Government programmes that allow their Crown Corporations to lend money are growing without any parliamentary oversight, and certainly no statutory review once these programmes have been in place, whether it’s student loans or business development loans. Now, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is sounding the alarm, because it’s one more way in which parliamentarians have lost control over the public purse and have little ability to hold the government to account for any of these loans that they are giving out. Add to the fact that they have already lost the ability to hold the government o account for any borrowing that the government does – they took that bit of oversight away a couple of years ago as part of an omnibus budget bill, despite it being a fundamental part of our Westminster democratic traditions, and now any borrowing simply requires a nod from cabinet – hardly an effective check on government’s financial decisions. Further add to that the fact that the government has been putting out budgets with no numbers in it, and Estimates not attached to any budget so that there is no comparison or examination of what’s in it in a fiscal perspective, and it all adds up to parliamentarians not doing their jobs, and being able to control the purse strings of the government of the day, making Parliament a shadow version of itself. This should alarm everybody in this country because this is the parliament that you’ve elected not doing their jobs.
Tag Archives: Undermining Parliamentary Democracy
Roundup: Baird bows out
In the wake of John Baird’s resignation from cabinet (and coming resignation as MP – in the “coming weeks,” likely so that a by-election won’t need to be called before the general election), there is plenty of reaction to go around. There hasn’t been a lot of genuine speculation as to the reasons for why now was the time to go, other than the obvious calendar reason that with the parties looking to get their nomination races squared away in advance of the election, that he would need to clear the way so that his riding association could find a new candidate and get them into place in time. It has also been pointed out that Baird has had a keen sense of timing, knowing when it was time to get out of the Ontario PC party as it was on its way down, and the same may be the case federally (despite Baird’s effusive praise during his resignation speech). More than that, it seems clear that he’s got a plan for a corporate position to head to, but he needs to ensure that he’s got the ethics clearances in place. And no, I really don’t think he has any ambitions to come back and pursue the party’s leadership as he never had such ambitions and was more than willing to play the loyal number two. John Geddes has a longer-form treatment of Baird’s career. Michael Den Tandt says the departure leaves a problem for the Conservatives in Ontario. Don Butler writes of his “two-faces,” both partisan and collegial. Matthew Fisher notes that while Baird travelled widely, he didn’t really seem to accomplish much, and that the department will be glad to see him gone. CBC has thirteen of the more memorable Baird quotes, and seven of his files as minister of foreign affairs. And post-speech, Harper gave Baird the first of many awkward bro-hugs that followed.
On behalf of all Canadians, I thank John @Baird for his years of tireless devotion to Canada. http://t.co/P6Vg5HzKhm pic.twitter.com/FtAZmypv6y
— Stephen Harper (@stephenharper) February 3, 2015
Roundup: Economic bluster
The mood of the moment on the Hill is economic bluster in the light of falling oil prices and a delayed budget – not that there wasn’t some bluster around the Iraq mission to go around either. The NDP announced early on that they want an immediate fiscal update, the subject of today’s opposition day motion – along with the demand to create a budget that suits their particular terms, naturally. The government, however, spent the day playing as if nothing is really wrong. Sure, they’ve lost some manoeuvring room, but they insisted that they will a) balance the budget, b) deliver on all of their promises, and c) not make any more cuts, though one presumes that means any more cuts on top of the continued austerity programme that their whole “surplus” was built on. They can’t really explain how this will happen, other than to use the $3 billion contingency fund, to which Oliver has started talking about how it’s there to be spent and it’ll just go on the bottom line (i.e. national debt payments) otherwise. I will make the additional observations that the NDP were trying to roll the Target layoffs into their lamentations of economic doom and demands for a “jobs programme,” the Liberals were more focused on getting the actual figures for the hole in the budget that the drop in oil prices created and pointed out that Oliver has the information and wasn’t sharing it. It was a noticeable distinction.
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/559804485556781058
https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/559804578800357376
Roundup: Voting attendance matters (Part II)
Following up on their report about MPs being absent from votes, the Ottawa Citizen tries to delve into the issue of just what happens to MPs who don’t show up. Usually, as these things go, the whips handle it and do so quietly. And if MPs don’t like what the whips have to tell them, then they have the option of walking – as it seems that Sana Hassainia did from the NDP. And as the numbers bear out, independent MPs with little incentive from party whips to show up, may just as well not. And that’s fine, really – if their constituents look at their voting records and see a whole lot of blanks, well, then they have a pretty good idea about what their MPs take to be a priority. What gets me is that the piece quotes the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation as saying that hey, MPs have plenty of jobs, and sometimes they’re more important than just standing up and sitting down. Except no – that’s one of the most important parts of being an MP, standing up for what they believe in, and being seen to do so, and being on the record for doing so. Voting is how things are decided in a democracy like ours, so when the people we send to make those decisions don’t bother to show up, well, it kinds of defeats the purpose. Despite the fantasy notions that people have about all the varied things an MP’s job is supposed to entail, it pretty much breaks down to holding the government to account, and the mechanism by which that happens is votes. It’s not rocket science. Making excuses for why MPs aren’t doing that job by voting – or having a good reason for why they’re not there to do so – doesn’t help the health of our system.
Roundup: Voting attendance matters
The Ottawa Citizen has been carrying on their look at MP attendance in its many forms, and this time turned to the voting records of ordinary MPs. The best ones tended to be Conservative MPs, while the worst were independent and Bloc MPs for the most part, though a few other exceptions were noted, in particular because those MPs were battling cancer (like Judy Foote and Peter Kent). One of the notables for terrible voter attendance was Sana Hassainia, an NDP-turned-independent whose reasons for leaving the party were apparently over the position on Israel, though there was backbiting at the time about her attendance. Hassainia’s issue is her small children – she’s had two since she became an MP, and since most votes tend to be around 5:30 in the evening three, sometimes four nights per week, she claims she can’t get childcare and has to miss them. That’s always one of those claims that bothers me because it’s not like these votes are surprises – they happen on a scheduled basis, so you would think that she would be able to better schedule childcare. As well, she’s not without means – she makes a lot of money as an MP, and has the wherewithal to hire a minder or a nanny who can accommodate those times when she’s needed to vote. And it doesn’t matter how engaged she says she is with her constituents – her job is to vote, and that means showing up to vote, and to stand up and be seen to be voting, which not only has symbolic import, but it’s also a time when MPs are actually all in the same place so contacts can be made, and she can engage with ministers on files she has concerns with because they’re right there. This is an important thing, and it should be considered nothing less than a dereliction of her duties if she can’t see that.
Roundup: 50 years, not six
Despite the government’s announcement of $200 million in new funds for veterans mental health over the next six years, digging into the documents shows that only $20 million of that will be spent over the next six years, while the remainder will be doled out over the next 50 or so years – until the last veteran with PTSD no longer requires the services. And cue the howls of outrage. I’m not sure why anyone is too surprised, as over-promising and woefully under-delivering has become this government’s forte – almost as much as re-announcing old money as though it were new funds several times over. This is no different, and the kind of indifference they are showing to the veteran community – despite campaigning on the banner of being great friends of the military – has been noticed, and it’s the subject of the Liberals’ latest series of ads, as they hope to use it as a wedge in the next election. Meanwhile, Julian Fantino has been absent from the whole affair over the past week as he’s been in Italy to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the end of the Italian Campaign in World War II.
Roundup: Assaulting the dignity of Parliament
It’s not the least bit surprising, but it should remain shocking every time it happens. Jim Flaherty announced yesterday that the fall economic update will be released next week, when the House is not sitting, and will be read in Edmonton and not the House of Commons. In other words, one more slap in the face to Parliament by a government that does its level best to devalue it at every opportunity. Because why not go for the cheap optics of a controlled message and release, instead of ensuring the dignity and sanctity of parliament are upheld.
Roundup: A feel-good committee for MPs
The NDP wants the Commons transport committee to meet over the summer to discuss rail safety and possibly hold a forum in Lac-Mégantic – you know, playing politics before the facts are known, drawing causal links but then quickly saying they’re not, and totally not trying to gain advantage from a tragedy. Yeah, it sounds like a brilliant idea, and one designed to simply make themselves look like they’re doing something about the tragedy. Fortunately, the Conservative chair of the committee seems to agree that such a move would be premature.
Roundup: The NDP get cute with the Senate
Because it seems that the NDP haven’t had their fill of amateurish stunts yet, they have decided to try to haul the Speaker of the Senate and the Leader of the Government in the Senate to a Commons committee to discuss the Senate’s budget allocations. Apparently they think that the Senate isn’t actually a separate institution of Parliament, but just an arm of the government. Err, except that it isn’t. Here’s the thing that the NDP doesn’t seem to be grasping – aside from the basic constitutional position that the Senate holds within our system of government – and that’s the fact that two can play that game. While the Senate may not be able to initiate money bills, they can certainly amend them, or hold them up in committee indefinitely. And if the NDP wants to get cute and try to make the Senate put on a little dog and pony show for the committee in order to justify their spending, well, the Senate can do the very same thing, and question the basic budget allocation for the Commons and MPs expenses. While the NDP might bring up the few cases of improper residency expenses and travel claims that took to the media spotlight a couple of months ago, Senators could do the very same thing, and in fact, have a better case than the MPs would. You see, the Senate’s expenses are far more transparent than those of the Commons. Senators submit their travel claims to quarterly reports, have their expense claims posted publicly, and even their attendance is recorded and publicly available. That’s how all of this came to light in the media – because journalists checked it out. (Well, a certain Senator who shall remain nameless also leaked a number of things because of internecine warfare, but that’s another story). But MPs are not subject to the same levels of public scrutiny that Senators are, and if the NDP really want to down this route, then I don’t see why the Senate shouldn’t call Speaker Scheer and the various party leaders before the Senate’s national finance committee to justify their own expenditures. After all, they’re not public, and these are public funds that they’re expecting to spend, so it would be in the interest of sober second thought that these Senators very closely examine this spending and ensure that it’s in the public interest for the Commons to get these allocations. And it was only a couple of years ago that improper housing claims by a number of MPs were brought to light, and well, the Senate may need to ensure that this kind of thing isn’t going on again. You know, for the sake of the public. You see where I’m going with this? There’s a word that the NDP should learn – it’s “bicameralism.” They may not like it, but it exists for a very good reason, and they should educate themselves before they decide they want to get cute.
Roundup: Beware those scary policy proposals
As the NDP policy convention draws closer, Jim Flaherty sends out a scathing missive about the negative economic impact of their proposals. But this totally isn’t a way to distract everyone from the assault that Flaherty is under for things like the “iPod tax” debacle or anything, right? (Speaking of, the Finance department is doubling down on its insistence that there’s no tariff on MP3 players – despite the all evidence to the contrary). Economist Stephen Gordon takes issue with some of the NDP’s underlying misunderstanding of profit in the modern economy – which they are largely against in their constitutional preamble – and how profit benefits everyone, especially those who live on investment income, such as pensions. The party also looks set to release a “get to know Thomas Mulcair” video at the convention as part of the new charm offensive to head off Justin-mania that is about to sweep the nation.