Tag Archives: Undermining Parliamentary Democracy

Roundup: Candour versus transparency

Posted on by

The government announced yesterday that their proposed changes to the Access to Information Act won’t be coming as quickly as promised because they “wanted to get it right.” Now far be it for me to be completely cynical about this in asserting that they never intended to fulfil this promise, because I’m not entirely sure that’s the case, but I will also say that any Conservative crowing about how terrible the Liberals are for this delay *cough*Pierre Lemieux*cough* needs to give their head a shake because the Liberal have already made changes that far exceed what the Conservative did on this file. This all having been said, Howard Anglin makes some interesting points about this, and whether it’s desirable for them to go ahead with some of these changes.

https://twitter.com/howardanglin/status/844182132264132610

https://twitter.com/howardanglin/status/844184483490217984

https://twitter.com/howardanglin/status/844185101277655041

https://twitter.com/howardanglin/status/844186549914755072

https://twitter.com/howardanglin/status/844187699678339072

https://twitter.com/howardanglin/status/844188660614406147

https://twitter.com/howardanglin/status/844189822008745984

https://twitter.com/howardanglin/status/844191073643593728

https://twitter.com/howardanglin/status/844192062140436480

https://twitter.com/howardanglin/status/844193353554042880

https://twitter.com/howardanglin/status/844195515617046528

As much as my journalistic sensibilities want greater transparency, I also do feel a great deal of sympathy for the point about candour. Having too many things in the open has had an effect on the operation of parliament and times where parties could quietly meet and come to a decision with little fuss has turned into a great deal of political theatre instead (which is one reason why I’m wary of opening up the Board of Internal Economy too much). We want functional institutions, and that does require candour, and not all desires to keep that candour and ability to speak openly from being public is more than just a “culture of secrecy” – there is a deal of self-preservation involved. While it would be nice if we could wave a magic wand and the line by which this tension is resolved would be clearly demarcated lines, but that’s not going to happen. This is going to be muddled through the hard way.

Meanwhile, Susan Delacourt writes about that culture of secrecy that exists within the capital – an even within Cabinet jealously guarding information – and how it’s an ongoing fight to keep from letting that culture keep going unchallenged.

Continue reading →

QP: Just a discussion paper

Posted on by

As a lame anti-M-103 protest was taking place on the steps of the Centre Block, and procedural warfare happening in committee, MPs filed into the Commons for the grand inquest of the nation, pre-budget edition. Rona Ambrose led off, lamenting that the PM was looking to engage in a once-a-week only QP. Trudeau insisted that he was happy to be here, and took a dig at the previous government by saying his front bench was strong and he was demonstrating government by cabinet. Ambrose pressed, laying into Trudeau’s admiration for Chinese dictatorship and his fascination with Fidel Castro, but Trudeau noted that it was just a discussion paper that included a U.K.-style PMQ idea. On a third go-around, Trudeau shifted his response to the great things his government was doing for the middle class. Ambrose moved onto the size of the deficit, and Trudeau was able to retreat to his well-worn points about their middle-class tax cut. Ambrose lamented the possibility of cancelled tax breaks, and Trudeau responded with praise for his tax cuts and the Canada Child Benefit. Thomas Mulcair was up next, demanding lower taxes for small businesses, and Trudeau gave his usual points about helping the middle class. Mulcair railed about privatization, and Trudeau noted that he campaigned on investing in infrastructure while Mulcair committed only to balancing the books. Mulcair demanded that the loophole for stock option taxes be loophole, and Trudeau retreated behind his points about lowering taxes for the middle class. For his final question, Mulcair asked why charges were abandoned in a gangsterism trial, but Trudeau only offered generalities about confidence in the justice system.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/844255477177507841

Continue reading →

Roundup: Backbenchers already have jobs

Posted on by

There were a couple of competing tweet storms that went out yesterday – one from Alex Usher, who seems to think that maybe backbench MPs should consider their jobs to be part-time and take on a second job, and Emmett Macfarlane, who (correctly) thinks that idea is a bunch of bunkum.

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/843847448137252864

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/843847937264357376

https://twitter.com/EmmMacfarlane/status/843848254743891969

As Kady O’Malley points out, it’s not actually against the rules.

And hey, there’s even an academic study that shows that the public (at least in the UK) isn’t too keen on backbenchers taking on second jobs.

I’m going to assume that much of Usher’s position comes from ignorance, because let’s face it – most people, including most MPs, don’t know what an MP’s job description is supposed to be. (Hint: It’s holding the government to account). But because most MPs don’t know that’s their main job, many of them spend their days burning their time and energy doing things like writing up and promoting a dozen private members’ bills that will never see the light of day, or crusading for causes that are as much about getting their own face in the news than they are about helping those in need (or maybe I’m just cynical). The point, however, is that if Usher thinks MPs are bored and in need of something to do, I would suggest that those MPs should actually be doing their jobs, and if they’re actually doing it right, then they shouldn’t be bored. They especially shouldn’t be bored if they’re doing their jobs correctly and not just reading scripts into the record prepared by the leader’s office (and to be fair, there are a few MPs who don’t, even though they’ll still rely on prepared speeches). If we carry on with this path of making MPs obsolete by turning them into drones then sure, I can see Usher’s point, but the answer is not to let them take on outside work. The answer is for them to actually learn their own jobs and do them. Parliament would be vastly improved if that were actually the case.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Government vs opposition duties

Posted on by

While I’ve written on the topic before, comments made by Government House Leader Bardish Chagger on her tabled “discussion paper” on trying to make the House of Commons more “efficient” really rankled over the weekend. In particular, Chagger said the proposals were trying to find the balance between the government’s “duty to pass legislation and the opposition’s right to be heard.”

No. Just no. And here’s Philippe Lagassé to explain why.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/843115014227746816

The whole point of Parliament is not to ensure that government passes legislation. The point is to hold it to account, and that often means slowing it down and ensuring that it doesn’t overstep its bounds, which it is wont to do. Already it’s a problem that government backbenchers don’t do their duty and due diligence when it comes to keeping a check on the government – most are happy to toe the line in order to be considered for a cabinet post, which is a problem in and of itself, and we’ve seen this attitude of being “team players” amplify in the last number of years, particularly after the minority government years, when message discipline became paramount above all else, which is why I worry about how the backbenches will react to this proposition by the government. Will they willingly surrender their responsibilities of accountability because they want to be seen as being onside with Cabinet (particularly after the recent defeats of cabinet on those private members’ bills and Senate public bills?) Maybe.

What worries me more is the way that Chagger phrased the opposition’s “right to be heard.” We’re seeing increasingly that with this government and their insistence on constant broad consultations, they will listen, then go ahead with their original plans. I worry that this is how they are starting to feel about parliament – that they’ll hear the concerns of the opposition or the Senate, and then bully through regardless. Parliament is not a focus group to “consult” with, and I’m not sure that they’re quite getting that, particularly given Chagger’s statement. Accountability is not just politely listening, and the opposition is not there to just deliver an opposing viewpoint. There needs to be a tension and counter-balance, and right now I’m not sure that this government quite gets the need for that tension, particularly when they keep mouthing platitudes about working together collaboratively and whatnot. Then again, I’m not sure that the opposition necessarily gets the extent of their responsibilities either, which is depressing. Regardless, Chagger’s case for these reforms is built on a foundation of sand. Most should be fully opposed and defeated soundly for the sake of the very existential nature of our parliament.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A commissioner’s overreach

Posted on by

Forgive me for going super parliamentary wonk for a minute, but this Colby Cosh column in the National Post has me a bit inspired. The issue (and I suggest you read the piece first) is about how interim PC leader Ric McIver was fined by the province’s ethics commissioner for asking a question in QP that could be seen to relate to his wife’s business and basically asking the government for things that could benefit said business. It was later pointed out that only the Speaker can censure a member for things they’ve said, and McIver is launching a court challenge to that effect.

As an officer of parliament, can the commissioner punished an MLA when he’s protected by parliamentary privilege? I’m not actually sure that she can because typically such a commissioner’s ambit is the behaviour of a sitting member when it comes to things like accepting gifts, or ensuring that there are no conflicts of interests in dealings, but I have yet to hear a reasonable case why speech in the Chamber would be covered under that. After all, if he’s asking questions that relate to his wife’s business, then it should be the job of the government to point that out in their responses. This is why they have research departments, after all ­– to fight fire with fire when necessary. Having the premier point out that he seems to be asking for his wife’s benefit would likely embarrass him out of pressing the matter, no? No need for an independent officer of the assembly to step in there.

But I’m also bothered by the fact that this is going to a court challenge, because that’s straying awfully close to that line around interfering in the operations of the legislative branch of government, and parliaments are self-governing. That’s kind of the point – subjecting them to the courts would basically put the Queen back in charge of things, which is not what anyone is after. I’m not sure that a judge should be figuring out the rules of the assembly when it comes to the powers of the commissioner on their behalf. If there is a grey area around what the commissioner’s powers are, it should be up to the assembly – whom the office of the commissioner is a creature of – to make that determination. Anything less is unacceptable when it comes to the supremacy of parliament, which is kind of a big deal, especially when we’re seeing the Auditor General federally trying to over assert his own power in regards to the Senate. We don’t need a bad precedent being set in Alberta that would have terribly ricochet effects elsewhere in our confederation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Dragging in the GG

Posted on by

The performative outrage against Trudeau’s Castro comments reached a new low yesterday with the announcement that the Governor General would be attending the commemoration in Havana as the Canadian representative. Despite not being a leadership candidate (thus far), Conservative MP Michelle Rempel took to Twitter to perform some more outrage, and dropped these particular gems.

It wasn’t so much that my head exploded. More like a piece of my soul died in utter exasperation because I know for a fact that she knows better. Misrepresenting the role of the Governor General is a particularly terrible thing to do, particularly giving the impression that you can write to him (or worse, the Queen) and he’ll somehow override the Prime Minister and the government of the day for your own partisan benefit. No, it doesn’t work that way, and its antithetical to the entire foundation of our system of government. And giving your follows completely the wrong impression about how Responsible Government works for the sake of some temporary passing performative outrage for the issue of the day is particularly heinous because it poisons the well. And this is what trying to stir up populist outrage does – it poisons the well for all of politics, particularly when you misrepresent things for temporary advantage. I get that there is political theatre, and that in the age of social media you need to be performative to a degree, but for the love of all the gods on Olympus stop undermining the whole system. When you stir up this hornet’s nest, it will come and bite you just as much as it does the government of the day, and we will all be left with a giant mess like we’re seeing south of the border. This is not something we want to import or emulate, no matter how many points you think it will win you temporarily. Only madness lies along this path, and the damage is insidious and incalculable, particularly when it comes from people who actually know better. It’s not a game. Stop treating it like it is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Perverting the Westminster system

Posted on by

Amidst the various detritus floating out there of post-Brexit thinkpieces, one could blink and miss a pair of posts the Andrew Potter made yesterday, but let me state that it would be a mistake to do so. The first post was a response to another trolling post from someone else who stated that a Brexit vote would never have happened in the American system because of all of its various checks and balances. Potter, however, doesn’t rise to the bait in quite the way you would think, and instead looks at the ways in which Responsible Government in the UK has gone wrong of late, which led to this situation. Things like the referendum itself not being a usual parliamentary instrument, or the fixed-parliaments legislation, and the ways in which party leadership contests have done away with the usual accountability mechanisms on the leaders that are being elected rather than selected. In other words, it’s the perversions of the Westminster system that have caused the problems at hand, not the system itself that is to blame as the original trolling post would otherwise indicate. And for those of you who’ve been following my writing for a while, this is a recurring theme with me too (which you’ll see expounded upon in my book when it’s released next year) – that it’s the constant attempts to tinker with the system that wind up being the problem because we’ve been forgetting how the system is actually supposed to operate. If we left the system alone and used it the way it’s intended, we wouldn’t have these kinds of problems creeping in, forcing people to demand yet more tinkering reforms.

The second post from Potter is a continuation from an aside in the first piece, but it’s worth a read nevertheless because it’s a quick look at ways in which the changes that America needs to its system go beyond simple electoral reform, but rather a change to a Westminster-style parliamentary system rather than its current morass that more resembles a pre-Responsible Government reflection of the “balanced constitution” model that the UK was experimenting with at the time. One imagines that it would mean turning their president into a more figurehead role than also having him or her be the head of government as well as head of state as the office is now (this is the part that Potter glosses over), but the rest of the points stand – that a confidence-based system instead of term limits would allow its heads of government to burn out in a third term rather than create independent power bases that are then used for dynastic purposes (witness both the Bush and Clinton dynasties), that problems with things like Supreme Court appointments would rectify themselves, and that it would force reforms to their party system that would largely prevent the kind of outsider demagogue problem that we saw in the current election cycle with Trump and Sanders. It’s certainly thought provoking, and a timely defence of our parliamentary institutions as they are supposed to function.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A vote for support

Posted on by

We have the motion on the Order Paper now for the debate and eventual vote on the newly refocused mission in Syria and Iraq, and to the relief of those of us who care about things like Crown Prerogative and the powers of the executive, it’s crafted simply in the language of supporting the mission. This is critical, because asking for authorisation is a giant can of worms that nobody really should want to even contemplate opening, but even with this language, it’s going to cause headaches going forward. To recap, asking for authorization is something that launders the prerogative and thus the government’s accountability. When something goes wrong, they can shrug and say “the House voted for the mission,” and to varying degrees, the Harper government did this, particularly with relationship to Afghanistan. These non-binding votes are a rather unseemly bit of political theatre that purports to put the question to MPs – because apparently they need to have buy-in when we send our men and women in uniform into danger, or some such nonsense – and it gives parties like the NDP a chance to thump their chests about peacekeeping and pandering to pacifistic notions (and does anyone seriously buy that nobody is trying to stop the flow of money, arms and fighters to ISIS without Canada butting to the front of the line to finger-wag at them?), and parties like the Conservatives a chance to rail that they were doing so much more when they were in charge (when they weren’t), or when they were in charge, to pat themselves on the back for everything they were doing (when really, it tended to be a bare minimum at best, or a symbolic contribution at worst). Of course, all of this could be done with a simple take-note debate without a vote, which is how it should be, because a vote implies authorisation, and that’s how the NDP have read each and every vote in the past, and they will loudly remind everyone in QP and elsewhere about it. Trudeau has been trying to keep expectations measured by saying that they recognise the role of the executive in making these decisions – but he went and proposed a vote anyway, muddling the role of MPs in this situations like these. That role, to remind you, is to hold the government to account, so if you’re going to have a vote on a military mission, then one might as well make it a confidence vote because foreign policy and control of the military is at the heart of the Crown’s powers. (These authorisation votes that aren’t confidence measures are playing out in the UK right now, which is making a mess of their own system, for the record). Trudeau should have known better than to continue this pattern of confusion and left it at a take-note debate, like it should be. A vote, whether it’s an actual authorisation or just a declaration of support, only serves to make the waters murky, which we need our governments to stop doing before they do lasting harm to our system of Responsible Government.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151173568729088

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151589626966016

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698151991277723648

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698152397277917184

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698153619657461760

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/698154371541032961

Continue reading →

Roundup: Meddling in the committees

Posted on by

I mentioned this yesterday in passing, but I’m going to revisit it today, which is the way that the Liberals are handling the issue of parliamentary secretaries at committees. And yes, they have stuck by their promise not to put them on committees officially, and they have written into their rulebook on government accountability and transparency that these parliamentary secretaries won’t be able to vote on said committees either – but they’re still showing up to them, and that is a problem. We saw under the previous government what happened under the previous government, where the parliamentary secretaries were on the committee, and their designated PMO staffer – used to help them with their additional duties – basically ran the committees, telling them how to vote, what motions to put forward, etcetera. And thus, committees started behaving not like independent bodies designed to scrutinise bills or hold the government to account for its plans, but rather to act as branch plants of ministers’ offices. It was a terrible perversion of what our system is supposed to do. The Liberals, so keen to look like they’re not emulating the Harper government’s practices, are nevertheless de facto carrying them on. Just because the parliamentary secretary isn’t voting, they and their PMO staffer are still in the room, directing the government side, even if they happen to call it “advice” and “offering the resources of the Privy Council” and all of those happy, clappy words. And while on Procedure and House Affairs, David Christopherson shouts himself into an apoplectic frenzy over it, he really has little room to talk, considering how the centralisation of operations in the NDP in the previous parliament meant that they had their own staffers from the leaders’ offices directing their MPs, providing scripts for them in the committee, and the like. Seems to me that it’s not really helping MPs be independent or letting them do their work without interference either (but this is also what happens when you get a caucus full of accidental MPs who don’t know what they’re doing, and that lack of experience made it easier to condition them to behave as the leader’s office wanted for the duration of that parliament). With the number of newbie MPs on the Liberal benches, that temptation is certainly going to be there as well – that because they’re so new, they’re going to need a lot of guidance, and hey, who better to provide it than the parliamentary secretary? No. Just no. This kind of thing needs to stop, and the Liberals promised that they were going to be better than this. So far, that promise to be better is proving to be a bit of a shell game, optics that say openness and transparency and leaning away from centralisation, but the core of it remains. Time to keep the parliamentary secretaries from the committee room, unless they’re there to help the minister with testimony. Let’s restore our institutions to their proper functioning for a change.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Early committee shenanigans

Posted on by

The brief sitting of Parliament last week saw some committee shenanigans already underway, despite the new era of hope and optimism. Because of political considerations, as in not having enough members for official party status, the Bloc were denying unanimous consent to form new committees as they won’t have a voice on them. While they relented on the creation of the special joint committee on assisted dying – which they nevertheless still want a voice on even if they can’t vote – they continued to deny the formation of the Finance Committee, which means that it now can’t hold any pre-budget consultations. So while rules are the rules around who can sit on committees, and we were reminded when these tactics were going on that the Bloc themselves were adamant that they be followed to deny NDP and PC MPs seats on committees back in the nineties, times change apparently, and now they want to throw their weight around. As for the Liberals, they’ve already undermined their promise not to have parliamentary secretaries sit on committees by assigning the House Leader’s parliamentary secretary to the Procedure and House Affairs committee, but he insists that he won’t vote – just assist other members. That sounds suspiciously like the PMO still trying to bigfoot the committees, and exert undue influence on what should be independent operations that have a duty to hold government to account – something that becomes more difficult when you have a someone charged with assisting the government in the ranks. One hopes that they come to their senses and knock it off before things really get underway, but it is a disappointment that they are not living up to the spirit of that promise, if not the letter. (Also, Charlie Angus is lamenting the partisanship on committees? Has he looked in a mirror lately?)

Continue reading →