“I don’t know why they’re in-camera on a discussion of transparency and accountability of processes of the procedures of the House of Commons. That of all discussions should be open,” Ms. May (Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.) told The Hill Times last week.
“I’m not allowed to get into the committee. I was going to participate and I was sending one of my interns to track the committee, but of course we can’t get in. It’s frustrating. One of the things we debated on the debate on Standing Orders was having too many committee meetings in camera and then I can’t get in to pursue issues I care about around the Standing Orders because the meeting is in camera, it’s definitely frustrating.”
NDP House Leader Joe Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh, Ont.) and Liberal House Leader Marc Garneau (Westmount-Ville Marie, Que.), both committee members, defended the in-camera meetings. Mr. Comartin said the committee is studying the Standing Orders and writing the report at the same time, which requires in-camera meetings. The committee must report back by May 18.
“We’re looking to codify the practices that are long-standing here in the House,” Mr. Comartin said. “PROC’s long standing procedures has been to be in camera for a study as is true for all other committees, when we’re doing a study and preparing a report.”
He said the committee has not yet decided whether witnesses will be called, and if they are, the committee could be opened up. “It would be rather strange,” he said, of the committee not being opened with witnesses.
Mr. Garneau said the committee is in camera because “there is not a consensus to do it in an open way” but at the same time said that he does not “have a problem with that particular point at this time.”
As for what the committee is actually doing, NDP Whip Chris Charlton (Hamilton Mountain, Ont.) would only say, “As you know, after the debate on [Feb. 17] potential changes to the standing orders were referred to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee so the committee is dealing with matters that were assigned to them by the House.”
MPs are required, by the Standing Orders, to review the House rules in each new Parliament. The opposition parties used the opportunity to outline how Parliament could become more democratic, in addition to modernizing the House. Some of the major issues included using the Standing Orders to limit when the government can use time allocation on debate on a bill, specific situations in which committees can move in-camera so as to be more transparent, if and when a prime minister could prorogue Parliament, how to improve Question Period and House decorum, and taking out “archaic” terminology and updating the standing orders to reflect the 21st century.
Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski (Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, Sask.) said that the Standing Orders are extremely important and the Procedure and House Affairs Committee should review them as such.
“Since the Standing Orders are the rules that govern the House, the guidelines that inform all members how to perform their duties in the House, it is a critically important duty for those of us on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to take this task of the examination of the Standing Orders extremely seriously,” he said. “I know the Standing Orders have existed for many years, in some cases hundreds of years, without change. I understand the sensitivity among those who suggest we tread very carefully when suggesting any changes to the Standing Orders. I understand their sensitivities and I implore all members of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee to work with me on making changes that will modernize and improve the functioning of this place and for the betterment of all Parliamentarians.”
Dalhousie University political science professor Lori Turnbull said last week that while the Standing Orders are a good first step, they don’t go far enough if the idea is to constrain a Prime Minister’s power to have all the tools on his side to get the government’s legislative agenda through Parliament.
“The trouble with Standing Orders, if you’re in a minority government they’re more of constraint, but if you’re in a majority government, they can vote to change the Standing Orders,” Prof. Turnbull said. “If we’re talking about how to check the power of an extremely powerful executive in a very disciplined party system then, you need a constitutional anchor for that.”
Prof. Turnbull said the review around limiting the use of time allocation on debate is important, however.
“To be fair, [Stephen] Harper is not the first Prime Minister to invoke closure, obviously, and he’s not the first Prime Minister who wants to avoid criticism and he won’t be the last. Of course, he has a political imperative ... but the frightening part of the discourse around, say, closure of the debate on the [omnibus] crime bill [C-10], is that this is such important legislation and there’s so many people who are experts in this field saying this is a terrible idea,” she said. “The government’s response is, ‘We have a majority government, we’re going to put this through so there’s no point in debating it for too long because we’re going to do it anyway.’ It’s a real indication of how irrelevant the government thinks Parliament is.”
Prof. Turnbull said that’s taking the power of a majority government to a new level.
“It means that there’s less chance for MPs to be on record to show their constituents they tried to do the right thing. It’s like Parliament doesn’t have a purpose if the Prime Minister has all the tools he needs to get his own way. I think that’s a pretty dangerous spot to be in,” she said.
The government has used time allocation or closure on almost every stage of every bill debated in the House since the fall. Before the House recessed in December and since, the government used time allocation and closure 16 times on a number of bills to move them through the House. Some of the bills included Bill C-18, Ending the Wheat Board Monopoly Bill; C-20, Increasing Seats in the House of Commons Bill; and Bill C-13, the Budget Implementation Bill; and Bill C-10, the Omnibus Crime Bill. Most recently, the government has used it on the Long-Gun Registry Bill, C-19; the Copyright Modernization Act, C-11; and Foreign Ownership of Financial Institutions, Bill S-5.
Ms. Charlton said that changing the Standing Orders is a tool to make the House more democratic. “You can circumscribe under which circumstances committees go in-camera, you can create a set of rules which must be followed before a government can prorogue Parliament,” she said. “I think anything we do to create greater accountability and great transparency so that Canadians can once again have faith in this institution, are really important things to explore on behalf of all Canadians.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: BEA VONGDOUANGCHANH
No comments:
Post a Comment