[lg policy] Canada: UPDATED - Committee Watch: Official Languages at the centre of the in camera storm

Tue Feb 14 15:15:02 UTC 2012

UPDATED - Committee Watch: Official Languages at the centre of the in
camera storm

    February 13, 2012 6:33 PM | Read 13 comments13
    By Kady O'Malley

It seems that reports of the death of the Conservative campaign to
force debate behind closed doors may have been a tad premature. For
the last week and a half, the traditionally convivial official
languages committee has been beset by a pitched battle over a
government-backed motion to go in camera for all committee business.

Unlike a similar skirmish at Government Operations, however, this
debate is taking place in public -- and, barring a nifty bit of
procedural artistry on the part of the government, is likely to stay
there for the foreseeable future, as committee rules prohibit the
introduction of a motion to go back in camera until after the in
camera motion has been decided.

So, how did a debate over holding future meetings in secret end up on
the record? For that, we have to go back to what would turn out to be
a fateful session on the morning of February 2, when, att some point
during the first hour of what had been scheduled to be an in camera
session, the opposition parties found themselves unexpectedly, if
temporarily, in the majority.

No doubt sensing that the moment was likely to be fleeting, they
joined forces to turn the tables on the government, and brought
forward a snap motion to open the doors.  (Motions to go in camera, or
public, require no notice, and are non-debateable.)

Although the vote itself took place under the veil of in camera
confidentiality, the transcript tells the tale, as evidenced in this
post-ex camera exchange, in which the chair -- Conservative MP Michael
Chong -- has to break the news to Conservative MP Costas Menegakis --
in whose name the motion that set off the whole row of procedural
dominoes was brought forward -- that he couldn't simply reverse the
decision via a re-in camera motion until the debate has wrapped up:

    [...] The Chair: Yes, just let me explain. A motion to go in
camera or to go in public can be moved at any time. There is no limit
on the number of times that such a motion can be moved. It's not
debatable and it's put to an immediate vote, which just took place, so
we're now in public.

    Mr. Costas Menegakis: If I interpret what you're saying correctly,
I can now move to go back in camera.

    Hon. Mauril Bélanger: Well, I have the right to speak. I have the floor.

    The Chair: The floor is Mr. Bélanger's.

    Mr. Costas Menegakis:  You said we can do it at any time, so can I
now...? Who made that previous motion?

    The Chair: Mr. Bélanger did, because he had the floor.

    Hon. Mauril Bélanger: I still have the floor.

    The Chair: Yes. I'm just clarifying what the situation is. I'm
going to pass the floor back to Mr.--

    Mr. Costas Menegakis:  I'm sorry, but I want to understand what's going on.

    The Chair:  Okay, what happened was that Mr. Bélanger was
interrupted by M. Godin, who called a point of order. In that point of
order, he moved a motion; I ruled it out of order because it's not a
point of order to move a motion. I gave the floor back to Mr.
Bélanger, and he moved the motion to go in public. When I started to
call the vote, somebody requested a formal recorded division. I passed
the floor to the clerk, and the clerk recorded that division. The
motion was adopted five to four. Only four members voted against the
motion.

        Now I'm going to pass the floor back to Mr. Bélanger, because
it is his floor right now and he has not--

    Mr. Costas Menegakis:  Okay, but at what point are we allowed to
make a motion again?

    The Chair: When Mr. Bélanger has exhausted his debate and--

    Mr. Costas Menegakis: Oh, it's when he's exhausted his debate.

     A voice: Or whoever else is on the list.

    Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): On a point of order,
who remains on the list of speakers, please?

    The Chair: The next person on the list is Mme Michaud. Then we
have M. Aubin, then M. Harris, and then M. Godin.

Since then, opposition members have been taking full advantage of the
opportunity to air their discontent with the new trend in government
secrecy, in detail and at length -- at such length, in fact, that
their interventions have now consumed just over five hours of
committee business.

Most infuriating, however, at least from the government's perspective,
is that there is no immediate end in sight.

As the chair pointed out when the meeting first went public, a motion
to go in camera can only be moved by a member who has the floor, and
at that juncture, there were no Conservatives on the speakers list.

Even if a Conservative MP were to put his or her name forward now, it
could be a while before they get the floor -- as of last Thursday, NDP
MP Robert Aubin showed no signs of running out of steam.

In fact, his office sent out an email blast to supporters asking for
fresh fodder -- in the form of supportive letters and comments --  to
read into the record when the committee reconvenes tomorrow morning,
and he resumes what he describes as his "marathon of indignation":

    For some time now, with my official opposition and third party
colleagues, I have been engaged in a real marathon of indignation. The
focus of this indignation: a tenacious and determined battle to
prevent the Conservatives from voting an undemocratic motion. This
motion would require "that all the work of the Committee be held
behind closed doors."

    In other words, with the exception of listening to witnesses
invited by the committee, all discussion on all subjects would always
be done in secret. Therefore, the public and all Canadians would no
longer be informed of the parties' positions on the issues being
discussed. Another consequence, media would be denied public
broadcasting of all our debates.

    In our opinion, this is a serious encroachment, an attack even, on
the freedom of speech of the parliamentarians who represent you, and
on the foundation of our democratic system. This motion will be
stopped when the opposition members have exhausted their right to
speak or when the governing party withdraws its motion.

    If you wish to support our action, you can personally participate
in this marathon of indignation by sending me a letter expressing your
own outrage regarding the Conservatives' act of force to muzzle us.

    Your letter must include the reasons for your opposition to this
undemocratic motion, be signed, include a street or e-mail address,
and be written in a parliamentary language that doesn't attack
specific people.

    Starting Thursday morning, February 9, 2012 at 8:45 a.m., I will
take the floor and be ready to read your letters so that together we
can try to make the Conservatives, who are multiplying infringements
on freedom of speech and democracy, listen to reason.

    Thank you for supporting us in this struggle.

Even if Aubin eventually burns through his tank of filibuster fuel,
NDP MPs Dan Harris and Yvon Godin would likely to be ready to take the
baton, although if the latter vacates the chair -- which, due to
Chong's absence, he has occupied since the standoff began -- in order
to speak, he would be ceding the gavel to the government vice-chair,
who could move swiftly to shut down the debate and call the vote, a
move made famous by former Liberal MP Paul Szabo after three months of
Conservative-backed delay tactics at Ethics.

UPDATE: As was pointed out to me (and which I really should have
known), at Official Languages, unlike most committees, both
vice-chairs are drawn from the opposition side of the table, which
means that, barring the return of Michael Chong, Godin can cede his
seat to his Liberal counterpart, Mauril Belanger, without risking a
snap vote call.

(At the time, those Conservative members vociferously denounced the
tactic, but one suspects their perspective may have shifted over
time.)

In any case, barring a hostile takeover -- or, alternatively, a
cross-table compromise on the issue itself -- it would seem that, for
the time being, committee oversight of official language policy has
been abruptly preempted by the fight for free and unfettered public
debate. Stay tuned.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2012/02/committee-watch-official-languages-at-the-centre-of-the-in-camera-storm.html

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
 A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
Moderator)

For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
listinfo/lgpolicy-list
*******************************************

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list