The opposition and the media have been screaming for the government to release all information concerning the treatment of Afghan detainees.
They're demanding all unredacted documents even though it may put our troops in greater danger. The government has released some but not good enough. They want everything. You need to be able to trust those looking at those docs as not to leak them. We have such a partisan parliament, you can't trust any opposition member not to leak anything to the media that could be sensitive and put our soldiers at greater risk.
Now they want all information concerning the Jaffer/Geurgis issue before even RCMP have concluded their probe. They should just shut up for now until an investigation if there will be an investigation is concluded. We will all know then. Right now it's all based rumors and innuendo destroying a couples reputations.The Mounties will determine if there's legitimate evidence to proceed. So we should all relax and wait.
I think there is a fine line where freedom of information is concerned between the need to know so that changes can be made to improve something and just to use for gossip. Angelo Persichilli lays out perfectly. Freedom of information can be easily abused for partisan purposes to play gotcha politics and embarrass the government to score some political points instead of hold a government to account (which is legitimate.)
Freedom of information is the essence of a democratic system, but the misuse of this freedom can damage democracy almost as much as its absence.
*****************
We resort to the Freedom of Information Act to find out how much a minister spent for a dinner but we don't ask why many of Canada's native people live in Third World conditions despite an annual budget of $12 billion, or how the banks gouge consumers with quasi-hidden fees, or how multinational corporations bleed medicare with huge, out-of-control profits.
****************
Using demands for information to document gossip is not accountability but a parody of it.
Watching Question Period lately I feel like I'm watching ants swarming around a dead bone while the flesh and soul of our country is being devoured elsewhere.
Yeah, I understand the concept of holding the government accountable. That should absolutely by done but when it crosses the line, the other side should be held accountable. After all we pay ALL of the Members of Parliament and they should be working on issues that matter most to us, the bread and butter issues not wasting our money on foolish witch hunts as a way to gain a political advantage. They should ALL be held accountable.
How about helping the government work on pension reform? They've asked for your assistance, all you Honorable Members. Now get to work, that's what your employer expects. Anyway that's what all of you were griping about during prorogation, you wanted to work. So well, stop the games and work!
A NDP private member's bill - Bill C-232 - passed the House of Commons last week. The legislation would require that all future Supreme Court justices be bilingual. Specifically, the act says that:
"Section 5 of the Supreme Court Act is renumbered as subsection 5(1) and is amended by adding the following:
(2) In addition, any person referred to in subsection (1) may be appointed a judge who understands French and English without the assistance of an interpreter."
On CBC Radio's The Current today, retired Supreme Court judge John Major came out and spoke strongly against the bill in a rather remarkable intervention for a former justice.
Among his more interesting comments:
1. According to Major, only two or three current justices would qualify as "truly bilingual" - capable of fully understanding a case without translation. This is a key point Major makes - that the level of language skill required to understand a complex legal case is not something you can learn in a month in french (or English) immersion or even high school second-language skills. It requires perfectly bilingual LEGAL second language skills, a rather rare skill that disqualifies the vast majority of Canadian lawyers.
2. If the bill passes, you will no longer have "the best," "most competent" people appointed to the bench. He says the bill would be a big "step backwards."
3. The regional inequity of the proposal is problematic to Major - specifically in terms of disenfranchising the West. He says there would "be a very modest number" of qualified candidates in the West and you would have to "settle" for lesser candidates to meet this qualification.
4. He criticizes by specific reference former justice minister Irwin Cotler and Bob Rae that he was "astounded" the bill got through with their support.
NDP official languages critic Yvon Godin (who proposed the bill) appears on the show both before and after Major. His rebuttal of Major was weak, to say the least as were, in a bit of irony, his English language skills.
This Bill MUST NOT BE ALLOWED to pass in the Senate. Contact all Senators now to make sure this bill does not become law! I think this whole this is about partisanship politics especially on the Liberals part. They should know better.
What's going to happen when Ruby Dhalla's bill comes up? You know the one would reduce to three, from ten, the number of years elderly immigrants to Canada have to wait before being eligible for an Old Age Security pension.
We pay these people to come up with this kind of stuff? No wonder Canadians are turned off politics. I beginning to get turned off too.
Parliament has become out of control, with the media's help I believe and it needs to be fixed.
Media this is to you, report something important for a change, instead of tabloid rumors and innuendo!