“
I am no fan of hyperbole. The notion
that democracy in a safe, successful, wealthy country like Canada,
constitutionally dedicated to “peace, order, and good
government,” could be “in peril” may strike some
readers as over the top.” So
says Elizabeth May in an op-ed piece for the
Gulf
Islands Driftwood -, she goes on to point out that
she and a number of noted historians and constitutional experts do
not think that is an unreasonable statement, and that Ned Franks,
respected constitutional expert and professor emeritus at Queen’s
University, echoing (historian) Ron Wright, suggested our prime
minister should be referred to as “King Stephen I of Canada.”.
I fear both she and the good professor are correct
and the fact that “the majority of Canadians have said they
believe we directly elect our prime minister.” (we elect
individual members of parliament who may collectivity decide who is
the PM) is further proof of how deeply troubled our democracy is and
how little voters really know about our parliamentary system. She
also speaks of how the PMO is undermining what little say that those
who we DO elect really have by directing staff to evade subpoenas to
appear before House of Commons committees. Do read the full
article, the Green Party leader seems to be the only political leader
who shows any concern for the ongoing and ever increasing attacks
upon our democracy by 'King Stephen' and should be thanked and
supported in her quest to bring such misuse of power to our
attention.
This week there are several other items that
highlight the way in which the Harper regime shows it utter disdain
for a democracy where parliament and the public are, or at least
should be, fully informed and consulted in the process of determining
the future of our country and our people.
First up Kevin Page with his recent report to the
Commons Finance Committee when he appeared before committee Tuesday
he
said that in his 25 years in the public service,
no
government has used the umbrella of “cabinet
confidence” to hide tax data or justice legislation costs, and
reiterated that this lack of data means that Parliamentarians are
losing their control over the finances of the nation.
Whilst no transcript is available of his remarks
(that I can find) his speaking notes say
this:-
“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. In the recent past, Parliament was
asked to approve changes to crime legislation without financial
information or knowledge of monies set aside in the fiscal framework.
“
and
“The PBO also
wishes to note this Government provided Parliament details on
spending restraint by
department and
agency in 2006 prior to parliamentary approval of financial
authorities as did the previous government in 2005 on its expenditure
review exercise. This raises the question as to why the application
of Cabinet confidence with respect to restraint measures appears to
have changed in such a short period of time.
assumptions used to
translate the private sector economic forecasts into Finance Canada’s
fiscal projections.”
In other words the
government is now keeping secret some of the information needed by
the PBO to make accurate projections and thus for parliamentarians to
make an informed decision upon the state of the country's finances
and the suitability of the upcoming budget.
In times past —
not under the last government, but in any previous — a minister
who lied to Parliament, even once, would be gone, immediately: if not
out of any genuine sense of shame or remorse on the part of the
government, then certainly out of a sense that it could not afford to
be publicly associated with such deceitful behaviour. But this
government, and this Prime Minister, seem instead to be bent on
riding this out. They do not deny that she lied. But neither do they
acknowledge that she did. They simply do not address the issue at
all. Instead they make another point altogether: that the minister
was within her rights to overrule her bureaucrats. ............
The ingredients of
the Oda affair — bureaucrats as fall guys and ministers as
pawns — are evident throughout this government. And all stem
from the same source: a refusal to deal openly with the public, to
explain the reasons for its actions and take responsibility for them
— because to do so would require the government to concede that
its actions have reasons, an underlying
intent, a purpose, a philosophy, an ideology.
And the Harper government’s whole philosophy is to have no
philosophy, or none that it acknowledges.
I have said on these
pages before that whist I do not necessarily agree with this
governments agenda regarding legislation and finances it is not there
where my major concern lays. It is the MANNER in which these things
are done, as Andrew says “, with “secrecy, deception,
stonewalling and contempt for Parliament” and I might add
contempt for our Democracy and the Canadian Voters.
As noted at the top
Elizabeth May has been pointing this out for some time now and I now
see that Iggy is finally starting to make a
similar
connection between the Harper regimes actions and the
dangers to our democracy and parliamentary conventions. Whist Ms May
can , until and unless she gains a seat in parliament, do little
about that other than bring it to the publics attention, Iggy and the
rest of our parliamentarians CAN and MUST stop this insidious slide
towards the crowning of King Stephen.
Finally, a damning
piece about
how
the House of Commons actually works on a day to day basis
can be found at Macleans. This brief clip is but a small part of the
long 5 page essay that highlights how badly our whole system of
'debate' in the HoC and our governance needs to be brought up to
date and made more relevant.
“The last two years have been marked by
direct challenges to parliamentary authority: from last year’s
battles over detainee documents and the government’s rejection
of calls for political staff to testify before parliamentary
committees to a current squabble over the government’s refusal
to turn over technical information related to its own legislation.
But if the government is susceptible to charges of disrespect, the
opposition—divided and fearful—has not always functioned
as an effective check on authority.”
You can say that again -" the
opposition has not always functioned
as an effective check on authority.”
