Captain Democracy

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM - 0 Comments

The Walrus wonders this month if Elizabeth May can rescue democracy in this country. According to Betteridge’s Law, the answer is no. But her approach to Parliament since arriving here is still worthy of consideration.

Here is her speech, delivered this morning, on the budget bill.

‘We may have reached the point where we are going too far’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM - 0 Comments

On the afternoon of January 26, 1971, Robert McCleave, the Progressive Conservative MP for Halifax-East Hants, rose on a point of order to complain about Bill C-207, the Government Organization Act. In Mr. McCleave’s opinion, the bill should not be read a second time, but rather be divided as it contained “at least seven distinct proposals or principles.”

I suggest to Your Honour that there is more than one proposal or principle involved in this bill, and therefore, having regard to the very ancient privilege of the House that members should not be asked to give simple answers to what are, in effect, several questions intermingled together, I ask Your Honour to take the position of ordering that the bill be divided when the vote comes so that honourable members have a chance to make a decision on each proposal.

A discussion—including contributions from revered parliamentarians Allan MacEachen and Stanley Knowles, among others—ensued. After various members had had their say, Speaker Lucien Lamoureux ruled. It was this ruling that Young Stephen Harper invoked when he objected to the Liberal government’s budget implementation act in 1994.

I’ve photocopied and scanned the debate and you can read it here. I’ve transcribed Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling below. Continue…

The battle at the environment committee

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 11, 2012 at 10:56 AM - 0 Comments

Yesterday the NDP attempted to move the budget bill debate to the environment committee. And they called on the government to let their motion be heard publicly. Megan Leslie tweets how that turned out.

I tried to move a motion to bring enviro parts of #omnibudget to enviro cttee. CPC prevented public mtg to stop me from even intro-ing.

Not only my motion was blocked: the public was banned from #ENVI cttee mtg MT @adrianp_james: I was sad when they kicked me out…

The Commons: Thomas Mulcair does his Stephen Harper impression

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 5:58 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Furrowing his brow and shaking his head, Thomas Mulcair performed what is apparently his impression of Stephen Harper circa 1994.

“I would argue that the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles,” Mr. Mulcair read aloud in a slightly different voice than the one he usually uses.

As a piece of performance art this perhaps left something to be desired—a silly wig might’ve aided the illusion—but as a general reminder that Stephen Harper used to oppose legislation of the sort Stephen Harper now employs, this at least seemed to accomplish Mr. Mulcair’s goal.

“What happened to those principles?” Mr. Mulcair wondered, switching to his own baritone to level the question.

Faced with the prospect of what he used to believe, Mr. Harper would use his quiet voice and beg for reason. “Mr. Speaker, the government’s economic action plan is indeed comprehensive,” he offered. “We are operating in a world with a very fragile global economy. The government is determined to take a range of actions necessary to create jobs and growth and to secure our prosperity in the long term.”

Here, then, an attempt to reclaim the high road. Continue…

Fighting the budget bill

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 1:55 PM - 0 Comments

The New Democrats say the battle will move next to the environment committee, where today Megan Leslie will move a motion that would have the committee study the relevant portions of the budget bill—one of 20 such motions the official opposition has presented at the committee. The New Democrats are also demanding that commitee proceedings happen in public and not be moved in camera.

Asked about efforts to delay the second reading vote on the budget bill—presently scheduled for Monday—Nathan Cullen’s response was “stay tuned.”

Separately, the Liberals are raising the possibility of fighting the bill clause-by-clause. The budget implementation act contains 750 clauses. After the bill has been sent back to the House from the finance committee, motions could be moved in the House to delete each of any number of those clauses.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth May plans to move amendments to the bill once it returns to the House for third reading. And, “given the length of the bill” and pending a Speaker’s ruling, she says she could have “potentially hundreds of amendments” to move.

Explaining the budget bill

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 12:12 PM - 0 Comments

Elizabeth May has compiled a breakdown of every change to environmental regulations contained in the budget bill.

“As more and more people are realizing, the Harper Conservatives have packed their so-called budget bill with lots of non-budget items in order to hide them from the public, and even confuse their elected representatives,” said May.  “I decided it was time to itemize the various bills, regulations, policies, and programs that will be affected.”

The Green Party has also set up a hub for information and news about C-38.

New Democrats have called a news conference for 1pm this afternoon to “outline the next steps the NDP will take to ensure better oversight of the government’s 400+ page omnibus Budget Implementation Bill.”

Unpacking the budget bill

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 9:33 AM - 0 Comments

Shawn McCarthy delves into the environmental regulation amendments.

Ministers will have new discretion to decide what gets reviewed by whom and the scope of those reviews, including whether a fish species is important enough to warrant consideration … The budget bill also targets environmental groups by eliminating their ability to address environmental-assessment hearings unless they are directly impacted by the project or have specialized knowledge sought by the panel.

Yesterday’s allotted day of debate was avoided, but debate is supposed to resume shortly after 10am this morning. Tuesday’s debate starts here and resumes here.

The games begin

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM - 0 Comments

Moments ago, after a recorded vote was compelled on a motion that “a member now be heard,” the NDP’s Yvon Godin stood in the House and spoke at length in regards to a committee report on “the snow crab industry in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.” Then Mr. Godin moved a motion to adjourn the House for the day. And now MPs are being called in for another recorded vote.

The Liberals have sent out a missive saying none of this will delay the actual second reading vote on the budget bill. (I’m trying to sort that question out.)

Meanwhile, there seems to be some dispute as to which MPs will be allowed to attend the finance committee meetings on the bill. Presuming the bill gets there at some point.

Update 4:54pm. Nathan Cullen spoke with reporters outside the House just before the first vote. He might have provided one clue to what’s going on here.

The way the procedure’s worked in the House is they’ve allocated days, not a date. The government can claim that the vote must come on Monday but that’s not the way that the instructions to Parliament work.

This might match one theory I’ve seen floated: that if the NDP can prevent today’s scheduled budget debate, they will push back the vote on the bill (by a day).

Update 4:59pm. More from Mr. Cullen’s scrum, this in regards to the dispute concerning the finance committee.

We also have an indication from government, as you’ll well remember, there was a promise made to allow associate members to sit on the Finance Committees, other experts that we have. For the first time we believe in parliamentary history, now the government is denying us that ability. So a promise that was made by the government to allow at least some measure of scrutiny over their budget bill has now been ripped up, we think for the first time in Canada’s history.  It’s inexcusable, anti-democratic and they had this motion from us two days ago. 

Update 5:07pm. With the Conservatives and Liberals voting against, the motion to adjourn has been defeated. The snow crab debate has resumed.

Update 5:12pm. The government moves that the debate be adjourned. A recorded vote has now been called for. It will be 30 minutes before that occurs, at which point it will be past 5:30pm, the time the House is scheduled to move on to other business. If the aforementioned theory is correct, the vote on C-38 will, as a result, have been pushed back a day.

Update 5:18pm. While we await the vote on the government motion, here is more of Mr. Cullen’s explanation for what is happening here.

It may sound strange but from opposition to government is a form of partnership. You try to have some conversations. You can agree on the actual substance but the form in which this government brought in they knew were wrong from the beginning. And it’s not me saying that. It’s every parliamentary expert that’s looked at the history of this country. It’s commentators from right across this country saying, while technically legal, it’s absolutely unethical for this government to do it. So let’s focus on how Parliament ought to work. Let’s focus on a government that if it had the courage of their convictions for each of these measures, be it unemployment insurance or be it on the environment they would introduce them as separate pieces of legislation. That was the reasonable offer that we gave to the government. They decided not to take that offer. That’s unfortunate. We now move on to secondary tactics and that’s also unfortunate…

Well, we have a series of options available to us.  We’re looking at each one. It’s limited power. We don’t make any pretence that it can go for months and years. That’s absolutely not true and we don’t pretend it to be true. But we’re trying to put a little water in the wine of the government and say you may have some technical powers here but there are still rights and privileges for MPs and the people we represent and the people we represent want to see a fair hearing of this bill and want the worst parts taken out. That’s our job. That should also be the job of the government. They’re not doing their job so we’re going to push back a little.

Update 5:46pm. The House has now moved on to the previously scheduled votes. Meanwhile, a comment from the government whip’s office in regards to the dispute over which MPs can participate in the finance committee hearings.

The NDP are free to substitute any member they want to have participate on the Finance committee or any subcommittee of the Finance committee.

Update 6:13pm. The government side still seems to think a vote on the budget is happening, as scheduled, on Monday night. But by having the debate start again tomorrow, instead of on Wednesday’s abbreviated schedule, there will be more time for debate.

Update 6:44pm. Peter Van Loan just rose on a point of order to say that the opposition day that had been scheduled for tomorrow has been rescheduled. That presumably clears the way for the House to debate the budget bill tomorrow.

No deal

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 1:43 PM - 0 Comments

Presumably saddening Young Stephen Harper, Peter Van Loan has announced the government’s intention to proceed as planned with the 452-page budget implementation act, declining to split it up as the NDP had requested.

After taking two questions, Mr. Van Loan took his leave and Nathan Cullen took control of the podium. “This is not a good day for democracy,” he said. Mr. Cullen said the government had been “inconsistent” in negotiations over the past day. He also claimed that the NDP had given commitments to the government that, however the bill would have been split, its ultimate passage would not have been delayed.

The NDP is apparently considering a “number of options” so far as the bill is concerned. Yesterday, New Democrats moved motions calling for studies of the bill at 15 committees. By the end of today, they will have apparently moved another five similar motions.

The Hill is alive with the sound of compromise?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM - 0 Comments

Though perhaps not to the official opposition’s satisfaction, the government will amend its immigration legislation.

Meanwhile, Government House leader Peter Van Loan has scheduled a news conference for 1pm to discuss the budget bill.

Looking for answers

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 10:30 AM - 0 Comments

Nearly a month ago, the Parliamentary Budget Office wrote to 83 departments of government seeking details of the cuts cited in this year’s budget. Today, the PBO reported back on the responses received so far.

On April 12, 2012, the PBO issued Information Request 0080 to all organizations affected by the spending reductions announced in Budget 2012. The data will be used to support parliamentarians’ consideration of the savings measures proposed in Budget 2012. Specifically, those aspects relating to planned allocation of savings on departmental program activities, personnel reductions, and service level impacts.

As of May 4, 2012, 8 departments have responded to the PBO’s request. Although this represents 9.64% of departments implicated in Budget 2012 savings measures, the responding departments are small and therefore this figure only represents 0.06% of the total savings measures and 0.61% of planned personnel reductions.

How many ways can you split a budget bill?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 10:49 PM - 0 Comments

The Canadian Press talks to Nathan Cullen.

“The prime minister today had an opportunity to say ’no’ and he didn’t,” Cullen said in an interview … Cullen said he’s been dealing with Van Loan on the issue and the House leader has seemed receptive. “I don’t get the sense that they’re just stringing us along. I think they are actually contemplating our offer.”

The New Democrats are apparently now proposing that the budget bill be split into five bills. The proposed text to separate the environmental regulation changes is here.

In 2010, Progressive Conservative Senator Lowell Murray proposed that that year’s 900-page implementation act be split into five pieces and an attempt was made to defeat certain pieces of the bill in Senate. But, with an election threatened, the Senate ultimately passed the bill in its entirety.

Still talking about debating the budget bill

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 5:27 PM - 0 Comments

I am reasonably assured that the Conservatives and New Democrats continue to discuss the possibility of splitting the budget bill. They have seemingly been talking all day.

The debate continues

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 10:36 AM - 0 Comments

Yesterday was the fourth day of debate for the budget bill. The discussion starts here and resumes here.

James Rajotte, Pierre Poilievre, Merv Tweed, Terrence Young, Daryl Kramp, Robert Sopuck, Wladyslaw Lion and Joy Smith spoke for the Conservative side. Ruth Ellen Brosseau, Andrew Cash, Francoise Boivin, Pierre-Luc Dusseault, Isabelle Morin and Robert Aubin spoke for the New Democrats. Scott Simms, Hedy Fry and John McCallum spoke for the Liberals.

With frequent questions from Elizabeth May throughout.

Why are cuts being made?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 10:15 AM - 0 Comments

In addition to lamenting the lack of transparency around the cuts, Scott Clark questions the reasoning for the Harper government’s budget cuts.

First, did the government cut spending because there was a fiscal crisis as there was in 1995? Apparently not, because there is no fiscal crisis. The government’s own numbers, provided in budget 2012, show that without the $5.2 billion in cuts, the deficit would still be eliminated over the medium term. The debt burden would fall, as would spending, as a share of GDP. Canada would continue to have the best fiscal performance in the G-7.

Second, did the government cut spending because they believed that the deficit contained a structural component that would not be eliminated without cuts? This has been a view of the PBO and 3dpolicy for some time, but it is a view that has been repeatedly rejected by the government. The government has continually shown medium-term forecasts in which the deficit disappears entirely as a result of economic growth.

C-38: read it and split

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

Elizabeth May reviews the budget bill.

I went over to one Conservative MP to inquire where he found the equivalency provisions and he pointed to the bill’s summary –  not a legislatively operative section. True, the summary section claims the processes must be equivalent, but the bill itself falls short of that or any other objective criteria. The provisions allowing for a provincial government to sign an agreement to substitute the federal environmental review with a provincial review are a strange combination of discretionary and mandatory language. 

Discretionary: “If the Minister is of the opinion that a process for assessing the environmental effects of designated projects that is followed by the government of a province…that has the powers, duties or functions in relation to an assessment of the environmental effects of a designated process would be an appropriate substitute (mandatory) the Minister must, on request of the province approve the substitution.” (Section 32, on page 51 of C-38.)

What would make the minister think it was “appropriate”?  “Appropriate” is not defined.  Maybe Environment Canada is short of cash?  Maybe the province is looking for a major development and wants it rubber-stamped quickly?  There is nothing to rule out an exercise of discretion without any ability to justify it as “equivalent.” Once the Minister has reached that conclusion and a province requests a substitution, there is a mandatory duty to pass over the federal role to the province.

In QP yesterday afternoon, Scott Brison asked the government to hold itself to the standards of the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, the budget bill completely rewrites Canada’s environment laws. In the Senate, Liberals asked that the bill be split up so that the relevant Senate committee could study it. The government actually agreed. Since the Conservatives agreed to break up the bloated bill for Senate committee study, why not the same for the elected House? Even better, and following the same logic, why will the Conservatives not break up the bill into separate pieces of legislation so we can not only study individually at committee but we can actually vote on each part? Why will the Conservative members of Parliament not do their job? Why will they not allow the members of Parliament on the other side to do their job?

The government’s initial reaction yesterday to the NDP’s proposal was fairly dismissive. But perhaps today’s meeting and yesterday’s development in the Senate suggest some chance for negotiation.

Can this baby be split?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 7, 2012 at 7:31 PM - 0 Comments

In regards to the budget bill, the NDP has proposed the following motion to the Conservatives.

“That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, clauses 52 to 67, 163 to 169, 315 to 325, 578 to 594 and 699, be removed from Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and do compose Bill C-38A; that Bill C-38A be deemed read a first time and be printed; that the order for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development of the said Bill be printed in the Order Paper; that Bill C-38 be reprinted as amended; and that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.”

Essentially, it would separate the environmental regulation changes from the budget bill to create a separate bill. The government side received the proposal this evening and a meeting between the two sides is scheduled for tomorrow.

Nathan Cullen seemed cautiously optimistic after QP this afternoon.

While the government was alluding and being quite negative towards our proposals in Question Period, the government did not say no. We sent an email just recently to the House Leader’s office suggesting that we’d be moving motions this afternoon. The government asked to see the language that we would be moving. We are now going to have a conversation with the government about what we’re proposing. Again, this is even happening in the Senate of all places.  Why it can’t happen in the House of Commons is beyond me. This is in fact good for the government’s own purposes. So let’s see if the government’s actually open to the idea. So until they say an outright no we’re going to continue to do the work that Canadians sent us to do.

The Commons: The budget bill blues

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 7, 2012 at 5:26 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Nathan Cullen held in his left hand the budget bill. Or at least a reasonably thick stack of papers that one might’ve presumed was the budget bill. Give or take a couple hundred pages.

“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have introduced a so-called budget more than 400 pages long, 70 acts, more than 753 clauses amended and one Parliament being asked to vote blind,” the NDP House leader lamented, “gutting environmental protections, ripping up the Fisheries Act and eliminating entire laws. Asking a single committee to review this bill would mean that it would not get the scrutiny that it deserves. Will Conservatives work with New Democrats, respect Parliament and agree to split the bill?”

This was now a contest of who could sound more reasonable. James Moore, leading the government side this day, opened his right hand as if to massage the nation’s collective shoulders. Continue…

Q&A: Peter Van Loan

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM - 0 Comments

Adrian Wyld/CP Images

The Government House leader and I sat down in his Centre Block office for a chat this morning immediately after the NDP had finished calling, mere steps away from his office, for the budget implementation act to be split.

Q: Let’s start with what just happened out there. The gist of it, I suppose, is that they’re going to propose to split the budget bill. Any initial reaction to that idea?

A: We’re implementing a budget. Hence we have a budget implementation bill.

Q: No interest then?

A: Well, I think we’re going to, at committee, have part out of it for a special committee, so that’ll allow a detailed study of different pieces.

Q: So it’s a non-starter then, would you say?

A: I think it’s important that we’re trying to focus on job creation, economic growth. At a time when that remains, certainly, our top priority and I think it remains very important for Canadians. I think we’re at a critical point where things can either keep going forward or start sliding back. And I think it’s critical that we do [keep going forward] and it’s important for the long term as well. Continue…

Split the bill

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 7, 2012 at 11:49 AM - 0 Comments

Seeking a conversation with the government side, the NDP will be presenting a motion to the House today that seeks to split the budget bill into some number of distinct bills.

Presuming the Conservatives reject this entreaty—probably a safe bet—we shall see whether the New Democrats have a Plan B.

Our troubled House

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 7, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

The New Democrats have called a news conference for 10:30am this morning to outline their “plan for ensuring a full study of the Conservative’s omnibus budget bill.” Thomas Mulcair mused this weekend of both “parliamentary” and “legal” options, while environmental groups are planning a national ad campaign.

Meanwhile, the committee system is already strained.

Franks says he’s long been worried about the excessive number of Commons committees. The whole point of the committee system is to allow a small group of MPs to develop expertise in certain areas and, hence, to provide meaningful, quasi-independent input on legislation and important issues of the day. That can’t happen if MPs don’t have time to learn the files.

… That said, Franks believes excessive partisanship is the bigger problem underlying the ineffectiveness of Canada’s committee system. And he doesn’t blame the Harper Conservatives for that, at least not exclusively … The root of the trouble, as Franks sees it, is the inordinate control party leaders in Canada exercise over their MPs, from their ability to dictate who may run in an election to their power to punish those who break ranks.

Mark Jarvis and Lori Turnbull consider how Parliament might be fixed.

See previously: Saving the House of Commons

Who here believes in democracy?

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 4, 2012 at 3:07 PM - 0 Comments

From QP this morning, Marc Garneau challenges the government backbench.

Marc Garneau: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Conservatives forced time allocation for the 18th time on a massive omnibus budget implementation plan. What a legacy, 18 time allocations in their first year as a majority. This is an incredible standard they are setting for this House of Commons. They are trying to prevent members from debating a 420 page document that amends or kills 70 Acts of Parliament. My question is for the backbenchers on that side of the House who surely campaigned in the last election to fight for democracy, why are they so silent now? Why are they–

Peter Van Loan: Madam Speaker, the priority of this government is job creation and economic growth. That is what economic action plan 2012 delivers. That is why we are proud that we have set aside for the debate on this bill more time than any other budget implementation bill in the last two decades, probably longer, but that is as far back as we went in our research. It is certainly a contrast with the party that the hon. member was part of when it was in government. The Liberals passed one budget implementation bill and they sent it to committee, limiting debate to three hours. We are happy to have this bill debated for the longest time in this House, because for once we want to hear members from that side talk about the economy. That is our priority.

Mr. Garneau continues his taunting online.

See previously: The Liberal standard

Day Two of the budget debate

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM - 0 Comments

Thursday’s budget debate began with a time allocation motion. Nathan Cullen, among others, was displeased and cited the Young Stephen Harper to support his displeasure.

There are 421 pages of complex and individual ideas now lumped together in an omnibus bill. If the government had the actual courage of its convictions and believed that these were right issues to debate and present to Canadians, it would not lump them all together: the rollback of OAS rights to Canadians, the devastation of pay equity rules that apply to federal contracts and a ripping up and destruction of environmental protections when it comes to major projects.

If the Conservatives used to believe that these distinct issues should stand on their own merit for debate so Canadians can understand what is being applied, why the change of heart, why the change of convictions now?

After the motion was approved by a vote of 145-122, debate of the bill resumed with Peter Kent speaking for the government side.

The Liberal standard

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 3, 2012 at 4:12 PM - 0 Comments

In justifying the time it is allowing for debate of its budget implementation act, the Harper government is deferring to the time allotted for debate for the Liberal government’s budget in 2005.

That Liberal budget apparently received 21.8 hours of debate in the House on second reading. Here is the bill as it was presented when it was first tabled in the House. In print format, it measures 128 pages.

Here is the budget implementation act that the Conservatives tabled last week. In print format, it measures 452 pages. It is apparently set to receive 28.5 hours of debate.

The Liberal bill received 0.1703125 hours per page. To match that standard, the Conservative bill would have to be debated for just under 77 hours (76.98125 hours to be precise).