Some (More) Musings on Canadian Democracy

Let me get on my soap box so you can see me better.  I ask that you hold your questions until the end… I can’t promise to answer all your questions or comments but I can assure that I will read them and consider them…

Friends and neighbours, I’d like to speak for a bit on a subject very dear to me, a subject I feel is very important to all of us, the subject of Democracy.

Now I don’t plan on going into a long winded explanation of how we got Democracy from the Greeks or how it was used throughout the ages, I’m just going to touch upon Canadian Democracy.

Our Democracy.

I came across an item while I was looking for something else about how Members of Parliament, prior to the Second World War, were required to  surrender their seat in the House of Commons and run in a by-election if they were deemed worthy to be a member of Cabinet.

This intrigued me.  Imagine, after winning an election the newly minted Prime Minister comes to you and says “I’d like you to be my Minister of …” and then you’d have to decide whether you wanted to be in Cabinet. 

Today it would be a no brainer, a pay raise, a larger staff, a title, it all sounds good doesn’t it?  But back then you’d have to decide if you wanted the headaches and hassle of running again for the seat that you had just won, and the risk that you might lose.

Why would they do such a thing? 

It was tradition, it was the convention, it was done that way because that was the way it was done.

But this wasn’t some strange idea that Canadians dreamed up to complicate running a Country, it was in fact part of the Westminster Parliamentary system.  This was and is the system we inherited from Britain when we became a Country in our own right.

At that time, the Parties didn’t have as much control over the individual or Private Members of the House of Commons.  An MP’s job was to represent their constituency and to hold the Government to account.   The Government being the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. 

Now if you’ve ever watched Question Period from the House in London, you may have seen vestiges of this.  Occasionally a Member from the Government Side of the House will rise to ask a pointed question about policy or a proposed law which would not be a good thing for their home constituency.  As a Private Member, you have the ability to challenge the Government, as a Member of Cabinet, you do not.

You see as a Minister you are required to support any policy or legislation that the Government brings forward even if you think it is a bad idea, even if it is bad for your constituency.

So there was merit in having these by elections back then.  If the people supported Bob Brown because they thought he would do a good job of representing them even if he belonged to the wrong party, the people could toss Bob out and elect someone else if they didn’t like the Party he was affiliated with, the Government he would be representing.

But things certainly have changed.  At least here they have.

It certainly is a rare event to hear an MP stand up to his or her own Party.  It’s political suicide.  At best you’d likely lose any status you have built up with the Party and be a back bencher for life, and at worst you might have your seat taken away and a new candidate parachuted in to replace you.  Today you cannot run for the Party of your choice unless the leader of the Party signs your nomination papers so it is best to keep the leader happy if you want to be an MP.

So whatever happened to this odd rule?  Well after a number of minority governments in the 1920s, it just disappeared in the 1930s.

You see this wasn’t a law that you had to run in a by-election, it wasn’t even a real rule.  It was merely a convention, like saying “Thank you” or “You’re welcome”, you don’t Have to say these things, but we generally do anyway… it’s the way things are done. 

Many of the “rules” we have in our Parliamentary system are just conventions.  It’s part of the way our Democracy works.

Have you ever wondered why when the Speaker of the House is selected, they are escorted to the Speaker’s Chair by the leaders of the Government and the Opposition?  Have you ever wondered why they pretend they don’t want the job?

It’s part of the same thing.  Traditionally the Speaker was chosen from the Opposition side to weaken the Opposition and to show that the Speaker holds no favouritism to the Government.  The Speaker also surrenders their ability to speak for their constituents in the House.

The use of the prorogue is another example.  Traditionally the prorogue was used by the Government to show that they have met the goals they set out in the Throne Speech and to provide a break with which to draw up a new set of goals and a new Throne Speech.  Often a prorogue would be called when there is a normal break scheduled for the Legislature.  This would give the Government plenty of time to set a new agenda, but there are also examples of short breaks as well, such as a prorogue in Ontario’s Provincial Parliament that lasted only a few hours.

It’s kind of handy for historians too.  A prorogue can break up a Parliament into Sessions, so if you are looking for a specific item, you wouldn’t have 4 or 5 years worth of information to go through, but only 2 or 3.  You could look for the 42^nd Parliament, 2^nd Session for example.

However, the prorogue has also been abused, used as a “get out of trouble card” if a Government is having a bad go of it.

Jean Chrétien prorogued Parliament during the Sponsorship Scandal, but he was on his way out as Liberal leader and Paul Martin could very well have used the same tool to set his agenda as he was coming in to replace Chrétien.

Stephen Harper has also used the prorogue to get out of trouble twice so far.  Once when the opposition parties were lining up to bring down his minority government and then again when the Afghan detainee situation was threatening to boil over.  Lately Harper has said he will prorogue again this summer, he claims it is so he can set a new agenda but the Senate Scandal that is knocking at his door suggests other motives are at play.

Listen, as a people we have seen some great changes in our electoral system.  We have gone from a show of hands at a local beer hall to the secret ballot.  We have gone from a time when only men of wealth or property were the only ones who could vote to a time where virtually all citizens have the right to vote and there are not a lot of places that can say that.

But, while our electoral system has been improved, our governance has gone the other way.  Our individual MPs , our voices in the House are for the most part muzzled.  If you want to be more than a backbencher for your political career  you pretty much have to toe the Party line and that rings true for pretty much all the parties, but even more so for some.

I would love to see at least one backbencher on the Harper side of the House stand up and say "No" to limiting debate, to say "No" to omnibus legislation.

We need our MPs to have voices again and not just parrot the party line regardless which party is handing out the talking points.

So how do we do this?  I don’t know.

I don’t even know If we can do this. 

We have seen the gradual diminishment of the MP to the point where they are little more than place markers in the House of Commons.  After we find out how many seats each party won, we don’t need ‘em any more.

The power in Ottawa appears to be getting so concentrated that we may not even need a Cabinet any more other than to reward good MPs for reading their talking points and not being an embarrassment to the Government.  It seems all they do is read their talking points anyways, and that includes the Cabinet Ministers.

Short of pointy sticks or cattle prods, how do we remind our MPs that we sent them to Ottawa to represent us and not to just send us periodic reports on what a wonderful job their leader is (or would be) doing.

Maybe we should go back through the long forgotten conventions of our Parliamentary system and make them use them again, in the ways they are supposed to be used?  Maybe 39 by-elections for Cabinet appointments would make people wonder what the devil is going on in Ottawa?

So endeth the Rant for Today,

I appreciate your time.

Cheers! BC

Is Canadian Democracy Just School Yard Stuff?

I thought the Boss said we were some kind of a beacon of Democracy or something to that effect?

Dear Steve Harper:

Many of us thought that the hallmarks of Democracy were openness and transparency, but you’ve shown us how silly we are Steve, committees disappearing behind closed doors for in camera meetings, omnibus bills that have grown so large that we really only need to have you folk in Ottawa for a couple of weeks to vote on it then take the rest of the session off.

Does that sound familiar?  It should, it’s pretty much what you had to say after a Liberal omnibus bill a few years ago.  It seems you want everyone else to be transparent but not when it comes to government.  Or at least Your government…

Every time people try to find out what’s going on with Canada there are brick walls thrown up in their faces.  The treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, the cost of the F 35 jets that may or may not ever come to fruition, the list goes on, and on, and on…

Certainly not open or transparent by any stretch of the imagination.

But I guess the real irony is when you send your MPs to far off places to ensure they have open and fair elections, but when someone takes your people to task over Robocalls and voter suppression, well they clam up, drag their feet, and generally make asses of themselves.

From what I gather, no one in the Party speaks without clearance from the PMO.  Funny thing, we don’t get to vote on who is in the PMO do we?

And no one gets to ask questions without clearance from the PMO either?

It certainly looks like that.  You can correct me if I’m mistaken, but I heard that the Press Pool decided to give up one of their valued questions to a foreign correspondent from China, a fellow named Li Xue Jiang.  When Mr. Li stepped up to ask his question, your staff pulled the microphone away from him and when he had the temerity to try and grab the microphone back he was promptly wrestled away by four of your security detail. 

Thoughtfully, the Globe and Mail has the video here.

Way to show those commies how the leader of an open and democratic society handles inconvenient questions.  That’s sarcasm; I know it doesn’t always carry well in writing.

You want us to believe that you are in the “big leagues” internationally, but you’re not.  This is just school yard stuff being played out by someone who should know better.  Don’t like the question?  Don’t let the Chinese guy ask it.  (And have your minions drag him away) Too hot in Ottawa?  Just yell “Prorogue”!  That’s the parliamentary equivalent of picking up the ball and running away isn’t it?

We’re used to it here.  We’ve seen how you have acted for the last seven years.  Now you’ve gone and shown the world your management skills. 

By the way Steve, yelling “Prorogue” from Whitehorse, in the middle of the summer break is pretty much like yelling “I’m telling my mom” and running away.

School yard stuff, and the saddest part is how many people don’t care.

Laters, BC

Does Dalton McGuinty’s Prorogue Pass the Smell Test?

I may annoy some friends with my thoughts, but when I started to do these Blogs I promised myself that I would try not to be biased and would rant at anyone in government who I felt deserved it.

This week Dalton McGuinty ticked me off.

What did he do?  Like you really have to ask… He prorogued the Ontario Legislature.

Like many others, I joined Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament (CAPP) back when Stephen Harper decide to start using the prorogue as a “Get out of Trouble Free” card pulled from the Community Chest stack. I felt it was wrong to use the power of the prorogue to shut and lock the doors to the House of Commons just because the Opposition had him on the ropes.

And now Dalton has done it and I’m just as annoyed with him.

Traditionally when the leader of the Government prorogues the Legislature, it is simply to indicate that the Government has met the goals that they set out to do in their Throne Speech.  It is like a bookmark for historians so they can point at something that happened in say the Second Session of the 39^th Parliament or whatever.  Federally a session lasts about a year and usually ends with a break for the Parliamentarians, like the summer recess.  A prorogue.

An abuse occurs when the Government decides that it is getting too hot for them and they just want to lock the doors with everyone outside to air the House out and hope the heat goes with it.  It also shuts down Committees and kills everything on the agenda… including the item or items that are embarrassing the Government.

It seems to have worked for Stephen, now Dalton is going to try it too.

I can understand the reasoning… Dalton has a minority Government and he’s in a jam and wants to get around it.

So Dalton decides he’s had enough of being Premier, steps down as leader and prorogues the Legislature.  He says it is so the negotiations with the civil servants can go more smoothly, I don’t think so.  I think it is more likely to prevent the Opposition from forcing a vote of non-confidence and bringing down the Government while they are without a leader.  When a new leader is chosen, they’ll end the prorogue and deflect all the accusations by saying “I didn’t do it, he did.  I just brought the Legislature back.”

The PC leader Tim Hudak must be fuming.  How can he rail against Dalton’s prorogation without having Harper’s twin prorogues tossed back in his face?

Now, for the people who are outside of Ontario who are wondering why they should care…

Quite simply, our governments watch each other to see what works and what doesn’t.  I’ll admit that living here in Ontario, I was barely aware that British Columbia’s Legislature is shut down while Premier Christy Clark bails furiously trying to keep her Liberal Party afloat.

Don’t be surprised if your Legislature decides that a cooling off period is required when that government gets in a jam.

We in Ontario have seen the dreaded Omnibus Budget Bill raise its head here, following in the footsteps of the Harper Party who are trotting out yet another 400+ page behemoth Budget Bill… your turn will likely come soon.

So does Dalton’s prorogue pass the smell test?  Not from where I’m sitting.

And for all the Harper Apologists and Echoboxes that blather on about “Where are all the Lefties that cried out about Harper’s prorogues?” You’re looking at one of them here Sunshine.  What Harper did was wrong and what Dalton is doing is just as wrong.

As for the pundits who think Dalton is going to run for the Federal Liberal Leadership, I seriously doubt it.  Dalton fell on his sword to save his party.  The stink of this prorogue will follow him for a while.

Just for fun… The use of prorogation in Canada dates back to the first Parliament Federally.  In Ontario the first use of the prorogue was by Bill Davis, the patron saint of all Ontario conservatives and Harper Party loyalists.  Every Premier since has used it including Bob Rae and Mike Harris so all three Ontario Parties that have formed governments in Queens Park have done it.  Usually in the traditional manner.

‘Nuff said… If I never have to write the word prorogue again it will be too soon. Cheers, BC.