“It’s becoming increasingly evident
that the Harper Conservatives dislike public accountability,”
said
Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green
Party. “They are already
limiting
debate in the House on a regular basis, and now
they intend to make committee business secret.
“With their majority muscle, the
Conservatives can already pass whatever they want in committees. They
are running roughshod over past practice and doing away with any
pretence of democracy.”
Just a few weeks into the new session two
committees have considered motions to hold their meetings “in
camera” this effectively bars the press and the public from any
information as to the proceeding that take place in those meeting.
Indeed it also restricts those who participate in said meetings from
revealing anything about said proceedings, including opposition
motions and the results of vote on such motions. In short the
Conservative dominated committees can not only force through flawed
legislation at the committee stage but, by making said meeting 'in
camera' using their majority in the committees, completely suppress
any concerns or discussion regarding the topic at hand from public
view. This is clearly undemocratic, unnecessary and yet one more step
by the Harper regime to suppress ALL those who disagree with their
ideological agenda. Remember these are the guys that wrote the book
on how to disrupt committee meetings if thing were not going their
way. We note that this is as Ms May says “ Widely considered
as a test run for all committees” , open and accountable
government eh!
The following gives some background as to In
Camera Meetings:-
“On occasion, a
committee may decide to hold an in camera meeting
to deal with administrative matters, to consider a draft report or to
receive a briefing. Subcommittees on Agenda and Procedure usually
meet in camera. Committees also meet in camera to deal with documents
or matters requiring confidentiality, such as national security.
Depending on the needs, a committee may conduct one part of a meeting
in public and the other part in camera.
“Neither the public
nor the media is permitted at in camera meetings, and there is no
broadcasting of the proceedings. Usually,
only the committee members, the committee staff and invited
witnesses, if any, attend in camera meetings.
Transcripts
of In Camera Meetings
“While no public
transcript (Evidence) is produced of what is said during in camera
proceedings, committees generally
decide to have a transcript
produced for the private consultation of committee members and staff.
The transcript is retained by the clerk of the committee. Committees
must also decide how such transcripts will be disposed of at the end
of the session, that is whether
they will be destroyed or made part of the permanent record
for historical purposes.
“Divulging
any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has
been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of
privilege.”
Given that there may be
much that the Conservative members are trying to hide from the public
via this antidemocratic move from going in camera 'on occasion' to as
a matter of routine, I wondered what penalties there were should an
opposition MP decide that the machinations of the conservative
members behind these closed doors warranted breaking Parliamentary
Privilege. Its not clear what those penalties could be but it is
clear that to bring charges of breaching parliamentary privilege
forward is a complex and lengthy process and that said allegations
must be brought before the house and debated in open session.
Here is some
information on that aspect:-
“Any claim that a privilege has been
infringed upon or a contempt committed must be brought to
the attention of the House at the earliest opportunity.
Once the Speaker recognizes a Member on a matter of privilege, the
Member must briefly outline the complaint, following which the
Speaker may choose to hear from other Members prior to deciding if
there is a prima facie case of privilege
(i.e., whether the matter appears to warrant priority or
consideration).
“If the Speaker finds there is a prima
facie breach of privilege, the Member
raising the question of privilege is asked to move a motion, usually
requesting that the matter be examined by the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs. If there is a favourable vote in the
House on the motion (which can be debated), the matter is examined by
the Standing Committee, which may choose to call expert witnesses.
The Committee's report of findings and recommendations is presented
to the House, and a motion to concur in, or agree to the report, may
then be moved.
“Since
the House has not given its committees the power to punish any
misconduct, breach of privilege, or contempt directly, committees
cannot decide such matters; they can only report them to the House.
Only the House can decide if an
offence has been committed.
Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme
situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from
committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the
committee which directly deals with the matter and not
as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.
As Speaker Milliken indicated in response to a question of
privilege raised in 2003 concerning the disclosure of a confidential
draft committee report: “In the absence of a report from the
committee on such an issue, it is virtually impossible for the Chair
to make any judgement as to the prima facie occurrence of a breach of
privilege with regard to such charges”.
In short if someone was
to report to the public a egregious action by conservative (or for
that matter any) committee member from an 'in camera' meeting the
matter would require a public complaint to the speaker, a debate in
the house and probably be refereed to committee. This could be
declared 'in camera' (Subcommittees on Agenda
and Procedure usually meet in camera) but at that point
what would the member breaching privilege have to loose by revealing
the proceedings and would the committee dare do such a thing after
all the public debate on such matters? Even after all this procedure
and debate the member could then could be just given a slap on the
wrist by the Speaker! Seems to me we need a few opposition members
with some guts to push the envelope, that is after all what the
Conservative have been doing with the rules for some time now, and
totally getting away with it. Also I do not see how a member could be
construed as breaking privilege by revealing what did NOT happen,
little things like open debate, due consideration of amendments etc
etc? With the PMO
controlling everything, the conservative MPs,
department
heads, scientists and various bureaucrats say,
now its sights are on opposition MPs. Do we now need 'whistle blower
protection' for MPs and their staff in order for them to talk
publicly about their work?
Seems 'they' can view
our private information without warrant and that’s ok but we
cannot even know what our MPs are discussing in committee. Whats
wrong with this picture and when will the attacks upon our democracy
stop?
A special tip of the
hat this week to all
who have spoken out against bill C-30 there is
little I can say that has not already been said.
No comments:
Post a Comment