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.

The meaning of a vote

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 11, 2012 at 12:02 PM - 0 Comments

Conservative backbencher Dan Albas is concerned that a Liberal MP is oversimplifying a vote he cast.

For as much as there is often talk in Ottawa about instilling a more civil and less political atmosphere particularly in committee work, the reality is that partisan politics continue to be alive and well in our Country’s capital. This morning York West MP Judy Sgro sent a letter in to a local newspaper editor criticizing my position in voting against a motion introduced by MP Sgro at the Status of Women Committee. I don’t have any issue with MP Sgro for taking me to task in voting against her motion. Likewise to raise the question on the issue and my position on it is also fair game. Where I do take issue is the inference from MP Sgro that I do not share her concerns simply because I disagreed with her proposal on how best to resolve them…

We certainly exercise our duties in different ways as is expected but it never occurred to me to suggest that someone does not care about an issue simply because they disagree with the best means to resolve a challenge.

Presumably Mr. Albas’ concern extends to interpreting votes against budget bills as votes against every measure contained therein.

Law-making made easier

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 11, 2012 at 9:06 AM - 0 Comments

Tonda MacCharles notes the government’s recent enthusiasm for private member’s bills.

Sponsored by backbenchers, not ministers, private member’s bills can make significant changes in areas of federal public policy, yet because they are drafted with the help of Library of Parliament counsel they do not go through the usual justice department scrutiny. They are not subjected to the department’s analysis for constitutionality, regulatory impact or cost versus benefit. Nor are they subject of memoranda to cabinet for consideration by the full ministry — a process that may flag important regional, departmental or political concerns.

The Star has learned that although the government is publicly backing the bills, it does not allow Department of Justice lawyers to appear to publicly testify about the constitutionality of those bills.

Here is the Library of Parliament’s list of private member’s bills that have been passed by Parliament, 235 in all since 1910. Since 2006, there have been five amendments made to the Criminal Code via private member’s business and a related amendment to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Three of those originated with Conservative backbenchers.

Twenty-seven private member’s bills passed during the last period of Liberal majority government (1994-2004). Only two of those were Criminal Code amendments. (Seven of them were for the purposes of renaming electoral ridings.)

Last year, Evan Sotiropoulos reviewed recent trends in private member’s business.

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.”

Where have you gone Gilles Duceppe?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 11:51 AM - 0 Comments

After a dust-up the day before over his failure to meet with a particular community group, Conservative MP Jacques Gourde rose before QP yesterday to complain that NDP MPs weren’t speaking enough French for his liking.

The orange wave is causing French to disappear from this House, and it is an insult to our identity as Quebeckers to see all the NDP MPs from Quebec debate and ask half their questions in English.

Apparently he misses the Bloc Quebecois.

“When the Bloc Quebecois was there, they asked all their questions in French and it brought a certain proportion of French in the House of Commons,” Gourde said.

‘No decision has been made’

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 11:33 AM - 0 Comments

If last night’s sketch did not sufficiently enlighten, the full transcript of last night’s inquiry into government’s defence policies—including the surrealist zen sentence that is this post’s title—is now online. Of all the exchanges contained therein, this was perhaps most entertaining.

Matthew Kellway: Madam Chair, that is two times the government made a decision to purchase the F-35 that we all know about. However, there is a third one, at least, that goes back to July 15, 2010. I know. I have seen pictures of the Minister of National Defence hopping in and out of the cockpit of the F-35 jet and announcing at a press conference on that very day that the government had made a decision to buy the F-35, 65 of them in fact. Could the government please confirm that actually happened?

Julian Fantino: Madam Chair, if I may again, I would like to remind the member that no decision has been taken. We are awaiting, as recommended by the Auditor General, the response to his concerns with regard to various issues. A secretariat has been put in place to develop independent response and validate those answers. No decision has been taken. I do not know how many more times I have to keep repeating that.

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 Commons: A long night of known unknowns

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 12:22 AM - 0 Comments

Sean Kilpatrick/CP Images

Less than 10 minutes into the evening, the NDP’s Jack Harris seemed to give up hope.

“I can see what kind of night this is going to be,” he sighed.

Mr. Harris stood here for the purposes of questioning the Minister of Defence and the Associate Minister of Defence, no less than four hours set aside for the purposes of scrutinizing the government’s policies and plans. The ministers in question—Peter MacKay and Julian Fantino—sat along the front row of the government side, each with a large binder of papers in front of them. With the two ministers sat Chris Alexander and Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretaries present and past, each with their own large binder of papers. And in front of the four Conservatives sat three officials, including the chief of defence staff, at a small table placed in the centre aisle, each official having arrived with a large binder of papers.

With so much paper present, the night had seemed so full of promise. Continue…

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.

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.

Sent to the whole

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 11:07 AM - 0 Comments

At the conclusion of regular business this evening, the House of Commons will set aside the mace and move into a committee of the whole to question Peter MacKay and Julian Fantino. Each May, the leader of the opposition is entitled to request that the estimates for two departments be referred to committee of the whole. The responsible ministers are then required to submit themselves to an interrogation lasting up to four hours.

The discussion needn’t be restricted to the spending plans of the given department. Here, for instance, is the 2010 session with Peter MacKay, which opened with questions about the handling of Afghan detainees.

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.

The Commons: Are Peter Kent’s answers being laundered?

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 5:53 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. To be fair to the environment minister, neither of the options presented to him by the NDP’s Megan Leslie were particularly worth choosing.

“Did the minister decide to hide the cost,” Ms. Leslie asked, “or is it that his government is simply incompetent and does not know how much it will cost?”

There was no right answer here. But then Peter Kent attempted to have it both ways anyway.

“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the commissioner that costing, as it becomes available, should be shared with both him and Parliament,” Mr. Kent conceded. “As for costing in advance of consultations with industry, for example, as we are with the oil and gas industry now, that would be premature and speculative.”

Indeed, Mr. Kent would never allow himself to be premature and speculative. At least as it pertains to anything other than the government’s targets for greenhouse gas reductions, of which, he later assured the House, his government will make good. How the Harper government will go about doing that remains to be explained. But of something that won’t be objectively determined for eight years, it is willing to claim certainty now.

And, to his credit, Mr. Kent is sure of at least one other thing: that Stephane Dion is not currently the Prime Minister of Canada. Continue…

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.

It’s hard out here for a comedian

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 9:10 AM - 0 Comments

After last week’s attempt at money-laundering humour, Peter Kent was mostly silent in Question Period yesterday, responding only to a question about Parks Canada. Three times the opposition asked about the Environment Minister’s use of the term “laundering” and three times it was National Revenue Minister Gail Shea who stood to respond.

Shortly before QP, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver pleaded innocence when asked about Mr. Kent’s comments.

“I haven’t used that term,” he said when asked whether he believes charities are essentially laundering money, “and I don’t believe people are being accused of criminal activity.”

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…

Case dismissed

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 7, 2012 at 3:51 PM - 0 Comments

Shortly after QP this afternoon, the Speaker dismissed Bob Rae’s question of privilege for wont of evidence.

The prepared text of the full ruling is below. 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.

‘An ornament to any Parliament’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 7, 2012 at 10:00 AM - 0 Comments

Gerald Caplan revisits last month’s odd revisiting of J.S. Woodsworth’s vote against World War II.

Repeating that war settles nothing, Mr. Woodsworth declared: “I rejoice that it is possible to say these things in a Canadian Parliament under British institutions. It would not be possible in Germany, I recognize that … and I want to maintain the very essence of our British institutions of real liberty. I believe that the only way to do it is by an appeal to the moral forces which are still resident among our people, and not by another resort to brute force.”

… In the end, addressing his own historic motion for war, the prime minister said: “There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament.”