Tag Archives: Undermining Parliamentary Democracy

Roundup: Avoiding the House – again

Posted on by

Jim Flaherty will be delivering the fall economic update today – you know, while the House isn’t sitting. And he’ll be doing it in Fredericton. Which, as it so happens, is also not the House of Commons. Because, as this government’s history shows, they totally respect Parliament and what it stands for.

MPs are talking about how there will be a higher onus on Elections Canada during the next election to make sure that the kinds of errors creeping into the system – as demonstrated in the Etobicoke Centre case – don’t keep happening.

The Hill Times profiles parliamentarians who have military experience.

Continue reading →

QP: Democracy costs money! Oh noes!

Posted on by

With Harper off in India, and a number of other MPs back in their riding for Veterans’ Week activities, the Commons was a pretty sparse place, albeit not quite Friday sparse. Undeterred, Thomas Mulcair read off his first question about the extension of the deadline for the Nexen decision, to which John Baird, in his capacity as back-up PM du jour, mentioned that there were consultations going on as part of the complex decision making. Mulcair was up next, and asked quite simply who Baird would be consulting – but the cadence of the question was off, like he was still reading it off of a script he hadn’t previously read (though it was one of the rare moments when he spoke off-the-cuff in QP while not red-faced in anger). Baird, however, returned to his usual talking points about the “net benefit” test, and so on. Peggy Nash was up next and asked a pair of questions, in English and in French, about how in this time of fiscal austerity, Harper could have deigned to fly his own armoured limousines over to India. Toews responded that this was a judgement call by the RCMP, and he respected their decision. Bob Rae was then up for the Liberals, and in a rather impassioned display, wondered just what exactly changed on Friday that the government, which had been sitting on those Ashley Smith videos for five years, decided they now wanted to allow the investigation to proceed. Three times he tried to get the government to say something, to admit that they had been publicly embarrassed by those videos and had no choice but to let the investigation proceed unimpeded – but Baird simply resorted to the talking points about how they needed to do a better job of keeping people with mental illness out of prisons.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Entirely proper backbench complaints

Posted on by

Conservative backbencher Brent Rathgeber complained publicly about Bev Oda’s expenses, the use of cabinet minister limousines. “Oh noes! Harper can’t control his caucus!” We The Media, decry, when really we should be saying, “Hey, look – backbench MPs are doing their job and holding the executive to account!” It also emphasises how much of a problem Oda has become for Harper, and that she will need to be shuffled – if not out of Cabinet (and likely to a Senate seat or other patronage appointment), then certainly a major demotion to something innocuous like National Revenue.

Senator Patrick Brazeau, the youngest Senator in the Upper Chamber, has the lousiest attendance record over the past year. In fact, he was four days away from being fined for it. (Note that Senators have attendance taken and can be fined after too many absences, as compared to MPs who self-report attendance, and those reports are not made public). So what did Brazeau do? Call the journalist who wrote the story a bitch (and did, eventually, apologise). Because that’s class. You can read the Storified Twitter Machine exchange here.

In a speech at Queen’s University, former senator Lowell Murray decries the fact that PMO and PCO – the political and the civil service sides of the Prime Minister’s staff – has become one and the same, and that’s detrimental to parliamentary democracy.

Continue reading →

The sitting roundups

Posted on by

It being the last sitting day of the spring for the Commons, all three parties summoned the media to outline their particular versions of what happened the past few months.

20120621-134424.jpg

For the government, Peter Van Loan summoned us to the Foyer, where, along with Stephen Blaney to provide the French narrative, he outlined a simple message. “We got the job done.”

Continue reading →

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.