Tories bar ministerial staff from testifying

[RedHot25]

The Conservative government has presented a new cabinet policy directing that only cabinet ministers and not their political staff can appear as witnesses before parliamentary committees.

The controversial new policy could trigger a fresh showdown between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the opposition parties over the powers of Parliament, just weeks after a similar dispute over MPs' access to uncensored documents pertaining to Afghan detainee transfers was resolved.

.....

The new policy comes as Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, declined a request to appear before the all-party committee of MPs as they investigate allegations of political interference in the release of documents under the Access to Information Act.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/201...#ixzz0oxrO161H

[REDVAN]

Misleading thread title... boo

Although the policy has a reason behind it, I'm not sure it's the best thing to legislate. Obviously, if someone is called to be a witness at a committee it should be the minister first.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Misleading thread title... boo

Although the policy has a reason behind it, I'm not sure it's the best thing to legislate. Obviously, if someone is called to be a witness at a committee it should be the minister first.

The title was CBC's - what do you find misleading about it?

The Minister is ultimately the one accountable, but at the same time if there is an issue that the staff have caused/significantly influenced/directed/whatever....they should be accountable to. Another part of this is what level of staff (e.g. just the high ups, or the the lower levels as well, or?)....you have civil service staff at committees (e.g. Director Generals, Deputy Ministers, Assistant Deputy Ministers, etc etc), so why are political staff different than in this regard?

[mykalberta]

Makes sense. Staffers arent paid to answer questions about policy. Conservatives have a hard enough time getting MPs in line let alone staffers.

A good way to defend it by playing the intimidation card to try to dull the issue.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

The title was CBC's - what do you find misleading about it?

The Minister is ultimately the one accountable, but at the same time if there is an issue that the staff have caused/significantly influenced/directed/whatever....they should be accountable to. Another part of this is what level of staff (e.g. just the high ups, or the the lower levels as well, or?)....you have civil service staff at committees (e.g. Director Generals, Deputy Ministers, Assistant Deputy Ministers, etc etc), so why are political staff different than in this regard?

You answered your own question: the Minister is the one who is ultimately accountable by means of being elected and thus should be the one questioned about what goes on within his or her office. Staffers are absoloutely subordinate to their Ministers, are not public figures and are reasonably bound by oaths of secrecy as to what goes on within cabinet and within internal ministerial office discussions.

There is a difference between staffers and members of the public service beurocracy "Director Generals, Deputy Ministers, Assistant Deputy Ministers etc." because the latter have a role that is independant from the Minister - they serve the people of Canada directly by attempting to follow the directives of the Government of the day.

[REDVAN]

CBC is a liberal media sourse, despite their funding coming from the cons right now... so of course they have a misleading title... sorry, didn't mean to bash you personally, just wanted to point out it's inaccurate to the story details.

[HotHotHeat]

Hurts me to say this, but anyone defending the Conservatives at this point is simply a cheerleader. They've proven to be just as crooked as any other party. Our political system is completely broken and evidently unfixable.