We know that the House public safety committee has been 'studying'
the government's anti-terror bill and that despite the long list of
influential and knowledgeable people wishing to speak to the dangers
of this bill to our freedoms and privacy the list of those permitted
to participate was severely restricted. We also know that throughout
the process the Conservative members routinely defended the bill as
written and showed no interest in amendments proposed by various
presenters. They even deliberately
blocked the Leader of the Green Party, who
later was permitted to present but not speak to, multiple amendments
from presenting her views on the bill.
While Ms. May was a regular attendee of committee hearings
during its study of Bill C-51, Conservative MPs blocked her every
attempt to ask a single question. Although any MP has a right to sit
at committee, participation is at the discretion of the Chair. During
these hearings, the Chair chose to put Ms. May’s requests to the
floor for unanimous consent, which was summarily denied by her
Conservative colleagues.
The process by which Green MPs submit
amendments to committee is one created by PMO to deprive Green MPs
from presenting amendments to the House of Commons at Report
Stage. Ms. May used this right effectively in opposing Bill C-38 in
spring 2012. Since the fall of 2013, due to identical motions passed
by Conservatives in every committee, Green amendments are deemed to
have been moved at committee. Ms. May and Mr. Hyer will be given time
to present each amendment but are not allowed to vote.
However now with intense pressure from both the public, forem
Supreme Court Judges, Academic and even former Prime Ministers and
word coming down from above it seems it is suddenly OK to make some
of the changes proposed by those that did get to speak.
At
no point during the 18 or so hours of testimony
on the bill did even one of them publicly voice concerns over any of
the provisions that they will now propose be tweaked in response to
witness concerns.
In fact, in at least one case — removing the word "lawful" —
multiple witnesses, including those who were largely supportive of
the bill, had recommended exactly such a change.
Several of those witnesses pointed out that, in the aftermath
of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Liberal government of the day had
initially included a similar provision in its anti-terror package,
but struck it from the text after the expert witnesses of the day
expressed concerns over potential overreach...............
Witnesses who raised red flags over the implications for
privacy — another criticism expected to be addressed via amendment
today — were greeted with similar skepticism.
Indeed, the federal privacy commissioner didn't even make the
witness list.
The Tory committee members had been unwavering in their
confidence that not even a comma in the bill needed changing.
But now it seems that having been 'approved' from above a few
minor changes are now to be included. How many of the dozens of other
amendments proposed by non Conservative MPs will be even considered
let alone adopted at the senate hearings (having been rejected in
committee) remains to be seen but one thing is for sure unless
approved from above it simply wont happen.
At the moment, it's not clear whether the Conservative
contingent will also be advised to throw their majority support
behind additional, opposition-backed amendments or vote to reject
certain clauses entirely, which would also result in changes being
made to the bill.
A similar parliamentary plot twist occurred last spring, when
after weeks of doggedly defending every aspect of Democratic Reform
Minister Pierre Poilievre's controversial bid to revamp Canada's
election laws, Conservative committee members found themselves
introducing amendments to address precisely the concerns they had
dismissed as unfounded.
One must ask the question do ANY of these Conservative MPs have a
functioning brain or are they just a satellite mouthpiece of the
PMO?
The biggest threat to Canadians and Canadian Democracy is
not “terrorists” but Stephen Harper and his Conservative Regimes
unthinking support of his desire for absolute unlimited power and
control.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Mannequins can be made to stand or sit on cue, Rural. Their only purpose is to serve as window dressing.
The Conservatives are right to fear Elizabeth May, Rural. As I noted the other day on Owen's blog, she is the only party leader who is not afraid to speak the truth, and truth is something the Harperites fear more than anything. That's not to say she isn't viewed with the same fear by Mulcair and Trudeau, since they are also opposing her inclusion in the future leadership debates.
Rural what a sham these various discussions are about bill C-51 being credible or not. The essence of it is, that it is another unconstitutional piece of legislation put forth to suppress or violate Canadians privacy and control their freedoms.The Harper and companies unconstitutional legislations purpose is to gain and further entrench their power.To ask for amendments for this type of legislation is to concede that its purpose of pursuing power is not really questioned.The question needs to be asked why this dictatorial legislation is even created at all and what is behind it. The opposition and MSM need to ask over and over again what does Harper and his regime gain by continually creating , in a democracy , legislation that suppresses and/or violates Canadians rights and freedoms.Acknowledging that the legislation does this and wanting it amended is right, but it does not go far enough. They need to ask the tough questions and by doing this Canadians will get a glimpse of what Harper and his minions are really after, power.
It is as Pamela says, all about power, absolute unlimited power! If they can make parliamentary process a meaningless charade and bring it into disrepute in the public view, silence those who speak out about that decline and generally make us all believe that the PM is all that matters then he has succeeded. As Lorne says Ms May is equally feared by the other parties even as they admire her work in the HoC.
Post a Comment