Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Brendan O'Neill writes that the UK Cons are following in Stephen Harper's footsteps by pushing the concept of thought policing. And George Monbiot rightly criticizes the gross inflation of supposed terror threats and simultaneous neglect of far more serious risks:

A global survey published last week by the Pew Research Centre found that while the people of North America, Britain, Australia, Japan, France and Germany see Isis as the greatest threat they face, most of the countries surveyed in poorer parts of the world – Africa, Latin America and Asia – place climate change at the top of the list. Even in Turkey (where, as the bombing on Monday suggests, the terrorist group is a real threat), more people said they were “very concerned” about climate change than they did about Islamic State. The nations least threatened by Isis rank this risk the highest. This is media-driven madness, an epidemic of transcontinental paranoia that governments are happy to foment and exploit.

Men such as Cameron, Tony Abbott in Australia and Stephen Harper in Canada won’t engage in generational struggles with real existential threats – climate breakdown first among them – for fear of alienating their sponsors. They have learned all the wrong lessons from Churchill’s legacy, seeking to invest themselves with belligerent glory while forgetting his ability at crucial moments to place the interests of the nation above the interests of his class.

So, as Hitler is reborn with a thousand faces, a new “struggle of our generation” emerges every six months, and all around us existential crises are ignored.

- Meanwhile, Jennifer Chevalier exposes the Cons' direct orders to the civil service to fabricate terrorism-related news for their political use, while Azeezah Kanji notes that even from the standpoint of addressing terrorism the Cons are deliberately avoiding naming the more plausible threats which come from their base. And the Star lauds the much-needed court challenge to C-51 while lamenting the fact that it's become law in the first place.

- Robyn Benson weighs in on the Cons' use of public money to bribe voters as an election approaches. And Anita Khanna and Sid Frankel write that we should expect all parties to be making clear how they'll fight child poverty, rather than limiting their focus to temporary goodies for swing voters.

- Susan Wright offers her take on the contrast between Rachel Notley and Brad Wall by pointing out what happened to the last premier who matched Wall's condescension.

- And finally, Henry Farrell sets out a useful general theory of Very Serious People.

Escalating contempt

In case the fact the Cons haven't bothered to get the numbers straight wasn't reason enough to conclude they're doubling down on their strategy of contempt of Parliament, this should put all doubt to rest:

While the government originally cited Cabinet confidence as the reason it could not provide the cost of implementing the 18 crime bills—a total of $631-million and a further $2.1-billion for prison expansion that will result from a separate bill for which the opposition had not sought cost estimates—Mr. Nicholson said the information he and Mr. Toews provided to the committee Wednesday did not include any information that was protected by Cabinet confidence.

So what does the Cons' stark limitation on the information produced yesterday mean?

First, it suggests that to the extent any of the information produced yesterday wasn't already provided to the opposition, it had been withheld up to that point with what the Cons admit to be a complete lack of justification - even in the face of a Parliamentary order.

And second, it signals that the Cons plan to ignore Peter Milliken's clear ruling that a government isn't entitled to shield information from view when the majority is the House of Commons has ordered that it be produced. Instead, they're repeating the same tired talking points about cabinet confidence trumping the will of elected MPs.

So in the end, the takeaway from yesterday doesn't look to be that the Cons did anything to actually comply at the last minute through a document dump, but instead that they're predictably continuing their pattern of laughing in the face of binding orders. Which leaves only the question of whether the Libs and Bloc will be willing to stand up for Parliamentary supremacy this time after caving so thoroughly last time the issue came to a head.

Update: Robert Silver has more.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday.

- Pogge nicely sums up the proper response to the Libs' declaration that voters should pretend that other, more viable alternatives to the Cons don't exist:

Based on the last several federal elections, the greatest threat to the Conservative incumbent in my riding is the NDP. Based on the last two elections, that's true by a large margin. If Michael Ignatieff comes into my riding right now and tells me that in order to get rid of Harper I have to vote Liberal, I have to conclude that either he's an idiot or he thinks I am. Neither explanation encourages me to vote Liberal.

- The Hill Times proclaims a change in language: while the Cons' completely unfounded claims of delay in the Senate were regularly described as unconscionable obstructionism, the new Con Senate majority's power to overrule Canada's elected representatives will merely give rise to "minor legislative battles".

- John Ivison points out that the Cons' direction on criminal justice policy is officially worse information than that of states like Texas and South Carolina:

The “hanging’s too good for them” brigade should read an eye-opening piece from last Friday’s Washington Post, co-written by Newt Gingrich, the former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, and Pat Nolan, former Republican leader of the California State Assembly. They pointed out that the U.S. currently spends US$68-billion on corrections — 300% more than 25 years ago — and the prison population is growing at 13 times faster than the general population.

“Our prisons might be worth the current cost if the recidivism rate were not so high but, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, half of the prisoners released this year are expected to be back in prison within three years. If your prison policies are failing half the time, and we know there are more humane, effective alternatives, it is time to fundamentally rethink how we treat and rehabilitate our prisoners,” they concluded.

Even Mr. Toews wouldn’t accuse Texas of being soft on crime, yet the Lone Star State has instituted reforms that have strengthened its probation system, reduced its prison population and freed up money to be redirected into community treatment for the mentally ill and low-level drug addicts. Since the reforms were launched in 2004, the crime rate has dropped 10% to its lowest level since 1973.
...
At a time when every department in government is experiencing budget cuts, Canada should not be embarking on an expensive prison-building program. Rather it should be following U.S. states like South Carolina, which is reserving costly prison spaces for violent criminals and dealing with lower level offenders in more imaginative ways.

- Finally, we can certainly hope that the Cons' "ethical oil" spin will bring the environment back to the forefront as an issue. But is it too much to ask that the response to the Cons' attempts to change the subject not start with "we agree, but..."?

Guilt by Word Association

It's taken awhile to double back to my planned post on the Cons' treatment of Imam Zijad Delic. But let's take a closer look at part of the story which seems to me to deserve a bit more attention.

Most of the understandable outrage has focused on the guilt by association involved in the Cons' condemning Delic for words spoken six years ago by a former CIC president. But let's take a closer look at the Cons' supposed rationale for decreeing that Delic is unworthy to be heard:

Jay Paxton, MacKay's communications director, said in a statement that "[Friday] morning, upon hearing Imam Delic may participate in these celebrations, Minister MacKay took the decision to cancel the Imam's role based on extremist views promulgated by the Canadian Islamic Congress.

What's worth highlighting is the use of the phrase "extremist views", which is far from an isolated occurrence. Instead, it's been used by the Cons to describe a wide range of other opinions.

On the seemingly benign end, that's included Jason Kenney condemning the Canadian Arab Federation's opposition to war in the Middle East (as well as some personal criticism of Kenney). And on the opposite end, there's Vic Toews' use of the exact same phrasing to describe the Toronto 18 while trying to draw links between that amateur terror plot and Al Qaeda.

In other words, based on the Cons' choice of wording, disagreement with Jason Kenney's funding policies is lumped in under exactly the same description as direct participation in 9/11. (That is, as long as the "extremism" originates in a Muslim or Arab group.)

And that justification is then used as part of an explicit effort to "systematically marginalize" what the Cons see to be extremist views in the context of broader restrictions on civil liberties. Toews' speech above uses that exact wording, but again it's far from the only example. And indeed the Cons have been at it again in recent weeks, with Toews calling for members of unstated communities to spy on each other while his cabinetmate Rob Nicholson demands increased power to detain innocent citizens.

So the same phrasing is being used to cover a broad range of opinion and activity with little in common other than the creation of a target group. And that deliberate bunching of unlike things together is then used as an excuse for a wide range of attacks on the freedom of Canadians.

All of which fits nicely into the Cons' theme of building up an artificial enemy, then trying to convert a the resulting public anger and fear into popular support for themselves. But for those of us paying attention, it's worth keeping a close eye on how the Cons are trying to shunt legitimate disagreement into the same category as violence based on carefully-cultivated prejudice - and asking whether we want the people making decisions about our safety to be unwilling to see the difference.

On criminal negligence

Kady, who should seemingly know better, passes along the Cons' spin that their redefinition of "serious offence" won't create any new offences or result in any substantial costs.

The Cons' definition of a "serious offence" includes "betting, pool-selling and book-making" under section 202 of the Criminal Code.

The definition of a "criminal organization" under section 467.1 is any group of three or more people involved in a "serious offence" which results in any type of benefit.

And under section 515(6), anybody committing a "serious offence" related to a "criminal organization" faces a reverse onus on bail applications.

In other words, the Cons just declared that they can lock you up and and throw away the key for participating in a hockey pool.

Just thought you should know.

Typical

In case there was any doubt why the NDP was right to say "no thanks" to the Afghan document review farce, the Cons can't even announce an agreement with the Libs and Bloc about the panel of reviewing judges without (a) hogging the spotlight for themselves, and (b) using the opportunity to take potshots at the opposition parties by pretending to be the lone party concerned with "national security" and the welfare of Canadian troops.

So needless to say, I eagerly await the Libs' response that they see no reason to doubt that the Cons are acting in good faith.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

On compromised positions

In general, Rob Nicholson's excuses for ignoring the will of the House of Commons naturally ring entirely hollow. (Basically, the theme seems to be that the government doesn't have to produce squat if there's a "debate" about what it's required to do, and since the Cons refuse to acknowledge that they're required to do anything there will always be a debate.)

But it's worth pointing out that the opposition's efforts to allow the Cons to impose conditions on the release of the ordered records seem to have given rise to part of Nicholson's defence:

(T)he Member for St. John’s East and the Member for Saint-Jean asked you to find a prima facie breach of privilege based on the House order of December 10, 2009. Yet, from the motion they proposed should such a prima facie case were to be found, they made it clear that no actual breach of privilege has occurred since the original order lacked procedures to protect national security interests.

In other words, the fact that the NDP and the Bloc have proposed that information be subject to some negotiated "national security" protection is actually being used to suggest that the Cons can validly thumb their noses at the House of Commons' order.

Which will hopefully make for a lesson to the opposition parties that I've tried to point out before: demand full accountability that the Cons can't wriggle out of on technical grounds, not partial and limited disclosure that makes it less clear what's being ordered.

On limited access

In addition to offering some background on the solicitor-client privilege issue raised in my post yesterday, Kady has plenty more on the Iacobucci terms of reference - featuring in particular a serious problem with the lack of any ability to look past the documents the Cons want to provide to him:

Meanwhile, buried in the the fine print devoted to detailing exactly which documents he'll be reviewing, we see the reappearance of that oddly Orwellian phrase that Nicholson employed when first announcing the appointment two weeks ago. Iacobucci will, it seems, conduct "independent confidential review of the information that is proposed [by the government] to be withheld from release."

As a commenter pointed out earlier, it sounds for all the world like Iacobucci will be acting as a specialized ministerial ATIP advisor, with no special ability to force the department to turn over any additional material of which he could, in theory, become aware only after he begins his review of the documents provided, despite the words "all other relevant documents" having been tacked onto the end of his to-do list.

Without the power to subpoena testimony or records, he won't know whether he actually has all of the relevant material, or only that which the government is willing to deliver to the House after it goes through the censors.

More questionable terms

Following up on my posts yesterday, there are two more points worth noting about the Cons' terms of reference to try to channel Justice Iacobucci's report in directions which they can easily spin.

First, it's worth noting that the Cons look to be providing Iacobucci with a means to classify as much information as possible as "injurious" by giving him a perceived out in being able to say that information under this definition should be released in the public interest anyway.

But I'd hope he's canny enough to resist the temptation to seek out an artificial compromise by saying a large amount of information is both "injurious" and worth releasing anyway based on public interest. Keeping in mind that nothing about Iacobucci's conclusions is binding on the Cons, I'd fully expect them to respond to that type of report by saying that nobody can object to their continuing to withhold "injurious information" based on their being more concerned about national security than some out-of-touch retired judge.

Second, it's worth noting the utterly bizarre third consideration tossed in for Iacobucci's review:

(iii) advise as to whether any document or information is subject to solicitor-client privilege or otherwise ought not to be disclosed for other reasons of public policy;

Now, it's not at all unlikely that some legal memoranda among the documents to be considered might be subject to solicitor-client privilege.

But it's worth paying very close attention to what solicitor-client privilege actually is. While it provides a party with a legal entitlement to withhold documents subject to the privilege, it doesn't create any reason to do so. And in fact, solicitor-client privilege isn't for the benefit of anybody but the client in question, and can be waived at any time by the client who holds it.

So when the Cons (inevitably if Iacobucci finds any documents to be subject to the privilege) start bleating that they'd be happy to release more information if not for that gosh-darned solicitor-client privilege, know that the argument is as outlandish as the rest of the Cons' excuses to suppress the documents. The effect of solicitor-client privilege is precisely to allow the client to decide for itself whether or not privileged information will be released outside the solicitor-client relationship - so if the Cons try to hide behind it, the responsibility lies entirely with them.

Indeed, the inclusion of the exemption in Iacobucci's terms of reference in the first place speaks volumes about the gap between the Cons' spin and their actual culture of secrecy. If the Cons had the slightest intention of living up to their rhetoric of releasing all "legally available" documents, they wouldn't be wasting Iacobucci's time pointing to an exemption which has absolutely no legal force beyond what they choose to apply. And the fact that they're including that as an extra excuse to try to suppress documents even after their "national security" claims are debunked should serve as the most compelling signal of all that the Cons' reference to Iacobucci is a bad-faith attempt to delay the matter.

In which I seek to make Justice Iacobucci's job much easier

Let's note that despite the obvious problems with the Cons' efforts to box in Justice Iacobucci, they do seem to have left open one key opening for him to decide based on the proper role of Parliament despite it having been left out of terms of reference. And it might only take one sentence for Iacobucci to perform that task:

It is my view that independent of the contents of the documents requested by the House of Commons, the public interest in affirming Parliament's authority to order their disclosure exceeds any potential public interest in non-disclosure, and as such it is not necessary to consider whether the requested documents contain any "injurious information".

Of course, there should be no need to inject a "public interest" step in order to confirm the principle of parliamentary supremacy. But better that it be used as the means to inject a concept deliberately excluded from Rob Nicholson's terms of reference than for parliamentary supremacy to be ignored altogether.

Edit: fixed wording.

On insufficient terms

Impolitical has a detailed review of the Cons' finally-revealed terms of reference for Justice Iacobucci. But the quick takeaway is that it's the bad joke expected from the beginning, featuring an explicit declaration that the executive can tell Parliament what documents it should be allowed to see, a complete lack of acknowledgment that Parliamentary supremacy applies or even exists, and a filtering step where Rob Nicholson can suppress the detailed findings in favour of a sure-to-be-distorted summary for public consumption.

In sum, the only reasonable response for the opposition is to consider this a bad-faith response which justifies going ahead with a contempt motion. But sadly, the biggest question now is probably more along the lines of what excuse the Libs will find for doing otherwise.

On time pressures

I'll echo the many posts this weekend to the effect that the opposition parties need to press forward with their Afghan detainee document order in order to preserve any semblance of Parliamentary supremacy (even if I'm pessimistic about the prospect of their taking the advice). But it's worth pointing out that their case to do so will only get weaker with time if they choose to let the Cons off the hook - even if they claim only to be waiting to see what questions the Cons get around to asking Justice Iacobucci.

Remember that just last week, Lib MP Derek Lee was hemming and hawing as to whether or not to introduce the privilege issue immediately - balancing what I still find to be weak concerns about interfering with the throne speech and budget against a requirement that privilege issues be brought up as soon as possible:

Mr. Lee has told Speaker Peter Milliken he wants to raise a point of privilege, arguing that Defence Minister Peter MacKay and an assistant deputy minister in the Justice Department “obstructed” the release of the documents by stating a “false basis” for withholding them.

He also says the Conservative government is in contempt of Parliament for not producing the documents in defiance of a motion passed by the House of Commons on Dec. 10.

The rules around matters of privilege state they must be raised at the earliest possible time and that they take precedence over other business.

Now, we can only hope that Lee's reticence hasn't already led to a situation where the Cons can avoid being held in contempt due to his delay - particularly since he inexplicably backed down again on Friday in response to Rob Nicholson's stalling tactics.

But if the Cons are allowed to delay any contempt motion by stringing out the introduction of Iacobucci's terms of reference into next week or beyond, that will only make matters worse. If even a day or two posed a potential problem last week which justified working out an extensive review of the available options as to how to bring the matter forward as soon as possible, then surely another span of time without the same considerations in play will be no less problematic.

And there's little prospect that Lee will be able to use anything that's now in play as an explanation for any delay. In particular, even the most expansive terms of reference for Iacobucci wouldn't seem to provide a reason to hold off on pressing a privilege claim: in the unlikely event that Iacobucci is acually asked to deal with the privilege issue, his ruling won't be binding on anybody, and indeed won't even be publicly released unless the Cons choose to make it so (since the indication is that it's the government that's retained him).

So there's a real risk that if Lee keeps holding off on the privilege motion, it'll become less and less viable with time. And whenever the Iacobucci report is released (or suppressed, or the retainer cancelled), the Cons will surely have no qualms about claiming that the fact that the opposition allowed his review to play out prevents it from acting on the order passed in December.

In sum, the opposition faces a choice of use it or lose it when it comes to its authority to enforce the order which the Cons are ignoring. And the fact that the smaller fight over documents may have ramifications in all kinds of areas should only provide all the more reason to tell Harper and the Cons that they can't simply ignore the will of the majority.

Update: Impolitical points out on Twitter that the NDP has set a March 19 date for a contempt motion if the Cons haven't complied with the order by then. That will at least alleviate the risk of the issue being left hanging for months, though I'd still think there's little reason to wait.

Clueless

Kady has the most ridiculous detail yet about the Cons' attempt to hide from the Afghan torture issue:

SO YEAH, ABOUT THOSE TERMS OF REFERENCE UPDATE: Apparently, Nicholson's office will be putting out a press release on the Iacobucci review just as soon as they've managed to nail down the details, although when that will happen -- or, for that matter, what that down-nailing entails -- is not entirely clear.

Combining the highly visible public announcement of they-haven't-yet-figured-out-what with their immediate backtracking on a change to the national anthem which they so proudly unveiled just two days ago, it's looking more clear than ever that the Cons are just as incompetent as they are dishonest. But with the fundamental question of parliamentary supremacy still left unanswered, it'll be up to the opposition parties to refuse to be thrown off course no matter how desperate the latest distraction may be.

On fundamental decisions

In case there's any doubt, the headline "Iacobucci to decide" is absolutely meaningless until we know what the former Supreme Court justice is actually being asked to review. And there's plenty of reason to think that the Cons' appointment is aimed at everything but the core issue of parliamentary supremacy:

“Members will understand that there are matters must keep confidential in order to keep the public interest,” Mr. Nicholson said Friday in the House of Commons. “At the same time recognizing the legitimate interest that we all have in the protection of the men and women who serve us in Afghanistan and who serve the public interest in this country.”

Nonetheless, said Mr. Nicholson, “the government acknowledges that it is appropriate that the decision made by officials on the disclosure of information in these circumstances be reviewed independently from government.”

So from Nicholson's statement alone, we can conclude the Cons:
(a) are seeking to have taken as a given that they're entitled to suppress information even in the face of an order from Parliament; and
(b) are pointing Iacobucci toward decisions of "officials" (presumably earlier in the process) rather than the personal obligations of Peter MacKay in the face of the order passed by the House of Commons.

Of course, the Cons shouldn't be delaying even if the scope of Iacobucci's review actually does cover what should be a clear case of parliamentary supremacy. But there's particular reason for suspicion based on how Nicholson has framed the appointment.

Edit: fixed label.

On half measures

It's undoubtedly for the best that Wayne Wouters has acknowledged that the Cons' use of departmental press releases for partisan attacks was improper. But it's hard to see much prospect of improvement based on Wouters' conclusion as to how the matter was handled:

Canada's top bureaucrat admitted a news release from the Justice Department announcing the appointment of new Senators to clear the way for the Conservatives law and order agenda was partisan and didn't conform with federal communications policy.

In a letter, Privy Council Clerk Wayne Wouters said the breach was discovered the same day as it was posted and publicly released, but it was 'swiftly' handled to clarify that the partisan statements were the views of the minister and not the department. The changes were made the same day.

Of course, it's certainly a problem for the Cons to be imputing their views to federal departments. But that's far from the only - or even the most important - problem with the release reviewed by Wouters.

What's obviously left out of Wouters' letter (at least as reported so far) is any analysis as to why it's supposed to be acceptable for minister to use a public department's resources to broadcast his or her own partisan views - which seems to be the inevitable inference if the "clarification" is seen as having brought the Cons back within the rules. And given the Cons' track record of pushing the limits of non-stop partisanship, it'll be a shock if we don't get to see that apparent loophole in Wouters' decision tested in the very near future.

Burning question

Has anyone taken a close look at what government news releases might have been snuck in during the Olympics' opening ceremonies? No, no particular reason for asking.

The reviews are in

The Star Phoenix editorial board slams the Cons' continud insistence on ignoring actual evidence about the effectiveness of policies - in this case Insite - in order to push their "tough on crime" message:

It takes a special brand of ideological blindness for federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to waste taxpayers' money in trying to protect a demonstrably ineffectual national anti-drug strategy by fighting stubbornly to shut down a demonstrably effective provincial health program.
...
What has Mr. Nicholson twisting logic on its head and giving short shrift to provincial and civic politicians, health experts and community groups in British Columbia, is his government's law-and-order agenda.

Apparently, it's (sic) ideological base is so rigid that there's no room for good sense, flexibility or even sound medical evidence that support the continued operation of Insite...

Were he less intent on pushing through a failed agenda, Mr. Nicholson might learn something from B.C. Health Minister Kevin Falcon, who too was a skeptic about Insite and considered it no more than an enabler for junkies, but did a 180-degree attitude adjustment after carefully considering the medical evidence.

And if Mr. Nicholson truly wants to focus on helping the addicts, he would be promoting Insite as a model for other jurisdictions and committing to them the public money he's now wasting on desperate legal appeals.

On obstructed access

The Globe and Mail's report on the Cons' pattern of refusing to respond to access to information requests - this time dealing with requests related to earlier delays which took up to two and a half years to answer. But there's another part of the story which fits entirely with the Cons' efforts to make Parliament subservient to the executive branch:

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson's office said in an e-mail this week that proposed reforms to the Access to Information Act that were tabled in Parliament in 2006 have yet to be considered by the Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. "This work [of the committee] is essential before the government can proceed further," the e-mail stated.

In fact, opposition members of the committee said they did not learn of the proposals until this fall. The committee had conducted its own study of the law and had come up with 12 "quick fixes," said chairman Paul Szabo, a Liberal MP.

Mr. Nicholson dismissed that report and urged the committee members to study the draft of the government's proposals, Mr. Szabo said. "I had never seen it. The clerk had never seen it," Mr. Szabo said of the document containing proposals from the government. "No members on the committee could ever recall seeing any document like that or being aware of any document like that."

The committee requested a copy of the draft. It was received in November, not long before Parliament rose for the Christmas break.

Now, it seems most likely that Nicholson's reference to the earlier draft is simply another example of the Cons' shotgun approach to excuse-making, and will be discarded within a day in favour of an assertion that the opposition wants to allow the Taliban access to vital regulatory correspondence to use against Canadian troops. But let's take a look at what's wrong with Nicholson's assertion if taken at face value.

To start with, the committee itself includes five Cons among its eleven members, with its report listing vice-chair Russ Hiebert, along with Pierre Poilievre (who as parliamentary secretary to the PM would presumably have a direct channel to any government response to the committee's work), Kelly Block, Bob Dechert and Earl Dreeshen. And based on the fact that the Con members signed on to the committee's report, there doesn't seem to be much room for doubt that they sent the message that the committee's work was valid at the time.

In that case, there would be two alternatives to explain the fact that the committee members signed on to a report of the type which the executive had no intention of responding to. Either the Cons' braintrust failed to let even their own committee members know that a response to the earlier report was a precondition to work in an area which the Cons claim as an important campaign promise - or somebody decided to deliberately withhold the report while planning to claim it as the necessary starting point for discussion, presumably to set up exactly the excuse Nicholson is now claiming.

But it wasn't only the committee members who had an opportunity to point to the 2006 report if they thought it was such a vital part of the committee's work. Just take a look at the list of people who testified before the committee:

The Committee concluded its hearings with the appearance of the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Rob Nicholson, followed by representatives of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), David Fraser, Priscilla Platt and Gaylene Schellenberg.

And when Nicholson testified before the committee, he merely "encouraged" the committee to study the discussion paper (which again apparently hadn't been made available to the committee members at the time) while spending the bulk of his time presenting his position on the other reports being considered by the committee. And he in fact explicitly stated that he was interested to see the committee's work based on Robert Marleau's report which he now claims to be useless:

(Y)ou have the recommendations of Mr. Marleau, the present commissioner. I would be very pleased to hear your comments and those of your fellow committee members. I would be pleased to hear what you have to say. Again, any time you're prepared to come forward with a report addressing the different recommendations he has made, I would certainly be pleased to hear from you.
...
Again, I would like to have your comments on the recommendations of Monsieur Marleau. You have them before you, and I would be very pleased to have this committee.... With respect to Mr. Reid's comments, you've seen that the government has already tabled legislation under the Federal Accountability Act. You know how difficult that was to get through the previous minority Parliament. I tell you, I was very proud the day we got that through, because it was a huge step forward for transparency and accountability.

Again, I put it to you, Monsieur Nadeau. Let's have a look at these recommendations.

In effect, then, Nicholson's new position is best seen as a form of legislative Calvinball. Having previously said he was eager to see what the committee had to say about Robert Marleau's recommendations, he's now claiming that the committee has to start again from square one by offering its response to a report which apparently gathered dust on a shelf for three years rather than being provided to the committee or anybody else. (Which in turn will presumably be met by a declaration that the committee shouldn't have wasted its time on such an outdated report.)

Of course, it's also worth pointing out that the committee is rather hamstrung in its ability to get down to the work now demanded by Nicholson as long as Stephen Harper keeps Parliament from sitting. Which is a point which Nicholson would want to raise with his boss if he had the slightest interest in actually getting work done to improve Canada's access to information system.

But I wouldn't expect that anytime soon. After all, in the meantime the Cons continue to be able to stonewall access requests due to a weak legislative scheme...and that's an outcome which doesn't trouble Nicholson in the slightest.

Again, the key point to take away from Nicholson's position is that he sees himself as entitled to tell a Parliamentary committee retroactively what reports it can and can't consider in developing recommendations - and to stymie any progress on one of his government's core campaign promises as long as he can point to some piece of Con paperwork that wasn't included. And the proper response from the committee will be to affirm the work it's already done and work toward getting it passed in Parliament - whether or not Nicholson is standing in the way.

Update/Edit: As anonymous notes in comments, the committee's composition has changed since the report was issued; the text above has been rewritten to take that into account.

Just so we're clear...

...in trying to look busy to avoid accountability for their decision to take a two-month holiday, the Cons couldn't come up with more than 13 audio-free seconds of footage of Harper and a few of his minions sitting around a table. And they couldn't even generate that much without prominently featuring Rob Nicholson looking directly into the camera and shifting uncomfortably.

Which raises obvious questions: how long did five senior cabinet ministers spend around the table trying to impersonate serious decision-makers? A half an hour? The better part of December? And what happened in the rest of the time to make this the best footage the Cons could come up with?

Update: In comments, Malcolm points out another highly unusual aspect of the "meeting":

The only kind of minister who briefs the PM without officials in tow is a stupid minister. If this was a real security briefing (as opposed to a method acting workshop?), there would be military, RCMP and Public Safety folk in the room.

Still irresponsible

As part of last week's developments on the Afghan detainee cover-up, the Cons have started using two new excuses for refusing to turn over the information demanded by Parliament. So while I'll note in another post today why it's pointless to spend much time answering the Cons' deflection tactics, I'll take a moment for now to note why neither the Canada Evidence Act nor the Privacy Act actually gives the Cons any excuse for continuing to hide the information.

Simply put, both of the statutes involved - like the Access to Information Act which I discussed earlier - create express ministerial responsibility for the decisions made surrounding information. Which means that anytime the Cons effectively claim that decisions about disclosing the information aren't theirs to make, they're hiding from their own job descriptions just as plainly as they're hiding the information from the public.

In the case of the Privacy Act, it's the head of a government department (i.e. the responsible minister) who's required by law to assess whether requested information should be disclosed - including under a public interest exemption (see section 8(1)(m)). Which means that any time a Con minister claims that the Privacy Act somehow ties his hands, he's deliberately abdicating his statutory responsibility.

In the case of the Canada Evidence Act, it's at best questionable whether the section relied on by the Cons even applies to the treatment of information generally as opposed to its handling within a specific judicial proceeding. But it's absolutely clear that any decision to certify information as "sensitive" or "potentially injurious" must be made by the Attorney General rather than by some group of anonymous staffers - and that the Attorney General also has explicit authority to allow information to be disclosed even if it meets those definitions.

So while the excuse has changed slightly, the story remains the same. As part of their cover-up on torture, Con cabinet ministers are both misleading the public about what their duties actually are, and falsely claiming that there's some legal reason why they can't release information about detainee treatment when they hold specific power to make that information public. And no matter how much (or how little) significance there is to what the Cons are keeping hidden, the fact that they're so eager to mislead Canadians about how and why they're hiding it should itself provide reason to consider the Cons unfit for public office.