From Yahoo News....
2 hours, 11 minutes ago
8:50pm Monday June 15th, 2009.
By Jennifer Ditchburn, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - The threat of a BBQ-season election hovered over the nation's capital like smoke off the grill after Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Liberal rival made tactical moves designed to place the fate of Parliament in the other's hands.
Harper invited Michael Ignatieff to a rare tete-a-tete Tuesday to see if a truce could be forged before a critical confidence vote by week's end.
With the NDP and Bloc Quebecois committed to voting against supplementary budget estimates, the ball and the government's fate was in Ignatieff's hands.
Ignatieff took the ball Monday morning and tapped it softly at Harper.
Show me your plans for EI, how much has been spent so far on stimulus projects, when you'll pay down the deficit and what your plan is for medical isotopes, Ignatieff demanded gently.
But if meeting those demands takes longer than this week, that's OK too by Ignatieff.
Cooperation, not confrontation, was the Liberal leader's mantra. That conciliatory tone was carefully calibrated to betray neither weakness nor bloodlust.
"My party doesn't control the timing of elections in any case. It's the prime minister and his government's responsibiity to maintain the confidence of the House," Ignatieff told reporters.
"For our part, the Liberal party has consistently shown that we want to make Parliament work for all Canadians. The real question is does Mr. Harper want Parliament to work?"
Harper's response was equally measured, offering the slightest hint of compromise.
He noted that his government planned to announce changes that would bring self-employed Canadians into the EI program, but that they were not measures that could be finalized in a matter of days.
"I would encourage Mr. Ignatieff and his party if they want to contribute to that idea or if they have other ideas, to be clear about them, and we'll certainly be prepared to dialogue about them over the summer," Harper told reporters.
But that was as far as Harper would go, underlining that the opposition would be to blame for stalled stimulus spending if the government fell. That provided a glimpse of the prime minister's campaign rhetoric.
"It's quite a contradiction. You can't say you're concerned about spending not happening and then vote against giving the government the parliamentary authority to spend money."
NDP Leader Jack Layton scoffed at Harper's line.
"They can't have it both ways. They're saying all this money has gone out, but now they're saying this money won't go out if there's an election - which is it?"
Ignatieff later said that Harper had taken a "couple of milimetre steps," but "we're not out of the woods yet."
No party in the Commons wants an election. The Conservatives are declining in the polls, the Liberals are cash-strapped, the NDP are trying to regain ground they've lost since last fall and the Bloc Quebecois are also on shifting ground in their home province.
The public doesn't want one either. A Harris-Decima poll Monday pegged the number at 78 per cent opposed.
Pollster Nik Nanos, of Nanos Research, calls it a "game of poker where everyone's bluffing, but nobody's holding anything."
Nanos said Ignatieff made an impressive strategic play - exploiting perceived Harper weaknesses of transparency, accountability and intractability.
"The prime minister has to be looking at the current environment and the numbers and knowing that he can't really risk his government on an election, knowing that Michael Ignatieff hasn't set anything down that's a big ask," Nanos said.
But it's a high stakes game for Ignatieff too, who is haunted by the shadow of former leader Stephane Dion. The former Liberal leader made and lost a leadership career by excoriating the government's policies and then ensuring that his caucus turned up for confidence votes in insufficient numbers to bring the government down.
....................................................................................
Monday, June 15, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
MPs' secret meetings loosen rules for cash and benefits
MPs' secret meetings loosen rules for cash and benefits
Sat Jun 6, 1:07 PM
By Tim Naumetz, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Members of Parliament have exempted the cash and benefits they receive from political parties and riding associations from restrictions and public disclosure under the House of Commons conflict-of-interest code.
The move was unanimously approved without a vote in the Commons after a series of committee hearings conducted entirely in secret.
The closed-door decision counters a trend to more accountability in government and should have come under public scrutiny, a democracy advocate says.
The change also could erode the independence of backbench MPs and make them more beholden to party bosses instead of voters, adds Democracy Watch chief Duff Conacher.
All four parties in the Commons approved the change last Thursday after a House rules committee and one of its subcommittees held eight meetings on the topic that were closed to the public.
The watchdog over conflict of interest for MPs and public office holders, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson, gave evidence and advice at four of the closed-door meetings.
But her comments will remain a secret, along with all statements and comments MPs made about the topic during the in-camera hearings.
Conacher - who says he gave an invited opinion at one of the meetings on condition that portion remain open to the public and then answered questions in camera - criticized Dawson for taking part in the secret deliberations.
"She's a watchdog," he said. "A watchdog does not meet behind closed doors with the people they watch."
A committee report on the change says Dawson advised MPs to replace a blanket prohibition on gifts related to their positions, other than those they receive as a normal expression of courtesy or protocol, with a more relaxed test that nonetheless is aimed at preventing improper influence.
The code requires MPs to disclose all gifts and benefits valued at more than $500.
The MPs expanded the change to specifically exclude money that is not repayable and property and services obtained from a political party or riding association from the definition of "benefit" in the code.
The amendment means there is no limit on money or goods and services MPs may receive in that context, and no obligation to report it on a public registry maintained by the ethics commissioner.
"Political parties and riding associations oftentimes pay, or reimburse, registration fees, travel expenses and hospitality to members for their participation at political events," the committee report says.
"These benefits cannot, under any circumstances, be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity, and, therefore, should be excluded from the definition of 'benefit."'
Conacher argues the change means MPs might be able to build up campaign war chests under the radar between elections - a practice Parliament itself ended several years ago with the elimination of blind trusts in riding associations.
He says the change could also lead to the kind of MP expense abuse that has rocked the British Parliament.
"If you look at the whole scandal of what happened in Britain, this will allow parties to give all those kinds of gifts, those were gifts of services and money, to MPs in secret," he said.
"It will allow the parties to buy off MPs in secret and make it much more likely that they will toe the party line instead of representing voter concerns."
Conacher also noted between 30 and 60 per cent of the coffers of federal political parties come from taxpayers through tax deductions for contributions, election reimbursements or public allowances from Elections Canada.
Dawson did not respond directly to the criticism that she took part in closed-door hearings to amend the code, but confirmed she earlier raised concerns with MPs about difficulties interpreting the previous ban on gifts.
"This committee decided to hold in-camera meetings to consider the provisions of the code that relate to gifts," Dawson's communications officer, Jocelyne Brisebois, said in an email.
"The commissioner was pleased to work with the subcommittee."
While MPs exempted the monetary and other benefits from their own conflict-of-interest code, an Elections Canada spokesperson said the transactions must be disclosed if they occur during an election campaign.
"If the benefit given to a candidate by a party or a registered association is given to the candidate personally and not for the use of his campaign, it is a gift and the candidate will be required to report it under the Canada Elections Act if the value exceeds $500," said Maureen Keenan.
"The cost of the gift would eventually be reported by the party or a registered association in its financial reports.
"If the benefit is used to directly promote the candidate during an election period, it constitutes either a monetary or non-monetary transfer and will be required to be reported both by the candidate and by the political entity that made the transfer."
MPs defended the secrecy of the hearings, arguing they wanted to discuss personal experiences with the conflict code.
"I guess we want to protect personal identities," said Liberal MP Marcel Proulx.
Sat Jun 6, 1:07 PM
By Tim Naumetz, The Canadian Press
OTTAWA - Members of Parliament have exempted the cash and benefits they receive from political parties and riding associations from restrictions and public disclosure under the House of Commons conflict-of-interest code.
The move was unanimously approved without a vote in the Commons after a series of committee hearings conducted entirely in secret.
The closed-door decision counters a trend to more accountability in government and should have come under public scrutiny, a democracy advocate says.
The change also could erode the independence of backbench MPs and make them more beholden to party bosses instead of voters, adds Democracy Watch chief Duff Conacher.
All four parties in the Commons approved the change last Thursday after a House rules committee and one of its subcommittees held eight meetings on the topic that were closed to the public.
The watchdog over conflict of interest for MPs and public office holders, Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson, gave evidence and advice at four of the closed-door meetings.
But her comments will remain a secret, along with all statements and comments MPs made about the topic during the in-camera hearings.
Conacher - who says he gave an invited opinion at one of the meetings on condition that portion remain open to the public and then answered questions in camera - criticized Dawson for taking part in the secret deliberations.
"She's a watchdog," he said. "A watchdog does not meet behind closed doors with the people they watch."
A committee report on the change says Dawson advised MPs to replace a blanket prohibition on gifts related to their positions, other than those they receive as a normal expression of courtesy or protocol, with a more relaxed test that nonetheless is aimed at preventing improper influence.
The code requires MPs to disclose all gifts and benefits valued at more than $500.
The MPs expanded the change to specifically exclude money that is not repayable and property and services obtained from a political party or riding association from the definition of "benefit" in the code.
The amendment means there is no limit on money or goods and services MPs may receive in that context, and no obligation to report it on a public registry maintained by the ethics commissioner.
"Political parties and riding associations oftentimes pay, or reimburse, registration fees, travel expenses and hospitality to members for their participation at political events," the committee report says.
"These benefits cannot, under any circumstances, be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity, and, therefore, should be excluded from the definition of 'benefit."'
Conacher argues the change means MPs might be able to build up campaign war chests under the radar between elections - a practice Parliament itself ended several years ago with the elimination of blind trusts in riding associations.
He says the change could also lead to the kind of MP expense abuse that has rocked the British Parliament.
"If you look at the whole scandal of what happened in Britain, this will allow parties to give all those kinds of gifts, those were gifts of services and money, to MPs in secret," he said.
"It will allow the parties to buy off MPs in secret and make it much more likely that they will toe the party line instead of representing voter concerns."
Conacher also noted between 30 and 60 per cent of the coffers of federal political parties come from taxpayers through tax deductions for contributions, election reimbursements or public allowances from Elections Canada.
Dawson did not respond directly to the criticism that she took part in closed-door hearings to amend the code, but confirmed she earlier raised concerns with MPs about difficulties interpreting the previous ban on gifts.
"This committee decided to hold in-camera meetings to consider the provisions of the code that relate to gifts," Dawson's communications officer, Jocelyne Brisebois, said in an email.
"The commissioner was pleased to work with the subcommittee."
While MPs exempted the monetary and other benefits from their own conflict-of-interest code, an Elections Canada spokesperson said the transactions must be disclosed if they occur during an election campaign.
"If the benefit given to a candidate by a party or a registered association is given to the candidate personally and not for the use of his campaign, it is a gift and the candidate will be required to report it under the Canada Elections Act if the value exceeds $500," said Maureen Keenan.
"The cost of the gift would eventually be reported by the party or a registered association in its financial reports.
"If the benefit is used to directly promote the candidate during an election period, it constitutes either a monetary or non-monetary transfer and will be required to be reported both by the candidate and by the political entity that made the transfer."
MPs defended the secrecy of the hearings, arguing they wanted to discuss personal experiences with the conflict code.
"I guess we want to protect personal identities," said Liberal MP Marcel Proulx.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
