Tag Archives: Undermining Parliamentary Democracy

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: Scrutiny versus populist outrage

Posted on by

The government is backing another private members’ bill, this time about establishing a mandatory minimum sentence on kidnapping a person under 16 – despite the fact that a former Supreme Court justice calls this unnecessary and creating a more patchwork Criminal Code that increasingly is ad hoc and full of loopholes and inconsistencies. It’s like the government were going along with anything that sounded good without giving it proper thought or analysis. Oh, wait –that’s exactly what they’re doing. Who needs proper scrutiny when you’ve got populist outrage on your side?

Thomas Mulcair dismisses the premiers of Alberta, BC and Saskatchewan as “Harper’s messengers” when they go after him about his comments on the oil sands and our supposed “petro dollar.” Erm, okay. Because that makes sense. Paul Wells further dissects that particular line of thinking here.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Taking the omnibudget threat seriously

Posted on by

So, remember what I was saying yesterday about how the opposition – and the NDP in particular would be hammering away at the government in QP about the omnibus budget bill if they truly considered it to be the major priority and affront to democracy that it is? Well, it only took them until the end of the second round – a full 25 minutes into QP – to ask a pair of broad and general questions about the omnibus nature of the bill, and 38 minutes to ask a couple of substantive questions about a particularly troubling measure within it (and didn’t take the parliamentary secretary to task for her nonsense answer during the supplemental question, like they should have). Apparently this constitutes taking an existential threat to parliamentary democracy seriously.

What’s that? More problems with defence procurements that say they’re going to be one thing (in this case vehicular power transmission components) and turns out to be something else (13 armoured vehicles)? You don’t say! Meanwhile, the military says that Peter MacKay would have known the actual cost estimates of the Libya mission when he reported a much lower figure to parliament. I am shocked – shocked!

The RCMP Commissioner has sent warning letters out to provincial commissioners of firearms to warn against setting up backdoor long-gun registries. The problem of course is that he doesn’t exactly have the ability to meddle in provincial jurisdiction like he – and Vic Toews – would like to on this issue.

The Public Service Commission is investigating whether eleven employees were improperly hired at ACOA due to political interference.

Here’s a more in-depth look at the situation that MDA finds itself in while the government drags its feet on signing the contract for the next phase of the RADARSAT constellation.

Harper and his team continue to try and get Helena Guergis’ lawsuit against them dismissed.

The punitive measures that the Conservatives and NDP imposed on the Liberals around campaign financing retroactively on the 2006 leadership race continues to haunt some of the former contenders.

Here’s a bit of an explainer of what some of the latest “Pierre Poutine” revelations mean.

And Lisa Raitt talks about her battle with post-partum depression to help raise awareness of mental health.

A few observations on the procedural wrangling

Posted on by

The kinds of procedural wrangling to try and slow up or affect the omnibus budget implementation bill has started to split along party lines in the opposition, which lends itself to a few different observations, if I may. The NDP has decided that their tactic will be to try to move twenty different motions in twenty different committees to try and get those committees to study the portions of the bill relevant to their area of study, seeing as attempts to break up the bill have failed. After all, the government did agree to break-up pre-study of the bill over in the Senate to the various relevant committees, so why not in the Commons? The complicating factor there, of course, is that it has become standard operating procedure for the government to move any opposition motion in a committee to an in camera discussion, which shuts out the public, and then the government will use their majority to defeat it out of the public eye. The likely effect is to show that the government is being unreasonable, but that doesn’t touch the substance of the bill itself.

The Liberals have decided that since there are some 750 clauses in the bill, that they will move amendments to delete those clauses in report stage, after the bill has come back from the committee. That’s a whole lot of votes. Likewise, Green Party leader Elizabeth May has also decided that there are some 700 amendments that she can move at report stage, owing to her particular status, and she intends to fully exercise that right. Again, that could be some 700 votes in the Chamber. And both of these tactics address the substance of the bill.

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 →

The threat of a formal request

Posted on by

Nathan Cullen started off this week’s Monday Morning Sanctimony with a quote from Young Stephen Harper about the very undemocratic nature of omnibus bills, and how they prevent MPs from voting on individual issues. You know, just to establish who has the monopoly on virtue. Behind him were Guy Caron and Peggy Nash, and together, they outlined the NDP strategy for tackling the undemocratic monster that is the omnibus budget implementation bill.

They’re going to make a formal request to split it up into at least five separate bills.

A formal request you say? I think Stephen Harper just broke out in a sweat. He probably can’t believe they’ve escalated things to…making a formal request.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Begin budget implementation week

Posted on by

It’s budget implementation debate week in the Commons this week, as Second Reading debate moves ahead under time allocation. The CBC’s Kady O’Malley made a very good point on the weekend that Second Reading debate on this bill isn’t going to matter very much, because it’ll simply be parties reciting their support or outrage into the record, but rather it’ll be the committee where all of the important debate happens. Given that the government has less ability to invoke time allocation on committees, there is still a chance for some more scrutiny and debate to happen there – however they still do have a majority on the committees, so that will be limited nevertheless.

Speaking of committees, here’s a look at the dysfunction creeping into the committee system as a whole – not that anyone can agree as to the causes or solutions. Part of this soul-searching was triggered after Liberal Mauril Bélanger quit the official languages committee after 17 years. Conservative Michael Chong believes there are simply too many committees, so MPs are stretched too thin as they have to do double-duty and are unprepared, and that they do too many studies when not considering legislation. Others, like Ned Franks, think the committees are too large, and that this is part of the symptom of party leaders having too much power over their MPs that said committee members are too afraid to actually speak their minds or have confidence in the expertise they develop. And they’re probably all right, to varying degrees.

The government has signalled that they’re going to put their weight behind a Conservative private member’s bill on banning facemasks during riots. The NDP say they’re supportive in principle, but want some clarification that it won’t muddy the waters with other legal inconsistencies.

It appears that changes to the OAS weren’t in the Conservative platform, because the issue wasn’t discussed until after the election when public servants presented those changes as one of a number of options the government could look at when it comes to addressing the demographic crunch.

Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006 there has been a sharp decline in immigration applications from many Asian countries, due in part to tightening language restrictions. As immigrants can help be bridges between Canada and their countries of origin when it comes to business opportunities, the fact that the world economy is shifting toward Asia means that we could be losing out in the future if this trend continues.

Here’s a look at the examination of protocol at Heritage Committee last week.

And Joe Clark talks about the need for Canada’s foreign policy to innovate as more economic power and demographics shift toward the developing nations of China, India, Brazil, and even Mexico.