LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

When the Liberals first came to power, it seemed for a time that they were finally starting to restore some of the norms of a parliamentary democracy in very many ways, be it with respecting the House of Commons enough to make major announcements there most especially things like the fall economic update and toning down on some of the more abusive uses of parliamentary tools like time allocation or their management of the parliamentary calendar.  And one of those norms that largely went under the radar was the insistence that spending announcements were made by ministers, or occasionally parliamentary secretaries but of note was that they weren't being made by local MPs, after the Conservatives were notorious for having their MPs present oversized cheques in photo-ops.  The closer we get to the next election, that norm is again being sacrificed on the altar of political expedience.

This particular norm became the subject of an online debate over the weekend, when journalists David Akin wondered why a minister was heading out to a local announcement when the local MP could do it just as well.  Unsaid was the fact that this was one of the rare announcements in recent weeks where there actually was a minister present.  As the press releases go out fast and furious, now that Parliament has risen and we inch toward the fixed election date, the bulk of these announcements follow the pattern that such-and-such local MP, "on behalf of" the minister of whatever, is making a spending announcement in that riding.  And I cannot stress enough how completely wrong this is under our system of government.

Our system is built upon the notion that MPs are there to hold the government meaning Cabinet to account, and they do so by controlling the public purse.  That's why money bills are automatically confidence measures, and why the Business of Supply which gives opposition parties the opportunity to withdraw confidence in the government is tied to Supply, meaning the allocation of funding that the government hopes to draw upon to carry out its agenda.  There is a fundamental gulf between MPs holding the government to account for their spending, and being asked to announce spending on behalf of government.  It is a fundamental corruption of the role of an MP, and makes them complicit in the actions of the government rather than keeping them in the position where they can hold the government to account for that spending.

Early on in our democracy, from the days of Responsible Government first being achieved in the colonies, right up until the 1930s, there was an enforced separation between Cabinet and MPs so much so that when someone was named to Cabinet, they were forced to resign their seat and run in a by-election so that the people of their riding could confirm whether they wanted their MP to essentially switch sides, so that they were no longer playing the watchdog role, but were now on the side of spending their tax dollars.  Partly why this system came to an end is the way in which it was abused by governments in power when the seat counts were close think of the "Double-Shuffle Affair" in 1858, and in Arthur Meighan's attempt to name "acting" ministers to avoid triggering by-elections in the wake of the King-Byng Affair in 1926.  Mind you, this was also in the days before the creation of the welfare state, and government was much smaller and treated with far more suspicion than it is these days, but the principle nevertheless remains that the role of a minister and that of an MP are fundamentally at odds with one another.

When I pointed out that Akin was mistaken in his understanding of the roles of an MP when it came to announcing funding, I was inundated with a number of people who insisted that it was an MP's job to fight for their constituents, and to advocate for them to get funding, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with them announcing funding and this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the divide between minister and MP.  An MP can and should advocate for their riding, as that fits in with accountability they need to ensure that the government is addressing their riding's needs, and that their spending plans aren't putting them at a disadvantage.  But they have to do so at a distance, because if they are seen as decision-makers when it comes to that funding, if anything is wrong with it and let's face it, that happens an awful lot under any government they need to be able to hold someone to account.  When MPs get co-opted into those spending decisions, their ability to hold government to account falls to pieces because the government can simply say "you helped make that decision.  You got to announce it.  You should wear it, not us."

This isn't to say that an MP shouldn't be present at these announcements it should be an expectation, so that they can point to their advocacy, and this goes for MPs of all parties.  But advocacy is not decision-making, which is part of announcing.  As much as it's churlish to not invite an MP from an opposition party to an announcement (which, the Liberals were better about than the Conservatives), it's fundamentally dishonest to portray the local MP from the governing party as the one who made the decision on that spending.

Inherent in this discussion is the fact that our lack of civic literacy has ensured that we no longer understand the fundamental role of an MP accountability and have instead imprinted on it a desire to see them "bring home the bacon" to their riding, which is what announcements like these accomplish.  That also feeds the mythologies that an MP is only useful if they're a member of the governing party (which electoral reform advocates promulgate), and despite the early avoidance of this temptation, the Liberals have succumbed to the electioneering tactic of showcasing their MPs as distributing largesse particularly as we are now in the pre-writ period.  It's a fundamental corruption of our system that too many people are keen to applaud, to all of our detriments.

Photo Credit: National Post

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Jason Kenney's inquiry to call to account foreign interests attacking Alberta's oil sands sector is a tried and tested populist ploy.

Ever the political wonk, Kenney pulled a page from the dusty Alberta political past to craft this $2.5 million attack on what many would say is legitimate dissent.

The Social Credit party blamed the banking system for Alberta's poverty in the 1930s, going so far as to try to institute a homegrown financial system to counter centralized banking it said was hobbling the prairie farmer.

Outside forces are handy targets.  Us against them.  The David and Goliath scenario, in which brave Alberta stands up against forces bent on keeping the province down.

But in 2019, the cracked and deeply flawed conspiracy theory fuelling Kenney's inquiry should be a red flag to Albertans about whether he respects their common sense and sophistication.

His inquiry, to be conducted by Calgary Economic Development chairman Steve Allan, will supposedly get to the bottom of the foreign money flooding into the coffers of powerful environmental lobbyists against the oil sands.  Allan will do research, hold public hearings and have subpoena power.

The rather tortured scenario underpinning the inquiry, stemming from the writings of pro-oil researcher Vivian Krause, is that international interests bent on keeping Alberta's oil wealth in the ground are bankrolling the drive to stymie pipeline progress in Canada and keep Alberta oil at a price disadvantage on the international market.

Kenney has named organizations including Greenpeace and the Pembina Institute as beneficiaries of the plot and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Tides Foundation as funders.

The Pembina Institute has disputed the charge, pointing out it receives only about 15 per cent of its funding from non-Canadian sources.  The organization is a pretty middle-of-the-road source of information on the environmental impact of resource development in Alberta, not an active intervenor in pipeline hearings.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has issued a statement fairly quivering with disbelief at how far off the charges are.

The conspiracy claim is pretty far out and it fails to account for the other side of the equation.  If foreign actors have much to gain from keeping the oil industry in Alberta down, are there not just as powerful foreign actors who need to defend the sector for their own benefit?

The members of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers account for revenues of $101 billion a year.  Several of those members include the Canadian subsidiaries of huge multinational firms.  For instance ExxonMobile Canada, Koch Oil Sands Operating ULC, PetroChina Canada Ltd., ConocoPhillips Canada and Imperial Oil (69 per cent owned by ExxonMobile) are all members of CAPP.

Surely that well-funded, high power lobby can defend the interests of the Alberta 'patch.

Yet for some reason, Kenney feels the government must step in with its inquiry and a $30 million "war room" to dispute misinformation about Alberta's resource industry.

Most Albertans know the basic facts about current pipeline woes.  Yes, large projects like the Trans Mountain expansion and Gateway ran smack into environmental and First Nation protests.  But to suggest that foreign funding fuel all of those protests just doesn't reflect the very real concerns of people on the B.C. coast who fear tanker spills, or First Nations who's land would be traversed by the pipelines.

It also ignores the fact that Canada isn't the only jurisdiction facing these kinds of protests.  Keystone XL is mired in environmental and indigenous court challenges and political push back on U.S. territory.

Albertans also know that there are a host of economic issues facing Alberta's resource development, including declining oil prices and how that balances with the more expensive process of extracting and refining the oil sands product.

The idea that money from out of country oil sands foes is having a major impact on that much bigger picture just doesn't stand up.  Devoting so much public money and political capital into simplifying much larger issues doesn't add up.

In the end Albertans can think for themselves and the Alberta oil patch can tell its own story.  Kenney's attempt to crush opposing views just looks like a cynical "us against them" strategy pulled from a tired old playbook.

Photo Credit: CBC News

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.