Curiouser and curiouser

There is something odd about the reasons given by the Conservative government for refusing to hand over to the Commons Special Committee on the Afghan Mission documents it has requested. The Committee requested the documents after the testimony it heard from Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin in November 2009 concerning the tranfer of detainees to Afghan authorities. At first, the government refused, citing the Canada Evidence Act as the reason, in particular section 38, which was introduced as part of the Anti-Terrorism Act in 2001, and which seeks to restrict the disclosure of sensitive national security information in legal proceedings before courts and tribunals. Bolstered by the written opinion of the Commons Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, who is the country's foremost expert on the legal powers of the House and its committees and the application of federal laws to the business of the House, the Committee disputed the government's right to withold this information, and reported what it considered to be a serious breach of privilege to the House so that it could address it. The Government then released a heavily redacted version, again citing section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act. Then it came to light that even the Department of Justice agreed with the Parliamentary Counsel that section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act does not apply to the proceedings of a Parliamentary Committee . This led the House to pass a motion demanding full disclosure of the requested information on the last day of the second session of the 40th Parliament, which was then recessed until January 25. Failure to comply could lead to a motion of censure, basically finding the Prime Minister guilty of a crime against the nation. This is what faced the Government as it entered the Christmans break, seemingly boxed in on all sides. As we all know, the Conservative brain trust came up with a novel escape plan and on December 30, the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament, thus disbanding the special committee, leaving all its work in limbo.

However, the issue has not gone away and Parliamentarians are again asking that the Government comply and provide the requested documents. The PM's line of defense? The Department of Justice is making us do it. This was the PM's response during Question Period on March 4. But, on March 5, the government announced that it was hiring a retired justice of the Supreme Court, Frank Iacobucci, to advise it on what it can release. Didn't he say in the House the day before that they were releasing everything that was possible to release, "according to the law". So, which is it? Does the Canada Evidence Act apply to the proceedings of a House Committee or not? All legal opinion, and a simple reading of the legislative record, says not. However, if it did, as the Government seems to still be maintaining, the Act provides a very detailed procedure covering consideration of potential disclosure by the Attorney General of Canada, the serving of notices concerning his decision, the opportunity for judicial review of the decision, further opportunity for appeal, culminating in a final Supreme Court decision either ordering the disclosure, in full or in part, or confirming the Attorney General's decision to withold information. The hiring of a retired justice of the Supreme Court to advise them on what to disclose is clearly not part of the procedure. It's just a made up dodge to make it look all serious and legal. By choosing this course of action rather than the procedure specified in the Act, the government is basically conceding that the legal basis that they have been claiming in support of their refusal to submit to the will of Parliament is a sham. Justice Iacobucci should gracefully decline this job offer, lest he be found complicit in this travesty.

Back to work

While the Parliamentarians were out, I took a break myself. Only participated in one demonstration at City Hall, to keep Council from reopening the debate on expanding Ottawa's urban boundary. (Thankfully, they reaffirmed their prior decision to approve only a modest expansion.) With the Olympics over, and the country aglow with national pride, PM Harper continues to roll out his master plan with a Throne Speech tomorrow and a budget Thursday. The government hopes that this will put the parliamentary narrative on a whole new trajectory, away from the death spiral they were in before and during prorogation as regards the Afghan detainee issue, war crimes, being held in contempt of Parliament, and abusing executive power to suspend the legislature. Hardly a compelling story. We will see how successful they are at "remettre les pendules à l'heure", as we say in French. Maybe this is what he meant by recalibrating.

I don't know about you, but I could not stomach one more shot of PM Harper in the stands at one of the many, many Olympic events he attended. On the other hand, I never got tired of hearing the national anthem, however often it was played or sung (although I could have done without Michael Bublé's version of The Maple Leaf Forever). Hopefully, the national pride and solidarity shown by Canadians at the Olympics, which reminded me of the spirit of CAPP in the early days, will translate into a vigourous defense of our rights and freedoms, standing on guard for Canada as it were, instead of the fawning adulation of the great leader hoped for in the Conservative playbook.

Our national anthem is a funny thing, having two distinct but somewhat complementary versions, one in English and one in French. So what are we singing to each other? Here is a little exercise for today: the French version translated literally into English, and vice-versa.

O Canada ------------ O Canada
Land of our forefathers ---------- Notre foyer et terre natale
Your brow is girt --------- L'amour vrai de la patrie
of glorious fleurons ------------- Tu inspires dans tous tes fils
As your hand can carry the sword -- Avec coeurs ardents, nous te voyons lever
So too can it bear the Cross ------ Le vrai nord, fort et libre
Your history is an epic ----------- De près et de loin, O Canada
Of the most glorious feats -------- Nous montons la garde pour toi
And your valour ------------- Que Dieu maintienne notre pays
Steeled by faith ----------- Glorieux et libre
Will protect ------------- O Canada
Our hearths and our rigths ------- Nous montons la garde pour toi
Will protect ----------- O Canada
Our hearths and our rights -------- Nous montons la garde pour toi


There you have it. If we marry the last lines of each version, we stand on guard for you, you protect our hearths and rights. That's what needs to happen now.