Parliamentarians and the yoke of party discipline

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending a screening of Whipped, a documentary on party discipline by former BC legislature reporter Sean Holman. You can now stream the doc on the CPAC web site, and it’s well worth a look.

While it’s focused on Victoria and BC politics, the issues Whipped raises are universal. It looks at what parties do to keep their MLAs towing the party line, what happens to those that break from the pack, how rare such mavericks are, and speaks to former politicians about their experiences with party discipline, and how it impacted their ability to represent their constituents and be satisfied and fulfilled in their jobs.

The arguments for and against party discipline basically boil down to this: for is you run and are elected on a party platform and so need to vote to implement it once elected and the place for argument is the privacy of the caucus room; against is parliamentarians are elected by and answerable to their constituents first and should be able to represent them to the legislature, not represent the legislature to their constituents. Holman avoids directly pronouncing party disciple just or unjust in the doc, although a certain picture does certainly emerge from the interviews.

I believe there needs to be a balance between discipline and freedom. After all, when you agree to run under a party banner, you’re agreeing to a set of principles and policy platform, and are elected on that basis. So it’s not unreasonable to expect that you work to implement that agenda you ran and were elected on. Not everything, though, should be one of those core principles.

While Holman didn’t offer policy prescriptions for reform, one of his fellow panelists, Your Canada Your Constitution’s Duff Conacher, called for systematic and regulatory reforms to reduce the power of party leaders and allow more freedom for parliamentarians. The British system of MPs firing the leader was mentioned.

While I agree with the sentiment, I strongly rejected the need for legislative action in this area. As I said in my comment/question, there’s no law today that says parliamentarians have to do whatever the party leader says, and aren’t free to vote their conscious whenever they choose. If parliamentarians are under the whip, it is because they have willingly submitted to it. And they can just as easily throw off the whip if they choose too – Holman’s doc talked to several who have.

Parliamentarians submit to party discipline willingly, if sometimes grudgingly, because of the carrots and sticks party leaders employ. Toe the line and you can get a critic spot, a nicer office, to go on a cool junket or join your favoured committee. Don’t toe the line and you can find yourself on the outside looking in. At the extreme, the leader might refuse to sign your nomination papers for the next election.

So yes, being a maverick can have a cost. But parliamentarians need to ask themselves, would the freedom be worth the cost? They’re only whipped if they want to be. This isn’t about legislative change to grant parliamentarians freedom – they have the freedom today, if they’re willing to risk the consequences of exercising it. And I suspect they’d find strength – and freedom – in numbers.

While I don’t think legislative reforms are necessary, I do support moves to allow more freedom for parliamentarians. For example, a system of open nominations would make it more difficult for party leaders to hold their nominations over their heads. Parties should restrict whipped votes to matters of confidence and core platform planks. And the media, punditry and politicians should no longer paint a parliamentarian deferring from the official party line as a maverick repudiation of the leadership. Disagreement and debate should be welcomed and celebrated as normal and not worthy of hyperventilation. A big part of the problem here is one of perception – any difference of policy opinion is labelled by press and pundits as disloyalty and weak leadership, so leaders clamp down to prevent any such displays and the resulting bad press. Parliament should be about debate.

I strongly oppose the idea of letting caucus pick the leader. Besides reducing members to nothing but unpaid envelope-stuffing labour, it will not elect a leader representative of the country as a whole. And it’s also unnecessary – yes, caucus can’t technically fire the leader, but if most of caucus withdrew its support the leader wouldn’t be able to lead for long.

I also think a larger issue is one of public perception, or misconception, about the role of the parliamentarian in our political process. Technically, we're electing an individual representative to speak for us and act on our behalf; there may be a party name on the ballot, but we're electing Joe Blow the individual. More and more though, people see the individual and secondary and irrelevant next to the party brand and vote based on the leader. This is because discipline has rendered the individual indistinguishable from their peers, further fueling the argument for discipline because the individual owes their position to the party and leader, not the people. It's a vicious cycle we need to break. It's why I oppose banning floor crossing -- whatever voters base their votes on, they are still electing an individual and not a party, and that individual doesn't cease to represent them if they change parties.

Several times during the debate, party leaders were called to “give” or “allow” more freedom for parliamentarians. It’s not something for leaders to give – parliamentarians have the freedom already. They just need to take it.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Democracy is too expensive is a poor argument

There are lots of good arguments you can make that just adding more and more seats to the House of Commons to address shifting populations is a bad idea. For example, at some point unless you knock out a wall, you’ll run out of room in the Commons chamber. Cost, however, is the worst possible argument you could make.

“It doesn’t make any sense in these days of financial restraint,” Liberal MP Marc Garneau said Tuesday at a Commons committee studying the legislation that would give 15 extra seats to Ontario, six seats each to B.C. and Alberta, and three seats to Quebec.

I’m sorry, but you’re never going to convince me that democracy is too expensive. That’s as foolish as the Conservative argument during the minority era that the cost of an election would be too high during the downturn. With all the countries in the world yearning for free elections and representative democracy, I refuse to seriously consider cost as an impediment to fairer representation. And in this context it’s cheap populist pandering, and I’d urge the Liberals to drop that line of attack.

If you want to make a principled argument on parliamentary representation, then do it. And the Liberals are correct on the wider point: you can’t just keep adding seats willy-nilly. It’s the politically expedient solution, to be sure, but it’s not sustainable.

It’s easy though, because a real solution is difficult. It would involve taking seats away from low and declining-population regions and giving them to higher-growth ones. Besides opening up a political can of worms, there are also assorted constitutional provisions guaranteeing parliamentary representation levels compared to Senate representation, and other factors to be juggled.

It’s like pulling a loose thread; you start to do something in one area and all of a sudden you need to do something in another. If the Liberals really want to take a principled approach to this issue, there’s no way to do it in isolation. It needs give and take on a number of fronts. Truly addressing Commons representation in a substantive way also means addressing Senate representation in a substantive way, from distribution to elections to the powers of the respective chambers. It means negotiation with the provinces and constitutional reform.

I would truly love to see the Liberals be bold here and get serious with an agenda for democratic and parliamentary reform; let’s throw in looking at voting reform at the same time. It’s all part of the wider puzzle, and it’s time we stopped nibbling around the edges and got serious about this.

But in the mean time, please stop complaining about the cost of democracy.

P.S. If the Liberals want to vote against this redistribution bill, they need to present a detailed alternative forthwith. Who would lose seats and who would gain. Otherwise, you're embracing an unacceptable status-quo that under-represents Ontario, Alberta and B.C. And that's just plain dumb, not to mention wrong. Adding more seats isn't ideal, but it's better than doing nothing.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

More belated political musings

I write this from Arizona, where I've been attending a work conference this week in the Phoenix area. I'm staying through the weekend to see some hockey, as the Coyotes play their home opener vs. the Winnipeg Jets on Saturday. The old Jets vs. the new Jets, should be fun. And Monday, it's off to Ottawa to cover another conference, so busy times. And another offering of random thoughts on happenings political.

* I find this NDP ethics complaint against Lisa Raitt a little puzzling, as I'm having a hard time seeing Air Canada's CEO logging into the reservations system and upgrading cabinet ministers in the hope a larger seat and a cheese plate will influence labour policy. If they have documents, I'd love to see them. A gate agent doing a battlefield upgrade, I could see, although I doubt the unionized gate agents are fans of the minister these days. But the CEO? And to what end? They couldn't have a more pro Air Canada government, whether its on labour or landing slots. I'm more astounded a cabinet minsiter's staff booked her into economy in the first place. Besides, she must have enough e-upgrade credits already. Super elite!

* Were I Tom Mulcair, I'd stop whining about Quebec memberships. Because every time he opens his would to complain about the lack of NDP members in the province, it reminds me he was the guy responsible for building the party in the province and apparently, he didn't do a very good job of it. Which doesn't bode well for his ability to organize a successful leadership run. It's more obvious the NDP's surge was all about Layton, and not so much the diligent work of his Quebec lieutenant. (Which isn't to say they can't hold it without Jack, but that's another story) He'd be better sticking to some of this policy stuff, where I find myself thinking he sounds almost reasonable.

* Remember when I asked if anyone would stand up for equality of parliamentary representation? As I feared the answer, apparently, is no one.

Fears of a Quebec backlash have delayed the Harper government’s plan to give the growing parts of Canada a larger share of seats in the House of Commons.

As a result, the changes the Tories promised in the spring campaign may not be in place in time for the 2015 election, leaving millions of voters once again underrepresented in Parliament.

So none of the major parties, it seems, is willing to stand up for basic math and principle in a matter as fundamental as our parliamentary representation. That's sad, and also sadly unsurprising.

* Our generous R&D tax credits are a competitive advantage; the piece of the puzzle we're missing is assistance with commercialization. We should invest there. If that's that they mean by direct subsidies, then ok. But I don't want to see the government trying to pick winners and losers. Support un-directed research, then help it get from the lab to the marketplace. That's the way to grow a 21st century economy.

* The Conservatives are zealous in their respect for areas of provincial jurisdiction:

Despite these initiatives and studies that link school food to increased success in the classroom, Canada is unlikely to shed its title as the only G8 country without a national meal program. The federal government says it has no plans to take on school food.

“We see education very clearly as a provincial/territorial jurisdiction, so it's nothing that's being considered by our government at this point in time,” said Steve Outhouse, a spokesman for Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.

Except when it's an issue they actually care about:

Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore, who announced Tuesday that Ottawa is plowing nearly $30-million into the 1812-1814 conflict’s bicentennial, says he wants to sharpen efforts to teach Canada about its past.

“In only four of Canada’s 10 provinces are students required to take history before they graduate from high school,” he said. “I think that’s a sadly low number so I want to work on improving that.”

The Harper government will feed students ciriculum changes, but not a healthy lunch. I'll leave it to them to explain the jurisdictional nuance that reconciles those positions.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Banning floor crossing is a bad idea

I think Peter Stoffer is coming from a good place and I think his intentions are pure, but I feel strongly that banning floor crossing is a bad idea that, rather than improving parliamentary representation and responsibility to constituents, will only further tighten the yoke of party discipline.

A stalwart New Democrat is hoping to ban his colleagues from crossing the floor of the House of Commons without asking voters if they can change parties first.

Peter Stoffer, the New Democrat critic for Veterans Affairs, tabled his private member's bill Monday.

"If I pick up the phone right now and call Mr. Harper's office and if they're in agreement, within an hour I can become a Conservative member of Parliament," Stoffer said Monday. "I don't have to go to my constituents, I don't have to tell my party, I could just sit tomorrow as a Conservative MP.

That's wrong on every count."

I know I was as pissed off as any Liberal when David Emerson crossed the floor from the Liberals to the Conservatives mere days after the 2006 election. Obviously my emotions were somewhat different when Belinda Stronach left the Conservatives to join Paul Martin’s Liberal cabinet. (Mainly stunned disbelief, actually)

I still wouldn’t ban floor crossing though, because it plays into a general ignorance amongst the population, one exploited by the Conservatives during the coalition drama, about how our parliamentary democracy works.

Yes, it’s true that most voters make their decisions based on national party platforms and leaders. The influence of the local candidate in the voting decision is important, but generally minimal in the wider scheme. In a tight race, it can make a difference (many of the Liberals that hung on in May were good constituency people). But generally, the local name on the ballot is secondary (see the NDP in Quebec).

While many may think we vote for Prime Minister, in fact we don’t. And we don’t vote for a party either. We vote for a Member of Parliament to represent us in Ottawa. We send 308 members of parliament to Ottawa and, from their ranks, the governor general calls on one to form a government and test the confidence of the House of Commons.

Whatever people may base their voting decision on, the fact is we’re electing a person to represent us. If they change parties, or do something else that we disagree with, then we can defeat them when and if they run for re-election. But taking away their legitimate right to change party affiliations only serves to further re-enforce this fundamental mis-understanding of our political system and further dilute the role and responsibility of individual members of parliament.

Stoffer’s bill would also have another un-intended effect: further tying MPs under the suffocating yoke of party discipline. You shouldn’t need to risk your job to stand against your party. The system of party discipline has already reduced MPs of all parties to little more than trained seals loyally parroting the party line, so it’s little wonder most Canadians see themselves voting more for a party than an individual representative. Banning floor crossing will only further exacerbate this by giving party bosses even more power and control over MPs that may stray from the flock.

I agree with the spirit of Stoffer’s motion, but it’s a bad idea for so many reasons. It’s cheap populism masking horrible policy. Punish floor crossers at the ballot box, and in the interim let’s bring more relevance to the role of Member of Parliament, not less.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The thing about MP attendance

I think Member of Parliament attendance records should be public. I also think their expense information should be public and audited by the auditor general, and that not getting out in front and leading on that issue was a significant missed opportunity by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. But I’m digressing.

Attendance records seem to potentially be the next media hobby-horse. I always find it interesting what they choose to care about. I’ll agree with them though that the records should be made public, but with one big caveat: the media needs to report on the information accurately, and in context.

If politicians are balking at releasing attendance information, I’m willing to bet there’s one big reason why: the inevitable short-sighted, ill-informed media coverage that will result decrying lazy MPs taking long vacations on the public dime, when nothing could (in most cases) be further from the truth.

The fact is, there is a lot more to being a Member of Parliament than sitting in your seat in the House of Commons chamber. There are many hours of committee work, office and constituency work both in Ottawa and back in the riding, and many public events. It’s far from a Monday to Friday, nine to five job.

Yet to many media organizations, if they can’t see you in your seat from their perch in the gallery, you must not be doing your job. It’s like the misguided bosses who believe in management by seeing you at your desk, not what you're doing. And it leads to stories of missing leaders when, rather than taking part in the empty spectacle of question period, they’re actually out meeting actual Canadians.

Whenever I see dismissive comments by pundits about all the “vacation time” MPs get I cringe, because, besides from the fact they’re not “vacationing” when the House isn’t sitting but instead are doing constituency work, research, or many other things, such ill-informed commentary only serves to further undermine public confidence in institutions already sorely lacking it.

So sure, release MP attendance information. There’s absolutely no reason for it to be secret. But I hope the media will resist the urge to just tally the numbers for easy headlines, and will instead look at the why behind the numbers, and put them into context.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Detainee deal can't be ad-hoc

So it appears, for now, that there will be peace in our time. In an agreement very similar to the one that the Liberals and the other opposition parties have been offering for months, and the Conservatives continually outright rejected, an agreement has been reached that will see the opposition parties briefed confidentially on the contents of the Afghan detainee documents.

Each member of the review panel will have to sign an oath of confidentiality and get appropriate security clearance before they are allowed to see the documents, both the redacted versions and the full, uncensored forms.

They will then decide as a group which documents can be made public.

Any dispute among the MPs over which material can be released will be referred to a panel of three jurists for a final decision.

That all sounds fine. That it took so much angst, vitriol, brinksmanship and drama to get here is frankly an indictment of the stupidity of our political climate today, but eventually it got to the right place: parliamentarians will get the access they need and are due, while respecting legitimate security concerns. It’s a clear victory for the supremacy of Parliament. Even if the documents aren’t made public, that’s fine. I respect security considerations. But I want my representatives to be briefed, and they will be. That's how the system is supposed to work.

Here’s the thing though. I read a quote the other day from a Conservative spokesperson to the effect that any agreement reached on the detainee documents will be ad hoc, and the government has no intention of carrying it past this issue. I think that’s a mistake.

We can’t go through this drama and crisis every time there is information Parliament needs to see that the government, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to share. It’s tedious, it’s counterproductive, and it undermines public faith in democratic institutions. This isn’t the first time a government of any stripe has tried to be less than forthright with Parliament, and it surely won’t be the last.

We need a permanent, established procedure put in place so we don’t need to resort to threats and 11th-hour deal making every time. I’ve argued before for a Commons Select Committee on Intelligence, based on the American model. That’s one way to do it, there are others. But it needs to be established and in place so that when the issue comes up, the mechanisms are there to deal with it. When you try to do each one ad hoc, it’s too easy for all sides to let political considerations get in the way of doing what’s right.

So yes, it’s great this latest crisis has been averted, and sanity has prevailed. But letting this go with an ad hoc arrangement would be a mistake. I hope that now, with the political glare of this crisis perhaps receding, our Parliamentarians will explore the systemic changes needed so we don’t need to go through this nonsense ever again.

And we can move on to other sorts of nonsense.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Do we get the politicians we deserve?

I have to shake my head a little every time I read another story attacking MP salaries or criticizing their “gold-plated” pension plans. It’s an oft-repeated, often reflex criticism, and it’s an easy one to make. I hear it just as often as I hear people lamenting the quality of people that politics seems to attract these days. It’s ironic the two complaints are so often heard, because I don’t think the complainers see the connection: do we get the politicians we pay for?

Certainly it’s easy to attack the compensation level of our politicians. Particularly when times are tough. It’s our tax dollars that pay their salaries, after all. And it can be politically dicey to set your own compensation. That’s why the last government moved to tie MP salaries to those of judges, so MPs wouldn’t be making decisions about their own raises – the idea being to de-politicize the process. Unfortunately, by announcing a plan to freeze MP salaries in the last budget, the Conservatives brought politics back into the process.

If some in the public had their way, we’d pay our politicians nothing. That’s obviously a silly and untenable extreme. Toronto mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi has pledged to cut his salary by 10 per cent if elected – a popular populist gesture, no doubt, but a purely symbolic one that does nothing to address the real issues facing the city while only serving to devalue the role that politicians should – even if they often don’t – play in governing and administering multi-million and multi-billion-dollar businesses.

What do MPs make? The annual base salary of an MP is $157,731. A full minister adds another $75,516.00, and a minister of state adds $56,637.00 (meaning that demotion really cost Helena Guergis). The Prime Minister adds $157,731.00, the leader of the opposition $75,516.00 and the other party leaders $53,694.00. Other positions such as whips and house leaders also add to their base salaries. Then, there’s the oft-mentioned “gold-plated” pension plans.

So, is the average MP salary too high? While $75,000 is above the average Canadian salary, when you consider the hours and the job responsibilities – primarily writing and vetting the laws that govern the nation – I think they’re well earned, and probably below what someone with similar responsibilities could expect to earn in the private sector. Is just over $200,000 really out of line for a federal cabinet minister, who is essentially a senior vice-president in a multi-billion dollar corporation? I bet if you factored in salary, stock options and other compensation, the private sector salary for a senior VP would dwarf a minister’s.

And what about pensions? While it was reformed in the mid-1990s into what I’d argue is a comparatively silver-plated MP pension plan (this is how all the Reform MPs justified opting into the plan they’d campaigned so hard against) it is still much better comparatively than most private sector plans. I’d argue MPs forgo salary earning potential to a degree for pension security, but more importantly I think seeing MP pensions as the problem when making that comparison misses the point. It should be a wake-up call about the growing pension crisis in the Canadian economy, and the need to seriously address it.

My point here, though, is that I think we get the politicians we pay for. I’m not arguing for salary increases. While politicizing the process again is a mistake, I agree in principle with the freeze – my own salary has been frozen through the downturn. But I reject this knee-jerk bashing of MP compensation, because it’s counter-productive.

We all agree, I think, that we need to attract a better quality of politician then we’re getting these days. But are we going to get them by refusing to give them fair compensation? Yes, you don’t want people attracted to the pay and perks. But you also can’t expect the talented, experienced people we want in politics to forego the compensation available to them in the private sector just for the love of public service. That’s not fair to them, or to their families. Would you take a large salary cut in your prime earning years to go take the abuse of being an elected politician? If you want talented people, you need fair compensation. Let’s keep that in mind the next time we kvetch about pensions and salaries.

It’s also about the role of the MP

Compensation is only half the battle when it comes to getting better people into politics, though. The other is the fact that, in the modern parliament, the role of the average MP has become so devalued and meaningless that few people of quality would want to take it on.

Never mind MPs being nobodies off the hill, as Trudeau said. They’re nobodies on the Hill, shackled by rigid party discipline, their roles marginalized into meaninglessness, mere trained seals to vote the party line and parrot talking-points on demand. Even if they’re lucky enough to get into cabinet, under this government their room to maneuver, to innovate, to operate has been narrowed to a strict mandate letter from the PMO they daren’t stray from.

Given all this, it’s no wonder we lament the quality of the people who are attracted to political life these days. Far from the best and brightest, it’s more those attracted to the perks – prominence, travel, an above-average salary and, if they’re lucky enough to get into cabinet, a car and driver and the odd Challenger flight if they toe the line. Certainly not the best and brightest.

To be sure, there are still those on all sides who get involved because of a genuine desire and love for public service. They’re increasingly few and far between though, and quickly worn down by the excessive partisanship and inability to really get much of meaning accomplished.

Sadly, we get the politicians we deserve. Until we change our expectations, that’s unlikely to change.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Why we need a Commons Select Committee on Intelligence

I haven’t written a whole lot on the Afghan detainee document battle between Parliament and the Conservative government. I’ve felt my blogging colleagues have covered the issue well. My own feelings, in short, are that Parliament has the right to demand documents, and it must fight for that right. Also, it can’t cede that right to a government-appointed judge. It’s a dangerous precedent that would dilute its constitutional prerogative, and besides, is also an obvious stall by the government to avoid the issue until after the next election.

I’ve been thinking, though, that the issues raised by this affair highlight the need, beyond the specifics of this case, for real, lasting structural change in the relationship between our legislative and executive branches of government, and how they deal with issues of national security. We need structure and procedures in place, so when issues like the Afghan torture documents come up, it’s handled in a structured way and not in an ad-hoc manner as we’re seeing now, where partisan considerations are seen, correctly or not, as colouring the positions of each side.

The opposition believes the government is using national security as a smokescreen to avoid political embarrassment. The government believes the opposition is willing to toss aside national security for a political fishing expedition. Neither side is willing to back down.

That’s why, looking beyond this case, we’ve got to, in so much as it’s possible, get the politics out of it.

Let’s go back to basics, and examine what the relationship between the executive (the Harper government and cabinet) and the legislative (House of Commons and Senate) is intended to be. The government governs, within the laws and budget passed by the legislature. The government acts within those laws and budget, and the legislature examines and monitors those government actions. Checks and balances, it’s called. We’ll leave the judiciary out of it for now.

It’s more defined in the U.S. system, where the executive (the president) is elected directly and separately from the legislative branch (Congress). It gets more muddled in our parliamentary system, with the executive being drawn from members of the majority (or just the largest) represented party in the House of Commons, nominally by the Governor-General. But the same principle of checks and balances holds true: the role of the legislative branch is to examine and scrutinize the actions of the executive, and national security cannot trump its responsibility to do so.

And this is an occasion where we can actually take a lesson from our American cousins. Hey, really, it does happen sometimes. They have what’s called the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It includes Senators from both parties. It usually meets confidentially, and the White House and the intelligence agencies (the executive) is required, by law, to brief the committee (the legislative) on intelligence activities so government actions can be scrutinized and examined. Nothing held back for national security excuses: the committee hears it all. Obviously national security must be respected, and secrets must be kept secret. And the law proscribes penalties for the disclosure of confidential information. But the executive must brief and be questioned by the legislative, which can take further action if it determines it to be necessary.

We need something similar for Canada. We need a House of Commons Select Committee on Intelligence. Members from each party, sworn into the Privy Council to allow them to be briefed on confidential information by the government, and be bound by law and the penalties proscribed thereby to respect that confidentiality. The committee would meet confidentially, and be fully briefed by the government on national security matters, nothing held back, with the ability to question and probe and call witnesses like other parliamentary committees to investigate government activities in its area of responsibility.

We usually won’t get to know or hear what the committee knows or hears. But we can be confident knowing all of the parties are at the table, being briefed, so we can be confident our views are being represented, putting faith in the good judgement of our representatives. So if our guys have been briefed and tell is its all good, we can believe them more readily than we can believe the other guys. And secrets stay secret.

And if the committee feels that wrongdoing has occurred, that security is being used as a smokescreen, then mechanisms can be put in place to deal with that; be it the power or a procedure to seek the declassification of documents and expose them to the light of day, or a procedure for investigation, sanction, and/or court proceedings when warranted.

The details and specifics would need to be ironed out, but I think the core idea and principle is what we need to commit to: a mechanism to allow Parliament to truly exercise its oversight duties over the executive while respecting the appropriate bounds of national security. There may be other more ad hoc ways to do it, but I think a committee as outlined would a meaningful way of getting there, and a lasting structural change that would go some ways to removing partisanship from the equation.

I hope the Liberals, and all the parties, will consider going down this road in the near future, so we don’t have to suffer more dramas like the detainee document case.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(UPDATED) Who speaks for the PMO? Apparently not the PM

Yesterday, the BQ and NDP voted in favour of a Liberal motion that bans the mass mailing of so-called "ten percenters" outside of MP's own riding. The motion passed, and the ban will save the taxpayers at least $10 million a year.

The Conservatives voted against the motion (I guess they like junk mail) and, while they've routinely ignored parliamentary motions, this one appears binding. It doesn't involve the executive branch of government. It's about Parliament directing a body of Parliament (in this case, the Board of Internal Economy) how to spend Parliamentary funds. It's completely binding.

So will the Conservatives obey the rules? That's the question the Liberals asked of them in question period today:

Hon. John McCallum (l): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, this house voted to end the practice of allowing members to send free propaganda outside their ridings. We voted to save taxpayers $20 million by eliminating this partisan junk mail. If the government is serious about reducing waste, it will surely leap at this opportunity to save $20 million. To the prime minister: Liberals have already stopped their participation in this program. When will the government also comply with the will of the house of commons?

Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I'd Like to congratulate the honourable member on his promotion through what appears to be the rapidry-dwindling leadership ranks. -- Rapidly-dwindling leadership ranks. Mr. Speaker, as you would know, this matter is under the board of internal economy, which you chair, but I will just see this having viewed a few of these Liberal 10%ers, I think the cancellation the program was a good idea.

Hon. John McCallum (L): So I take it the prime minister will indeed comply with the will of the house and save $20 million. I hope that's true.

That's certaintly the impression I got from the PM's response. Except the PMO apparently says otherwise:

A majority of MPs in the House of Commons voted this week to ban mass mailings outside their own ridings, directing the Board of Internal Economy to "end immediately the wasteful practice."

But the Conservative government says it considers the motion "non-binding" and the Prime Minister's Office says it will continue to use the controversial "ten-percenter" program to communicate with Canadians.

Clearly, the Prime Minister hadn't called the PMO to find out his position on this issue and get his talking-points.

How embarrassing.

But seriously, how can the government refuse to comply? Ten percenters are sent out though the Parliamentary mail office, are they not? If Parliament orders no 10%ers outside the riding, then the Parliamentary Post Office isn't going to send them out, no matter how many bags of junk mail the Conservative war room drops off, is it?

Someone really needs to give the PMO a remedial crash course on the branches of government. Maybe there's a Schoolhouse Rock video available.

UPDATE: I go to the Raptors game, they win in the dying seconds, I come back and the world is all Topsy-turvy. Apparently the Conservatives are now on board with the motion they voted against yesterday (although they disagree on its bindingness) as long as everyone else is onboard too:

But in a statement issued to the media late Wednesday afternoon, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the Conservatives support ending the program but the final word on the issue rests with the board.

"We support getting rid of out-of-riding 10 percenters so long as the restriction applies to all parties," PMO spokesperson Dimitri Soudas said. "However, we do not have a majority on the board."

The board in question would be House of Commons Board of Internal Economy. But with the Conservatives now on board, and the NDP and BQ having all voted for the Liberal motion, even if its not binding (which I think it is) everyone is now in agreement so we should be golden, right?

Yeah, maybe not so much. For while the Conservatives now supposedly support the motion they opposed yesterday, Steve writes that the NDP may be getting cold feet (you can't tell the flip-floppers without a program on this one!). As CTV reports in the above story, Joe Comartin won't commit the party to supporting it, and Libby Davies seems almost outright opposed. Let's hope that's not the case, saner heads prevail, and we can all agree on no longer wasting (as much) taxpayer money on useless junk mail.

And, as an aside, I find it rich in irony that the NDP maintains the House of Commons motion wasn't binding on the board, a creation of the House of Commons, as it would seem to cast aside the notion of Parliamentary supremacy that the opposition parties, including the NDP, are fighting vehemently for in the torture document disclosure drama. Ralph Goodale put it well:

"If the House of Commons has the authority, which it does, to order government departments to produce documents on issues as crucial as Afghanistan, then one would think that the House of Commons equally has the authority to issue instructions to an administrative body to save money," Goodale said.

Anyway, I'll check back in the morning to see if positions have flip-flopped again overnight.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers