiate with the Conservatives and the Bloc over which documents to refer to the panel and which to insist on releasing…
http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

As if the Clarity Act's contents were strictly coming from Dion's mind. That's just not true. Harper, for one, had talked about taking such initiative before the Libs seriously considered it.

As for the environmental file. I find it a weakness, not a strenght, when any minister of the Crown does not fully understand what farce his boss (Chretien's announcement abroad to sign on to the Kyoto accord) has signed into being. To be asked to further work out the details of such farce speaks volumes of the man taking on the task.

I believe Dion to be sincere but extremely naive.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

He had the jolly misfortune of trying to advance Kyoto protocols within Canada when it was generally accepted that they were never going to be met and wouldn't receive buy-in to even attempt to meet them. Of course he didn't get the job done. He was forced to choose between the "bad" decision and the "worse" decision. (And, put on the spot about it, he reacted even more worse…if there is such a phrase.)

This is not to justify "not getting the job done" – he didn't, and it's certainly no crowning achievement as a minister to be rendered impotent by an agreement your superior signed and half of the 30 million of your bosses don't believe will work. Nonetheless, it was a pointed, sexy issue at the time, that wasn't completely bungled by Dion's actions.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Well, as long as his actions didn't completely bungle it, I guess it's okay. Anyway, I don't mean to criticise Dion – I think if you're going to lock one of your MPs in a secret location for a long period, he's probably the best choce for the Liberals…a diligent, intelligent person that won't be particularly missed if he's away from the public for a while.
The Real Jan

Are you using the same standard for Jim Prentice?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

I agree that the Bloc being onside shows the NDP position (rightly or wrongly) to be self-aggrandizing rather than principled. The Bloc would love to see the Cons and/or Libs get dinged on this, and the NDP aren't enough of a threat to them to justify taking the opposing side as a primarily political strategy.