On The Hill

While the media focuses much attention on daily Question Period exchanges in the House of Commons, much of the business of Parliament is carried out in committees. With only twelve members at the table, Commons committees tend to be a less formal and more cooperative place to write legislation right and study important issues. Generally, chairs of committees pride themselves on a spirit of non-partisanship. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s Office is trying to change all this.

Last week, the National Post revealed that Conservative committee chairs were given a 200 page manual on how to disrupt the work of Parliament. It recommends interrupting witnesses – Canadians who are invited to share their experience and expertise on the issue being discussed. It also suggests leaving unexpectedly to block work.

According to the manual, chairs should use their powers to “ensure that witnesses suggested by the Conservative Party of Canada are favourable to the government and ministry.” And procedural hints instruct chairs to always recognize a Conservative member right before a vote and “and let them speak as long as they wish,” which amounts to a stall tactic known as a filibuster.

For his part, the Conservative House Leader Jay Hill did not deny the strategy. He simply pointed out that the rules are there to be used by members from all parties. I suppose he did not think that Canadians would care how the rules are used.

Lately, Conservatives have resorted to tactics from the handbook whenever the witnesses were expected to point out shortcomings in the government’s plans. Nearly every committee has experienced some degree of obstruction by Conservative members.

In Official Languages Committee, Conservative Chair Guy Lauzon cancelled a meeting mere minutes before it was to begin. This stranded witnesses from Winnipeg who had flown out to testify on the Court Challenges program. Usually, if a chair is unable to come, a vice-chair will step in to run the meeting. The move was a deliberate attempt to avoid the issue of minority language rights.

In Access to Information Committee, members were trying to find out why the government censored a document about treatment of detainees in Afghanistan that should have been made public by the access-to-information law. A filibuster went on for more than five hours before a freelance journalist and a University of Ottawa professor were able to report that the government denied the existence of a human rights audit for months before releasing the censored version. A criminal investigation of the government actions may result.

Even in Environment Committee, where I sit, Conservative members have attempted to run out the clock on the spring session without hearing witnesses on the government’s ‘Turning the Corner’ plan to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollution. Given the Environment Minister’s rhetoric about it being ‘among the toughest in the world’, I would have expected the government to want us to study it carefully.