http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/12…

So, there seems to be some question about Trudeau's transparency.

But the two situations have more parallels than I realised. Is there a book or resource you'd recommend for learning more about the commission and its context?

A bigger challenge for them will be to keep the story alive in January.

I don't know how comfortable I am with Parliament calling the CDS to testify on this hot topic. I would much rather see Mackay called before the bar, preferably in irons.

Def miss Kady being here.

Unfortunately, I suspect another spell of unseriousness is in the wind.

January 25th is a long way away, and in my view, neither the Canadian public, nor the media, have the attention span necessary to see this through.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mps-…

Yes, I think that you should take his word for it. After all, I'm merely an anonymous commenter.

As for Mr. Walsh, perhaps he should consult the Parliamentary website.

Yes, I agree. But I am certain we have two entirely different ideas of what 'respect the will of Parliament' means and what should happen next.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2009/12…

If the CPC had wanted this story buried, they would have come clean at once, faced a week of outrage, and been believed when they then promised to make sure it never happened again. As it is, they apparently thought they could exploit the scandal to the Opposition's disadvantage, by playing up American-style jingoism. Or, like Hillier, they were just too stubborn to admit their fault. Either way, this is now going to end with somebody in shackles — though ideally Mackay won't be beaten with electrical wire or "walled" too much.

Nevertheless, if Parliament so votes, it could quickly amend those laws to provide itself access to whatever information it pleases. In fact we could take Parliament's willingness (or lack thereof) to do so as a test of whether the Opposition is seriously interested in exerting Parliamentary authority over the Cabinet. If they don't, it's just grandstanding; if they do, it will be a splendid reaffirmation of our democracy. But saying they want the documents without giving themselves the power to claim them is neither here nor there, a sign of unseriousness.

"The Parliament of Canada has the constitutional authority not only to regulate its internal proceedings and establish its rules of procedure, but also to enact a large number of procedurally important statutory provisions, many of which are found in the Parliament of Canada Act.

Of procedural significance for the House of Commons are provisions in the Act relating to the following:

the power of the House and its committees to administer oaths to witnesses appearing either at the Bar of the House or before a committee;
procedures to be followed when Members resign or when seats are otherwise vacated;
conflict of interest rules applicable to Members;
a Deputy Speaker’s ability to act in the Speaker’s absence;
the existence and remuneration of parliamentary secretaries;
the remuneration of Members of Parliament;
the existence and management of the Library of Parliament; and
the establishment of the Board of Internal Economy to act on all financial and administrative matters respecting the House.

In addition to the Parliament of Canada Act, there are dozens of other statutes that oblige the House to undertake some action or which regulate some aspect of the proceedings of the House. These include, for example the:

Access to Information Act;
Canada Elections Act ;
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act ; and the
Referendum Act .

Only Parliament as a whole (the Senate, the House of Commons and the Crown) may enact or amend laws which affect House of Commons procedure."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_…

Indeed. If Yelle had contested the charges, the court would have had to order the public disclosure of secret documents. Yelle fell on his sword, like a good solider, to spare the government that embarrassment. That kind of sacrifice is an institutional imperative in law enforcement (and in the military): one is expected to "take one for the team", and refusal to do so draws down a lifetime of ignominy upon the recusant.

It's important to note that the documents that were spared publicity in this instance had been formally declared "Top Secret" by our national security establishment. The contentious documents currently being withheld by the Harper ministry have not, to my knowledge, been formally classified as "Top Secret" but have merely been declared "sensitive" by arbitrary fiat of the minister responsible.

My knowledge of the events surrounding the McDonald Commission comes from my reading of the standard biographies and histories–nothing specialised. I would be grateful to anyone who can point us to more pertinent source material.

Fine, as soon as Harper agrees to release the unredacted documents and bows to the will of the House, I think that could be an excellent course to pursue. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like it.

But he's the second Minister of Defense in this Government to mislead the House on the same issue. Regardless of whether you take Mackay and O'Connor as incompetent or willfully deceptive, the Government's credibility on this stuff is zero. Which, I'd say, is why a House committee would be entirely justified in stepping in, or in calling Mackay before the bar, or in any other radical step you care to name. When the Government cannot be trusted with Canada's good name in the middle of a war, whether because of incompetence or (the jury's out) mendacity, it's the patriotic thing to do.

Not when you're responsible for being right. The Minister is responsible. If things go wrong and it's not his fault, it's his fault. If things go right and it's not his doing, he gets the credit. That's why we pay him a big fat salary and put his face on the front page of newspapers. He's responsible, full stop.

Why? Why would they do that? Please remember that the members of the Afghan committee are actual human beings. If you have been spending as much time and effort as the members of the committee have, only to be misled, stonewalled, insulted, etc., questions asked left unanswered in favour of casting aspersions on your patriotism, how likely are you to want to give the Conservatives a do-over? But okay, perhaps they could somehow rise above the natural human emotions that would generate. Now we have three opposition parties, all thinking they have the perfect person in mind. Then we have another few months of negotiations, more bad blood stirred up, and still, not one ounce (as far as I can see with this scenario) of a change in attitude from the Conservatives that got us to this point in the first place.

Quite rightly, too. I'm already in "2010" mode. Let's say the detainee issue began roughly four and a half years ago.

That seems a bit like dating the October crisis to the adoption of the War Measures Act, in 1914…

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you addressing one of Jack's points?

I'm simply saying that the McDonald Commission's objects of inquiry were just as relevant and immediate (and dangerous to the government) as the details of the detainee question, and that it is justifiable to argue that Trudeau was ready and willing to open his government to an intensity of scrutiny that Harper is trying to evade.

Not really. It would have been easy for Trudeau to portray proceedings in Quebec as politically motivated witch hunts (as they partly were). Pressure in the House to strike a federal commission of inquiry became intense, especially from the NDP, who were crucial Liberal allies in those unstable late '70s years. Neither the House not the PQ in Québec had the power to "force" Trudeau's hand, but Trudeau knew enough to take the wisest course.

…the Government decided not to release this evidence or press charges against anyone.

The priority was allowing the commission to do its work. Full public disclosure was not necessary–any more than it would be necessary to deal with the detainee issue. The intent was to investigate systemic failures and provide recommendations to assure that they did not reoccur, which is the kind of process Harper should be initiating as well.

It seems the commission heard evidence from the government and senior officials, but the Government decided not to release this evidence or press charges against anyone. The Government of Quebec did press charges. How did those prosecutions turn out? Was the commission's evidence available to the investigators?

In terms of the timeline, I quibble with the assertion that late 2005 is five years ago, and wonder if the adoption of the policy is the appropriate comparison. That seems a bit like dating the October crisis to the adoption of the War Measures Act, in 1914…

Anyone else want to explain the difference?

"Defying Parliament" would not just mean ignoring orders, it would mean physically resisting the Officers of Parliament when they come to get you & your documents. That didn't happen with Trudeau because Parliament didn't take that step. We'll see what happens when / if Parliament does take that step now.

The fact is that Trudeau had the balls to undergo that kind of investigative ordeal; Harper does not.

…the commission that had been struck at the insistence of the House, precisely the body Harper is obstructing…

[T]he Attorney General of Canada concluded that disclosure of available evidence would be damaging to national security…

…after the commission had already seen and heard mountains of incriminating evidence and testimony, provided by the government…

[T]herefore the Attorney General of Canada pursued no further[!] prosecutions…

…as he considered that there had already been enough prosecutions.

So, let us adumbrate the Trudeau/Harper analogy. What commission of inquiry has Harper struck in response to the detainee fiasco? What personal testimony have his responsible ministers provided to that inquiry? And what prosecutions have taken place as a consequence of that inquiry?

That's like saying that Federal Court rulings have no authority because they haven't been confirmed by the Supreme Court.