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

A lack of oversight

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, February 21, 2011 3:26pm - 38 Comments

Bea Vongdouangchanh looks at one of the primary gaps in the legislative process.

“There’s just a need for Parliamentarians to have more information as to what they’re signing off on, whether it’s appropriations or legislation,” said Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, who, at the House Finance Committee last Tuesday said that “there is genuine concern that Parliament is losing control of its fiduciary responsibilities of approving financial authorities of public monies as afforded in the Constitution.” Mr. Page has been trying to get information from the government on its analysis of crime legislation and even its plan for operational freezes in the federal public service only to be stymied by the Conservatives calling that information “Cabinet confidences.”

Tags: house of commons, Joe Comartin, Kevin Page, Ned Franks, Parliament

More by Aaron Wherry

Emily

Well, this is the gang that wanted smaller govt, remember?

Cats

As opposed to the last gang ?

The upward trajectory in spending started under Paul Martin.

Facts Cats.

Cats

Hey Cats what hilarious factual error did Emily make today ?

She said that 40% was a requirement for a majority government. I guess she forgot about the '97 election!

Facts Cats.

OriginalEmily1

I said it wasn't rare.

Literacy Emily.

Cats

Les Panderer · 4 hours ago
Canadians are very happy, nothing from Quebec! Keep it that way and Harper will end the corruption. Very rare for a Canadian Government to ever have a 40% approval. Report Reply -6 Vote up Vote down

Emily · 4 hours ago
LOL it's not rare, it's a requirement for a majority govt. We've had it many times before.

____

Stop digging Emily.

Fact check Cats.
OriginalEmily1

Ahh….now I can edit….great!
OriginalEmily1

I said it's not rare…now pay attention instead of playing games. I'm not interested.
Cats

Can you read ?

You said that 40% was a REQUIREMENT for a majority government.

A majority government occured in 1997 WITHOUT 40% support.

This is just sad. Why can't she admit she's wrong ? Why does she just keep digging and making it worse ?

Feeling Bad Cats.
OriginalEmily1

I didn't say it was law, Cats….I said it wasn't rare.

Go chase string…that's a better game for you.
Cats

You said it was a REQUIREMENT.

IE. A MAJORITY GOVERMENT ONLY HAPPENS IF A PARTY GETS 40% OR MORE SUPPORT.

But in 1997 that clearly was not the case.

It was a flub on your part. And you stubbornly refuse to take responsibility for it. As with so many other errors you have made.

This is just sad Cats.
OriginalEmily1

Cats, what is it about a chatsite that makes you think you're a crown attorney questioning a hostile witness with your version of the third degree?

This is casual conversation, it is not a legal brief….so you're wasting your time….and everyone elses…. concentrating on one word in a a paragraph of mine that you somehow disapprove of.

Most govts that get a majority have well over 40%. Depending on the disarray of the opposition they can do it with less.

It's been estimated that Harper will need to get 43% to do it.
Cats

Now you're saying something different.

I'm glad you've changed your tune when confronted with evidence proving you wrong.

Why it took this long is beyond me ? In the future you should listen to what others are saying and admit when you are wrong.

Anything over 38% is a majority for Harper provided its coming from Ontario.

Saying somebody needs 40% or 43% is just silly.

Facts Please Cats.
OriginalEmily1

No Cats, I'm not saying anything different than I said the first time.

I just tried to explain it so even a simple-minded cat could understand it.

Obviously I wasted my time.

You're a grand example of string theory though. Go play with one.
Cats

Oh jeez one step forward two steps back.

Here are your two statements, boiled down so a simple-minded YOU can understand them:

1. All majority governments require 40+%
2. Most majority governments require 40+%, sometimes less with a divided opposition.

TWO CLEARLY DIFFERENT STATEMENTS.

So what do you come out and say:

"I'm not saying anything different than I said the first time"

This is just painful. And sad.

Fact Checker Cats.
MostlyCivil

"Fact Checker Cats"

I swear, milk just sprayed out my nose. You owe me a keyboard.

OriginalEmily1

This isn't about spending, it's about not having things done properly or in order, or on time.

It's what happens when you have 'smaller govt'.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

The upward trajectory in spending started with John A Macdonald.

Holly Stick

That's Sir John A Macdonald to you. Hic!

TJCook

Wow – I actively follow the news and this was still an eye-opener.

The following financial details are hidden from Parliament and the public, under the guise of "cabinet confidence"

- Cost of the "Tough on Crime" legislation
- Plans for $300M in operational cost savings that are already baked into the 2011 budget
- Finance Dept projections of the cost of the corporate tax cuts

This is a perfect issue for the opposition. "Stephen Harper knows what this bill will cost, but he won't tell Parliament and he won't tell Canadians. We would fail in our duty to Canada if we voted for this bill without knowing the cost, yadda yadda…"

If all three opposition parties make it clear that they'll go to the mat, I think Harper will blink. And if he doesn't blink, then he'll have triggered an election to avoid revealing the cost of his own legislation. Only a truly terrible politician could fail to score a victory out of this, either small (force Harper to reveal the cost), or big (goad him into an election for an indefensible reason).

Cats

This information was released on friday.

Cats away!

OriginalEmily1

This is not a breaking news site, it's a blog.

And the govt always releases important items in a Friday news dump….after hours.
Holly Stick

For once Cats makes a relevant point. If the Conservatives release news on Friday before a long weekend, it's because they want people not to pay attention.

Holly Stick

So, Cats, provide a link.

Cats

Watch the news maybe ?

Power and Politics, Power Play.

They're on every week day.

Bye Cats.
Jan

Government's estimate – 650 million. Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimate – 5 billion. Who to believe?
Cats

Kevin Page just revised his budget estimates.

They'll come in 5 billion lower than the government predicted and 20 billion lower than HIS guess.

I don't believe a thing the guy says. Kevin Page is just WRONG on fiscal matters all the time.

Flaherty is RIGHT.

I'll stick with the government thanks.

Vindicated Cats.
Jan

Exposed In the committee the other day Toews is using the cost per inmate according to Corrections Canada which DOES NOT INCLUDE CAPITAL COSTS! This from the guy that gave us the G20 Security – 'we'll know what the costs are when it's over'. I'll stick with Kevin Page. And don't forget the government doesn't cooperate with him so if they have any problems with the numbers why don't they hand over their numbers for him to examine, By numbers, I mean the real ones.
lenny

Riiiight.
Apparently the average Canadian has a better grasp of the country's finances than Flaherty. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20080427/budget_…

chet

Of course, we must always be wary of certain left leaning authoritarian tendencies among some who would prefer to have "experts" and technocrats making the real decisions, and not our elected officials.

Many who are much smarter than I have written about a certain form of tyranny that comes with a smile – being "for your own good" and by an authority who decrees the "correct" type of society we are to live in, rather than a society we choose to live in.

A first step in such a tyranny comes from assuming decision makers just don't "understand" the "experts" else they would have made the "correct" policy decision, with ever greater control sought to be taken away from those who just aren't "smart" enough.

Matlock

Tyranny that dictates policy saying it's "for our own good"… such as blocking foreign investment such as BHP Billiton? It is "for our own good" to block foreign investment, eh?

I suggest you retake Macroeconomics 101. Or take it a first time.

By the way, still waiting to hear your rebuttal about how the Tories shortened the number of pages on the census. Last I checked, it's still 40 pages. Matter of fact, they've lengthened it. Instead of asking the second language questions of 20% of the population, they will now do so to 100% of the population. No questions have been removed.

I doubt you'll reply to this post. You tend to cut and run when someone comes back at you with actual facts.

chet

Of course the entire debate was about the MANDATORY portion of the census. That which is required by law to be filled out rather than a voluntary survey we get from time to time and usually throw away because we are just too busy.

I trust you are aware of the scrapping of the LONG form in favour of the SHORT form. Indeed that was the entire point of the debate….a debate (and a hotly disputed position by the conservatives) that your point appears to deny.

As for not responding, I'm assuming most readers appreciate the above (having read – incessantly- how the CPC scrapping the LONG FORM was horrid) and as such can also appreciate the inherent dishonesty in the point you are attempting to make.

Matlock

That answer was worse than a John Baird QP response. Didn't address a thing.

You've argued many times on these boards over the past months the Tories goal was to shorten the census. I'm telling you that's bull. It was 40 pages before and is 40 pages still. They didn't shorten a thing. Get off that talking point.

Beyond that, you know where I stand on the census. I posted many times on the technical deficiencies of a voluntary census last summer and fall.

At this point, I will only restate what I said the other month – the Tories have turned the census into a $600 million random number generator.

I have a $9.99 Casio calculator that can do the same thing.

If the Tories want to produce garbage statistics, I at least have a way to save them $599,999,990 in the process and be just as accurate as a voluntary census.

Mike T.

This why Chet, when feeling ill, performs surgery on himself rather than trust doctors!

Mike T.

Brain surgery, in fact :)

chet

Note that my above caution to be wary,

isn't necessarily a caution to be wary of Wherry,

though one would be excused if one made such an assumption, given the blog host's….ahem …political leanings,

it may be a good idea generally,

to be wary of Wherry.
JamesHalifax

It’s not really recommended you spill budget plans BEFORE the budget is announced…

It allows for an advantage in the marketplace for those unscrupulous types who may want to use the information……