Our Modern Media At Work

When dealing with the NDP over the inclusion of the government's former lawyer on the panel of "arbiters" the media must:

1. Treat the NDP member like the representative of the school A/V Club crashing the athletic banquet.

2. Dismiss any possible perceived conflict of interest in appointing a lawyer who until last month was working solely for the government, as impudence.

3. In short, treat the whole affair as yet another he said/he said moment, that has become the mother's milk of Canadian journalism.

It must make the PMO proud as punch to have such a well trained group of monkeys working in the Ottawa press corps.

Recommend this Post

Let Me Help You Out Gilles

Gilles Duceppe made a prediction about the fall sitting:

Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe suggested Parliament will return to the same issue that dominated the winter and spring sitting: the right of MPs to hold the government to account.

He said the government could face a contempt of Parliament motion over its refusal to let ministerial aides testify at Commons committees investigating the Guergis-Jaffer affair and political interference in Access to Information requests.

Instead of doing that Gilles, why not propose that a cardboard cutout of the ministerial aide be put at the witness table alongside his or her minister, should he or she decide to show up too? It sounds like a compromise the Speaker could live with and it will save everyone a lot of time and bullshit about how you are really going to stand up to Harper.

Recommend this Post

Shorter Milliken

Thank you Iggy and Gilles for rescuing me from having to make a decision that might make the PM angry. I gave you a way to save me from having to campaign this summer and you took it. Who cares what's actually in the agreement? Woo hoo summer! Thus did the iron curtain descend on the matter. I just pray to God that the someone in the Hague is taking note.

Recommend this Post

Wherry Explains It All

Just as I thought:

After conferring with both sides (or at least two of the three sides) of the detainee document agreement, it would seem that this much is agreed upon.

If, in the process of producing documents, the government believes that all or part of a document may be covered by solicitor-client privilege or cabinet confidence, that document will be sent directly to the panel of arbiters. The panel of arbiters will then decide what from those documents can be disclosed to the ad hoc committee of MPs. If the panel of arbiters does decide that the document is subject to privilege, they must explain their decision to the ad hoc committee of MPs.

So, far from MP's (even those few on this special committee) "seeing everything", they will only get what the government and the panel of experts let them see. The Bloc has been had. I suspect Iggy was fully aware of what he was signing, on the other hand.

Recommend this Post

Peace In Our Time Watch. The Reviewers Speak

From this afternoon's Globe web site:

University of Ottawa professor Amir Attaran, an advocate for greater disclosure on detainees, calls the deal a failure.

"It is an own-goal for the opposition if they sign this agreement, surpassing any fumble seen in the World Cup," Professor Attaran said.

Prof. Attaran laid out six criticisms which are his beefs with the deal:

"1. It pretends that Cabinet confidences are impenetrable by Parliament. There is no law to say that this need be the case, and it was not something that the Speaker said was the case. On the contrary, the Speaker said that the power of Parliament to require documents is absolute.

2. It also pretends that solicitor-client privileged opinions of government lawyers are impenetrable by Parliament. This is wrong, for the reason already stated, but it also gravely misapprehends the entire notion of “solicitor-client privilege” in a simpleminded way that I am surprised duped the opposition. Pause to think, “Who is the client of a Government of Canada lawyer?” and you can only conclude that the client is the Government of Canada. ... There is no legitimate solicitor-client privilege claim.

3. The agreement at para 6 allows any member of the review committee—any ONE member—to refer a disputed document to the panel of arbiters. With 20,000+ pages of documents expected, that could be abused to refer all the pages—every single one—totally swamping the review committee.

4. The review committee, further, is quite at variance with the terms of the Speaker’s order, which said that it was up to the members of the House to decide what documents would be released: if, when, and how. Yet now the proposed agreement puts that decision in the hands of a review committee of retired judges, who are not Parliamentarians. One hopes the Speaker rejects the agreement on this basis.

5. The referral of documents to a review committee of ex-judges is also worse than referring the same to sitting judge. At least sitting judges, in a real court, have rules that they follow, and there is a (mostly) open process where submissions can be made — by the public, by the press, and so forth. Nothing of the kind exists here, so actually, it would be better if this agreement not be signed. We don’t even know who the ex-judges are ...

6.This draft agreement shows nothing if not that the opposition parties in the House failed to bring the same quality of thinking to the problem that the Speaker did. It’s an own-goal. One might think they agreed because they don’t want an election now, but there are various ways they could have solved this conundrum without provoking an election."

No wonder Ralph Goodale's only response is to talk REALLY LOUD! Hat tip to Scott, who has the grace to be troubled by this betrayal of Parliament.

Update: Steve V declares the deal "A Dud".

Recommend this Post

Ok Riddle Me This

The Star Phoenix in its scathing editorial against the NDP this morning wrote glowingly about the documents deal:

The deal to which the NDP so vehemently objects allows members of the three signatory parties to see any documents deemed relevant. If there is concern about cabinet confidentiality, solicitor-client privilege or national security, the documents will be forwarded to a special panel to arbitrate what can be made public and how that should be done.

It seems to me the Star Phoenix is dissembling somewhat. My understanding is that the term "made public" means shown to the committee of MP's. So, if the government can prove something is a cabinet document, it will never be viewed by anyone. Am I wrong, or is the corporate press just covering for its friends?

Recommend this Post

Ewww, The Liberals Pull Out The Big Guns

Ujjal Dosanjh says the NDP isn't "SERIOUS". It takes a serious party to sell out Parliament, apparently. The people who said the war in Iraq was illegal and based on a lie, weren't "serious" either, just right. Why do elites always use the word "serious" when they mean "falling into line with the accepted prejudices of the ruling class"? I guess "serious" is better shorthand.

Recommend this Post

The Fog Is Lifting

And it is a pretty ugly sight to behold. Correct me if I am wrong, dear readers, but here is what I think the Liberals and the Bloc have agreed to.

1. They get representatives on a special committee to view documents.
2. They get a say in the creation of a "panel of experts" designed to adjudicate disputes.
3. The government has the right to challenge any document being demanded by the special committee, if that document is either a cabinet document, or the fruit of attorney client consultations between the government and its lawyers.
4. The challenged document then goes to the panel of experts who get to decide if the document does fall into either category. If it does, then it is excluded from the list of potential documents to be viewed by the special committee.

In other words, all the government has to do is satisfy a panel that a document is what it says it is and it is off the table. If that is so, then the government is virtually home and dry. I suspect that the juicy stuff will be deemed to be one or the other, since this government is well known to routinely cc their lawyers virtually everything, in order to claim attorney client privilege. So, tell me, how are we going to get to the bottom this mess given this accord? Anyone?

Recommend this Post

Well...

At least the NDP see it the way I do, in this instance. Parliamentary supremacy is a joke. The big parties and for some unknown reason, the Bloc, have decided to play "hide the salami" with the truth. We will never learn whether or not our government is covering up war crimes, unless, by some miracle, someone at the Hague takes note of our Potemkin democracy.

Instant Update: Now come the inevitable justifications from the Liberals and the snotty denunciations of those who dissent. I watch in horrified fascination.

Update the Second: Yup, the Liberals are accusing the NDP of negotiating in bad faith (what a fucking joke). Also, I suspect we will hear only praise for Gilles Duceppe from the government. I guess they are not "evil separatists" today.

Recommend this Post

It's Over

The parties met yesterday about the Afghan detainee documents. The media didn't even bother to write about it. The government has won -- again. It must be lovely negotiating with people without backbones. It makes things so easy. We now officially live in an absolutist republican state, in everything but name. L'etat, c'est Steve.



Update: Shorter opposition parties: If you don't stop screwing around we are telling on you! This time we really mean it! To which I reply, why is this Monday's deadline any more sacred than the one from two weeks ago? Deadlines only work if they are, you know, final.

Instant Update: And when I read a sentence like "A spokesman for the Liberals said the talks are still proceeding in good faith.", I know that the fix is in.

Recommend this Post

It's June 7

Do you know where your Afghan detainee documents are?

Recommend this Post

Operation Stall

Is heading into the home stretch. What, will the opposition parties do? Why they will worry that time is running out on them, the poor dears. Suckers.

Recommend this Post

It's June 1

Do you know where your Afghan detainee files are?

Update: The Hill Times speculates.

Recommend this Post

It's His Nature

The progressive blogosphere is all a twitter about the government's latest move to keep political advisors away from parliamentary committees. Me? I just have to ask, what did the opposition think was going to happen, after they "compromised" on parliamentary supremacy? Harper is doing what any good bully does, he senses weakness and he is exploiting it. If the opposition had the balls to say no to Harper and stick to it, he would back down, or, even better, we would have an election. As long as the opposition keep dropping their pants and bending over, Harper will continue to rape them with a beer bottle.

Update: I suspect the Speaker will again rule that the parliament is supreme (lol), but beg for a compromise and throw it back into the laps of the hapless opposition, who will then limbo their way to the PMO's way of looking at things.

Recommend this Post

Humor For A Sunday

Kady writes some funny stuff:

Given the example set by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley -- who made a surprise appearance at the very same committee a few weeks back, during which she made an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to field questions on behalf of her director of communications, Ryan Sparrow -- would it not be reasonable and logical to expect the prime minister to do the very same thing on Tuesday morning, when -- by sheer coincidence, I'm sure -- Soudas himself is -- or was -- supposed to go before the Ethics committee to discuss alleged interference in Acess to Information requests?

It was, after all, Stephen Harper, not his communications director, who, as the latter explains it, "ran for office/accepted the role and responsibilities of being [prime] minister, including being accountable to and answering questions in parliament." He wouldn't want to send the message that he is less willing to take responsibility for the actions of his staff than his own minister, would he?

There are, of course, some annoying parliamentary traditionalists out there -- including the one behind this keyboard -- who will point out that, although this latest tactic may get full marks for procedural chutzpah, it is, alas, completely unenforceable, since Parliament has the power to send for persons, papers and records. We just went through all that with those soon-to-be-delivered detainee-related documents, so really, there's no excuse for this apparent outburst of cabinet-wide amnesia forgetfulness. (emphasis mine)

Kady is so cute, "soon to be delivered detainee-related documents". We should live so long. Maybe the opposition will "stand up" to the PM again and have a group of "eminent jurists" vet any potential list of witnesses. I am sure the PM will "bend" to another show of "parliamentary supremacy". Really, the PM knows the opposition is composed of wieners and is acting accordingly. He knows when push comes to shove -- well it never does come to shove, does it? The opposition always runs away, screaming in terror of an election.

Recommend this Post