Government Breached Parliamentary Privilege: Speaker

[Tonington]

Can one party influence quorum in that committee Chris, or any other procedural tricks? That would be ironic!

It's the cynic in me...

 

[FiveParadox]

The Procedure and House Affairs committee is comprised as follows:

• 5 members from Her Majesty’s Government for Canada
• 4 members from Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition
• 2 members from the Bloc Québécois
• 1 member from the New Democratic Party of Canada

The quorum for this committee is seven members, which means that even if the Government boycotted the committee, the remaining parties would have enough members (if all attended) to carry on business without them. There wouldn’t be much that the Government could do, short of prorogation or dissolution, if business proceeded to that stage.

 

[Tonington]

Ahh, well that's good I guess.

You said the p-word...not so good...

 

[CDNBear]

There is a difference between asking the Government to table documents, and a House of Commons order to produce them.

No sh!t! I fully grasp that Paradox, and it still does not erase historical precedent. Nice try though.

For example, if the Opposition house leader said during question period, “Will the prime minister table [whatever document]?”, and the prime minister subsequently says no, he has every right to do so. However, if the House of Commons passes a motion demanding documents, the Government (or any other agency, entity or individual in Canada) has no choice but to comply because Parliament is our supreme legislative authority.

And at no point has anyone argued that. My position is, that with the assistance of the House Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada has managed to have several historically accepted precedents thrown out the window.

The very fact that you haven't questioned that, states to me, you are fully aware of that fact, and that you now choose to ignore historically accepted Parliamentary considerations. For the sake of partisan game play.

How convenient.

What should I take from that Paradox?

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.

The Gov't forwarded all the documentation in its possession that had been redacted to that date.

The documentation the House is demanding now, is in the process thereof, at the capable hands of Iacobucci. Do you have a problem with a SC Justice looking over those documents Paradox?

I cite O’Brien and Bosc with the following, which seems to pertain perfectly to the present situation:

I'm well aware of the Standing Orders, Paradox. I've never questioned the extent of their powers. This is simply a pathetic attempt to deviate from the truth and fact of the matter and completely ignores the fact that the absolutism of this section, has historically been waved merely on the word of the Minister alone. When interests outside the Gov't control or matter of national security are involved.

Suddenly, historical precedent is thrown out the window. I find that odd. I find it even odder, that you support this type of behavior.

A former justice reviewing the redactions of documents does not constitute the Government complying with the House order to produce papers.

I didn't need to be told that Paradox. I am fully aware of that. What I said was, it is a sincere course of action by the Gov't to have an expert review the documents in question and report to the Minister, his findings. So the Minister can either produce the documents or withhold them, citing matters of international obligation, national security, or the documents falling outside the House's jurisdiction.

Again, nice try.

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.

Again, I absolutely agree. So why is it, that historically, the House accepted the mere word of the Minister?

Lets break it down, so you will be less confused and prone to ignoring certain facts. And hopefully answer some of my questions.

There is historical precedent giving the Minister final say as to what documents will be handed over. The House has never questioned the Gov't on this in the past.

Suddenly that is no longer accepted, why is that?

The bulk of the Documents were handed over, there are documents in the hands of Iacobucci, who is determining the sensitivity of said documents.

How is the Gov't not acting in good faith?

Yes.

Should the Government refuse to comply with the Speaker’s imposed timeframe of two weeks, then it would be in order for those who brought the question of privilege forward to table the appropriate motions in response to the Government’s failure. This would normally be a motion to refer the issue to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which would return to the House a report censuring the Government. The adoption of the report by the House would result in the defeat of the Government.

Exactly.

It appears, that with the partisan assistance of the Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada is attempting to perform a coup. Using Parliamentary procedure to do it. How democratic.

If I had any respect for the LPoC or any of its members before, that has been completely washed away now.

 

[pegger]

CDNBear I think you blame the Liberal party a bit to much.

If the Conservatives had been a bit more accomodating - and dare I say consiliatory - to some of the (IMO reasonable) demands of the opposition - we never would have gotten to this point.

However, the Conservatives, since day 1 in power, have been adversarial on EVERYTHING, compromising and cooperating never, and consistantly attacking the opposition.

This is the heart of the reason why I despise him and his party so much at this point.

I want parliament to WORK TOGETHER. It's a G-D minority - so start acting like the PM of a minority government, and WORK with the opposition instead of the constant politicking going on 24/7.

 

[CDNBear]

CDNBear I think you blame the Liberal party a bit to much.

I place equal blame on the LPoC and the Speaker, in this attempted coup.

If the Conservatives had been a bit more accomodating - and dare I say consiliatory - to some of the (IMO reasonable) demands of the opposition - we never would have gotten to this point.

I actually stated that already. But upon further investigation. The Minister of Justice, seems to have been quite accommodating...

The Speaker, "Taking of Recorded Divisions on March 23" on March 31st, 2010 | openparliament.ca

However, the Conservatives, since day 1 in power, have been adversarial on EVERYTHING, compromising and cooperating never, and consistantly attacking the opposition.

I somewhat agree.

This is the heart of the reason why I despise him and his party so much at this point.

I think his policies did him in for me.

I want parliament to WORK TOGETHER. It's a G-D minority - so start acting like the PM of a minority government, and WORK with the opposition instead of the constant politicking going on 24/7.

I think the country should start paying closer attention to what actually goes on in Parliament...

I would submit that the matters raised by the three members are matters of debate. They are not questions of privilege. I would encourage members of this House to resolve disagreements through debates and the free exchange of ideas, not to abuse the powers accorded to the House in the name of parliamentary privilege.

Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

 

[FiveParadox]

Attempted coup? Are you serious? :lol:

The Hon. Peter Milliken has been one of our most skilled Speakers of recent memory; his rulings have always been as reconciliatory as possible, always preferring to place the decision-making in the hands of the House (as it should be). My position on this issue is entirely consistent with my philosophy when it comes to Canadian government—just because a power is not used regularly, does not render that power obsolete (this is consistent, by way of example, with my position on the powers of Her Majesty The Queen and the Governor General of Canada). Yes, the House of Commons tends to bow to the discretion of a minister when citing national security concerns, but the House always had, and continues to have, the right to insist upon its order (as has happened in this case).

Surely the true affront to democracy, and to Canadian government, would have been a ruling by the Speaker that would have rendered deprecated the House’s authority to order the production of documents. What this ruling has indicated is that the membership of the House of Commons is the master of its own affairs, and not the prime minister (and quite correctly so). It is the Speaker’s role to protect the privileges of the House of Commons, and certainly not to defend the Government of the day. The Speaker did not order the Government to mail confidential documents to every Canadian household, he asked the Government to work with the Commons to maintain the security and confidentiality required while satisfying the information required by the House.

 

[Tonington]

Natynczyk is OK with releasing the documents.

 

[CDNBear]

Attempted coup? Are you serious? :lol:

Not really, just rattling the cage as it were, but I suspect you already knew that.

The Hon. Peter Milliken has been one of our most skilled Speakers of recent memory; his rulings have always been as reconciliatory as possible, always preferring to place the decision-making in the hands of the House (as it should be). My position on this issue is entirely consistent with my philosophy when it comes to Canadian government—just because a power is not used regularly, does not render that power obsolete (this is consistent, by way of example, with my position on the powers of Her Majesty The Queen and the Governor General of Canada). Yes, the House of Commons tends to bow to the discretion of a minister when citing national security concerns, but the House always had, and continues to have, the right to insist upon its order (as has happened in this case).

How convenient eh?

Surely the true affront to democracy, and to Canadian government, would have been a ruling by the Speaker that would have rendered deprecated the House’s authority to order the production of documents.

Why, you're own hero Trudeau has even defended the position the Justice Minister has taken. The spirit of that power was not intended to used in this matter and you know it.

What this ruling has indicated is that the membership of the House of Commons is the master of its own affairs, and not the prime minister (and quite correctly so). It is the Speaker’s role to protect the privileges of the House of Commons, and certainly not to defend the Government of the day.

I absolutely agree.

Now had the issue never been raised in the past, and this question never arisen. We would not be having this argument. The problem is, it has come up, and it has been accepted that the Gov't must be allowed to keep some things in secret, for specific reasons.

The Speaker dismissed that as if he was aware of what was in the remaining documentation. Thus over stepping his powers.

The Speaker did not order the Government to mail confidential documents to every Canadian household, he asked the Government to work with the Commons to maintain the security and confidentiality required while satisfying the information required by the House.

They already were.

I challenge you to prove otherwise. I can prove and have, at the other place, that the Gov't has been doing just that.