Harpers recent “I
make the rules” comment has seen quite a bit of attention this
week, one such article from Lawrence
Martin of the Globe
& Mail contained these suggestions:-
“A Bring
Back Democracy platform should start with reducing the powers of the
PM to something a tad less than Mussolini’s. It should
involve a restoration of checks and balances that give the word
democracy some meaning. Some examples:
Implement the
Gomery commission’s recommendations designed to set limits on
the PM’s control of everyone in Ottawa from chimney sweep to
deputy minister. In this vein, recreate an appointments commissioner
– a promise dropped by the Harper government – that
strips away the PM’s patronage powers.
Reduce the size of
both the Prime Minister’s Office and the Privy Council Office.
Re-establish the
integrity of the Access to Information process.
Dismantle the
government-wide vetting system that sees much of Ottawa officialdom
gagged unless given prior approval to speak by the PMO/PCO.
Restore some
semblance of power to the cabinet. A prime ministerial pledge not to
make pivotal decisions such as the ones on income trusts and
Québécois nation status without prior consultation
with that body would help.
Open the executive
branch of government to media scrutiny. This could include daily
press briefings at the Langevin Block, which houses the PMO and PCO
but is currently off limits to reporters. It should include frequent
open-ended press conferences by the PM.
Re-empower the
increasingly cheapened committee system, starting with having the
committees – not the PM – appoint their own chairs.
Reform Question
Period so as to reduce the level of farce. Required is an end to the
long run of Speakers who are not prepared to enforce the rules.
End the antiquated
convention that shrouds the decisions taken by the Governor-General
in total secrecy.”
He finishes by saying
-
“The heart
of the problem is that the roles of the different branches of
government are vaguely defined, leaving a power-hungry PM all kinds
of latitude to run roughshod over the system. The roles, as Mr.
Gomery has recommended, need be codified so that a meaningful system
of checks and balances can result.”
I entirely agree with
this sentiment and would add perhaps - End the misuse and abuse of
declaring non budgetary bills “matters of confidence”
and the “whipping” of our elected representatives to
vote enmass along party lines.
Part and parcel of any
parliamentary reform must indeed also focus upon the availability of
unbiased information to both our MPs and the general public.
Recently information commissioners, privacy commissioners and
ombudsmen from across Canada met and issued
a call for more open government. Specifically they
resolved that:-
1. The
Commissioners endorse and promote open government as a means to
enhance transparency and accountability which are essential features
of good governance and critical elements of an effective and robust
democracy.
2. The
Commissioners call on the federal and all provincial and territorial
governments to declare the importance of open government, including
specific commitments for stronger standards for transparency and
participation by the public.
3. Governments
should build access mechanisms into the design and implementation
stages of all new programs and services to facilitate and enhance
proactive disclosure of information.
4. Through ongoing
consultations with the public, governments should routinely identify
data sources and proactively disclose information in open,
accessible and reusable formats. Public access to information should
be provided free or at minimal cost.
Once again these
things seem pretty obvious to those of us who are concerned about
the ever decreasing “openness and accountability” and
the ever increasing lack of respect for the unwritten (and even the
“codified”) rules within our parliamentary democracy.
Will ANY of the partys currently represented in the HoC bring such
reforms forward, not a chance! Are there individual MPs and
potential MPs who would push for such changes, undoubtedly. We must
identify and elect such individuals without regard to party
affiliation and let our views be known to those MPs for whom the
“party line” comes before democracy if we are to ever
have this debate be taken seriously.
T/H to Bondpapers
and Impolitical
for bringing these articles to our attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment