Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

What's next?

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:05pm - 40 Comments

In terms of what a compromise might look like, we refer again to some of the options already explored for establishing a forum that might safely review sensitive documents. The interim committee on national security that studied these sorts of issues in 2004 was chaired by Derek Lee, but also, perhaps notably, included the following members: Joe Comartin, Wayne Easter, Marlene Jennings, Serge Menard, Kevin Sorenson and Peter MacKay.

Also instructive is the parliamentary sub-committee on combatting organized crime which functioned largely in camera and reported to the House in 2000. That committee included members from all parties, including the aforementioned future defence minister.

Tags: Derek Lee, house of commons, Joe Comartin, Kevin Sorenson, Marlene Jennings, national security, Parliament, Peter MacKay, Serge Menard, wayne easter

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Hopefully any committee that reviews sensitive documents doesn't include Bloc MPs. The Bloc is always hungry for a juicy issue that they can feed into their propaganda machine to advance the separatist cause. The have a vested interest in embarrassing not just the government, but Canada as a whole.

It would be a simple matter for the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP to negotiate the composition of a small committee that doesn't include the Bloc. The Bloc would undoubtedly protest, but they can suck it up. A party dedicated to breaking up Canada can't be trusted to keep sensitive national security information secret.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

Tell me CR, how does the viewing of documents that may indicate the government possibly broke international law aid in Quebec independence or secession efforts?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

As an addendum, quite frankly, if such documents exist, I don't care which party is the one who reveals it, or if it embarrasses Canada or the Conservative government. If such international law violations took place under this government's watch, "embarrassment" will be the least of its worries.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

The Bloc will no doubt try to claim that the current government broke int'l law, and so did the preceding Liberal government that enacted the transfer agreement. They would love the chance to accuse the two major federalist parties of "War Crimes" in the next election campaign, which they would turn into persuasive argument to vote for the Bloc. They're very, very good at doing stuff like this.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

There's lot of other people besides the BQ who might make that claim CR (and already have), and other parties who might say the same thing. I reject your thesis they would use this to somehow advance separatism.

Besides, The BQ is not a criminal outfit – they are democratically elected representatives sitting in Canada's Parliament. They are the 3rd largest party – larger then the NDP. They have as much right to be represented on a committee looking at those documents as the other opposition parties.
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

Wow, I don't know what to make of such a response.
RayK

The Bloc isn't a party of idiots. If they did what you're suggesting it would set back the cause of sovereignty for a generation. They would show themselvest o be totally untrustworthy and Quebeckers would recoil from them horror. Which is why they'd never do what you're suggesting.

The Bloc, whether you like them or not, ain't stupid. They've shown time and time again that they understand these dynamics. They're putting themselves forward as those who would govern an independent Quebec*. They can't appear as if they're willing to blow up the whole country just to serve their own political agenda. If they do, no one will trust them enough to want them as their national government.

*[I know "the Bloc" per se wouldn't be governing Quebec, but I think you get my point :)]
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I agree with you that the Bloc is democratically legitimate, and normally I'd agree with you that they have a right to be represented on every committee, but I believe that this particular committee is one of those rare exceptions. Unlike MPs from the federalist parties, I don't trust Bloc MPs to look at sensitive national secrets because they don't have Canada's best interests at heart.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

Aside from the actual question of detainees, what should be next, but likely won't ever see the light of day because of inevitable bickering over the issue of the day are the questions about process on a go forward basis:

Who is/should be doing the redacting of documents?
What criteria are they using to redact?
What criteria are they using to decide who can and cannot see the unredacted material? (given the release to retired generals and Christie Blatchford and other leaks)
What should be done to ensure consistency?
How will we balance adherence to the Official Secrets Act with the need for over sight and accountability?
Mike T.

Even making the unworthy assumption that this is true, if Canada is embarrassed than so be it. As long as nothing directly harmful to military operations is made public, the chips will have to fall where they may.
Mike T.

Hear hear! comes to mind….
Lord Kitchener's Own

I guess one of the main problems with this argument is that it leads quite easily to an attitude of "we have to do whatever we can to hid the misdeeds of Federal governments from the BQ, lest they try to use those misdeeds for political gain". Could this not have been used as an excuse to hide Adscam from the Bloc? Hell, didn't the notion of "we have to treat politics in Quebec differently because of the threat of separatism" lead directly to Adscam? 'Cause I think the federalist parties getting together to potentially hide government malfeasance from the Bloc would be an even BETTER line for them in an election than the malfeasance itself. A BQ election ad of "Look at what we've discovered those unscrupulous Tories and Liberals did in Afghanistan!!!" is a bad. An ad that says "Look at what we've discovered those unscrupulous Tories and Liberals did in Afghanistan, and did we mention that the entire federalist establishment in Ottawa rallied together to try hide it, and to keep us from bringing this information to the attention of the people of Quebec?!?!?" is worse.

Remember the lessons of history. It's usually the cover-up, not the initial act, that causes the most damaging political fallout. I'd much rather the Bloc were out there complaining about what the Liberals and the Tories actually did, then to have them out there speculating as to what the Liberals and Tories actually did, while complaining that every federalist in Ottawa is conspiring to keep Quebeckers in the dark about it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

Jennings and Easter are exactly the kind of MPs Harper is talking about when the issue of trustworthiness comes up. Jennings was one of the MPs who made a public spectacle out of returning some Conservative documents which they acquired under somewhat mysterious circumstances. The documents were properly boxed and labelled, but she had to make a giant show out of it rather than just quietly returning them.

Is this the kind of MP we want looking at these documents? I don't think so.
MacLean's Regular

We should keep Albertan MP's from seeing the documents too, since they hate Canada even more than the Bloc does. In fact, Ralph Klein almost committed treason I believe when he was tempted to go over the head of the federal government to denounce the Canadian government's opposition to the Iraq invasion.

I sure if an Albertan Conservative MP found evidence of Liberal war crimes or whatever in those documents,, they've be leaked immediately. To Ezra Levant, no less.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I agree that the Bloc would make that claim, but this claim could be countered by including lots of Quebec MPs from other parties on the committee. It definitely seems like a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" scenario.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I hope you're right, RayK.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

Not with you on this one CR. Either on the assertion that the BQ has demonstrated a lack of responsibility in the past or that they have a different status than other MPs. From friends who live and work in Ottawa, I am told that the BQ is well regarded in an objective sense for the way they behave themselves and that they are regularly the best prepared MPs at committee meetings.
http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

Scott_Tribe, with all due respect, but I sure hope no MPS think like you do, because you are really making Harper's point, that they can't be trusted!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Yes, we'd much rather have the kind of MP's that go to another party's caucus meeting and then loudly start announcing what they heard there.
MacLean's Regular

Really? Does international law and war crimes normally cause you to be mystified?

Sheesh! What's in the water around here today? First we have "Critical Reasoning" telling us he believes the Bloc are a criminal organization whose crimes would appeal to ostensibly morally-bankrupt QUebecers and now we have this one who seems to think it's probably better if we didn't find out if our government committed war crimes.
MacLean's Regular

If those documents revealed that war crimes were committed, I believe the MP's would be duty-bound to take action.
MacLean's Regular

Do Conservatives have orgasms when they assassinate people's characters?
http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

I agree. If you see those MPs on the national security committee list that Aaron posted please feel free to point them out.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

I agree that the Bloc is generally well-regarded, and I'm not suggesting that Bloc MPs are dishonest or irresponsible. It's entirely possible that the Bloc MPs would conduct themselves admirably in this scenario. I'm just worried that the temptation to hurt Canada's reputation by leaking ultra-sensitive national secrets might prove irresistible to someone who has a vested interest in making Canada look bad.

My mind isn't totally made up on this issue, but I do think it's a legitimate concern.
http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

In Jennings case, when talking about her character, it's not murder its suicide.