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

'I will consider the matter closed'

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, June 18, 2010 12:14pm - 27 Comments

With a slight allowance for the potential of future trouble, the Speaker officially declined yesterday to entertain a point of privilege from Jack Harris on Afghan detainee documents—more or less clearing the Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc to proceed with their memorandum of understanding.

In considering this matter, the Chair has taken great care to assess whether the existence of this consensus satisfies the broad conditions that were imposed on the parties in the ruling of April 27.

I must stress that it is not for the Chair to examine the details of the agreement or to compare it to the agreement in principle tabled on May 14. I am responding to the interventions that have been made on behalf of an overwhelming majority of members who have stated that they are satisfied with the consensus agreement that has been tabled.

The Chair can only conclude, therefore, that the requirements of the ruling of April 27, 2010, have indeed been met and, accordingly, I will not call on the honourable member for St. John’s East to move a motion at this time. Instead, the Chair will allow time for the processes and mechanisms described in the agreement to be implemented. Should circumstances change, members will no doubt ensure that the Chair will again be seized of the matter, but for now I will consider the matter closed.

Tags: Afghanistan, detainees, documents, house of commons, Jack Harris, Parliament, parliamentary privilege, peter milliken, privilege, transfers

More by Aaron Wherry

tobyornotoby

"Should circumstances change"

Does the Speaker mean a change like a if document showing what the government knew (and when) is actually disclosed?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Twisted_Mentat Twisted_Mentat

"Should circumstances change"

I think it's more likely that if the whole process becomes overly partisan with lots of sniping back and forth then the Speaker will listen to a point of privilege.

Wascally Wabbit

The only changed circumstances that I can envisage is that it is theoretically possible that a majority of the arbiters develops a conscience or scruples and calls the government on its pre-scribed designation of a document – but in reality – I don't see any boat rockers being appointed!

Lord Kitchener's Own

My understanding is that the arbiters have to explain their decisions to the MPs. It's always possible that the opposition MPs won't buy their explanations, and will declare so, sending the matter back to Parliament.

Perhaps not likely, but certainly possible.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

We're way past that. This is just the next Act in the Big Stall.

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

Wow. Just, absolute, unadulterated Wow.

The Speaker ruled there was a prima facie case when three MP's raised a point of privilege. One of the MPs finally read / remembered the House rules and rose to submit a motion of contempt. And was denied? That is astounding.

It should not matter that various agreements between parties might lead to the motion of contempt being defeated in the House. If an MP desired to exercise the privilege, so be it.

We now have absolute evidence of Speaker Supremacy over Parliament. And, even though I was no fan of the whole point of privilege in the first place, I think this is a terrible precedent for parliamentary democracy.

Lord Kitchener's Own

That does seem extremely troubling. Why not let Harris move the motion, hold the vote, and THEN consider the matter closed?

I trust that unless we're missing some subtlety, that the NDP will raise holy Hell over that. Just because we know a motion will be defeated doesn't mean we shouldn't allow the motion to be moved and voted upon.

I sincerely hope there's just some technicality that you and I are missing.
Lord Kitchener's Own

On re-reading, I'm not sure Harris actually tried to move a motion.

Is it possible that it's just that Harris would have been the one (of the three) called upon to move a motion, had there been a need for a motion to be moved, and the Speaker is simply saying "If the agreement hadn't been reached, I would now be calling on Harris to move a motion, but as there's no point in that now, I won't bother". It's a subtle difference, but important, as that would seem to me to be the difference between the Speaker not calling for a motion, and a member trying to put forward a motion, and being denied.

I could still be missing something, but I don't see anything in the transcript that suggests Harris tried to move a motion and was prevented from doing so. In fact, it doesn't even seem that Harris said anything at all.

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

LKO writes: On re-reading, I'm not sure Harris actually tried to move a motion.
Speaker said: I will not call on the honourable member for St. John’s East to move a motion at this time.

I don't see how Speaker could have said what he said unless someone was trying to move a motion.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Because calling on someone to move a motion would have been the next step if there'd been no agreement. The Speaker gave the parties two weeks (looong ago) to come up with a compromise, or he would call on Harris to move a motion. As the parties came back with a compromise, he's saying "Well, I guess there's no point in calling on Harris to move a motion then". I'm pretty sure that's ENTIRELY different from refusing to allow Harris to move a motion. If Harris still wanted to move a motion, I'm reasonably sure that he could have interrupted the Speaker at that point with a point of privilege and demanded that he be allowed to move a motion, and I'd imagine that the Speaker would have allowed him to (in fact, I'm not sure he would have had a choice). If the NDP actually wanted to move a motion, and were denied the opportunity, then I'm pretty sure they would have raised holy Hell. I imagine, knowing how the vote would go, (and wanting to start Summer vacation already) that the NDP decided not to bother moving a motion.

Of course, I could be wrong.

I certainly agree that it would be a travesty for Harris to be denied the opportunity to move a motion if he wanted to, but I'm not totally convinced that that is what actually happened here. I'm not even 100% convinced anyone in ANY of the parties ever even wrote up a motion.

I await word on the NDP's take.

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

LKO: Because calling on someone to move a motion would have been the next step if there'd been no agreement.

House of Commons Procedure & Practice, 2009 ed.: As soon as the Chair has apprised the House that a prima facie case of privilege has been found, the Member raising the matter is immediately allowed to move a motion.

There's your next step, LKO. IIRC there were three MPs ready to submit the motion of contempt, one from each of the three opposition parties. I presume only one wants to now. That one MP has now been denied the chance. Holy Hell is precisely what the NDP should be raising, if they actually meant what they said back at the time of the point of privilege. Which, it now seems, maybe they didn't.
Lord Kitchener's Own

I guess I'm just still hung up slightly on "immediately allowed to" as opposed to "must immediately". If the NDP wanted to move a motion and were prevented from doing so, then yes, I think that's totally wrong, and they should be SCREAMING. If the NDP didn't want to move a motion, then I don't think there's a problem (well, maybe a problem with the NDP, but not with the Speaker's actions).
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Oh, there is most definitely a problem with the NDP…

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

The Chair can only conclude, therefore, that the requirements of the ruling of April 27, 2010, have indeed been met and, accordingly, I will not call on the honourable member for St. John’s East to move a motion at this time. Instead, the Chair will allow time for the processes and mechanisms described in the agreement to be implemented. Should circumstances change, members will no doubt ensure that the Chair will again be seized of the matter, but for now I will consider the matter closed.

I need to be shown where he has the authority to make that call. He had to rule whether there was a prima facie case. He did. The rest, he is just pulling straight out of his —.

tobyornotoby

I admire your consistency on this issue myl. The Speaker now seems to be exempting himsefl from his own ruling in the interest of expediency.

No one seems to get it that parliament itself is entrusted to these people we elected and unaccountable opposition members (and speakers) are as corruptible (sp?) as government members. The rules of parliament are the basis for the rule of law, and after we lose that, we lose everything.

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

Toby, thanks for the choice of words. "Consistency" sure beats what many would probably have used (myself included on some occasions these last few weeks).

It stumps me greatly that more people are not up in arms that the rules of the game are being so flouted. This is an AWFUL precedent. The point of privilege and, if allowed, the motion of contempt are parliamentary tools that should never, ever, be used lightly. But, once called upon, this don't-make-me-do-this which has now turned into I-won't-let-you-make-me-do-this from the Speaker is a terrible non-existent loophole that, thanks to precedent, now exists.

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

I must stress that it is not for the Chair to examine the details of the agreement or to compare it to the agreement in principle tabled on May 14. I am responding to the interventions that have been made on behalf of an overwhelming majority of members who have stated that they are satisfied with the consensus agreement that has been tabled.

So, he has heard a few people speak, and he expects that a motion of contempt would fail to secure adequate votes. WHY EVER HOLD ANOTHER VOTE AGAIN, if the outcome of even valid motions can be so easily predicted by the Speaker's spidey-sense? This is ridiculous. The motion has been "in order" ever since the finding of a prima facie case. Parliamentary supremacy, delayed for almost two months, is now denied. This is shameful.

Lord Kitchener's Own

The motion has been "in order" ever since the finding of a prima facie case.

There was no motion. There never has been a motion. I'm not even certain anyone wrote a motion to be ready in their pocket in case it was needed. The Speaker wasn't ever ruling on a motion, he was ruling on whether or not Parliament's privilege in this matter was limited, basically, whether Parliament can force the government to disclose anything they darned well please, and he ruled (basically) "Yes". No motion has been "in order" since that time though, since there was never a motion to be judged "in order" in the first place, and certainly no motion before the Speaker. The Speaker's ruling was on a point of privilege, not a motion.

Unless I'm terribly mistaken.

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

Believe me LKO, I get that there was no motion. There bloody well should have been one, two or three motions immediately upon the ruling that there was a prima facie case. I have been stubbornly on this case for a few weeks now. I am happy there will be no motion of contempt, because before this all started I accepted that there would be a legitimate reason to keep secrets secret. And I felt the opposition was pushing it when they raised the points of privilege. But it was impossible to attack the Speaker's ruling that there was a prima facie case. The House debated the order to produce documents, the government pleaded for secrecy because of national security, and the House voted for the production of documents anyways. There was definitely a prima facie case to be found following the points of privilege. Then everyone freaked out that they might actually have to explode the grenade from which they had just pulled out the pin. So everyone retreated into this alegal (extra-legal? non-legal? illegal?) dodge because the Speaker was as terrified by the parliamentary rules as, it appears, everyone else was.

The NDP are not satisfied by the agreement. The NDP has has every right to have their motion moved, seconded, debated and voted upon for almost two months. Even if the motion will be defeated by the House. The Speaker has copped out.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

LKO: I'm not even certain anyone wrote a motion to be ready in their pocket in case it was needed.

Each MP was prepared to move a motion, and said so to Mr. Speaker: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/02/privilege-and-…

madeyoulook

I wish to thank the parties for taking the time required to arrive at this understanding, which is in keeping with the best traditions of this place, and I thank the House for its attention.

I begged you guys, please, don't make me do this, because I kinda sorta hafta if you make me. Even though one MP might still have a legitimate avenue to submit a motion of contempt, I'm jus' gonna call this one settled. Phew! Dodged that one, eh? What's that? Rules? Well, I won't tell if you won't.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Twisted_Mentat Twisted_Mentat

I'm wondering if the NDP isn't playing the long-game on this one. The House is going to be closed for the summer and anything that's done now is going to be, as CTV and CBC are prone to saying, "Citizens aren't going to care about/remember this in two months."

They could be saving it for when the committee convenes and swiftly devolves into partisan hacker-y.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Well, then let us settle on a pox on BOTH houses. The Speaker should not have played this game. The NDP should never have let him. Both miscreants have diminished the meaning of the point of privilege and the motion of contempt.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Could we perhaps settle on a pox on the NDP, and some kind of rash for the Speaker?

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

and some kind of rash for the Speaker?
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/26/the-peter-mill…

http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

check and mate – next fall next game -
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

In considering this matter, the Chair has taken great care to assess whether the existence of this consensus satisfies the broad conditions that were imposed on the parties in the ruling of April 27.

I need to be shown where he has the authority to "impose conditions" on parties. His job is to enforce parliamentary rules. Instead, he has begged everyone to give him a reason to ignore parliamentary rules. And now, he seems to be out-and-out ignoring parliamentary rules even when an MP seems to be requesting that they be enforced. The Speaker. Ignoring parliamentary rules.