Another week, another Conservative minister in trouble, more opposition outrage, more ritual calls for a resignation.
It isn’t going to happen.
Short of being caught at a Liberal fundraiser in Rosedale, there is, apparently, no behaviour infamous enough to merit even a reprimand when it comes to members of the Harper cabinet. (Except, in the case of the unfortunate Helena Guergis, being caught in the same headline as “busty hookers.” And Maxime Bernier, of course, with his misplaced briefs.)
But less lurid, and more serious, accusations are regularly brushed aside. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Peter Penashue, for instance, accepted some $18,000 in free flights around his Labrador riding during the last election campaign from a private airline, according to reports this week. He won by 79 votes.
Companies are limited to $1,100 donations to parties, or candidates, and the free flights put Penashue’s campaign 21 per cent over spending limits. It doesn’t look good. Indeed, to Liberal leader Bob Rae it looked as if Penashue “bought the election.”
Instead of offering to resign, even for a time, the minister is blaming his official agent for a “rookie error.” But he was on those flights and he must know how costly it is to travel in the North. Did he not wonder how his campaign was paying for it all?
We may never get a chance to ask, since Penashue is joining Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz (tainted beef) and Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose (the abortion resolution) in the Conservative witness protection program. It is their safe place, far from prying reporters and pesky opposition MPs, where they ride out the controversy of the moment while John Baird, or some other bruiser, provides covering fire.
Sometimes they hide until the uproar is forgotten (Harper Parliamentary secretary Dean Del Mastro, Treasury Board President Tony Clement), sometimes until they can engineer a graceful exit (former CIDA minister Bev Oda). But there are two unspoken rules: ministers never publicly admit responsibility and must never been seen to cave to the opposition’s red-faced fury.
There are other ways of holding government to account, of course — most hilariously arcane. The “emergency debate,” for instance, which is neither. There was one recently on the Alberta tainted meat crisis, a long evening of duelling talking points that merely summarized, or repeated, what was by then already well-known.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the company was laying off workers at its controversial mega-plant, then rehiring some, then changing ownership — and there is still no explanation of why U.S. consumers were warned two weeks before Canadians about contaminated products.
That said, emergency debates can momentarily highlight troubling issues — if, that is, the speaker approves. Last month, Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s petition for urgent consideration of the pending Canada-China trade deal was rejected. So was an NDP request for an emergency debate on melting Arctic ice.
As a result, the Canada-China deal, to be ratified Nov. 1, will become law with no more than an hour briefing at the Commons trade committee. May acknowledges the government has the legal right to ratify international treaties without consulting Parliament, but this one, she — and many social media activists — argues is too important for such cursory treatment.
There are always “opposition days,” of course — regular opportunities for the Liberals and NDP to put forward motions that require a vote.
This week, for instance, with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty introducing a second omnibus budget bill, the Liberals used their opportunity to denounce such bills as sneaky and undemocratic. In the process, they cited a 34-year-old Reform MP named Stephen Harper, who once deplored the tactic, to bolster their case. Did they succeed in shaming the prime minister? Unlikely.
Another opposition tactic is the filibuster — the NDP delayed passage of back-to-work legislation at Canada Post for 58 hours last spring, for example — but it can also be dismissed as pointless obstruction.
As for May, she found a little-noticed provision that allows backbenchers to make substantive amendments to legislation, late in the process, and she put forward 300 proposed changes to the last omnibus budget bill in June. The opposition added its own amendments and, while the bill passed, the dramatic showdown arguably fanned public unease.
“It’s the opposition’s job to review legislation and propose amendments,” said May. “That’s our right. It’s not some kind of a game.”
Perhaps not, but the methods at the disposal of opposition parties seem dated and irrelevant.
Given the immense power of any majority government, the most effective curbs on abuse remain a robust media, an alert public and ministers that model the highest ethical standard. Whether anyone is watching, or not.
Original Article
Source: leader post
Author: Susan Riley
It isn’t going to happen.
Short of being caught at a Liberal fundraiser in Rosedale, there is, apparently, no behaviour infamous enough to merit even a reprimand when it comes to members of the Harper cabinet. (Except, in the case of the unfortunate Helena Guergis, being caught in the same headline as “busty hookers.” And Maxime Bernier, of course, with his misplaced briefs.)
But less lurid, and more serious, accusations are regularly brushed aside. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Peter Penashue, for instance, accepted some $18,000 in free flights around his Labrador riding during the last election campaign from a private airline, according to reports this week. He won by 79 votes.
Companies are limited to $1,100 donations to parties, or candidates, and the free flights put Penashue’s campaign 21 per cent over spending limits. It doesn’t look good. Indeed, to Liberal leader Bob Rae it looked as if Penashue “bought the election.”
Instead of offering to resign, even for a time, the minister is blaming his official agent for a “rookie error.” But he was on those flights and he must know how costly it is to travel in the North. Did he not wonder how his campaign was paying for it all?
We may never get a chance to ask, since Penashue is joining Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz (tainted beef) and Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose (the abortion resolution) in the Conservative witness protection program. It is their safe place, far from prying reporters and pesky opposition MPs, where they ride out the controversy of the moment while John Baird, or some other bruiser, provides covering fire.
Sometimes they hide until the uproar is forgotten (Harper Parliamentary secretary Dean Del Mastro, Treasury Board President Tony Clement), sometimes until they can engineer a graceful exit (former CIDA minister Bev Oda). But there are two unspoken rules: ministers never publicly admit responsibility and must never been seen to cave to the opposition’s red-faced fury.
There are other ways of holding government to account, of course — most hilariously arcane. The “emergency debate,” for instance, which is neither. There was one recently on the Alberta tainted meat crisis, a long evening of duelling talking points that merely summarized, or repeated, what was by then already well-known.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the company was laying off workers at its controversial mega-plant, then rehiring some, then changing ownership — and there is still no explanation of why U.S. consumers were warned two weeks before Canadians about contaminated products.
That said, emergency debates can momentarily highlight troubling issues — if, that is, the speaker approves. Last month, Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s petition for urgent consideration of the pending Canada-China trade deal was rejected. So was an NDP request for an emergency debate on melting Arctic ice.
As a result, the Canada-China deal, to be ratified Nov. 1, will become law with no more than an hour briefing at the Commons trade committee. May acknowledges the government has the legal right to ratify international treaties without consulting Parliament, but this one, she — and many social media activists — argues is too important for such cursory treatment.
There are always “opposition days,” of course — regular opportunities for the Liberals and NDP to put forward motions that require a vote.
This week, for instance, with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty introducing a second omnibus budget bill, the Liberals used their opportunity to denounce such bills as sneaky and undemocratic. In the process, they cited a 34-year-old Reform MP named Stephen Harper, who once deplored the tactic, to bolster their case. Did they succeed in shaming the prime minister? Unlikely.
Another opposition tactic is the filibuster — the NDP delayed passage of back-to-work legislation at Canada Post for 58 hours last spring, for example — but it can also be dismissed as pointless obstruction.
As for May, she found a little-noticed provision that allows backbenchers to make substantive amendments to legislation, late in the process, and she put forward 300 proposed changes to the last omnibus budget bill in June. The opposition added its own amendments and, while the bill passed, the dramatic showdown arguably fanned public unease.
“It’s the opposition’s job to review legislation and propose amendments,” said May. “That’s our right. It’s not some kind of a game.”
Perhaps not, but the methods at the disposal of opposition parties seem dated and irrelevant.
Given the immense power of any majority government, the most effective curbs on abuse remain a robust media, an alert public and ministers that model the highest ethical standard. Whether anyone is watching, or not.
Original Article
Source: leader post
Author: Susan Riley
No comments:
Post a Comment