Tag Archives: Private Members’ Business

Roundup: Mulcair’s PMB on the PBO

Posted on by

It seems that Thomas Mulcair will be putting forward a Private Member’s Bill after all – relating to strengthening the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Of course, Peggy Nash already has a similar bill tabled, so Mulcair’s will either have to be significantly different in order to meet the rules, or Nash will have to either withdraw hers or transfer it over to Mulcair (possibly by means of unanimous consent). They say that Mulcair’s will be different enough, but we’ll have to see what the committee in charge of these things says.

Well this is very interesting. It seems that the government approved two different sets of messages around its environmental reforms – one for First Nations, and another for industry, and no, they haven’t explained why there is that difference yet.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The use and abuse of Private Members’ Bills

Posted on by

Yesterday was an interesting day, in that three Private Members’ Bills dominated the political discourse. This, unfortunately, is becoming a more common occurrence, despite the fact that PMBs are intended to be small measures designed to correct oversights in existing legislation – part of the role of holding government to account. They are not supposed to cost money (lest they require a Royal Recommendation), and we should bear in mind that the role of backbenchers and opposition are to hold the government to account. It is further to be reminded that it’s the opposition’s job to oppose, and not to govern. Hence, it is the government’s job to govern, and in an adversarial system like ours, the opposition holds them to account. And with these facts in mind, let’s look at what happened.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Flaherty wants to stay put

Posted on by

Newsflash: Jim Flaherty says he wants to keep his job as Finance Minister until the budget is balanced, which likely means spring of 2015, in advance of a new election. While it’s unlikely that Harper will shuffle him out before he does his promised major re-shuffle a little closer to the next election, there have been some questions as to how long Flaherty will be sticking around as he’s been looking pretty tired and acting downright cranky the past couple of months.

Peter Kent is patting himself on the back for cancelling a proposed shallow gas infill project in Alberta, despite the fact that this was a decision that took seven years. Even more laughably, Kent is claiming the Orwellian-named “Responsible Resource Development” legislation from earlier this year as the reason for the cancellation – despite, as we mentioned, the fact that this has been a seven-year process.

As the government and the military continue to back away from the F-35s, General Tom Lawson now says the term “Fifth-generation” is unhelpful. Or should I say Fifth Generation™, since it’s a trademarked marketing term and not an actual description of capabilities.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Discovering the domain of private members’ bills

Posted on by

Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti has a private member’s bill up for debate that proposes a tax credit for domestic travel that crosses three provinces – in order to help Canadians discover their own country instead of always travelling south. He calls it the “Discover Your Canada Act,” and it is a laudable goal, as domestic travel is ridiculously expensive in this country but – and this is a very, very big but – it’s not the domain of a private member’s bill. In fact, it is so far outside of the domain of private members’ business that it demands expenditure – which tax credits are in effect – and expenditure requires a Royal Recommendation if it’s not government legislation. And this is not government legislation, nor will the government endorse this because we’re living in an era of “fiscal austerity,” and it’s not a boutique tax credit that will appeal enough to the supposed Tim Horton’s crowd. But seriously – MPs really need to knock off this foolishness of trying to make government policy from the opposition benches. Private members’ business has its place, but these kinds of stunts, while trying to capture the populist imagination, just end up looking ridiculous.

Update: I’m reliably informed that tax credits are a way of getting around the requirement for a Royal Recommendation – but that kind of technicality doesn’t mean that this is still the domain of private members’ business. My criticism of this kind of stunt stands.

Continue reading →