A week in review

I've figured for quite some time that the goings-on in the House of Commons probably deserve plenty more focus than they receive - and have highlighted at least some of them on this blog. But with the combination of the NDP wave and a Question Period which is covering more ground in the absence of constant heckles and interruptions, there now looks to be enough content to make it worth setting up a regular feature.

In the future, I'll likely figure on making the review a daily one. But for now, let's take a look at a few noteworthy moments from last week's Parliamentary debates which you may have missed.

- If you're looking for the NDP's main point of contrast against the Cons, Jack Layton's response to a question from Charlie Angus looks to set it out nicely:

The economic policy of the government essentially is predicated on the notion of sink or swim. That is too bad for someone who decides to go back to work after having worked all of his or her life in the mine. It is too bad for the individual and his or her co-workers who have to go back to work at age 68. Why not 75? Why not 85? The government's philosophy is that it is a tough world out there and one just has to make his or her own way.

We have a different view. We believe that together we can actually create instruments of policies, programs and strategies that can give us a dignified and secure retirement. Seniors are not looking to live high off the hog. I do not know any senior who wants to be able to live the life of luxury. All they are looking for is to be able to cover their housing and their food costs and be able to enjoy a little recreation and have something left over to give a gift to a grandchild every now and again.

We need to have a properly functioning Canada pension plan so that we are not held for ransom by the gamblers who want to roll the dice and take their bonuses and too bad if we lose money. They win either way.

And oddly enough, the Cons look to be playing into exactly that distinction. When questioned on pensions, the Cons have effectively done nothing to suggest they support anything other than the casino model of retirement investment. And while it doesn't seem to have received much notice, here's Ray Boughen's comment on what he thinks the budget will accomplish for seniors:

Also in support of seniors, we are proposing to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code to ensure that federally regulated employees across Canada will be able to choose how long they wish to remain in the labour force, based on their individual circumstances.

In other words, the Cons are planning to eliminate mandatory retirement ages in federally-regulated industries. So while the NDP looks for better conditions for retirees, the Cons are looking to reduce their numbers by keeping seniors in the workforce longer.

- Meanwhile, Helene LeBlanc's inaugural speech also looks to have nicely encapsulated the NDP's philosophy:

I am here to lend my voice to those who are not as fortunate as we are in this House. I am here for those who have been left behind by our society, those who are the most vulnerable. I hope to make my colleagues on the other side understand that they are here for all Canadians, whatever their origins or standard of living. The values we embody are those of social justice, sharing and mutual assistance. That is why I find it difficult to see any reflection of myself in this government’s program. Their priority is big business, to the detriment of small businesses and the people of my riding.

I remind members that the economy is a means, not an end. It is a way to organize our society. I believe the role of government is to ensure that all Canadians have a chance to succeed. I believe we are at the service of all citizens, from all walks of life.

- Peter Julian presented what looks to be the NDP's jobs message:

The Minister of Finance likes to point to the slight increase in the overall job creation, but the reality is over the last five years, given the growth in labour force, which is 1.5% a year, that the Conservatives have the responsibility of creating 300,000 additional jobs every year. How have they fared? StatsCan gives us the results. The results are that there is a million jobs deficit. Over the last five years since the Conservatives have been in power and where they needed to create about 300,000 new jobs or new people coming into the labour force every year, they needed to create 1.5 million. They have actually created about half a million jobs overall and these jobs have largely been part-time or temporary in nature, certainly not the permanent, family-sustaining jobs that Canadians are calling for from coast to coast to coast.

And for more from Julian, raising inequality as an issue in a question which seems to have left Con Dave MacKenzie utterly unsure what the problem was supposed to be.

- I'm not sure off hand how common it is for high-ranking cabinet ministers to take the time to participate in debates by asking questions of other parties. But judging from Matthew Kellway's schooling of Jim Flaherty on the lack of return on corporate tax slashing, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Cons' cabinet members removed from the fray altogether.

- Other issues worth noting: Glenn Thibault's criticism of high roaming fees; Ryan Leef's remarkable stand for research on climate change on behalf of a government which is normally hostile toward any mention of either; and a focus on social values including Paulina Ayala's mention of the social economy and Nathan Cullen's identification of a social deficit.

- Finally, while pointing out the messages I think deserve to be amplified, it's also worth noting the ones which look entirely out of place. So let's call a tie for the non sequitur of the week between Nina Grewal, answering a question about investment in aboriginal housing with an answer about manufacturing incentives, and James Bezan, who took the opportunity to use the federal House of Commons' time for a brief rant about Manitoba provincial politics.

On consensus-building

Kady's post on the composition and chairing of committees notes that there's some risk the Cons could try to use their majority to rewrite the rules. But it's worth pointing out that there doesn't look to be much precedent for that step in recent decades.

One of the first orders of business for any Parliament is the approval of committee composition and mandates. And in every single post-election Parliament since 1994 (which of course also involved a new majority government), those issues have been seen as a matter of negotiation and consensus rather than partisan strongarming - such that each of the motions has been passed with unanimous consent. See the relevant journal dates from 1994, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2006 and 2008.

And indeed all MPs - whether party members or not - presumably need to have been at least be willing to accept the process used to set the rules in order to develop that record of unanimous consent.

Of course, we can't ignore the possibility that the Cons might try to either sneak some changes into the Standing Orders with the other parties' acquiescence, or thumb their nose at the apparent convention in order to impose their will on a vote. But it's well worth noting that there doesn't seem to be much precedent for either of those courses of action. And I'd have to figure the Cons would be careful about suddenly tearing up procedures and customs which have been the subject of all-MP consensus for at least the last couple of decades - including during their previous terms in office.

On limited space

There doesn't look to be much too controversial about the decision to build a glass-topped temporary home for the House of Commons. But one aspect of the plan seems rather odd given the problems with the current chamber:

The temporary Commons chamber will have exactly the same dimensions and layout as the existing one, complete with tiered seating for MPs and overhanging visitors’ galleries.

So what could be the problem with matching the current dimensions?

The House of Commons chamber can physically hold only 308 seats similar to the desk-and-chair combination now used. After the 1997 riding redistribution left the House with 301 MPs, it was renovated to hold 304 chairs for sitting members. That number jumped to 308 with the round of changes that took effect with the vote on June 28, 2004. Before that election, the Speaker's Office told CBC.ca that four more chairs and desks had been added in the room's northeast corner, to the Speaker's left, replacing a sitting area for the parliamentary pages. Now there's no more room for expansion.

However, riding redistribution must by law take place every 10 years, adjusting the federal electoral districts to reflect population changes. All provinces are guaranteed that their number of federal seats will not decrease, even if their proportion of the Canadian population shrinks dramatically. So the number of seats is bound to keep going up in the absence of dramatic changes to the way we elect a government (through bringing in some form of proportional representation, for example).

So is there some reason why the temporary chamber is being matched to the current, insufficient amount of space, rather than leaving more room for expected growth in the number of MPs?

An opportunity for debate

Aaron Wherry's article on the current state of the House of Commons is well worth a read. But I have to wonder whether part of the solution is easier than one might think from Wherry's lamentation about the meaning of debate in the House:

In many ways, the scene in the House reflects modern practicalities. Since the proceedings are televised, attendance is not necessary to follow what is said. MPs have myriad other responsibilities they must attend to, from committee work to dealing with the concerns of constituents. In the beginning, House debates were covered extensively in the popular media. Up until the mid-1980s, the Canadian Press kept a reporter in the House for the duration of each sitting day. But those days are gone and, besides, despite the impressive decor—carved sandstone and wood, chandeliers and stained glass—a lack of wireless Internet access makes the chamber something less than a modern workplace for reporters.

But the sight of the ornate room sitting mostly empty, an MP on his or her feet pontificating into the abyss, speaks as well to the undeniable obscurity of the institution at this point in history. Because the debates don’t matter, the press doesn’t cover them and because the press doesn’t cover them, the debates don’t matter. Instead of covering the exchanges that occur each day in the House, the evening political shows prefer to assemble their own panels of MPs to exchange shouted talking points.

Now, it's understandable that political TV shows may prefer to generate their own content to fit the time they have available. But for print media in particular, I'd think the debates in the House of the Commons would offer an obvious source of easy and relevant content. After all, every word of the debates is available for public review within a day - and it would seem like a fairly simple matter to make a regular practice of distilling the bills or issues being discussed, along with the parties' positions and any interesting interactions between them, into a regular stream of content.

And what's more, the fact that debates in the House cover as much time as they do means that they're less easily scripted. Which means that there would figure to be far more opportunity to discuss a range of different perspectives than there is in reporting on question period.

Of course, it's probably seen as easier to report on bills only when somebody is putting on a direct PR push. But Wherry is right to note that there's plenty of (at least nominally) important discussion taking place that seems to receive far less attention than one would expect in light of the formal role of MPs. And it might well be a win-win for a media outlet and the state of Canada's political conversation to reverse the vicious circle and start more fully covering Parliamentary debates as more than just a matter of curiosity.

Tuesday Morning Links

A few notes for your weekday reading...

- I'll echo those pointing out Open Parliament as a handy way to keep tabs on the goings-on in the House of Commons in a somewhat more convenient form than is available on the official Parliament of Canada site. But I'll also remind readers of How'd They Vote, which is a particularly useful resource to decipher how MPs have handled their most direct influence over public policy.

- After the unfortunate demise of the Sasquatch, its sibling publication Briarpatch is now putting out a call for support. And if you need some political motivation, here's part of why the publication is looking for help:

There have also been cuts to federal funding for magazines, and what we see as a dangerous politicization of Canadian cultural policy: Briarpatch Magazine...was denied grant funding from the Canada Magazine Fund for the past two years running for what we see as specious reasons. (In one case, our grant was recommended for approval by Canada Magazine Fund staff, and then rejected by the Conservative Minister of Culture!)

- Meanwhile, before the Sasquatch shuts down entirely, Jennipher Karst's piece on the need for a food system that will actually encourage small-scale farming is well worth a read.

- While I don't have much to add to what Michael Geist has been writing about the global ACTA copyright treaty negotiations, it's well worth following along to see how any comsumer interests in content are being bargained away in secret.

- Finally, Bill Tieleman nicely summarizes the current state of B.C.'s HST fight.

The simplest explanation

I've wondered for quite some time why media coverage of the House of Commons has centred so regularly on Question Period to the exclusion of other debates which seem to involve a far greater likelihood of MPs saying something interesting. But I'll be hoping the answer is as simple and mundane as David Akin suggests, since there won't be any excuse anymore:

For the first time in Canadian history, reporters covering the proceedings in the House of Commons today will find power outlets near their seats in the Commons press gallery, above the Speakers chair. You may think this is trivial but I think this is a momentous thing. Having a power outlet here means you can stay in the House of Commons and keep enough juice in your portable computer to cover those all-night "take-note" debates. You may think I'm being facetious but I"m not. While there's no doubt that media coverage often focuses on the antics of Question Period, I suspect some reporters would spend more time in the House -- and in committee rooms -- covering the serious business of this place if they could stay electronically tied to their desks.