SHAME ON THE LPC!!! Parliamentary democracy is more important than the LPC!

The LPC "cowers pathetically" in refusing to defend Canadian democracy!
Democracy, and thus in Canada, parliamentary democracy, belongs to all Canadians, is the foundation of our society, and is not any party's plaything. Lord knows all of them have mucked with it for their own ends. But given the epic struggle we had over the past year to defend democracy, parliamentary democracy, led by the LPC, to their credit, for once, I am outraged and ashamed the LPC would have sold it out, for little or no reason, as far as I can tell. And in being weak, they have exposed themselves to further attacks. So wrong, bad, and STUPID. Always be on the offence, ready to fight an election, rather than on defence. Prepare for war, and you shall have peace, or war on your terms, which is no bad thing. But the LPC were pathetic cowards and traitors to democracy by cravenly abstaining on this motion, moved by the NDP, supported by the Bloc, which was right on the money: In light of these matters, the Committee has reason to believe that a breach of privilege may have occurred. The Committee feels it is its duty to place these matters before the House at this time so that the House can take such steps as it considers appropriate.

Given all the LPC did, and fought for, this past year, it never even occurred to me they would sell out democracy - I took it for granted that whatever the diversity of views within the party, they had finally understood how fundamental an issue this is, and indeed, from apparatchik point of view, "a winner", and would do the right thing, without any further prodding. I really did. How can any parliamentarian NOT support such a motion, given the CPC behaviour? Resign your seats if you're not going to stand up for the principles and institutions of Canadian democracy, which give your role meaning. Because as of now, you're meaningless empty puppets. Siksay's comment is exact: '"We can't let this one slide," Siksay says -- if the committee "drops the ball" on this one, it will be dropping said ball for all committees, current and future, which is why he thinks it's something that must be followed up on.' As O'Malley rightly noted, "You know, I'm glad Szabo isn't still in the chair for this. He shouldn't have to see his party COWER PATHETICALLY".

Not good enough, LPC, and not good enough to moan about election timing, or feel guilty but what's done is done. Bring this back, by hook or by crook, PRONTO! As always, My Democracy Before My Party.
Read all the grisly details, via O'Malley, below.
3:34
Alright, there goes the gavel; Shawn Murphy begins by guiding everyone's eyes to the report from the agenda subcommittee, which we at the media table, sadly, don't have in front of us; it sounds like they're going to hear from the various and sundry commissioners -- privacy, information, lobbying -- in the next few weeks, although the dates haven't yet been set in stone (or, in this case, official committee issue paper). Anyway, with that out of the way, it's onto the Siksay motion, which the chair doesn't think merits two *full* hours of debate. He also isn't sure about committees calling witnesses to ask questions that could be out of order -- cabinet confidences, that sort of thing -- and really, he thinks the main issue is whether this is a matter of sufficiently public interest to refer it back to the House for further action. With that out of the way, he invites Siksay - the mover of the motion - to speak thereto.
3:36
Siksay gives a very, very quick recap of how we got here, and stresses the importance of the committee's mandate, as far as access to information. It *is* in its name, after all - and no, not like the word "ethics" in the title of a certain commissioner. This one counts.
3:41
Siksay spends some time delineating the -- awkwardness that emerged when staffers began failing to show up as invited/summonsed, not to mention the subsequent uninvited appearances by their respective ministers, who would then attempt to testify on their behalf. He notes that he thought they had reached a compromise when Ryan Sparrow turned up with his minister, Diane Finley, in tow; the chair ruled that she could not answer on his behalf, but was free to stay after he was excused, and consult with him before he answered questions. That precedence, alas, did not hold, and subsequent meetings degenerated into what I described at the time as reverse hostage situations, and Siksay -- well, he's just disappointed by how it all failed to work out. When witnesses ignore invitations and refuse summons, he notes, that's a very serious issue indeed -- and despite some complaints that the witnesses were "mistreated," he doesn't believe that was the case at all.
3:43
"We can't let this one slide," Siksay says -- if the committee "drops the ball" on this one, it will be dropping said ball for all committees, current and future, which is why he thinks it's something that must be followed up on.
3:47
Over to Carole Freeman, who notes that she and Siksay worked together on the motion. Why, that sounds like .. a coalition of two! She, however, thinks the motion may need clarification, starting with the "parallel system" of dealing with ATI requests. She hopes the Liberal party "remains in solidarity" with their opposition colleagues on this, if not, she will be very disappointed, particularly since it was the Liberals who initiated the investigation in the first place. Wow, she's really ratcheting up the pressure; I wish i could see Wayne Easter's face right now, especially when Freeman suggests that it would be an offence to the population -- Canadian and Quebec -- for them to do otherwise.
3:50
Speak of the devil -- here's Wayne Easter now, who begins by noting that he "basically agrees" with the facts of the motion, and that there has been an attempt by the government to subvert the will of parliament; that said, he wants to add a few observations to the motion itself. Tognieri, he recalls, admitted having broken the law during his testimony -- which was, of course, privileged, so it's not like he would face charges solely as a result of his words on the record. Tognieri also "implicated" Jillian Andrews, Easter says, and made reference to a role played by the prime minister's office, including advice from Issues Management to ministerial staff to be "vigilant" in monitoring access requests.
3:51
The real question, as far as Easter is concerned, is where the committee goes from here: back to the House to have the speaker rule, as was the case with the detainee documents? Or do they find "another approach," and see if there's "any good will on the part of the government" to "make the system work." Uh, is that a trick question?
3:54
Wow. Easter was actually serious with that last bit -- at least, as far as eating up time until he could announce that the minutes of the Procedure and House Affairs committee have been published, and lo and behold, there to his wondering eyes do behold that motion from Yasmin Ratansi to look at guidelines for testimony from exempt staffers. So basically, the Liberals are going to pretend that they're not caving like spineless jellyfish.
3:59
Eve Marie Thi Lac notes that she is, of course, disappointed by the Liberals' refusal to support the motion; the Procedure and House Affairs study, she notes, would have the committee report back next spring, and who knows if Parliament will even be sitting then, what with our proroguing prime minister. Freeman sniffs that this is evidence of a Conservative-Liberal coalition, which prompts muted snorts from the other side; this is "a very sad day," she says -- for democracy, as well as this committee. Once again, the Conservatives have been "saved" by the Liberals, she notes. "Praise be to God." This sends Mike Wallace into a fit of giggles, and the chair notes that no translation is necessary.
4:02
Poor Bill Siksay. He makes good points -- including the need to bring this matter to the House without delay, which is a darned good point -- privilege claims must be made at the earliest possible opportunity; you can't just save them up until you want to use them. They aren't markers, which is one of the *other* words that Liberals use to disguise the fact that they've capitulated on a point of principle once again.
4:05
You know, I'm glad Szabo isn't still in the chair for this. He shouldn't have to see his party cower pathetically behind limp excuses and breathless predictions about how much better it will be at PROC. Oh, and it turns out that they don't even have the guts to vote *against* the motion -- when the chair calls the vote, Easter and Bennett "pass." That's rather fitting, isn't it?
4:08
The motion fails, of course, and that's it for today's agenda. What, no Nigel Wright motion from Wayne Easter? Oh, apparently he wants it on the list for the next agenda subcommittee meeting. Good luck with that -- unless you think you can win the Conservatives over, you may have trouble finding friends around the table in future, because the Bloc and the NDP are *not* amused at all.