Government Found in Contempt of Parliment

[nicky10013]

The right ruling. Articles to come.

[ToadBrother]

The right ruling. Articles to come.

The Speaker didn't find the government in contempt yet. He ruled that the Government and the House have two weeks to find a mechanism whereby Parliament can gain access to unredacted documents. The key here is that the Government's arguments have been rejected. The Government cannot have any expectation that it can keep anything secret from Parliament. While he did chide the Opposition for some of the statements made against the Government, most of what he had to say was against the Government.

In two weeks, I expect, if the Conservatives haven't come to grips with the fact that we have a Constitution which constrains the executive in these matters, the Speaker will likely allow a motion of contempt. I'm hoping that Harper faces the fact that every once of our constitution defies his view. If not, I would expect we will have a late spring/early summer election, because I cannot imagine Harper not finding some way to essentially declare a motion against his government in this matter not being one of confidence. And that's not a problem, I'd love to see an election on Parliament's rights, powers and privileges.

[M.Dancer]

The right ruling. Articles to come.

Premature articulation

[nicky10013]

The Speaker didn't find the government in contempt yet. He ruled that the Government and the House have two weeks to find a mechanism whereby Parliament can gain access to unredacted documents. The key here is that the Government's arguments have been rejected. The Government cannot have any expectation that it can keep anything secret from Parliament. While he did chide the Opposition for some of the statements made against the Government, most of what he had to say was against the Government.

In two weeks, I expect, if the Conservatives haven't come to grips with the fact that we have a Constitution which constrains the executive in these matters, the Speaker will likely allow a motion of contempt. I'm hoping that Harper faces the fact that every once of our constitution defies his view. If not, I would expect we will have a late spring/early summer election, because I cannot imagine Harper not finding some way to essentially declare a motion against his government in this matter not being one of confidence. And that's not a problem, I'd love to see an election on Parliament's rights, powers and privileges.

I viewed it as placing the government in contempt and now has two weeks to extricate itself from this position before consequences are implemented. Either way, the government clearly came out on the losing end of the decision.

You know it's bad when the National Post hasn't covered the story at all; instead deciding to run an editorial smearing Ignatieff as front page news with an article quoting a military officer who thinks the documents should remain out of the hands of parliament directly below it.

My apologies for starting the second thread, if there is a way to merge, that would be best for all I would imagine.

[ToadBrother]

Premature articulation

And inaccurate. The Speaker doesn't find anyone in contempt in a case like this, Parliament does. In this particular case, the Speaker decides whether the refusal to provide unredacted documents on Afghan prisoner abuse is a matter of privilege or not. The key here is that the Speaker has clearly said that it is indeed a matter of privilege, and what's more, this House and other Parliaments have come up with mechanisms by which sensitive information can be turned over while still maintaining security.

That being the case, if the Government and the Opposition have not come up with a solution in two weeks, and seeing as it is a matter of privilege, it's now certain that the Speaker will allow a motion of contempt.

The long and the short is that the Speaker has rejected the Government's arguments.

Edited April 27, 2010 by ToadBrother

[capricorn]

I fully agree with Toad's interpretation of the ruling. IMO, a compromise will be arrived at within the prescribed deadline. As tempting as it may be for any side to cause an election over this matter, it will not happen simply because an election would probably result in seat distribution close to what already exists. In addition, there is still outrage to be mined by the Liberals over the Jaffer/Guergis chronicles.

[M.Dancer]

You know it's bad when the National Post hasn't covered the story at all;

NP doesn't update their site fast enough to have a story that broke only an hour ago..they did however have two stories on their home page from Sunday.

Canada.com however does have it.

http://www.canada.com/news/national/index.html

[nicky10013]

I fully agree with Toad's interpretation of the ruling. IMO, a compromise will be arrived at within the prescribed deadline. As tempting as it may be for any side to cause an election over this matter, it will not happen simply because an election would probably result in seat distribution close to what already exists. In addition, there is still outrage to be mined by the Liberals over the Jaffer/Guergis chronicles.

As much as I want to believe this Harper has fully stated he intended to take an unsatisfactory ruling straight to the Supreme Court. His record of compromise isn't great. Hopefully it doesn't evolve into a constitutional crisis.

[capricorn]

As much as I want to believe this Harper has fully stated he intended to take an unsatisfactory ruling straight to the Supreme Court.

I don't recall reading anything in the news that Harper made such a statement. I did a quick search and can't find anything. Would you happen to have a reference?

[eyeball]

I fully agree with Toad's interpretation of the ruling. IMO, a compromise will be arrived at within the prescribed deadline. As tempting as it may be for any side to cause an election over this matter, it will not happen simply because an election would probably result in seat distribution close to what already exists. In addition, there is still outrage to be mined by the Liberals over the Jaffer/Guergis chronicles.

I think we'll see a compromise that stretches beyond the next election. If the Liberals win I doubt we'll ever see whatever it was all the fuss was about.

Deep down in the bowels of both the Liberal and Conservative party establishments I doubt either are really that serious about returning the PMO to it's former place in the hierarchy of authority. They appear game to play this little brinkmanship game for the moment but I doubt either of them are willing to gamble that power against Parliament's rights, powers and privileges in an election.

As the fairly apt saying goes, whoever wins the government will still get in. We live under a mutually assured dictatorship. It's like theists vs atheists. Theists may disagree on everything else but you can be quite certain they all agree atheists should remain at the bottom of any hierarchy that might exist.

[eyeball]

In the meantime I guess we can take consolation in the fact that as long as the government's time is being consumed by it's preoccupation with it's own Machinations it's not busy passing a bunch of new laws and regulations.

Like we don't have enough of them already.

[nicky10013]

I don't recall reading anything in the news that Harper made such a statement. I did a quick search and can't find anything. Would you happen to have a reference?

I actually don't. I swear I could've read it or heard it somewhere. However, I too can't seem to find it. Until I do, the comment is withdrawn.

[ToadBrother]

As much as I want to believe this Harper has fully stated he intended to take an unsatisfactory ruling straight to the Supreme Court. His record of compromise isn't great. Hopefully it doesn't evolve into a constitutional crisis.

Well, he can certainly try. I find it questionable that the SC would in fact hear it, because this is pretty clear territory for the Speaker. As I said, the constitutional groundwork here is clear and has been for centuries. The only purpose of going to the SC would be a delay, because the SC is either not going to intrude upon the House's domain (remember, the rules of the House are, constitutionally, are the House's to decide), or simply look at the Constitution Act 1982, the BNA Act and probably the Bill of Rights 1689, all of which clearly indicate that Parliament is in charge of its own proceedings, and also lays out that the Executive ultimately cannot defy Parliament. There's not much to rule on.

Edited April 27, 2010 by ToadBrother

[nicky10013]

Well, he can certainly try. I find it questionable that the SC would in fact hear it, because this is pretty clear territory for the Speaker. As I said, the constitutional groundwork here is clear and has been for centuries. The only purpose of going to the SC would be a delay, because the SC is either not going to intrude upon the House's domain (remember, the rules of the House are, constitutionally, are the House's to decide), or simply look at the Constitution Act 1982, the BNA Act and probably the Bill of Rights 1689, all of which clearly indicate that Parliament is in charge of its own proceedings, and also lays out that the Executive ultimately cannot defy Parliament. There's not much to rule on.

Couldn't agree more. Doesn't mean he can't try, however.

[ToadBrother]

I think we'll see a compromise that stretches beyond the next election. If the Liberals win I doubt we'll ever see whatever it was all the fuss was about.

There was never any possibility of the average citizen seeing unredacted documents. The Opposition never asked for it, and that would indeed be an unreasonable demand. Operational data about our armed forces and our allies has to remain confidential for obvious reasons.

The argument being put forth by the Opposition is not that the whole world gets to see what's going on, but rather that Parliament, which, as the Speaker put it, functions as the inquisitor of the Government, has means by which it can assess the Government's activities.

[ToadBrother]

Couldn't agree more. Doesn't mean he can't try, however.

He could try lots of things. None of them seem particularly likely to me, mainly because none have much of a chance of leading to success. To my mind, at this point, there are two scenarios:

1. Harper could simply honor the Speaker's request and instruct his ministers and their departments to negotiate a mutually-acceptable means for the Committee to view the unredacted documents (as the Speaker points out this has been the norm throughout our history, and indeed throughout the history of our system of government elsewhere).

2. The Government can stonewall for two weeks, wait for the Speaker to rule on the motion of contempt, and basically challenge the Opposition to a game of chicken by declaring that the motion becomes a confidence motion, thus setting his government up for defeat and an election.

The Government clear has its back up against a wall over this one. It's attempt to argue that there's some precedent and legitimacy to their claim that refusing the Committee access to the documents has been rejected by the Speaker, who has clearly stated that this is an issue of privilege. We've already seen that the current Government has little problem distorting truth heavily, and might decide to wage a war. The signals sent out thus far seem to suggest the Government is intent upon the continued arguing that legislation is what constrains their hand.

I'm thinking right now there are even odds this will end with an election.

[eyeball]

The argument being put forth by the Opposition is not that the whole world gets to see what's going on, but rather that Parliament, which, as the Speaker put it, functions as the inquisitor of the Government, has means by which it can assess the Government's activities.

I realize that. Political security is the real issue on Capital Hill not national. No doubt we'd get to see a few documents that indicate the Conservatives lied about what they knew and when but the Liberals are no less full of crap. I seriously doubt they'll be any more successful at positioning themselves as the champions of government transparency or accountability. I certainly don't think the Liberals are any more concerned about the fate of detainees or Canada's reputation for respecting human rights.

This is more about slinging mud than democracy.

[wyly]

He could try lots of things. None of them seem particularly likely to me, mainly because none have much of a chance of leading to success. To my mind, at this point, there are two scenarios:

1. Harper could simply honor the Speaker's request and instruct his ministers and their departments to negotiate a mutually-acceptable means for the Committee to view the unredacted documents (as the Speaker points out this has been the norm throughout our history, and indeed throughout the history of our system of government elsewhere).

2. The Government can stonewall for two weeks, wait for the Speaker to rule on the motion of contempt, and basically challenge the Opposition to a game of chicken by declaring that the motion becomes a confidence motion, thus setting his government up for defeat and an election.

The Government clear has its back up against a wall over this one. It's attempt to argue that there's some precedent and legitimacy to their claim that refusing the Committee access to the documents has been rejected by the Speaker, who has clearly stated that this is an issue of privilege. We've already seen that the current Government has little problem distorting truth heavily, and might decide to wage a war. The signals sent out thus far seem to suggest the Government is intent upon the continued arguing that legislation is what constrains their hand.

I'm thinking right now there are even odds this will end with an election.

fight an election on what? the government/PMO is the absolute supreme authority in the land? that seems to a risky venture for Harper...what they're saying is we need only elect a PM/dictator and send everyone else home the PM and his personal unelected staff will run the country and are answerable to no one...I don't see that being a smart election platform...

[Topaz]

IF indeed there is proof that there was/is a cover-up, I would think Harper would want an election and then turn around and say its the opposition parties fault for the election, I was just trying to protect our troops etc.... OR give out just enough of the documents that suggest maybe torture but not enough for the committee to do any thing with. If I were the Conservatives I would be very cautious because the world is watching and they could be dragged to a International Court if they believe the Tories are guilty.

[ToadBrother]

fight an election on what? the government/PMO is the absolute supreme authority in the land? that seems to a risky venture for Harper...what they're saying is we need only elect a PM/dictator and send everyone else home the PM and his personal unelected staff will run the country and are answerable to no one...I don't see that being a smart election platform...

Well obviously they'd never phrase it as such. In fact, it's pretty clear that they would try to claim that the legislation in question pretty much tied their hand. They'd be trotting out pictures of our brave men and women and of mad Taliban suicide bombers blowing themselves to bits. They'd openly declare the Opposition as being anti-military, pro-terrorist, and whatever else they could do. Take the unadulterated lies and distortions used to justify the last two prorogations and multiply by a factor of ten. They've got the money to turn this into the most jingoistic campaign since the Conscription Crisis of 1917.

It's Harper's best chance. The odds of the Supreme Court overturning the Speaker's ruling or a motion of contempt is about as likely as Argus turning blue and sprouting wings. They're arguments that legislation prevents them from revealing unredacted documents as patently absurd, considering how many times the governments here and throughout the Commonwealth have co-operated with committees, or even having mechanisms for doing so.

Harper, whether out of preservation, or just because he's arrogant almost to the point of insanity, will not simply deliver those documents. The only way that might happen is if his own caucus were to turn on him, and they're all willing little sheep these days.

[wyly]

IF indeed there is proof that there was/is a cover-up, I would think Harper would want an election and then turn around and say its the opposition parties fault for the election, I was just trying to protect our troops etc.... OR give out just enough of the documents that suggest maybe torture but not enough for the committee to do any thing with. If I were the Conservatives I would be very cautious because the world is watching and they could be dragged to a International Court if they believe the Tories are guilty.

the UK is going through the same process right now, this will effect them as well....

and ya if there's evidence the conservatives lied and are guilty of condoning/permiting torture the International Court could become involved.

[YEGmann]

I find it questionable that the SC would in fact hear it, because this is pretty clear territory for the Speaker. As I said, the constitutional groundwork here is clear and has been for centuries. The only purpose of going to the SC would be a delay, because the SC is either not going to intrude upon the House's domain (remember, the rules of the House are, constitutionally, are the House's to decide), or simply look at the Constitution Act 1982, the BNA Act and probably the Bill of Rights 1689, all of which clearly indicate that Parliament is in charge of its own proceedings, and also lays out that the Executive ultimately cannot defy Parliament. There's not much to rule on.

It can be so, it can be not. There can be a field for the SC. The opposition appeals to old rules, like you said 1689. The conservatives appeals to newer rules about security. It is not a business of the Parliament to interpret laws and the Constitution. It is a judicial "domain". My understanding is that Members of Parliament are citizens of Canada and must obey Canadian laws unless specifically stated otherwise.

Nevertherless I think it is better to reach a compromise. If Harper could find a trick to secure confidenciality of the documents, I think, the best move for him would be to show the documents to the opposition. However, he cannot trust the opposition. They would continue the smearing campaign, now under the umbrella of non-disclosing the content, thus being unchallenged.

[ToadBrother]

It can be so, it can be not. There can be a field for the SC. The opposition appeals to old rules, like you said 1689. The conservatives appeals to newer rules about security.

There are no old or new rules, there are laws, constitutional conventions and constitutional amendments. The Conservatives are asserting that certain security legislation essentially constitutes an amendment. It's hard to imagine how the Supreme Court would agree with this sort of an idea of an accidental amendment limiting Parliament's privileges.

It is not a business of the Parliament to interpret laws and the Constitution. It is a judicial "domain". My understanding is that Members of Parliament are citizens of Canada and must obey Canadian laws unless specifically stated otherwise.

I don't know where you get this from. Privileges are most definitely the business of Parliament. Parliament has a constitutional right to oversee the conduct of the Crown and its Ministers.

Nevertherless I think it is better to reach a compromise. If Harper could find a trick to secure confidenciality of the documents, I think, the best move for him would be to show the documents to the opposition. However, he cannot trust the opposition. They would continue the smearing campaign, now under the umbrella of non-disclosing the content, thus being unchallenged.

I could care less who Harper can trust or not trust. There is a long tradition of committees, and in particular the Foreign Affairs Committee being entrusted with highly sensitive information.

I'm afraid you've partaken of the koolaid my friend, but thanks for the heads for the new line of B.S. you and your fellow Tories are going to shoveling out. It will prove as fun as the lies being spread before the 2008 prorogation.

But here's a start. I openly challenge you to state who on that Committee will leak the information.

Edited April 27, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Wild Bill]

IF indeed there is proof that there was/is a cover-up, I would think Harper would want an election and then turn around and say its the opposition parties fault for the election, I was just trying to protect our troops etc.... OR give out just enough of the documents that suggest maybe torture but not enough for the committee to do any thing with. If I were the Conservatives I would be very cautious because the world is watching and they could be dragged to a International Court if they believe the Tories are guilty.

An international court would be an iffy situation at best. First of all, there is no world government. The UN does not trump a nation's sovereignty. They could not send in UN policemen to grab Harper and haul him off to the Hague for trial.

Look what a long and complicated process it took to get true war criminals like Milosevic of Serbia to a UN court. The issue with Harper holding back some documents is nowhere in that kind of league.

Besides that, why would the UN CARE that Harper is withholding those documents? It is a purely internal affair for Canada. The world has its own problems.

It just would never happen! If by some wild chance something like it ever DID happen, there's a good chance that any political party that might become the government would be distrustful of the UN meddling in our sovereignty to the point where Canada's support for military roles like in Afghanistan or food aid might get re-thought. The UN has relatively few countries that actually give and contribute instead of just sandbag or take. They need Canada too much to threaten the relationship.

[capricorn]

Besides that, why would the UN CARE that Harper is withholding those documents? It is a purely internal affair for Canada. The world has its own problems.

You know Wild Bill, I have to laugh at some posts with regard to how "the world" views Canada. Some of those posters seem to inflate in their own minds the importance Canada has on the international scene and worry about how our actions will be perceived by the powers that be, as unseen or unknown as those powers might be. In large measure, I think these folks wish us to be perceived as the good guys. This may well be a sentiment stemming from our days as UN peacekeepers where essentially we didn't take sides but kept opponents at a safe distance from each other. It's a different world today but some still pine for the way things used to be.