Scott's DiaTribes

‘So be it’

Scott Tribe — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:35:02 +0000

If the Conservatives and Prime Minister Stephen Harper threaten to dissolve Parliament and force an election rather then be forced to turn documents over to Parliament (and having the spectacle of Parliament’s Sergeant-At-Arms seizing the documents/arresting Cabinet Ministers for contempt of Parliament), that’s their prerogative, and their problem. Nowhere in any of the motions of the opposition parties points of order do they state that the failure to produce documents would be considered a loss of confidence in the Conservative government.

The fact that the Conservative government would rather face an election then turn those documents over to either a public inquiry judge or a Parliamentary committee with proper national security safeguards in place would and does speak volumes. In effect, Harper would be asking Canadians to give him a majority government so he could shut down any investigations of the Afghan detainee issue that may cause his government political damage, or worse, may expose international law violations (as alleged by Professor Amir Attaran, who says he has seen some of the unredacted documents which indicate this).

If he and his government wants to run with THAT as an election issue, I say go nuts, and I agree with Steve V:

Would the Conservatives really want an election about accountability, transparency, democratic will, secrecy, “stonewalling”?..I can’t think of a better focus than one surrounding how this government operates, how they avoid responsibility, can’t “play well with others”, a buffet of negative narratives…If this issue leads to a confidence motion (I still don’t think it will), I don’t buy the fear mongering that the opposition will wear any election. Harper has the ultimate choice, and the opposition has provided sensible options that protect his supposed concerns. Should the Conservatives refuse, then ultimately they are raising the matter of confidence, they are arbitarily making a decision to force an election. At best, “blame” is a wash, at worst, we head off on the trail with Harper defending his refusal.

The opposition parties reaction to this election threat is very encouraging:

Bob Rae was asked yesterday how far the opposition was willing to go to obtain documents related to the Afghan detainee affair and, paraphrasing Pierre Trudeau, responded, “Just watch us.” Jack Harris was asked about the possibility that the government might declare any vote on the matter to be a confidence vote. His response: “Well, you know, the government and the Prime Minister can declare any motion a confidence motion. They may decide that this is a confidence motion. If so, so be it.”

Translation for me: the accountability of this government to Parliament on what their policy was vis-a-vis Afghan detainees, and the supremacy of Parliament overall vs the executive power – with a Prime Minister trying to cripple Parliament into irrelevancy - is an important enough principle that we will fight for it, and if that means Harper pulls the plug on parliament yet again to yet again avoid Parliamentary scrutiny, then as Jack Harris says, ’so be it’. They obviously believe a strong case can be made to the Canadian electorate that their actions are right and the Conservatives and Harper aren’t.

A bit ironically, Harper probably has made their case easier to be made to the electorate because of his prorogation stunt. Everyone knew the real reason for it was to avoid/delay opposition enquiries into this, in the hopes it would fade away as an issue. It has definitely not done that – if anything, it alerted more people to Harper’s dislike of accountability, and making people wonder what exactly are in these documents that he is so desperate to hide.

The opposition parties stand up for democracy today.

Scott Tribe — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:54:36 +0000

The Speaker has been handed 3 separate points of privilege by the 3 opposition parties today, all asking that the Speaker find the Conservative government in contempt of Parliament for their refusal so far to turn over all unredacted documents referring to Afghan detainees and their treatment (as demanded in a Parliament vote before Christmas), if they continue to refuse to turn over said documents to Parliament.

The liveblogging of the event here from Kady. The full wording of Liberal Derek Lee’s motion here at Maclean’s from Aaron Wherry.

What happens next? Well, the Speaker has reserved judgment for today after hearing arguments. If he rules in favour of the opposition party’s motions, Dr Dawg details what happens next at his blog:

Should the Speaker rule that the continuing defiance of Parliament by the Conservatives is a breach of Parliamentary privilege, motions will be presented: Turn over the unredacted Afghanistan documents, or be found in contempt of Parliament.

I’ll await Dawg’s apology that the Liberals were going to go wishy washy on this.

Nevertheless, good to see the ball has finally been set rolling. Parliament cannot be held in contempt or scorn, which is what the Conservatives have been doing. It’s time they be called to account on it. It’s also time to let parliamentarians see what has scared the Conservatives so much that they would go so far to hide them – not from just the media or the public, but from a Military Complaints Commission with top secret clearance, from Opposition MP’s who could be given the same security clearance if there were national security concerns, or a full fledged public inquiry where a judge with full subpoena power would also be able to discern what should be kept out of the public eye (as was the case with the Maher Arar inquiry).

Sorry Mr Ibbittson, the detainee issue is not dead in the water. It`s just gotten re-started.

UPDATE at 1:27 pm: Canadian Press gives more details to the motions – they vary, it appears:

..If the Speaker makes a formal finding of violation, Lee is ready to bring in a motion finding the government in contempt and directing the Commons sergeant-at-arms to go out and seize the documents. This could bring on a bitter constitutional fight between the rights of the executive and the legislature.

The NDP and the Bloc have proposed a somewhat less confrontational motion that would give the Afghan committee three weeks to produce rules for viewing sensitive documents while protecting their secrecy. The government would have a week after that to respond and a refusal would trigger another contempt motion.

UPDATE 2 @ 2:13 pm: The original CAPP group (Canadians against Proroguing Parliament) has just posted this updated graphic at their Facebook site:

So asking questions about the detainees is an insult to the Cdn troops?

Scott Tribe — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:17:32 +0000

That’s apparently Stephen Harper’s view from his Google Youtube “interview”.

Normally, I’d be outraged, and post a long-winded rant about what a misleading and idiotic a statement that is, except Harper and his government (see Peter MacKay) have been saying that schtick for awhile (and a large portion of the Canadian electorate/public aren’t buying it) so it doesn’t surprise me he’d repeat it in a scripted tightly controlled “interview”.

Good response here though from a commentator at Susan Delacourt’s blog, that bears repeating:

Our troops didn’t commit torture, they reported it. Ottawa ignored, neglected and denied that those reports did exist, and, tried to destroy the reputation of the person who made those reports to Ottawa – Richard Colvin…Think about it: Our troops comply with the Geneva Convention and all related protocols, report it to Colvin who reports it to Ottawa, and Ottawa sweeps it under the carpet, and the PMO is so obtuse as to say that questions about detainees is an insult to the troops

A public inquiry or the turning over of documents to the Parliament is the only way for Harper and his government to resolve this. The ‘mandate’ given to a former Supreme Court justice is not good enough nor acceptable, but a whitewash and a stalling tactic.

More trees chopped and more money wasted on partisan flyers by the Cons

Scott Tribe — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:59:37 +0000

This is one time that this particular endorsement from this particular group I don’t mind seeing:

The Liberals are getting some support from a small-c conservative source for their opposition motion Monday that aims to cut government waste by curbing the use of political tools like 10-percenter mailings. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation plans to e-mail its supporters on the Conservative backbenches and within the NDP caucus, asking them to back the Liberal initiative. The 10-per-centers are flyers that are sent, using taxpayers money, by MPs into the ridings of other federal politicians. Their messages are often overtly partisan.

Rather hard for the Conservatives to reject the Liberal proposal without angering a group that contains their core voters. A potential wedge issue, perhaps, if the Conservatives refuse to consider it.

Coincidentally enough, what do I get in the mail today? Why, a 15 page flyer sent on behalf of my MP, Conservative Dave Mackenzie, proclaiming that the Conservatives are “saving me money on my tax return”. Inside, a point for point rundown on Canada’s Economic Action Plan, with of course a footer at the bottom continuing to try to tell me that the Conservatives are saving me money.

At the end of this lovely propaganda piece, a link to a government of Canada website for more information – a supposedly neutral non-partisan website. mind you, in a decidedly partisan Conservative mailing.

In days gone past, when governments of Canada wanted to get out information on tax return changes or savings, they’d normally send out that info in official Government of Canada letterhead. They’d point out the potential savings, while carefully trying to remain non-partisan about it.

Not with this bunch in power. There’s a reason certain civil servants in the administrative functions of Ottawa were uncomfortable with the crossing over into partisan territory, and why they recommended against it (which Harper and his PMO rejected).

Now we’ll see how serious this government is about saving money, or whether they continue to want to spend taxpayers money for partisan purposes, because the savings are not insignificant:

The Liberal motion takes aim at what the party says is $1-billion in partisan expenditures including $800-million that is spent on government advertising and travel and $350-million that is spent on management consultants. But the 10-per-centers, mass mailings that cost an estimated $30-million a year, are the most controversial of the items the Liberals want to see on the chopping block. The Liberals say that Conservative MPs accounted for 62 per cent of 10-per-center printing costs in 2008-09, compared to 16 per cent for MPs in their own party.

If this government wants people to believe they’re serious about belt-tightening, this would be a much bigger gesture then freezing MP’s salaries. But a) it cuts out their propaganda, and b) it was suggested by the Liberals, so if they refuse to consider it, don’t be surprised. But, if they do refuse it, it will be a useful thing to remind people about in the next election campaign.

UPDATE @ 8:55 pm: Word from the CTF’s director Kevin Gaudet on Twitter is that the Liberal motion passed 140-137. All Conservative MP’s opposed. Something to do with “freedom of speech”. Their normally staunch allies in the CTF don’t seem to agree with that.

Reject the Iacobucci offer from this coverup government

Scott Tribe — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:15:26 +0000

I wont be as succinct with my opinion as Steve V is, but I’m going to be as blunt, particularly after reading over there that several sources are telling CBC this Iacobucci referral could take up to a year and half to complete.

Up to a year and a half to issue his report? A year and a half to decide what documents to deny Parliamentary scrutiny under obviously narrow and partisan Conservative government terms of reference? That is nothing but trying to bury the explosive issue before an election can be called by Harper and his Conservatives.

Reject this, opposition party members. This would make a farce of your Parliamentary supremacy motion that you passed if you accepted this pseudo-inquiry. Call for the Conservatives to be in contempt of Parliament with your point of order, and set those wheels in motion. Interrogate those ministers at the bar of the House in the Committee of the Whole. Furthermore, ask for the Speaker to issue a Warrant for those documents, and banish/arrest government cabinet ministers if they refuse.

And what if the Conservatives and Harper threaten to dissolve Parliament and call an election, rather then turn the documents over or face the embarrassment of being in contempt of Parliament? I’m also with Steve V in a comment he made at his post:

“You can’t force an election, saying you don’t believe MP’s have a right to information. That frame scares the s**t out of the Conservatives, you’re basically having a rehash of the prorogue question and all the negative sentiment towards the gov’t. Call their bluff…As a Liberal, I would be ecstatic to have a campaign centred around accountability, potential cover-ups and democratic will.

Some folks call this forcing of the issue “the nuclear option”. I say to the opposition parties, be fully prepared to push the button. The Conservatives are not only in contempt of Parliament, but in contempt of democracy as a whole.

Terms of reference for Iacobucci are a big stall for time..

Scott Tribe — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:34:27 +0000

..or an attempt to try and justify to the Canadian public that Parliament isn’t supreme in asking for documents, or perhaps they think a 3rd party former SC judge’s opinion would be more respected or believed over themselves for saying this is really about trying to prevent injury to Canada’s reputation/national security (the government’s official line/claim) then it is to prevent documents from getting to the opposition parties/media/public that embarrasses this Conservative government/causes it to suffer political damage (or worse, suffer the consequences of breaking international law).

I basically agree with Steve V’s conclusion:

If I’m the NDP, I continue on with their contempt charge. If I’m the Liberals, I dust off (Derek) Lee (who put his own contempt of Parliament motion on hold until he saw what Iaboucci’s mandate was going to be – Scott) and reject this “inquiry” outright. Now that we know have some clarity on Iacobucci, it’s imperative that the opposition doesn’t allow a probable pre-determined exercise to distract, delay and ultimately relegate. The opposition isn’t obligated to play this game.

The Liberals initial response to this is one of scepticism – as well it should be. It should become even more then that come the return of QP, in my opinion, from all opposition parties.

The progressive left needs a Manning Centre equivalent.

Scott Tribe — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:07:34 +0000

A brief Friday blog foray today. My opinion is the Manning Centre (with all due respect to its founder, Preston Manning, and to Stephen Taylor, Blogging Tory founder and ideological rival, who is a “fellow” there, and writes for them/works for them) is given far too much attention and to me anyhow, given credit for far too much influence on Canadian politics, which I can read in the Sun or National Post every day if I felt like dirtying myself. See the example today of this even in the “left wing” Toronto Star, highlighting a poll for them when we haven’t even seen the wording of the polling questions, and which some of my progressive blogging friends are taking issue with.

Perhaps it’s because their emotional soulmates are in power right now, and of course the fact everyone knows who Preston Manning is. Maybe the media feel obligated to cover it. Regardless, I’m thinking it might not be a bad idea for someone who has a recognizable political name to start an equivalent counter-view to the Manning Centre from the progressive left political viewpoint to counter the claptrap…er.. views that come out of that place, which then get regurgitated by the media, sometimes without question on whether or not what they’re issuing is a bunch of nonsense.

As an aside, it would also be interesting for me to see if our media friends were as enthusiastic on covering/attending a forum like that. Maybe just make sure the place offers free snacks and drink.. that should get them out to it on a daily basis.

Conservatives still trying to play games at Afghanistan Committee.

Scott Tribe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:21:36 +0000

So here we are at the newly reconstituted parliamentary committee looking at the Afghanistan detainees situation and at the thorny question of the documentation surrounding Canadian policy and such, and there should be no surprise that the Conservatives immediately try some gamesplaying.

Not a surprise, and not a surprise Laurie Hawn would be the chief instigator of it:

Laurie Hawn then brings forward a motion of his own about former justice Iacobucci, which would recommend that the esteemed jurist review “all relevant documents,” with a particular emphasis on those prepared between 2001 and 2005..Lalonde reminds Hawn that the committee does have a “constitutional right” to see all documents; its members can undertake not to reveal the more sensitive materal publicly, which is how its done in the United States. You know, the government’s case really would be a lot stronger if the Iacobucci mandate had actually been released, since – as Harris is pointing out as I type this – at the moment, this is a wee bit premature. Maybe he’s already going to be directed to look at those newly revealed documents from the Liberal days! Anyway, it sounds like the opposition members, after initially almost falling for the trap laid by Hawn, are now rallying against it. Nice try, guys, but it would’ve worked better with a less non-existent terms of reference. Hawn passive aggressively hopes that this isn’t an attempt by the Liberals to cover up the role of the previous government in any detainee-related misdoings, although if that was actually the case, why would the NDP and the Bloc be on side? Dosanjh assures him that he still wants the committee to go back to 2002 — “we have nothing to hide.”

It will be interesting to see the strategy of the opposition parties, because even though all 3 of them can at any time bring forth the much-talked about “Conservative government in contempt of Parliament” point of order, (and follow that up with a request for the Speaker to issue a Speaker’s order that all Afghan detainees documents be turned over to Parliament), all have chosen for now to wait.

One could say it perhaps is the fear of Harper deciding to dissolve Parliament rather then be compelled by Parliament’s Speaker to turn over documents and endure a humiliating “contempt” ruling – with the possibility of himself and government ministers being forced to stand at the bar of the House of Commons and endure an all-MP interrogation, or worse, being put under arrest by the Speaker for contempt and having the Parliamentary dungeon used again for its original purpose. However, even the BQ (who have good polling results right now in Quebec) have decided to play the waiting game on the parliamentary version of the nuclear option, instead choosing to hammer on the government’s proposal to “screen documents” with a former SC judge who has no legal weight in anything he might decide on, and hasn’t even been officially given a mandate.

It’s an obvious attempt to stall and whitewash this, and so far the opposition parties seem content with pointing out the dishonesty/hypocrisy of the government in going this route. I suspect though, that you’ll see some more serious manoeuvres in the next 2 weeks from the opposition parties, if the government continues to stonewall.

The Jaffer stuff is one part of the faux ‘tough on crime’ Conservative position

Scott Tribe — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:17:11 +0000

Everyone by now across the land knows about the Rahim Jaffer case. I’m not going to get into outrage mode over the seemingly light sentence; there’s plenty of others doing that. What amuses me is the Conservative outrage at the opposition parties for sticking them about that decision in the House during Members Statements and Question Period. Quite frankly, their anger is all sound and fury; they’re the ones who’ve been trying to portray themselves as the “law and order party”; yet when a former fellow MP of theirs gets off with a light sentence, they act all insulted that they’re getting taken to task for their muted reaction.

If Jaffer is an ex-Liberal MP, you can almost be assured this bunch in power would be jumping up and down – not only at the perception of a “deal”, but trying to use it as an example of our “wimpy liberal justice system”.

The other thing that shows Conservative hypocrisy? The fact they’ve been complaining for months and months about how the Liberal Senate was gutting or delaying their crime bills that were “urgently needed”. Prorogation was the first example of the dishonesty in that claim, and now this little tidbit of news about the Conservatives declining to take control of the Senate Committee that looks at crime bills. It appears they’d rather have the Senate Liberals to flog on this issue.

So, please forgive me if I dont have much sympathy for the Conservatives bawling about the negative publicity the Jaffer case is giving them (others aren’t very sympathetic either). What goes around comes around.

UPDATE: A good article detailing specific instances where Conservative publicly question the justice system as opposed to Jaffer’s case (also a good quote by the John Howard society saying how Jaffer shows that mandatory minimums as advocated by the Conservatives is wrong).

The detainee document story continues to grow.

Scott Tribe — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:37:08 +0000

CBC has been doing a bang-up job the last few days on the Afghan detainee documents; the latest revelations was on the 5 pm Power and Politics show yesterday detailing the Conservative government’s plan for PR if torture allegations came to light or even were confirmed:

(H/T Scott Ross for the video)

On another note, it looks like the whisperings about Harper not wanting to be accountable to Parliament and instead trying to get a majority to avoid it by yet again dissolving Parliament and holding an election has been picked up by some in the media – James Travers for one seems pretty certain of it:

Despite Conservative efforts to wrap muck in the flag – the issue is about ministerial accountability, not support for the troops – evidence is mounting that Ottawa had a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on detainees who disappeared into notorious Afghan or U.S. “black site” prisons. More delays – expect endless legal wrangling – are built into last week’s decision to appoint former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci to review documents Conservatives are keeping secret in defiance of a Commons vote.

But after promising a new era of accountability, Harper wants the next election out of the way before Canadians reach the conclusion that ministers and generals hid here what was known to Canadian diplomats and the Red Cross in Afghanistan.

And I reiterate that this is why the opposition parties should reject having their hands tied on this and stop giving the impression that this is a legitimate way to resolve this issue. This is a stall tactic, and worse, it’s yet again an attempt by the Conservative government to imply that Parliament is not entitled via Parliamentary supremacy to see all docs, only ones of it’s choosing. As Michael Ignatieff pointed out yesterday, and the Star editorial board agreed was a good question, we don’t even know yet whether Iacobucci will be able to see all documents, or just the ones civil servants and government officials allow him to see. The fact the government hasn’t told anyone what his mandate is makes it even more suspicious the government will attempt to whitewash this issue.

That is why the contempt of Parliament point of order must proceed, and the urging of the Speaker to issue a Warrant ordering all documents to be turned over. Do not allow the Conservative government to stall this issue or to try and subvert the Parliamentary vote/order to turn over all documents.