UPDATED: OppositionDayWatch: The government is not the least bit amused ...

Did I not tell y'all that this was going to be a knockdown drag-out fight over the power of parliament itself? Yes, I totally did. I'll keep you posted on the details, so check back for updates. 

UPDATE: After a short, supportive intervention from Judy Wasylycia-Leis, Irwin Cotler has taken over the floor, and is delivering a fairly categorical rebuttal of the contention that the House does not have the privilege to debate a matter of parliamentary privilege. Which, when you think of it, really is a bit of a fork in the eye of the institution. Also, can I just say -- once again -- how adorable it is when the Bloc Quebecois -- in this case, Claude Bachand -- lauds the wisdom of British parliamentary tradition? Because it just fills me with the Yuletide spirit. 

I should note, by the way, that I'm not sure how long the Speaker will mull the matter over before delivering his ruling; if he's going to find the motion in order, my suspicion is that he won't take long, but -- and I know I keep saying this, but I don't want anyone to mistake this for just another dilatory debate -- this actually is a pretty important issue. Fundamental, even.

AND WE HAVE A RULING: The motion is in order -- really, entirely so -- although the Speaker is a little disappointed that the committee couldn't deal with this itself. 

Okay, I'm going to keep an eye on the debate, and update this post with any ensuing questions, comments and observations. Feel free to pick up the discussion in the comments, but remember to check the original post now and then to see if I'm rambling on anew. 

UPDATE: Jim Abbott finds this motion "absolutely reprehensible," and claims that it will not only put Canadian troops at risk, but remove Canada's ability to be a citizen of the world. Yes, we're headed to become the next North Korea if the government is forced to turn over uncensored documents to elected officials. I know, I was a bit surprised too. 

SURPRISE CAMEO APPEARANCE UPDATE: Hey, look, it's Michael Ignatieff! With an amendment to his own motion, apparently, that includes characterizing the government's attitude towards redaction as one with "Soviet zeal." 

Okay, so apparently, Ignatieff is going to take this opportunity to recap the entire Afghan detainee transfer saga to date. He uses the "willful blindness" line, but makes the mistake of mentioning "human rights." To the Big Book of Slightly Out Of Context Lesser Evils Excerpts! 

Ignatieff's amendment, by the way, would add to the list of requests all documents referenced by the Chief of Defence Staff during yesterday's press conference, and "all other relevant documents." 

UPDATE: I believe this may be the first instance in which the government, in the form of its justice minister, Rob Nicholson, has grudgingly acknowledged that the Canada Evidence Act does not "directly" apply to parliamentary committees.  

Incidentally, you can also follow my more extemporaneous musings on twitter. 

Claude Bachand brings up the first (pre-Colvin) detainee-related hearing of the Afghanistan committee, wherein Judge Advocate General Ken Watkin somewhat confounded oppositions members by maintaining that solicitor-client privilege prevented him from answering a good chunk of their questions.  

Seriously, I can't recommend highly enough that y'all tune in for this debate if at all possible. If you aren't a parliamentary geek already, this may do the trick. The NDP's Paul Dewar just delivered what Former Colleague Coyne describes as "masterful" and Laurie Hawn, I'm sure, didn't really mean to reduce the entire controversy over possible torture of transferred detainees to "one Taliban got hit by a shoe." It's days like this when you find yourself dreading the start of Question Period, if only because the substance will almost certainly disappoint by comparison. 

You know, what with Nicholson claiming, as evidence of how cooperative the government has been, that it "ordered" witnesses to appear before committee, and Laurie Hawn challenging an opposition party to "release all documents" from the relevant period of time in which they were in power, I am starting to have some serious concerns over the level of understanding some cabinet ministers appear to have about the basics of parliamentary democracy. 

Ooh, Dosanjh is back and questioning Peter MacKay -- and yes, let's hope that he does a better job than at committee as far as keeping to the point -- over the apparent discrepancy in the level of redaction between the field notes as released to Amnesty and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, and that provided in unredacted format by the Chief of Defence Staff yesterday. You can see both here, courtesy of Former Colleague Wherry.