News   Jun 18, 2024
 1K     0 
News   Jun 18, 2024
 613     0 
News   Jun 18, 2024
 1.9K     4 

Harper - Secret Cabinet meetings 'Constitutional Right'

A

AlvinofDiaspar

Guest
From yahoo.ca

Harper defends right to secret cabinet meetings as 'a constitutional thing'

Tue Mar 28, 05:40 PM EST

OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canadians have no right to know when the federal cabinet is meeting.
&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp

In an ongoing battle with the parliamentary press gallery over media access, the Conservatives held the first unannounced meeting of the full cabinet in recent memory Tuesday. "Meetings of cabinet are private. It's a constitutional thing," the prime minister argued at a mid-day availability.

The brewing dispute is really about image control and resetting the parameters within which the national media is permitted to do its job.

Traditionally, cabinet meetings have been announced in advance, which the House of Commons interprets as an implied invitation to the media to attend. Reporters then gathered outside the cabinet room to buttonhole ministers as they entered or departed.

By holding the meetings in secret, Harper has now effectively banned journalists from the floor where cabinet convenes - allowing ministers to come and go unobserved.

A heavier than usual contingent of Commons security staff patrolled the halls Tuesday morning, barring reporters from areas they had routinely frequented under past governments.

"We're going to need hard hats pretty soon," said one guard, rolling his eyes.

The prime minister blew off the media outrage with barely concealed disdain.

"I'm available regularly to answer your questions," Harper said. "If there are questions of substance, I am ready to answer them."

Two ministers, Rob Nicholson and Monte Solberg, followed Harper to the microphone in the Commons foyer, and a handful of others exited through the foyer where a couple agreed to be scrummed.

Solberg, the Immigration minister known in opposition for his garrulous nature with reporters, said he now has an obligation to accurately represent the government and the cabinet.

"The public respects a government that has its act together before it comes down and stands in front of a microphone," said Solberg.

Critics argue the issue isn't about forcing ministers to speak out of turn, but simply about permitting reporters to ask questions on issues not necessarily of the government's choosing.

"As representatives of the public, which is what we are, we should not abdicate the freedom to cover the issues that we think are important," said Emmanuelle Latraverse, president of the parliamentary press gallery.

The opposing view was expressed in a number of Internet blogs Tuesday, where readers claimed the controversy is representative of a biased media.

"I think that the government should announce to the media any topics of concern to Canadians when they come up," was one typical entry on the conservative blog smalldeadanimals.com.
__________________________________________________

Transparent, accountable government, you say?

AoD
 
Politicians vs reporters - not sure which group I distrust more - both get paid to tell a story people will buy.
 
Only one PM has been able to piss off the press and get away with it - of course that was Trudeau. The PM can't pick fights with the press, by limiting scrums and gagging the ministers, because the members of the press gallery (even if they take their orders from Fox News Canada out of Winnipeg) will hate you.

I like the scrum tradition we have here - compare that to the carefully orchestrated press conferences and speaking through spokesmen like at the White House.
 
As representatives of the public, which is what we are, we should not abdicate the freedom to cover the issues that we think are important," said Emmanuelle Latraverse, president of the parliamentary press gallery.

And here we see the sense of bloated self-importance on the part of some members of the press. That the president of the parliamentary press gallery has not yet figured out that it is the elected members of parliament who are the representatives of the public, and not the press, is something quite incredible.
 
Governments do not represent people. They are groups of elite hired by the masses to manage the country for a definite period of time.
 
bizorky:

And here we see the sense of bloated self-importance on the part of some members of the press. That the president of the parliamentary press gallery has not yet figured out that it is the elected members of parliament who are the representatives of the public, and not the press, is something quite incredible.

That's a rather narrow view of what "representatives" meant - certainly, the press had the historical role of representing the public by focusing on what coming and goings of government activity.

By the same token, I am sure the Cons would have supported limiting press access to the whole Gomery proceedings.

AoD
 
Governments do not represent people. They are groups of elite hired by the masses to manage the country for a definite period of time

You are wrong. The people who manage the nation on a day to day basis are the public service. As for being an "elite," how do you define this term? Invoking it does not mean it is real.

Do you actually think that the members of the Ottawa press gallery represents the people? If you do then you are naive in the extreme.


That's a rather narrow view of what "representatives" meant - certainly, the press had the historical role of representing the public by focusing on what coming and goings of government activity

Sure, they can call themselves representatives all they want to, it does not mean that they represent the interests of the entire population, as the above quote would suggest. As for the "historical" role of the press representing the people, I would think that this is a rather dubious assertion. In terms of history, media organizations have played a role in promoting specific positions and points of view of a number of organizations, and have a long history of promoting the narrow agendas set by editorial boards and owners. The news media is a business, and not a benevolance society.

The role of the media has little to do with governance, and more to do with freedom of expression. While the two intersect, they should not be confused for being the same thing.
 
"You are wrong. The people who manage the nation on a day to day basis are the public service. As for being an "elite," how do you define this term? Invoking it does not mean it is real.

Do you actually think that the members of the Ottawa press gallery represents the people? If you do then you are naive in the extreme."

By manage I mean set direction. Would lead make you more comfortable.

By elite, I mean political elite. Generally speaking, relatively wealthy well-connected white males. For evidence, look at the last x Prime Ministers....

If they were truly representing the people, they wouldn't have to "sell" their party to the populace. Elections have seemingly turned into marketing campaigns.

I apologise if this seems too cynical.

Oh, and I never said I believe the press gallery represents the people. I don't believe "the people" are directly represented anywhere in the process. The only representation "the people" receive is when half the country goes out and votes one day every four or so years. For the rest its mostly narrow special interests that form the representation.
 
By manage I mean set direction. Would lead make you more comfortable.

It's not about comfort, just accuracy.

By elite, I mean political elite. Generally speaking, relatively wealthy well-connected white males. For evidence, look at the last x Prime Ministers....

Damn those insidious white men!

Of course, not all members of the House are white males. Just a little detail.

If they were truly representing the people, they wouldn't have to "sell" their party to the populace. Elections have seemingly turned into marketing campaigns.

Unfortunately contemporary electioneering is as old as modern democracy (political campaigning is much older). More recently, though, party campaigns have come to fit the profile of advertising campaigns, all based on mass media constructs.

Oh, and I never said I believe the press gallery represents the people. I don't believe "the people" are directly represented anywhere in the process. The only representation "the people" receive is when half the country goes out and votes one day every four or so years. For the rest its mostly narrow special interests that form the representation.

I was not acccusing, I was asking the question. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to say that the political system as it exists does not serve all individuals in a truly representative manner. Then again, it was never supposed to. In a democracy, where the individual has both well-defined rights and responsibilities, it is up to you to best represent yourself and your interests. That is the best means for people to be represented.
 
So we agree, then, that the government does not represent the people?
 
Not exactly, but that won't change unless you change from a parliamentary system that encourages party-line discipline and not local representation (encourages rebels).
 
So we agree, then, that the government does not represent the people?

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that MP's don't represent the interests of the population in an equal manner for a whole number of reasons ("the people" being a pretty diverse bunch). Besides, there are structural and legal limitations to what an MP can do as a representative. Political representation is not limited to the federal level; there are also other forms of democratic and parliamentary representation as well. Add to that, people can always participate and represent their own interests in a myriad of ways, both collectively and individually. I guess I find cynicism to be an excuse rather than a product of the political system.

To say that the government does not represent the people at all is completely innacurate.


encourages rebels

Which could be a good thing, so long as the rebels don't turn their rebellion into a circus.
 
I'm rather curious about which line in the constitution refers to cabinet secrecy.
 

Back
Top