On democratic blockages

I've previously pointed out a few of the worrisome ways in which the Cons might try to cling to power after the next federal election even if they'd stand to lose any fairly run confidence vote.

But let's add one more which the Cons have now publicly sanctioned: security "slippage" which has the potentially convenient effect of preventing MPs from voting in Parliament.

Parliament in Review: November 23, 2011

Wednesday, November 23 saw the last votes in the House of Commons on the dismantling of the single-desk Wheat Board. And to who thought there might be some suspense as to the Cons' determination to impose their agenda without listening to anybody, it's always great to welcome new readers.

The Big Issue

Of course, the passage of the Cons' Wheat Board bill started with Peter Van Loan's latest time allocation motion. Joe Comartin warned Van Loan that the NDP had plenty of material available to show the Cons once considered exactly that type of action to be profoundly antidemocratic, and Niki Ashton, Alexandrine Latendresse, Matthew Kellway and Pierre-Luc Dusseault made good on the promise.

Meanwhile, Scott Simms managed to get Gerry Ritz to admit that at least one other single-desk marketer is on the chopping block. And Garry Breitkreuz argued that the fact he's been telling constituents that the Cons planned to ram through the bill immediately and without debate somehow served as reason for them to go ahead and do so.

Once debate resumed on the bill proper, Lynne Yelich broke the Cons' streak from the previous couple of days by deigning to speak in favour of the Wheat Board bill. But she may also have proven why the Cons are less than eager to bother, as Ralph Goodale pointed out that the position of processors that they expect better prices in the absence of a single-desk Wheat Board can only mean that less money is going to farmers. Niki Ashton highlighted the total lack of study and planning as to the actual effects of torching the single desk. And Don Davies called for the Cons to let farmers decide whether they support the bill.

But sadly, the Cons rammed through motion and the unamended bill.

Consider the Source

Kirsty Duncan cited both a departmental briefing note to Peter Kent and his own written submission in response to a question as evidence that there was no duplication in ozone monitoring to be cut - only to be informed by Kent that she should "use more reliable research". Which led in turn to this before Duncan was cut off by Andrew Scheer for reasons not apparent:

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of the Environment a question and cited a response to an order paper question signed by the minister himself. The minister's response was that I should use more reliable sources. The minister's answer suggests that the minister's order paper response is wrong and has misled the House.

To give him the benefit of the doubt, I suppose the minister either misled the House in his order paper response or he is misleading the House now--

And that wasn't the only odd intervention by Scheer, who also responded to a point of order about a blatant breach of privilege by Gordon O'Connor by commenting that he agreed with a later point by Ed Holder about the behaviour of visitors.

In Brief

Don Davies and Chris Charlton both raised the desperate need to alleviate poverty in members' statements, while Jean Crowder followed up in question period. Elaine Michaud noted that concerns about the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General extended to at least a couple of prominent Cons. Nycole Turmel and Jack Harris challenged the Cons to provide some evidence that their dumb-on-crime plan would accomplish anything. Olivia Chow wondered about the rationale for slashing airline safety inspections while spending millions on little-used jets. Scott Brison nicely questioned the Cons' stimulus priorities:

How could the Conservatives use GPS to track action plan signs and not bother to track how many jobs were created?

Laurin Liu questioned the Cons' lack of interest in investing in clean energy, while Megan Leslie pointed out the consequences of dirty oil when it comes to trading partners' perceptions of Canada. Francois Lapointe noted that not a single employee is currently being paid to mine asbestos in Canada, and wondered why the Cons continue to shill for the industry rather than looking for alternatives for workers. Carol Hughes introduced a bill to establish medals for military service during the Cold War, while Davies followed with a proposal to extend voting hours in federal elections. Francis Scarpaleggia spoke to his bill on water exports - with a particularly odd intervention seeing an objection to Elizabeth May's request to co-second the bill, while the Cons managed to find excuses to oppose action to prevent bulk water exports. And Sean Casey presented a petition calling for all junk mail to be made out of hemp paper.

Fool me 2,794 times...

The Hill Times follows up on the Libs' capitulation on calling political staffers to testify in front of committees. And their spin looks to be getting more and more embarrassing by the day:

Liberal committee member Wayne Easter (Malpeque, P.E.I.) said his party wanted to see the issue dealt with by the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. "I don't think that there's any question that Parliamentary privileges have been to a great extent breached and the government is involving itself in a cover-up by denying witnesses and documents coming forward. But be that as it may, we're willing to ask them to have a second look at it," he said. "We're hoping they would—given the controversy over the Afghan documents, given the controversy over the witnesses coming for Access to Information—we're hoping that they will see better of their ways here."

Of course, it's easy enough to ask what in their five-year history of compulsive secrecy and refusal to admit error would give the slightest hint that the Cons are interested in acting better even if they have any recollection as to what divides right from wrong. But what's even more striking is that Easter himself rightly frames the Cons as breaching privilege and covering up the truth - yet somehow keeps peddling the line that it's reasonable to expect them to be overcome with humility and honour.

Needless to say, we've seen what happens in substance when the Libs pretend it's reasonable to hope for the Harper Cons to act in good faith. But it's worth noting that the political effects are no less damaging than the substantive ones, as the Libs still haven't figured out that it only helps the Cons to send the message that they should be seen as reasonable in the face of all evidence, rather than highlighting the idea that they can't be trusted to exercise arbitrary power which runs contrary to Canada's democratic system.

Unfortunately, though, the Libs seem bent on continuing to enable the Cons' abuses. Which means that there's a desperate need to clear out two federal parties rather than just one in order to start getting our system of public accountability into working order.

(Edit: fixed typo.)