Much has been written -- rightly, I'd say -- about yesterday's landmark ruling by House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer, in which he dismissed the question of privilege raised by Liberal MP Irwin Cotler on "technical grounds," but made it clear that the conduct that had sparked the complaint was, in his words "reprehensible."
If you're curious, you can read my thoughts on Scheer's conclusions here, with the caveat that I'm pretty sure I didn't really tread any new ground.
But while much of yesterday afternoon's Hill chatter was -- again, rightly -- consumed by the Cotler ruling, something else was going on at committee that, depending on the ultimate outcome, could have a far more profound effect on the ability of Members of Parliament to do their job, not to mention the ability of the voters they represent to watch them do it.
Here's a realtime recap of what went down during what was supposed to be a pro forma meeting to certify the nomination of Mario Dion as the next Public Service Integrity Commissioner:“
Btw, over at government operations, Mike Wallace just tried to introduce a motion to conduct *all* cttee business in camera from now on. #hw
“
The clerk, however, advised the chair - @PatMartinMP - that it was a substantive motion, and as such, requires notice. #hw
As it turns out, that wasn't the last time that we would hear that now-dreaded phrase come up during the afternoon's proceedings.
Seconds after NDP MP Alex Boulerice tabled a motion to invite two advocacy groups -- FAIR Canada and Democracy Watch, both of which had representatives in the room -- to come forward and share their thoughts on Dion's appointment, the Conservative contingent attempted to force the committee to go in camera while the main witness was still testifying, simply so they wouldn't have to deal with it in public.
“
This is amazing - Mike Wallace now trying to move in camera just to vote down a motion to hear from FAIR and Democracy Watch. #hw
“
It really amazes me how reluctant the government side seems to be to simply vote down opposition motions in public. #hw
“
Ahh, now @alexboulerice is moving to withdraw his motion so that the committee won't be forced in camera. #hw
According to ipolitics.ca reporter Elizabeth Thompson, a similar motion had been put forward at the official languages committee.
“
@kady That apparently happened over at official languages committee too. Looks like the #CPC committee rule book might have a new chapter.
“
@kady I'm was told earlier today that a similar motion was introduced - albeit it was done in camera.
A quick check of the minutes from that particular committee failed to turn up the wording of the motion in question, but that doesn't mean it wasn't brought forward, but simply that no final decision has been made on the matter.
Now, it's worth noting that going in camera for all discussion of committee business would not necessary result in all future meetings being held behind closed doors. (I say "likely" because it wasn't clear from Wallace's motion, which was tabled without notice, and, as such, not available in written form.)
If passed, the Wallace motion would still allow witnesses to testify in public -- but all other proceedings, including but not limited to debate over all future motions, ad hoc or substantial, would be held in secret by default.
It would also prevent opposition members from distributing copies of motions, since any matter scheduled to be dealt with in camera is considered confidential.
That brings us to the following very important distinction, which may lie at the heart of this latest procedural tactic strategy: At the moment, most committees do not automatically go in camera for committee business. Instead, it is listed under public on the notice of meeting, which lays out the orders of the day.
Even if a Conservative MP puts forward a motion to go in camera the instant the gavel drops -- which, for the record, is something that has been happening with alarming frequency since the fall sitting got underway -- opposition members can still make sure that everyone present knows exactly what it is that the committee will be discussing after reporters -- and, of course, any members of the public present -- have been ejected from the room and the plug is pulled on the ParlVu livestream.
If the Wallace motion succeeds, that would no longer be permissible. In fact, for a member to drop so much as a hint on what might be on the agenda would be a breach of privilege.
Here's the kicker, though: From the perspective of the government -- or, at least, the perspective presumptive, since it's hard to fathom any other motivation for such a move -- it is an ultimately futile, if perhaps momentarily symbolically satisfying gesture, at least as far as covering up any account of what transpires after the room has been cleared, for one very simple reason: it will all show up in the minutes anyway.
Yes, even in camera meetings require that the record include the results of any recorded division, as well as any item on which committee members were able to agree without taking a vote.
Given that, it's hard to understand why the government would go out of its way to turn committee business into a clandestine, back room affair, but if it succeeds, we'll just have to read all those future minutes to find out.
IMPORTANT AND EVEN MORE UNSETTLING UPDATE: Okay, so maybe it isn't so futile after all. As several procedural experts have pointed out, the minutes will only reflect motions passed during an in camera session, not those that are ultimately defeated, which means we'll never know just what motions may have been nixed by the government majority.
Given all that, it's becoming increasingly difficult not to wonder just what it is that they're trying to hide.
No comments:
Post a Comment