Government often kept in the dark by bureaucracy?

[bcbudrockz69]

What evidence or proof do you have that PM Harper is "lieing" about his not knowing the National Parol Board made the decision several years ago to pardon this guy Buddy?

Nab

well why elect ppl that dont have a clue how the system works?we know hes covering uop the detainie documents, so is it realy a stretch to say hes just covering his behind again? i dnt think so

Pure unsubstantiated speculation aka hot air there bud and nothing more.

In actual fact you are "stretching" beyond reason and again since it isn't sinking in, when you factor in the size of this country and its accompanying bureaucracy it's virtually impossible for one person to know everything and quite frankly I'd like to see you file away that much data and be able to pull it up whenever you need it.

It's one thing to poke at politicians but please keep it real you're just plain out to lunch.

lol im just saYING A SMART POLITICIAN WOULD BE GETTING TO KNOW THE IN ANDS OUTS OF OUR CRMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BEFORE INTRODUCING A BILL SUCH AS C-15 BUT ACCORDING TO YOU, HE KNOWS VERY LITTLE .


what should a prime minister be on top of if nothing else? lol the law of the land? healthcare? lol how to use a fileshredder? what? a judge could easily put a no parden clause in a persons sentence, but most refuse to .

[c2c]

There is an interesting article in today’s Ottawa Citizen about Stephen Harper’s reaction to the pardon of Graham James. I am not a fan of Stockwell Day but it seems that when he was Minister of Public Safety, he got it right:

9 Apr 2010
Ottawa Citizen : Dan Gardner

Pardons too lenient? Blame this government

Prime Minister Stephen Harper really should consult Stockwell Day and his other ministers more often. It might save him from making embarrassing announcements.
Last week, as far as I’ve been able to gather, a Canadian Press reporter called the prime minister’s office and asked if the prime minister would like to comment on a story that would be published in a couple of days. What’s the story? Graham James was granted a pardon three years ago, the reporter said.
That’s a big story. Graham James, convicted child molester, is one of the most reviled people in the country. So the info was rushed up the food chain to the prime minister. Stephen Harper was outraged, as most Canadians would be when they heard the news.
And that is the point where Stephen Harper should have consulted his ministers. Specifically, he should have picked up the phone and had a conference call with Vic Toews, the current minister of Public Safety, and Stockwell Day, who held that job for almost three years.
But he didn’t. Instead, as Vic Toews told the Globe and Mail, Harper called Toews — on Good Friday, no less — and ordered him to prepare legislation to somehow curtail pardons for sex offenders. Details to follow.
The PMO and the minister’s office then went public in a very big way.
What they didn’t know, because they didn’t talk to Stockwell Day, is that this wasn’t the first controversy involving a sex offender receiving a pardon. On Oct. 19, 2006, the Globe and Mail published a story about Clark Noble, then 68, a former private school teacher who had been convicted of sexual assault in 1998. He received a pardon in July 2006.
On Oct. 21, 2006, Stockwell Day issued a statement: “We want to ensure that unwarranted pardons are not granted to violent or sexual offenders,” he said. And so he ordered the National Parole Board to review the process by which pardons are granted.
Day’s reaction was commendable. In response to a troubling case, he wanted the facts gathered and investigated. Only then would he consider next steps.
The review was conducted. An array of options was put before the minister. As usual, they covered the gamut. At one extreme was “change nothing.” At the other, “forbid sex offenders from ever receiving pardons under any circumstances.”
Day studied the process, the policy, and the facts, and concluded changes were warranted. For example, two parole board members, not one, would be involved in applications. And rather than relying on local police to bring forward information related to the applicant’s conduct, the parole board would be required to go and get any information local police may have. But on the fundamental question — should sex offenders continue to be eligible for pardons? — Day decided in the affirmative.
Graham James received his pardon in 2007. It’s not clear if his application was dealt with before or after Day’s revisions to the process but it does seem certain that no change made by Day would have changed the outcome.
So Stephen Harper now has to choose between one of two possible explanations for what has happened.
One: His minister’s review of the pardon process was badly done and came to an outrageous conclusion. If Graham James’s pardon is such a travesty that it calls for immediate legislative change, the prime minister must blame his own government.
Or two: Stockwell Day’s review was thorough and professional, and its conclusion reasonable. The real problem here is the prime minister flipped out and started barking orders before he had any idea what he was talking about.
Which explanation is correct?
Reasonable people will disagree as to what the policy on pardons should be, naturally. But the record clearly shows that, when faced with a controversy about a sex offender receiving a pardon, Stockwell Day acted swiftly — but also carefully, thoughtfully, and responsibly.
When Stephen Harper was confronted with another controversy about a sex offender receiving a pardon, he also reacted swiftly. But he did everything else differently. He didn’t ask officials to investigate. He didn’t bother to get informed. He didn’t consider the controversy in a larger context. He didn’t consider the goals of the policy and examine all the options for achieving it. He just picked up the phone and started barking orders.
What Stockwell Day did is practically the model of how to make a good decision; what Stephen Harper did is a textbook demonstration of what an executive should never do. This is reason enough to conclude that it is Harper, not Day, who is the one who should be embarrassed here.
And it all could have been avoided if Stephen Harper had just consulted his ministers.

[NAB]

Looked at in a slightly different light, Day tried to deal with the problem through administrative changes with the bureaucracy, apparently without considering that legislative changes might be in order to support the changes. A reasonable first effort I suppose, but it didn't yield much in the way of real change or results. But that's his standard waffling approach to many things as we saw with his handling of the YVR tazering / RCMP issue for example.

I think PM Harper expected Day to produce results at the time, but let Day handle it his way and didn't interfere (even though he MAY have disagreed it was the right approach). Now, faced with a recurrence , it just makes sense that instead of just expecting Day's replacement Toews to try to stroke the working manual once again, that he ask that a change in the legislation be prepared and introduced to put some teeth in the effort.

It's something I think Day should have recognized was necessary, but obviously didn't for whatever reason. Had he done his job properly at the time, more than likely we wouldn't even be discussing this issue now.

Nab

[Al Czervic]

I think there is a few missing pieces in this puzzle...the most important is timeline. If Graham James received his pardon AFTER the changes to the pardon process were implement by Stockwell Day then it was clear those changes did not work and obviously the need for a legislative change is warranted.

However if the pardon to Graham James was given PRIOR to Stockwell Day’s changes to the pardon process then it would be premature to conclude those changes were not working and as such, it might also be premature to bring in new legislation as the writer of this story is potentially alleging. Unfortunately the writer does not really know if the Graham James pardon was done before or after and chooses to speculate regardless.

I also think you could look at this more in the context of government as opposed to Harper versus Stockwell Day. As a government, the Conservatives first tired to work within the system to enact changes and when they decided those changes were not yielding the results they are after, they were forced to enact new legislation instead. Either way I don’t really see it as being a huge issue.

[NAB]

Well, seems to me a lot of Canadians do see it as a huge issue Al, albeit perhaps just another political attempt to discredit the Conservatives. (CBC again? ;-) )

Anyway, just as an aside I see PM Harper has accepted Guergis' resignation from his Cabinet (not entirely unexpected of course since the flap in February). What is remarkable is he has taken the extra step of insisting she sit totally outside the Conservative caucus (at least temporarily). That's a big blow to any party member. I am reminded at this time of her hubby's indiscretions (Edmonton?). Seems they're not the greatest pair to have in the party, but one does wonder at PM Harper selecting her for a Cabinet post in the first place, and even putting up with her this long.

Nab

[Al Czervic]

Well, seems to me a lot of Canadians do see it as a huge issue Al, albeit perhaps just another political attempt to discredit the Conservatives. (CBC again? ;-) )

Anyway, just as an aside I see PM Harper has accepted Guergis' resignation from his Cabinet (not entirely unexpected of course since the flap in February). What is remarkable is he has taken the extra step of insisting she sit totally outside the Conservative caucus (at least temporarily). That's a big blow to any party member. I am reminded at this time of her hubby's indiscretions (Edmonton?). Seems they're not the greatest pair to have in the party, but one does wonder at PM Harper selecting her for a Cabinet post in the first place, and even putting up with her this long.

Nab

Apologies Nab, I didn’t not mean to infer that the subject of pardon’s to child molesters was not a big issue what I meant was the issue between Stockwell Day making changes to the appeals process versus Harper bringing in actual legislation to the same affect was in itself not a huge issue. Ultimately both are trying to find ways to ensure that the pardon process with respect to child molesters is changed.

[Al Czervic]

Anyway, just as an aside I see PM Harper has accepted Guergis' resignation from his Cabinet (not entirely unexpected of course since the flap in February). What is remarkable is he has taken the extra step of insisting she sit totally outside the Conservative caucus (at least temporarily). That's a big blow to any party member. I am reminded at this time of her hubby's indiscretions (Edmonton?). Seems they're not the greatest pair to have in the party, but one does wonder at PM Harper selecting her for a Cabinet post in the first place, and even putting up with her this long.

Nab

Apparently there are new allegations that “go beyond” what is publicly known at this point. Supposedly something to do with how she financed the purchase of a home in Ottawa. I expect we will hear much more about this one. Maybe she followed the Joe Volpe school of finance ?

[NAB]

Anyway, just as an aside I see PM Harper has accepted Guergis' resignation from his Cabinet (not entirely unexpected of course since the flap in February). What is remarkable is he has taken the extra step of insisting she sit totally outside the Conservative caucus (at least temporarily). That's a big blow to any party member. I am reminded at this time of her hubby's indiscretions (Edmonton?). Seems they're not the greatest pair to have in the party, but one does wonder at PM Harper selecting her for a Cabinet post in the first place, and even putting up with her this long.

Nab

Apparently there are new allegations that “go beyond” what is publicly known at this point. Supposedly something to do with how she financed the purchase of a home in Ottawa. I expect we will hear much more about this one. Maybe she followed the Joe Volpe school of finance ?

LOL. Ahhh yes, starting with the Teddy award and going downhill from there

Just listening to a further report on Geurgis. Looks somewhat serious in that apparently the RCMP and the ethics commissioner have been asked to investigate. So I guess we will hear nothing much further while that is going on. I do recall the mortgage thing coming up, but somehow I doubt that would be enough to warrant this kind of action from the PM. All sorts of possibilities between her and her husband I would think. I just hope, in line with the spirit of this thread, that some bureaucrats get caught in the net too ;-)

Nab

[NAB]

BTW Al, the more I see and read about this Guergis affair, as well as the history, ...the more it wouldn't surprise me to see the words "influence peddling" show up at some point.

Nab

[bcbudrockz69]

BTW Al, the more I see and read about this Guergis affair, as well as the history, ...the more it wouldn't surprise me to see the words "influence peddling" show up at some point.

Nab

im just curios nab and al, how do you explain harpers tuff on crime stance yet when this ladies husband was caught driving impared, plus having cocaine he did not demand prosacution? instead of just being silent?

and to know kick them out seems like theres way more to this story, like harpers scared of sometthing as opposed to doing the right thing , i dunno, seems fishy to me