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

The brink

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, June 14, 2010 11:55am - 41 Comments

The latest, and perhaps last, meeting of all parties to negotiate a release of Afghan detainee documents will be this afternoon at 4:15pm. The Bloc and NDP indicated last week that this would likely be their last day before returning to the House. Over the weekend, while trying to sound as unthreatening as possible, Michael Ignatieff put an onus on today’s meeting.

And now, adding to the drama, new documents emerge indicating Canadian military officials were displeased with Richard Colvin’s reporting.

Tags: detainees, documents, Michael Ignatieff, Richard Colvin, torture, transfers

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

I can't wait to see how the Liberals have squandered all their leverage this time!

Ignatieff, from the CTV article:

"We're kind of running the clock here and there's a question as to whether the government's ragging the puck," he said. "There's absolutely no reason why we can't get an agreement. I'm optimistic we can, but it's getting a bit late."

If you need me, I'll be over there bashing my head against the wall.

John D

Sorry, this wall is taken
The Real Jan

MIGHT BE RAGGING THE PUCK??? Sigh.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

At least he's trying to apply that oh-so-human "when in doubt, insert a sports metaphor" axiom.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

And a Canadian sports metaphor, to boot. Clearly, the man is not just visiting.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

At least he isn't doing what cats do when they are undecided…..(wash). :-)

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

I look forward to the new and entertaining ways the Liberals will surely have developed to fold.

Anon 001

It won't be that new. They will support the NDP privilege motion, i.e. declare no confidence, but keep enough members away to let the government survive. No Liberal wants to go into an election with Iggy as the leader.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Well, it would be a motion of contempt and, if I recall the forms of the original motions, it would be individual cabinet members who would be found in contempt and not the government.

So, unless my memory is wrong, I'm not sure how the motion itself is a question of non confidence or one that can be turned into a motion of non confidence, even though this has been an overriding assumption by many.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

I am open to correction on this, but I believe, ted…

You are correct on the first part. Ministers were named when the point of privilege was raised. Points, actually — didn't one MP from each of the three parties rise on separate points (that unsurprisingly got lumped by Mr. Speaker)?

But, on the second part: the government is free (I thought…?) to name ANY House vote one of confidence, and choose to fall if its position is outvoted in the House. So, I would think, a motion of contempt could end up being a question of confidence.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

I'm not so sure that the government can turn any vote into a vote of confidence, and certainly not your ordinary motion regarding Parliamentary privilege which is by definition a right Parliament (or more specifically, I think, a right of each MP) and not government business. The underlying nature of the contempt does seem to put it in a greyer area, but I think Harper may have a hard time convincing the GG that his government has lost the confidence of the House unless he put the question directly to the House, and I don't think Canadians will look too kindly upon him forcing a summer election over what he and his party having taken great pains to describe as a "procedural" issue. I also don't think he has that kind of guts. That is, if the opposition shows the slightest backbone on this, I think he'd rather live with a contempt motion than call an election.

I do have to say though that this is just the kind of thing, regardless of party, that tickles the fancy of my inner nerd with its cross-section of my three keenest interest: politics, Constitutional law and history.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Due respect? I don't think any of us frequent commenters (on the minutiae of Canadian federal politics) here at Blog Central can claim to have an inner nerd.

Mike T.

Still amazed that once contempt is shown the speaker can't take simple steps to give a remedy (ie, order the documents produced above anyone's objection even the prime minister's).

http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

Presumably because it is a privilege of the whole house, not the speaker, and that it is for the whole house to decide. Sort of like democracy over benign dictatorship; so long as i's benign, and we agree with the dictator, all's good. As soon as they get corrupted by that power, however, how long are we likely to be happy?

Mike T.

But they already decided when they passed the original motion. To quote Mr. Harper before he was exposed as a disingenuous cad "The issue is one of enforcement". it seems odd that to get the documents they would have to pass the motion again that didn't appear to do anything the first time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

The speaker, as I understand the online procedure text, decides if it appears that a contempt has been committed against the House. If he thinks so, the way is cleared for a motion to be moved and the whole house gets to debate and decide on that motion. The speaker seems to have said that it appears there was a contempt and instead of moving directly to the nuclear option he tried to provide a face saving way for all to come out happy. It was up to the house to accept or reject that suggestion. They appeared to accept it since no objection was raised.

Mike T.

But what's left to debate at that point? They passed a motion, it obviously wasn't carried out, they shouldn't need to vote again just to have it carried out. It's mind-boggling.
Lord Kitchener's Own

They passed a motion and it wasn't carried out, sure. However, they HAVEN'T passed a motion finding anyone in contempt for that yet. The speaker can't find anyone in contempt, he can only rule on whether a such a motion should be allowed to proceed (and he's basically already said yes). The motion still has to proceed and be voted on however. Basically, treating the House with contempt isn't enough for consequences to occur, the House has to actually FIND someone to be in contempt, and they have yet to do so.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

Precisely correct, LKO, as I understand the process. As an aside, in a majority House, a contempt by the majority party would, therefore, never ultimately be found to be so, regardless of a speaker's decision, because the final determination ios by the whole house.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

They haven't even passed a motion!

(I believe it was) three MPs raised points of privilege. A debate was held on the points of privilege. The Speaker deliberated and issued his ruling that a prima facie case was made to support some of the points of privilege. There should have been one or more motions of contempt right then and there, but everyone (most notably the Speaker) clucked and clucked and made up some 14-day baloney extension. Hmm. I wonder how many more days before we hit fourteen…
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

That's right. A vote has not been held yet on the motion.

I think the Speaker was right to give them some room – a little room – to come together and reach a consensus once the rules had been confirmed. That is the Canadian way.

Unfortunately, one party thinks they are above the law.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Actually, it is NOT the parliamentary way. Marleau & Montpetit clearly state that the motion of contempt is to proceed immediately upon the ruling finding a prima facie case.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

But the House accepted his unorthodox suggestion in order to avoid going nuclear. That's their right.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

The Speaker did not rule that contempt was found or that privilege was violated.

He said there is a prima facie case (obvious on its face) that it was and then the next step is to allow the motion to go to the whole House to be voted on.

Basically, he's a bit of gatekeeper on such a motion. If there is no prima facie or obvious violation, then he stops the motion in its tracks and does not even allow a vote. If there is, then he allows the vote to proceed, but he does not make the determination himself. Only the House can make that determination.

Although in this case, he all but says they are, in his opinion, clearly in breach and therefore clearly in contempt. In his ruling he is giving them one last chance before a vote to get their act together and comply with the law.

And even that last chance does not appear to be enough for them.

ex canuck

One should bloody well hope that Canadian military and indeed other officials were displeased.

Liz

Exactly – loose canon lefty diplomat. Anyone who cc's the world in e-mails is causing trouble or has an axe to grind.

Lord Kitchener's Own

The people who were so displeased over all of Colvin's many disturbing reports that they wanted him shipped out of Afghanistan aren't the same people who've been saying "What reports? No one ever reported that there were any concerns about detainees, and if they did, they certainly weren't making enough noise about it", are they?

Amateur Hour

Hillier, Gaultier and MacKay lied. They lied then about Colvin not having been "outside of the wire" in Kandahar and Kabul, they lied about his filing of reports, they lied about the sources he used in those reports (not just detainees themselves, but also the US, UK and NATO).

Now if we have a Minister of Defence who lies to Parliament, Generals who lie to Parliament and a PM who put them in positions of responsibility and who has perpetuated their lying, maybe things aren't so wonderful in our democracy.

Maybe members of the press should be all over them like blue ticks on a fat cow. Maybe it's time people who comment on the news go out and get us some. Maybe we should expect our press to pursue this, and not accept Media Event Proposals and emails as a response.

Mike T.

I want to give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt here. The best outcome is still that Colvin was well intentioned but mistaken.

But that's geting harder and harder to do the more stunts get pulled.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

The all time classic out of all this is Baird, in response to one question in QP, stating emphatically that there is zero credible evidence of torture and then, a few minutes later in response to another question in the same QP, stating equally emphatically that whenever they did get credible evidence of torture they always acted on it.

John W.

I guess Iggy forgot about that phony delay inspired committee on employment insurance he endorsed last year. It got Harper off the hook on some issue at the time, and sent it into limbo and about 12 MP's wasted their summer and nothing came of it and who can even remember??
NorthernPoV

@Mike T
"I want to give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt here."

Naive? to say the least…. Treating the Harper miscreants this way is akin to giving the Boa the benefit of the doubt as it continues to squeeze the life out of you.

With this latest news on Colvin, every last lie has now been exposed.
Iggy: call Harper bluff, otherwise you are forever just burnt toast.

Mike T.

Well harper is definitely in the wrong – and his conduct atrocious – on not giving up the documents. And it sure looks like he has something to hide which affects his government directly. That's why an investigation is so important.

Out There

The scenario I'm worried about goes something like this:

- The government stonewalls, and refuses to give up the documents.

- The opposition forces an election.

- The election returns another Conservative minority government (quite likely, according to the polls).

- The new Conservative government continues to stall.

What happens then? Do we keep having elections? Does Parliament resort to drastic measures to get the government to comply (which will no doubt be resisted and/or painted as a socialist/separatist conspiracy)? Where do we go from here?

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

If Harper is returned as PM with another minority – and all indications in the polls are that not only would it be a minority but it would be a smaller minority – expect a change in PM.

John W.

I think people are fibbing to pollsters. They don't want to admit they'll vote Harper, but economy/jobs will end it. Unless Iggy learns how to fight for votes and lay out a plan, and battle for it, it's a Harper majority. They called him dishonest (only in it for himself) and he laid back against the ropes and said, "hit me again".

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

I never buy that "don't want to admit they'll vote for XXX" line of defence you see sometimes. Even if you want to buy that, then surely the same would be said a month ago and his polling is going down, and surely it was the same before and during the last election and it turned out less.

I don't see the Liberals getting more seats than Harper, but I just don't see him gaining seats let alone a majority. Especially with the G8G20 boondoggle. I met non-partisans during prorogation who got pissed off with Harper, but I'm meeting many strong conservatives how are royally pissed off with him now for the incredible waste and pork and mismanagement. Will it turn their vote? Until some conversations I had today, I would have said no but they may stay home and they are definitely not giving him their money; now, I'm not so sure of even that.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

I never buy that "don't want to admit they'll vote for XXX" line of defence you see sometimes.

Haven't paid any attention to the sovereignty debate in Quebec, I guess. Honest pollsters even overweight the reluctant federalists in their adjustments to get a more realistic picture of true public opinion.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Be_rad Be_rad

Why would you expect the change? I haven't noticed the kind of public comments, horse race punditry or speculation that usually precedes such a possibility. SHPM has as Wells has pointed out, charted a course that separates where the country is going under his direction that is in the opposite direction it would be going under Liberals. As a minimum outcome, that's still pretty good from their perspective. Their legislative agenda isn't the be all and end all if they can continue to govern as they are.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

I have heard musings, but it is certainly opinion and speculation on my part. More specifically I'm just thinking about how any party might react after a leader seems to have reached their limit and starts losing rather than gaining ground. If Harper lost seats in the next election, it will be seen as a loss by Conservatives in the same way Martin's win in 2004 was really a loss. But this will have been his 4th election, two with all the good cards dealt to him: financial war chest, weak and disorganized and dispirited and divided opposition, good economy, dropping unemployment, years of using huge amounts of taxpayer money for self-promotion and pork, etc.

In the last election he gained seats but he actually lost votes. If he starts losing seats as well in the next election, I can see a lot of true conservatives seeing their chances of getting a true conservative government slipping away with Harper, especially social conservatives. Bernier is obviously already campaigning for that position.

It likely would be worse for them if they did hold a leadership race, but few leaders stick around for that many elections, even if the timeline is compressed.

http://intensedebate.com/profiles/tigerinexile Ben (The Tiger)

If there is a change in that scenario, it'll all be on Harper — the CPC constitution says no leadership review while they hold government.

Not that it's difficult to pull together enough people — just no review, period.