Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The shorter Parliament, the unscrutinized government

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, January 3, 2011 1:31pm - 46 Comments

As Ned Franks notes, Parliament’s 119-day sitting last year was in line with a steady decline that goes back decades—see my numbers here and Prof. Franks’ numbers here. At the time of the last prorogation, Parliament was due to sit for 136 days in 2010. If the government sticks to the current schedule for 2011, it will sit for 134 days.

Prof. Franks also points—as he did in July—to the current use of omnibus budget legislation.

They’ve also resorted more frequently to passing general enabling legislation, giving the government broad discretion to act in future without going back to Parliament for approval. The upshot is that the government evades scrutiny and Canadians are left in the dark about what their federal politicians are up to.

“I think there’s a problem there,” Franks said in an interview. ”I think in the long term government itself suffers because the bills that get through haven’t stood the test of parliamentary scrutiny . . . And so, we’re governed in ignorance.”

Tags: , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    "And so, we’re governed in ignorance.”

    Exactly.

    • Cats

      Um no.

      We win, you lose.

      Conservative Cats.

      • Emily

        A perfect example of ignorance, Cats…thank you.

        • Cats

          We win, you complain.

          Better ?

          Better Cats!

  • chet

    From the blogger who brought us 40 or so critical posts on a decision to shorten a mandatory FORTY page government questionaire,

    comes word that the government is "unscrutinized".

    You can't make this stuff up.

    You really can't.

    • TJCook

      Uh, chet… you seem to be talking about the census.

      You do know that the census doesn't provide scrutiny or accountability of the government, right?

      • John.K

        You do know…

        These are not words that spring to my mind when reading a post from Chet.

        • Cats

          Chet was 100% right.

          The decisions of this government are scrutinized to a ridiculous extent.

          Actually to the extent that they go outside the bounds of proper journalism to simply partisan attacks repeated ad nauseum by the press.

          Disgusted Cats!

          • TJCook

            Read the article: the point is that government actions (including the census decision) are increasingly taken without the scrutiny of Parliament.

          • hollinm

            So the government has no right to make a decision that is soley within their prevue eh. They must have the approval of all the opposition parties. Get real.

          • Holly Stick

            Parliament is supreme. If a minority PM wants to make a decision, he needs to persuade the majority of Parliament to agree with him. This is how the government of Canada works.

          • hollinm

            B.S. the government makes all kinds of appointments without the approval of parliament. The government changes regulations and procedures without the approval of parliament. If you think Parliament has to be consulted on everything you are sadly mistaken.
            There is only one party that is considered the government. It is not four parties trying to run the country. Although they are trying their damnest.

          • Cats

            Parliament doesn't have to pass these omnibus spending bills ya know ?

            Its not like they're appearing out of thin air.

            Lol Cats!

          • hollinm

            Its called advocacy journalism and our major papers are great at taking positions and then reporting them ad nauseum to ensure the maximum exposure to the public. One editorial on a subject is fine but when you get three and four thats advocacy journalism.

    • gottabesaid

      Actually, it was Ned Franks making the argument. One of those stupid, elitist professors, I know…

      • Cats

        IF he's not a Conservative then he's a member of the coalition.

        I have no interest in listening to a coalition professor parading as some kind of "non-partisan expert".

        Cats away!

        • TJCook

          Right – if it's not a Conservative, you don't hear a word anyone says.

          Your mind is closed and it shows in your posts here.

        • gottabesaid

          Wow, how wonderfully partisan of you. If he's not Conservative, he's crap. Wonderfully open minded.

          Oh, make sure you make no attempt to talk about how omnibus bills are great for democracy, or prove Ned wrong. Just write him off.

          • hollinm

            Heh, the power is in the hands of the opposition. If Harper is doing all the things you Libs think they should bring forward a vote of non confidence. Have the courage of your convictions. If they are not prepared to do then it is pure bafflegab.

          • gottabesaid

            Well, at least you're offering an argument…

          • Gary

            Sounded more like "checkmate"!

      • hollinm

        We all know what Ned Franks thinks about this Conservative government.

        • gottabesaid

          So he never has anything useful to say, because he's not on your team? Very reasonable.

  • chet

    The public gets "left in the dark".

    Unless of course, the media….well, um….reads the bill, and then reports on what's in it.

    Course, we all know whether Harper ate a communion wafer and other things of that nature was too distracting,

    and made reporting plain ol facts available in plain ol black and white, from a simple internet search,

    difficult, if not impossible.

    That dastardly Harper, keeping the media distracted with his communion shenanigans.

    Anti-democratic, if not despotic, that's what he is!

    • BCer in Mtl

      Its January 3rd, you really should be laying off the rum 'n' eggnog by now.

    • TimesArrow

      '…and made reporting plain ol facts available in plain ol black and white, from a simple internet search,

      difficult, if not impossible.'

      You're suggesting it's the failure of the media to get us the real story…how bout the degree of govt secrecy and general reluctance to share real policy details, in addition to an aversion to debate and parliamentary scrutiny, contributing to a gotcha mood in the media?…idle hands… The govt sets the tone here. In fact i'd say this govt in particular is quite happy seeing the media chasing will o'the wisps, rather then focus on their role as the publics eyes and ears.

      • chet

        Public bills are now "secret"?

        Harper IS devious.

        How'd they manage to figure out what was in it at this point? I supposed some sort of secret black ops were used (to get the "real story") by infiltrating the super secret CPC inner chamber where bills are now kept…along with their…gulp…hidden agenda.

        • TimesArrow

          So we have an open, collaborative, inclusive minority govt and a nasty suspicious scandal obsessed media by your lights do we? Boy have i ever not been paying attention.

      • Cats

        Lol the full contents of all these bills are published on the internet.

        Nothing is hidden or secret.

        LOL CATS!

        • TimesArrow

          It's the lack of scrutiny, consultation and right to amend and debate said bills that's in question…publishing on the internet and governing by decree suit you does it? not i!

          undemocratic cats!

      • hollinm

        Tell your buddies to vote non confidence instead of whining. They have the power. Its all in their hands. So until they put their money where their mouths are it is all b.s.

        • TimesArrow

          On the whole i agree that a certain lack of backbone, thinly disguised as pragmatism has enboldened the Harperites. Nevertheless you misunderstand the nature of Parliamentary democracy if all you think it amounts to is a popularity contest, which should be triggered at every turn of events by a vote of non confidence; abuse of process on the part of the gov't is just as deplorable as is political cowardice on the part of the opposition parties.

          • hollinm

            However, the rhetoric is so torqued that any legitimate opposition if they believe that the PM is a dictator, thwarting democracy, running roughshod over the system and whatever else they have accused the Conservative government etc. would feel it a duty to remove the government from power.
            It is illogical to the public to watch the opposition parties in their never ending accusations and hyperbole to continue to support the government. So they chalk it up to b.s.
            You, because you support one of the opposition parties may think its abuse of process but the fact is the PM and the government are using the tools that are available to them and any previous government. Harper has not given himself any new powers. This is a minority parliament and has been for five years. Most of the power is in the hands of the opposition and so the govenrment uses the tools it has available to it to manage the government.
            Remember it is the Canadian people who decide if a government is fit to govern, not the opposition parties.

          • BCer in Mtl

            Actually its the sitting members of the House of Commons that decide . . . unless the government, when faced by a real likelihood of defeat on non-confidence (not those phoney tactical instances when anything was deemed a confodence motion), turned their tails 'neath their legs and prorogued parliament after having sat for a total of less than a week.

            You lot always talk big, but at any hint of trouble, hit the "easy" button.

  • PoorDeadNed

    I've long thought that if Parliament wanted to be a serious institution (instead of the glorified-yet-dysfunctional Electoral College that it seems to be these days) they would allow MPs to have 2 or 3 voting deputies. This would allow MPs to have time to do the necessary facetime-with-voters without without holding up work in committees and whatnot. The way I see it the benefits are:

    1) More days and hours worked by Parliament/Committees allowing them to accomplish more and less superficial work.
    2) The possibility of MPs assigning deputies with expertise in something other than politics.

    I suspect the sad fact is that most MPs realize they have no real expertise (in anything other than politics) and no time to properly oversee anything so they let all real work be done by bureaucrats under the vague and incompetent supervision of Ministers.

    If we also neuter Party Leaders & Prime Ministers somehow (say make them short term appointments sort of like old time Roman Consuls) then we may achieve some sort of functional democracy.

    • sourstud

      You'd rather have our politicians out there playing more partisan politics and scouring for votes, while voters are being represented not by the person they elected, but by partisan appointees – thus effectively removing any need for said MP to be accountable to those who elected him? I agree that most MPs are not much more than empty suits/pant-suits, but I don't see this as a better alternative.

      • PoorDeadNed

        I guess what I'm saying, is that as a practical matter, politicians have to put most of their energy into getting elected and have little left for actually governing. So why not go with a system that takes that into account?

        In some ways the best you can hope for even at the PM/Minister level is that they know how to appoint smarter more specialized people and don't do too much damage themselves. My hope would be that if it's made clear that the MPs are 100% responsible for any official comments by their deputies, they'll put serious thought into selecting them. And it's not like it's hard to remotely supervise people in the modern world.

        For instance, say an MP has some interest in electoral reform, but little practical knowledge. They could join the relevant committee and appoint a PHD level type whose spent his whole career studying electoral systems. Presumably after various interviews/discussions.

        Or take science policy? How many MPs know science from Scientology? Would it not make more sense for an MP to interview science policy experts to sub for them? Would that not raise the level of debate? Bring more people into the policy process?

        I'm cynical enough to think politicians would find a way to screw this all up. But if they can't figure out how to hire competent people as MPs, perhaps the voters can keep them away from doing the same at the level of a Minister.

  • hollinm

    Perhaps somebody should tell Ignatieff that he is suppose to show up in Parliament when Parliament is sitting. His attendance record is dreadful and his lack of a voting record even worse.

    • Emily

      No, unless there is a confidence vote, or something requiring extraordinary consideration none of them are required to show up.

      • hollinm

        Give me a break. So you honestly believe that no MP particularly the leader of a party has an obligation to show when the people's business is being discussed. Obviously there is no law or rule but constituents expect their MPs to show up for work. I think you are still suffering from a Xmas hang over with a comment like this.
        You keep arguing for more accountability. What's the point? You don't believe anybody needs to show up.
        Since Ignatieff does not govern where is he when he doesn't show up. Talking to university students, town halls etc. Hardly doing business but promoting himself.

        • Emily

          They have other work to do hollinm…I dunno why you think they all need to be one room all the time.

          Don't Cons know anything about how govt works?

          • hollinm

            What do opposition MPs have to do Emily? Sit in committee hearings trying to create the lates scandal? You and I both know the expectation is MPs show up for Question Period. However, it is obvious from the camera angles that many of them skip Question Period including your illustrious leader. It shows dissrespect for the House and it shows their hyped rhetoric over prorogation was just that….plain unadulterated b.s.
            Once again when the House is sitting constituents expect to see their MPs participating.

          • Loraine Lamontagne

            As long as they don't create scandals over $1.29 receipt for pack of gum for which a reimbursement was never claimed nor given, yes opposition MPs should sit in committee hearings to question government actions.

            A leader of the Official Opposition has special obligations and earns more money than MPs. He must be ready to form government. The opposition must be given the opportunity to question government, hence no empty rhetoric over unncessary prorogation, whether they cease it or not.

  • Fido

    Government of the ignorant, by the ignorant, for the ignorant, shall triumph!

    –with apologies to Mr. Lincoln

  • Richard

    It's still sitting three times more frequently than the legislature in the Republic of Dannystan.

  • TimesArrow

    Did he top Ralph's 38 days, i think it was? [ 1997] Ralph was big on consultative democracy too!

Previous

Next

From Macleans