It seems that reports of the death of the Conservative campaign to force debate behind closed doors may have been a tad premature. For the last week and a half, the traditionally convivial official languages committee has been beset by a pitched battle over a government-backed motion to go in camera for all committee business.
Unlike a similar skirmish at Government Operations, however, this debate is taking place in public -- and, barring a nifty bit of procedural artistry on the part of the government, is likely to stay there for the foreseeable future, as committee rules prohibit the introduction of a motion to go back in camera until after the in camera motion has been decided.
So, how did a debate over holding future meetings in secret end up on the record? For that, we have to go back to what would turn out to be a fateful session on the morning of February 2, when, att some point during the first hour of what had been scheduled to be an in camera session, the opposition parties found themselves unexpectedly, if temporarily, in the majority.
No doubt sensing that the moment was likely to be fleeting, they joined forces to turn the tables on the government, and brought forward a snap motion to open the doors. (Motions to go in camera, or public, require no notice, and are non-debateable.)
Although the vote itself took place under the veil of in camera confidentiality, the transcript tells the tale, as evidenced in this post-ex camera exchange, in which the chair -- Conservative MP Michael Chong -- has to break the news to Conservative MP Costas Menegakis -- in whose name the motion that set off the whole row of procedural dominoes was brought forward -- that he couldn't simply reverse the decision via a re-in camera motion until the debate has wrapped up:
Since then, opposition members have been taking full advantage of the opportunity to air their discontent with the new trend in government secrecy, in detail and at length -- at such length, in fact, that their interventions have now consumed just over five hours of committee business.
Most infuriating, however, at least from the government's perspective, is that there is no immediate end in sight.
As the chair pointed out when the meeting first went public, a motion to go in camera can only be moved by a member who has the floor, and at that juncture, there were no Conservatives on the speakers list.
Even if a Conservative MP were to put his or her name forward now, it could be a while before they get the floor -- as of last Thursday, NDP MP Robert Aubin showed no signs of running out of steam.
In fact, his office sent out an email blast to supporters asking for fresh fodder -- in the form of supportive letters and comments -- to read into the record when the committee reconvenes tomorrow morning, and he resumes what he describes as his "marathon of indignation":
Even if Aubin eventually burns through his tank of filibuster fuel, NDP MPs Dan Harris and Yvon Godin would likely to be ready to take the baton, although if the latter vacates the chair -- which, due to Chong's absence, he has occupied since the standoff began -- in order to speak, he would be ceding the gavel to the government vice-chair, who could move swiftly to shut down the debate and call the vote, a move made famous by former Liberal MP Paul Szabo after three months of Conservative-backed delay tactics at Ethics.
Original Article
Source: CBC
Author: Kady O'Malley
Unlike a similar skirmish at Government Operations, however, this debate is taking place in public -- and, barring a nifty bit of procedural artistry on the part of the government, is likely to stay there for the foreseeable future, as committee rules prohibit the introduction of a motion to go back in camera until after the in camera motion has been decided.
So, how did a debate over holding future meetings in secret end up on the record? For that, we have to go back to what would turn out to be a fateful session on the morning of February 2, when, att some point during the first hour of what had been scheduled to be an in camera session, the opposition parties found themselves unexpectedly, if temporarily, in the majority.
No doubt sensing that the moment was likely to be fleeting, they joined forces to turn the tables on the government, and brought forward a snap motion to open the doors. (Motions to go in camera, or public, require no notice, and are non-debateable.)
Although the vote itself took place under the veil of in camera confidentiality, the transcript tells the tale, as evidenced in this post-ex camera exchange, in which the chair -- Conservative MP Michael Chong -- has to break the news to Conservative MP Costas Menegakis -- in whose name the motion that set off the whole row of procedural dominoes was brought forward -- that he couldn't simply reverse the decision via a re-in camera motion until the debate has wrapped up:
[...] The Chair: Yes, just let me explain. A motion to go in camera or to go in public can be moved at any time. There is no limit on the number of times that such a motion can be moved. It's not debatable and it's put to an immediate vote, which just took place, so we're now in public.
Mr. Costas Menegakis: If I interpret what you're saying correctly, I can now move to go back in camera.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Well, I have the right to speak. I have the floor.
The Chair: The floor is Mr. Bélanger's.
Mr. Costas Menegakis: You said we can do it at any time, so can I now...? Who made that previous motion?
The Chair: Mr. Bélanger did, because he had the floor.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger: I still have the floor.
The Chair: Yes. I'm just clarifying what the situation is. I'm going to pass the floor back to Mr.--
Mr. Costas Menegakis: I'm sorry, but I want to understand what's going on.
The Chair: Okay, what happened was that Mr. Bélanger was interrupted by M. Godin, who called a point of order. In that point of order, he moved a motion; I ruled it out of order because it's not a point of order to move a motion. I gave the floor back to Mr. Bélanger, and he moved the motion to go in public. When I started to call the vote, somebody requested a formal recorded division. I passed the floor to the clerk, and the clerk recorded that division. The motion was adopted five to four. Only four members voted against the motion.
Now I'm going to pass the floor back to Mr. Bélanger, because it is his floor right now and he has not--
Mr. Costas Menegakis: Okay, but at what point are we allowed to make a motion again?
The Chair: When Mr. Bélanger has exhausted his debate and--
Mr. Costas Menegakis: Oh, it's when he's exhausted his debate.
A voice: Or whoever else is on the list.
Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): On a point of order, who remains on the list of speakers, please?
The Chair: The next person on the list is Mme Michaud. Then we have M. Aubin, then M. Harris, and then M. Godin.
Since then, opposition members have been taking full advantage of the opportunity to air their discontent with the new trend in government secrecy, in detail and at length -- at such length, in fact, that their interventions have now consumed just over five hours of committee business.
Most infuriating, however, at least from the government's perspective, is that there is no immediate end in sight.
As the chair pointed out when the meeting first went public, a motion to go in camera can only be moved by a member who has the floor, and at that juncture, there were no Conservatives on the speakers list.
Even if a Conservative MP were to put his or her name forward now, it could be a while before they get the floor -- as of last Thursday, NDP MP Robert Aubin showed no signs of running out of steam.
In fact, his office sent out an email blast to supporters asking for fresh fodder -- in the form of supportive letters and comments -- to read into the record when the committee reconvenes tomorrow morning, and he resumes what he describes as his "marathon of indignation":
For some time now, with my official opposition and third party colleagues, I have been engaged in a real marathon of indignation. The focus of this indignation: a tenacious and determined battle to prevent the Conservatives from voting an undemocratic motion. This motion would require "that all the work of the Committee be held behind closed doors."
In other words, with the exception of listening to witnesses invited by the committee, all discussion on all subjects would always be done in secret. Therefore, the public and all Canadians would no longer be informed of the parties' positions on the issues being discussed. Another consequence, media would be denied public broadcasting of all our debates.
In our opinion, this is a serious encroachment, an attack even, on the freedom of speech of the parliamentarians who represent you, and on the foundation of our democratic system. This motion will be stopped when the opposition members have exhausted their right to speak or when the governing party withdraws its motion.
If you wish to support our action, you can personally participate in this marathon of indignation by sending me a letter expressing your own outrage regarding the Conservatives' act of force to muzzle us.
Your letter must include the reasons for your opposition to this undemocratic motion, be signed, include a street or e-mail address, and be written in a parliamentary language that doesn't attack specific people.
Starting Thursday morning, February 9, 2012 at 8:45 a.m., I will take the floor and be ready to read your letters so that together we can try to make the Conservatives, who are multiplying infringements on freedom of speech and democracy, listen to reason.
Thank you for supporting us in this struggle.
Even if Aubin eventually burns through his tank of filibuster fuel, NDP MPs Dan Harris and Yvon Godin would likely to be ready to take the baton, although if the latter vacates the chair -- which, due to Chong's absence, he has occupied since the standoff began -- in order to speak, he would be ceding the gavel to the government vice-chair, who could move swiftly to shut down the debate and call the vote, a move made famous by former Liberal MP Paul Szabo after three months of Conservative-backed delay tactics at Ethics.
UPDATE: As was pointed out to me (and which I really should have known), at Official Languages, unlike most committees, both vice-chairs are drawn from the opposition side of the table, which means that, barring the return of Michael Chong, Godin can cede his seat to his Liberal counterpart, Mauril Belanger, without risking a snap vote call.
(At the time, those Conservative members vociferously denounced the tactic, but one suspects their perspective may have shifted over time.)
In any case, barring a hostile takeover -- or, alternatively, a cross-table compromise on the issue itself -- it would seem that, for the time being, committee oversight of official language policy has been abruptly preempted by the fight for free and unfettered public debate. Stay tuned.
(At the time, those Conservative members vociferously denounced the tactic, but one suspects their perspective may have shifted over time.)
In any case, barring a hostile takeover -- or, alternatively, a cross-table compromise on the issue itself -- it would seem that, for the time being, committee oversight of official language policy has been abruptly preempted by the fight for free and unfettered public debate. Stay tuned.
Original Article
Source: CBC
Author: Kady O'Malley
No comments:
Post a Comment