PARLIAMENT HILL—The speed at which the government has rammed major bills through Parliament since Prime Minister Stephen Harper won his majority suggests the Conservatives are in “revenge” mode following futile battles against the opposition in the previous minority Parliament, a leading critic of Parliamentary affairs says. And opposition MPs say the juggernaut shows the Conservatives, out of majority power so long before Mr. Harper engineered control over Parliament, dominating both the Senate and the Commons, are simply “angry.”An uproar ensued in the House Wednesday after the government served notice Tuesday it plans to use time allocation for the 17th and 18th time since lsat September, to cut short debate on Bill C-11, the copyright legislation that has sparked a pitched battle over digital access and internet downloading rights.
“The Harper government’s percentage of bills getting through has been as low as you can pretty well get in the previous Parliaments, the minority ones,” Queen’s University political science professor Ned Franks told The Hill Times.
“It seems to me they’re just getting their revenge back on the opposition parties,” he said Wednesday in response to Government House Leader Peter Van Loan (York-Simcoe, Ont.) serving notice of debate limits on the copyright legislation.
When opposition MPs protested Mr. Van Loan’s motion to put the time restriction in effect for the final two stages of debate on the bill, Mr. Van Loan said that most of the bills, or their main provisions, had already been debated in the last Parliament prior to the 2011 federal election.
"This bill has already been the subject of 75 speeches in this House and an opposition motion to block it from ever getting to second reading. In the previous Parliament, by contrast, the identical bill was sent to committee after only seven hours of constructive debate," Mr. Van Loan said on Tuesday when moving the motion to invoke time allocation. "I have made considerable efforts to get an agreement to send this bill to committee, but the official opposition will not commit to any reasonable, cooperative approach."
He said Wednesday that the opposition parties have demonstrated they intend to delay legislation they oppose with amendment procedures and other motions and argued without government debate limits Canada’s Parliament would be locked in U.S.-style legislative “gridlock.” The motion, to limit debate to a further two days at second reading, passed.
The eruption after Mr. Van Loan moved his time allocation—called the “guillotine” in Parliament’s standing-order reference manual—brought to the surface tension that has been building in Parliament, in only two weeks following the winter recess.
NDP MP Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay, Ont.) and Liberal MP John McCallum (Markham, Ont.) pointed out, despite the government’s claim it is using time allocation on legislation that was debated extensively in the last Parliament, Mr. Van Loan also imposed the debate limit on legislation that has not been debated before: Bill C-25, the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, that would implement a system allowing pooled pension funds for private-sector workers who have no company pension plan.
“I’ve never seen people with such a big chip on their shoulder now that they’ve got a majority government,” Mr. Angus said. “They’re outraged at questions. They seem to take every question as a personal slight and an attack.”
Mr. Angus said the NDP had two MPs speak on Bill C-25 and the government moved the time allocation. “That’s outrageous,” he said. “I’d be actually surprised that this place is open in two years. I’m serious. They’re getting progressively angrier and angrier at anybody questioning them.”
Prof. Franks said from his years of watching Parliament, no previous government has used time allocation at the rate of Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and his Conservatives.
“He’s probably going to set a record, that’s for sure,” Prof. Franks said.
The House of Commons source for the history of time allocation, the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons, indicates that if the government stays on track, its current rate of time allocation is several times that of recent Liberal and Conservative governments.
The last Conservative government of former prime minister Brian Mulroney used time allocation 30 times over three years from 1988 to 1993, while the Liberal government of former prime minister Jean Chrétien used it 30 times through his final term, over three years. Former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin used time allocation only 14 times during his only majority government term, from 2003 to 2004.
Mr. McCallum also referred to the pooled-pension legislation, arguing it was ironic the government limited debate on that bill after the country-wide controversy Mr. Harper began with warnings the government might reduce Old Age Security pension payments for seniors.
“My assessment is that they are angry by nature,” Mr. McCallum said. “A sensible majority government can get things done, not in a huge rush all the time, but can be a bit more laid back, a bit more friendly. They seem to be still in minority government mode, when everything is partisan, everything is totally angry, and I think they have some sort of obsession with controlling information.”
Prof. Franks said the government is undermining the chief purpose of legislative debate. He said while committee work is the main workshop where MPs learn the implications of legislative measures, debate is intended to inform Canadian citizens as well as the government, in terms of areas it had not considered.
“They have to bear in mind, at least I hope they will bear in mind at some point, that the purpose of Parliament isn’t to pass the government’s legislation, it’s to debate legislation, educate the public and perhaps influence the government and if there are flaws in the legislation, to point them out,” Prof. Franks said.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.) told The Hill Times time allocation has unfairly squeezed out the Bloc Québécois and her party because they don't have official status as parties in the House.
“After a couple of rotations it comes to a spot that either goes to me or to a Bloc member, so to make sure the Bloc and the Green members have time to speak on a bill, you can’t curtail debate,” Ms. May said. “If you curtail debate and impose time allocation, for example, on second reading of the omnibus crime bill I got the last two minutes.”
The government has also used closure—abruptly ending debate regardless of its stage—twice since last June, on top of its time allocation manoeuvres. The government used closure on a bill ordering locked out postal employees back to work and another enhancing the legal status of mega-trials or people accused of organized crime.
The government has used time allocation on a total of 10 bills, including its controversial omnibus crime legislation, Bill C-10, opposed by a range of legal interests including the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Union; Bill C-19, the legislation to dismantle the federal registry for long guns; Bill C-18, legislation that effectively dismantles the Canadian Wheat Board; and Bill C-20, to increase the number of Commons seats from 308 to 338.
The government argued the legislation, including budget measures to end government subsidies for federal political parties, fulfills campaign promises to voters who supported the Conservative Party.
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: Tim Naumetz
No comments:
Post a Comment