Parliamentary committee kills tar sands report

Kudos to the good folks at First Perspective who found this:

Meeting No. 25

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development met in camera at 3:29 p.m. this day, in Room 209, West Block, the Chair, James Bezan, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Scott Armstrong, James Bezan, Bernard Bigras, Blaine Calkins, Linda Duncan, David J. McGuinty, Christian Ouellet, Francis Scarpaleggia, Justin Trudeau, Mark Warawa, Jeff Watson and Stephen Woodworth.

Acting Members present: Alan Tonks for Justin Trudeau.

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Penny Becklumb, Analyst; Tim Williams, Analyst.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the Committee on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, the Committee resumed its study of the oil sands and Canada's water resources.

It was agreed, — That the Committee cease its study of the oil sands and Canada's water resources.

It was agreed, — That all circulated copies of the confidential draft report be returned to the Clerk of the Committee and destroyed (paper and electronic version).

It was agreed, — That any member of the Environment Committee be authorized to consult the one original copy of the draft report kept in the Committee Clerk's office.

At 4:59 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

Since it was an in camera meeting, there's no info on why, or how individual MPs voted on the decision, but it's not too hard to guess.

Jason Kenney on political staff testifying

The federal government has, as you may know, seen fit to prohibit their political staff from testifying before parliamentary committees. The good folks at Stageleft have found something rather interesting, though. Jason Kenney just went on TV in defense of this policy, but back in his opposition days he was singing a different tune. Check him out, now and then:



It's worth noting that some Liberals might be a bit reluctant to promote this, given that it might remind people of just what Kenney wanted to question political staff about back in 2004. I guess it falls to us lefties to circulate the story...

Senate may be about to justify its existence

The Senate is, not unreasonably, the target of a lot of criticism, but every so often it does something worthwhile. It may be about to do something of this sort with the rather perverse budget bill that the Conservatives have put forward:

Rebellious Liberal senators are threatening to carve large swaths out of an omnibus Conservative budget bill, excising everything from plans to sell off Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to breaking Canada Post’s monopoly on overseas mail.

“The Senate has very strong views because that’s where sober second thought comes in,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Wednesday. “I can tell you, Liberal senators are steaming for very good reason. This is a terrible way to do legislation and we said so last year, we said so this year.”

Bill C-9 is a confidence matter that could bring down the government if it is defeated. For that reason, the Conservative government has stacked it with measures that the opposition is unlikely to support – none of the political parties wants to go to the polls at this juncture.

The decision to lump all of these policies is an “abuse of power” on the part of the government, Mr. Ignatieff said. “But the issue is whether you trigger an election,” he said.

The Senate, however, could hive off the items that are not budget matters without risking an election. While the decision to do that has not been taken, there is strong sentiment running in that direction.

“We’ve done it before in my time with animal cruelty legislation,” said Joseph Day of New Brunswick when asked if the Senate could split up the 900-page bill. “The Senate will do what we are constitutionally required to do.”

From the Globe. Of course, in an ideal world the elected House of Commons would be the venue for this, but this is not an ideal world.

This does raise the question of what should be done with the Senate. The idea of an unelected body with legislative powers makes many Canadians uneasy, and with good reason, but there's another way to look at it. The House of Commons represents a snapshot of the will of the people at the time of the general election; the Senate could be seen as representing the cumulative will of the people over the course of several decades. Of course, if the House were elected by proportional representation the need for an upper house would be greatly diminished. In any case, this is academic, since it's highly unlikely that any government is going to open up the Constitution in this country any time soon.

Push poll?

A blogger known as CathiefromCanada reports (h/t pogge) that Harris-Decima called her with some interesting poll questions:

Along with questions about whether I buy store-brand vegetables, there were two questions about the Afghan prisoner/Parliamentary privledge issue.

The first was a scenario I have already heard about, whether I would support MPs signing a confidentiality oath to see the prisoner documents. (And actually, no I wouldn't.)

But the second was interesting -- whether I would support an election being called because the Bloc Quebecois should not be permitted to sign a confidentiality oath and therefore should not be permitted to see the documents.

I wonder who commissioned this?

Milliken upholds supremacy of Parliament

Looks like a victory for the Opposition (and for parliamentary democracy):

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has lost his battle to keep documents related to the detention of Afghan detainees out of the hands of opposition members.

In a precedent-setting ruling Tuesday, Speaker Peter Milliken said the House of Commons has the right to request any documents it needs and that the government must turn them over or risk being found in contempt of Parliament.

Mr. Milliken gave both sides two weeks to reach a compromise. If none is obtained, the House of Commons could vote to find the government in contempt of Parliament.

From the Globe. And given the latest Harris-Decima poll, the Cons are likely a bit worried about a vote of no confidence.

Speaker to rule on government's conduct in detainee scandal

Speaker Peter Milliken will rule shortly on whether the Cons are in contempt of Parliament:

Either Thursday or next week, House Speaker Peter Milliken will rule on whether Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is in contempt of Parliament.

If Mr. Milliken finds in favour of the opposition parties that made the claim, then thousands of pages of heavily censored documents could be made public, showing whether the government and armed forces knew they were sending detainees to be tortured in Afghan jails.

If he rules in favour of the government, an already powerful executive will grow yet more powerful.

“It’s huge,” said Errol Mendes, a professor of law at University of Ottawa and constitutional expert. Centuries of precedent dictate that Parliament is supreme in holding the government to account, he observed.

“If the Speaker rules against the opposition motions, it would not be too hyperbolic to say we have changed our system of governance,” he maintained. “The executive would no longer be accountable to the House of Commons.”

From the Globe. To my mind this seems like a pretty clear case, despite the Cons' protests about "national security" (which, as I've said before, most likely means Harper's job security). There's a complication, though:

Mr. Milliken’s word is not the final word. Technically, he will rule only on whether the government appears to be in contempt. If he finds against the government, a parliamentary committee will thrash out the issue, and the matter will be brought back to the House for a final vote.

Rather than release the material, the Conservatives could force an election by making that vote a matter of confidence in the government.

The question then becomes, how would an election arising from this play out? Stay tuned.

Kenney not keen on the democratic process

His attitude should come as no surprise, though his candour might:

OTTAWA–Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says it's a lot easier for the government to operate without Parliament in session.

"As a minister, I often get more done when the House is not in session," he said as thousands of Canadians were preparing to mount protests across the country against Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to suspend Parliament until March 3.

From the Toronto Star.

The world is watching, Canada...

... and increasingly often, they don't like what they see. Most recently, the Economist has an article on Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament. Nothing really new here, but it shows how the Harper government appears to international observers.

Happily, Canadians don't seem too happy with the latest Conservative shenanigans either:

Canadians following Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to prorogue Parliament were nearly twice as likely to oppose the move as favour it, an EKOS poll suggests.

The poll, released exclusively to CBC News on Thursday, found the majority of Canadians surveyed — 67 per cent — are at least somewhat aware of Harper's decision to prorogue, or shut down, Parliament until March.

Of those who were aware of the decision, 58 per cent opposed the move, the poll found. By comparison, 31 per cent of those polled supported the move. Opposition to the decision was highest among Liberal and NDP supporters and those with a university education.

"The initial evidence is that Canadians are indeed paying attention to the issue of prorogation, and they don't like it," said EKOS President Frank Graves.

Source. At this rate, the Cons could find themselves out of office sooner than they might think.

Could Harper be in trouble this time?

The Toronto Star seems to think so:

OTTAWA–Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to shut down Parliament for the next two months is facing a growing public uprising, which is building on social networks across Canada and is set to spill over in dozens of protest rallies this month.

"Get back to work" is the rallying cry on a Facebook page that has been gaining thousands of supporters each day since it was launched last week – approaching 20,000 by the end of the day on Monday.

It now has chapters in about 20 major centres, including Toronto, and demonstrations are planned for Saturday, Jan. 23 in those cities.

Interesting. Is this the beginning of the end of the Harper era, or just wishful thinking on the Star's part? We'll have a better idea once the 23rd rolls around; hopefully the turnout will be high at the demos. The Facebook page for the planned rallies is here.

Harper wants to shut down Parliament again

The guy has no shame:

The Conservative government plans to shut down Parliament for two months, until after the Vancouver Winter Olympics, the Prime Minister's Office announced Wednesday.

The announcement triggered immediate condemnation from opposition MPs who labelled the Conservative government's move an "almost despotic" attempt to muzzle parliamentarians amid controversy over the Afghan detainees affair.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, said the government sought the suspension to consult with Canadians, stakeholders and businesses as it moves into the "next phase" of its economic action plan amid signs of economic recovery.

"This is quite routine but it is also important to give Canadians an overview of where we will be taking the country over the next little while," Soudas told CBC News from Ottawa.

From the CBC. I wonder what his motivation could be? Oh yeah...

Opposition parties have already warned that prorogation would disrupt the inquiry of a parliamentary committee looking into accusations that the government ignored warnings about the torture of Afghan detainees. Strategically, prorogation also prevents question period criticisms from the opposition parties during the Olympics.

Seriously, how much of this crap can he be allowed to get away with?

How are the Cons going to get out of this mess?

Perhaps by proroguing Parliament again:

Rumours swirling around Ottawa suggest the Conservative government is thinking of shutting down Parliament until after the Olympics, killing some of its own bills but also ending the discussion of Afghan detainees that is nibbling away at Tory popularity.

“I have heard that from some of the public servants,” Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale said Monday of a potential prorogation. “The word they are getting is ‘get ready to clear the decks. Anything that needs to get done before a parliamentary session ends, get it done.' ”

Conservative staff members said they also have received hints that a prorogation may be in the offing. But a spokeswoman for Government House Leader Jay Hill said his office “won't indulge the Hill rumour mill.”

The rumours suggest that Parliament would return in March, when the Games are over, with a new budget that could be used to provoke an election.

Source. Hopefully the electorate will begin to tire of this soon...

Opposition could pass climate bill against Harper's wishes!

This may be possible, if the Liberals have the nerve:

If Parliament enacts C-311 the Copenhagen Bill – New Democrats’ Climate Change Accountability Act - it will replace Harper Conservatives’ inadequate policy approach* with a credible, urgent plan that will quickly decrease Canada’s greenhouse gas pollution.

For C-311 NDP Climate Change Accountability Act to become law:
1. Wednesday, October 21, 5:30 pm, all opposition MPs must vote no to delay.
2. Last week of October: all opposition MPs vote yes to C311.
3. November: speedy approval at the Liberal-dominated Senate.
If every Liberal MP shows up in the House of Commons to support Bill C-311 without delay, it will become law before December’s United Nations meeting.

The people of Canada, through its Parliament, will say yes to the Planet in front of the world at Copenhagen.

Source. Question is, will the Liberals cooperate? One would think they'd be fools not to...

Harper shuts down Parliament to avoid non-confidence vote

A lot of people say Canadian politics is boring. The events of the past week certainly give the lie to that belief, though. Our current political crisis is attracting substantial attention from the international media; interestingly, they're a lot more upfront about the situation than our own news outlets:

Canadian Parliament Closed in Bid to Keep Prime Minister in Power (New York Times)

Canada's PM clings on to power as parliament suspended (The Guardian)

Canadian PM suspends Parliament to avoid defeat (People's Daily)

It's pretty obvious to foreign journalists what Harper's real motives are. Of course, the domestic press wants to seem impartial (except the Sun Media papers; Winnipeg's example had the screaming headline "NO! NO! NO!" the other day).

The Economist has a nice piece on this. It's a reasonably fair summary; if I have any quibble it's that their treatment of the Bloc is a bit one-dimensional (yes, they are sovereigntists, but there's more to them than that).

Meanwhile, Sean in Ottawa, with a bit of help from josh, has this to say on babble:

Stephen Harper wants to shut down Parliament just because he does not agree with it.

Some say this is unprecedented.

In fact, Harper is following parliamentary tradition. Consider the following precedents:

1629: King Charles I in England
1799: Napoleon in France
1913: Victoriano Huerta in Mexico
1933: Adolf Hitler in Germany
1936: Fransisco Franco in Spain
1939: Benito Mussolini in Italy
1973: Augusto Pinochet in Chile

1975: Indira Gandhi in India

1999: Perez Musharaff in Pakistan
2008: Stephen Harper in Canada.

Maybe Harper should consider what happened to many of those leaders. In a similar vein is this video, courtesy of The Harper Dictatorship:



My suspicion is that over the holidays the Cons will temper the budget a bit, and the Liberals will get nervous and chicken out come the resumption of Parliament in January. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing; the budget will be less harsh than it would otherwise be, and the Cons will thus be in power just long enough to be blamed for the hard economic times that we're in for.

Canada isn't the only country facing a parliamentary crisis, though:

Politicians in Australia’s most populous state could be breath-tested for alcohol before voting on laws after a series of late-night incidents that have embarrassed the centre-left government.

New South Wales state lawmaker Andrew Fraser resigned from his conservative opposition frontbench role after shoving a female colleague at the Christmas party celebrations.

“Breath test this mob,” said a front page headline in Sydney’s mass-selling Daily Telegraph newspaper. State police minister Matt Brown was dumped from his portfolio in September after allegedly “dirty” dancing in his underwear over the chest of a female colleague after a drunken post-budget office party.

Conservative opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell said he would support alcohol breath tests for drunkenness for lawmakers before they entered parliament, while Green MPs John Kaye and Lee Rhiannon also backed the plan, along with the parliament’s speaker.

From the Times of India.