Tag Archives: Civic Literacy

Roundup: Pressuring the Clerk of the Privy Council

Posted on by

As his showdown with the federal government over details of the budget cuts intensifies, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, obtained a legal opinion from a respected constitutional lawyer to try to pressure the Clerk of the Privy Council to giving up the information he’s requested. Page says he doesn’t want to have to take the government to court to get the data because it means that basically he’s lost – he won’t get the information in time for it to be useable, but at the same time, it’s a battle he needs to wage before the government treats him and his office with further contempt. Of course, this is all related to the ongoing contempt the Conservatives have been showing to Parliament over their refusal to turn over any of the requested financial data, no matter that IT’S THE FIRST DUTY OF PARLIAMENT TO CONTROL THE PUBLIC PURSE. But who cares about MPs doing their own jobs when they can (try to) get the PBO to do it for them and fight their battles for them?

The NDP made one last effort to kill the omnibus budget bill with a “reasoned amendment” that it not move to third reading. Not surprisingly, it was voted down, and the bill is now on its way to the Senate.

Continue reading →

The omnibudget versus the role of the opposition

Posted on by

Amidst the anticipation and reaction to the Speaker’s rulings on the amendments for the omnibus budget bill yesterday, I was struck by the tone of the rhetoric being employed across the opposition benches, and how it varied from party to party. That tone was actually pretty instructive with how each party seems to consider its role as an opposition party.

First out of the gate this morning was Marc Garneau for the Liberals, who laid out why his party was prepared to vote on marathon amendments. When asked if all of these votes were a good use of Parliament’s time, considering that we all know how they’ll end up, Garneau gave an unequivocal yes. According to him, it is an effective use because it is holding the government to account. And while sure, the Liberals have offered to support the actual budget portions if the government hives off the four other sections of the bill (environment, fisheries, OAS and EI), it was with a firm tone.

Continue reading →

The actual cynical political games

Posted on by

All day, the Conservatives were sniping at other parties over “cynical partisan games” on two different bills. They not only accused Liberal senators of delaying the CP Rail back-to-work legislation (which they weren’t), and the NDP of deliberately delaying a private member’s bill on eliminating inter-provincial trade barriers on wine. The problem is, there were no actual games being played.

While Lisa Raitt railed against those awful Liberal senators, it turned out that it was the rules of the Senate, which mandates that 48 hours notice must be given before the Senate hears a bill. The bill passed the House at 1:30 in the morning, and the Senate sat at 13:30 in the afternoon. The leadership in the Senate met, and actually moved up the timetable to hear the bill on Thursday – a full twelve hours before they were obligated to. And they’ll be hearing from witnesses at Committee of the Whole, which is more than what happened in the Commons. But apparently that’s “obstruction.”

Continue reading →

As Wilks demonstrates, ignorance is democracy’s biggest danger

Posted on by

Its plaintive wail echoing through the halls of the Langevin Block, the independent thought alarm sounded earlier this morning, and something needed to be done. Young staffers in the PMO rushed into action, and by shortly after noon, the bilingual press release was out, and independent thought was quashed. In all, a good morning’s work.

What we are referring to was the musings that BC Conservative MP David Wilks would contemplate voting against the omnibus budget bill – provided that Canadians could convince twelve other Conservative MPs to also vote against the bill. That, of course, simply wouldn’t do. I mean, it was a bone-headed thing for Wilks to say considering it’s a confidence measure and finding twelve other Conservatives to revolt would actually cause the government to collapse – but there did seem to be a moment or two of worry that he might actually take a stand against his party – providing of course that he had enough cover with which to do so. But it was not to be.

Throughout all of this, however, runs a few more disturbing underlying currents, which really only come out in the videos of the constituents’ meeting that Wilks was just the sense of pervasive helplessness that individual MPs are imbued with. Wilks continued to insist throughout that as a single MP he couldn’t do anything, which is a) not true, and b) indicative of just how far we’ve fallen as a democracy. The degree of central control over individual MPs is reaching crisis proportions, and Wilks’ explanations for the way things work are a testament to that fact. Oh, and smug partisans and Kool-Aid drinkers of all stripes: this applies across the board. All parties are guilty of centralised messaging and levels of control, whether that’s the formal exercise of the whip or by quiet bullying and shaming if someone should dare deviate from the “united front” that they feel they must present.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Cutting legislative corners

Posted on by

Concerns have been raised that private members’ bills are creating laws with less rigorous scrutiny, and that the government is using this to cut corners. Which is pretty much a big “well, yeah – obviously.” Private members’ bills are not drafted with the assistance of the Department of Justice, but rather by some underpaid clerks in the Library of Parliament, and the time allotted for debate is really limited – two hours per stage in the Commons, and maybe two committee meetings. And yes, the government has been taking advantage of this fact, but for a number of reasons. Sometimes that advantage is tactical – if it’s a PMB and not a government bill, it’s open for a free vote so you can get some opposition MPs onside as they (normally) won’t be whipped on it. If those free votes can sow some division, as with the long-gun registry bill in the previous parliament, so much the better. Sometimes it is genuinely an idea from the backbenches that the government likes, which I suspect the masked rioter bill was after it tapped into some good old-fashioned populist outrage after incidents like the Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver. But this having been said, I doubt that it’s often being done for the sake of less oversight and debate considering the speed with which these bills proceed, and no, not every bill or motion from a government backbencher is a backdoor attempt by the government to do something (like the Woodworth abortion motion, so stop insisting that it is. Seriously – just stop). A large part of the problem, however, stems from the fact that MPs are conflating their own roles, and they like to think of themselves as American-style lawmakers, and certain opposition parties – like the NDP in particular – like to use their private members’ business to advance party goals rather than the personal policy hobbyhorses of their MPs, like PMBs are intended to do. We need to be mindful that MPs are not there make laws, but are rather to hold those who do to account, and that has been eroded. PMBs are supposed to be limited in scope and effect because it’s not an MP’s job to make laws.  When this role becomes conflated, problems like this one start creeping into the system.

Continue reading →

About the Hyer defection

Posted on by

Bruce Hyer’s decision to leave the NDP caucus yesterday – mere hours after Nathan Cullen crowed about how united and focused the party was – got me thinking about a few things, both when it comes to parliamentary democracy, and the state of the NDP in general.

Hyer, lamenting the “dysfunctional” state of parliament, gave the primary reason for his departure as the heavy hand of the whip. Specifically, on the issue of the long-gun registry, which Mulcair wants to bring back and said that he was going to whip the party on. Hyer bristled, said that this wasn’t party policy (which gives one real pause as to just how much power party leaders have accumulated when it comes to dictating policy, which is supposed to be the role of the membership). That may very well be true, and if the leader is using a three-line whip on an issue that is not party policy, then that is something the NDP has to resolve for themselves.

Continue reading →