Agreed, hence why I lay some blame at the feet of the Conservatives as well. They should have acted timely and openly. Keeping Parliament abreast of the circumstances as they went along. They chose to act like criminals in the night and brought the motion up on themselves.
This entire situation could have been resolved on 10 December 2009, if
Her Majesty’s Government for Canada had simply respected the authority of the
Parliament of Canada and released unredacted Afghan detainee transfer documents to the
House of Commons. I cite
O’Brien and Bosc with the following, which seems to pertain perfectly to the present situation:
“The Standing Orders state that standing committees have the power to order the production of papers and records, another privilege rooted in the Constitution that is delegated by the House. Committees usually obtain such papers simply by requesting them from their authors or owners. If a request is denied, however, and the standing committee believes that specific papers are essential to its work, it can use its power to order the production of papers by passing a motion to that effect. [...] The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist—in hard copy or electronic format—and that they are located in Canada. [...] In practice, standing committees may encounter situations where the authors of or officials responsible for papers refuse to provide them or are willing to provide them only after certain parts have been removed. Public servants and Ministers may sometimes invoke their obligations under certain legislation to justify their position.
These types of situations have absolutely no bearing on the power of committees to order the production of papers and records. No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect. [...]
The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.”
Now, had Milliken not dismissed common historical practice, a sincere act, such as the use of Iacobucci to assess the material and make a ruling for the Minister. I would say the Gov't simply needs to catch up to their own rhetoric. But since Parliament has now been hijacked by the Opposition, with Millikens partisan assistance. I feel compelled to defend the Conservatives, as distasteful as that may be.
A former justice reviewing the redactions of documents does not constitute the Government complying with the House order to produce papers. The Government cannot respond to a House order by doing something that
does not satisfy the order, and then argue that the order has been satisfied. If the House ordered the production of documents, the only response that can satisfy that order is
the production of documents. Anything else is simply insufficient, and is a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.