A9

WENDELL FULTON
COMMENTARY

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

Speak Up

There was an element of false pretences in the recent federal election. To hear Stephen Harper tell it, the opposition parties (with the Liberals in particular) had made parliament dysfunctional and there needed to be an election. The reality of the degree to which parliament was dysfunctional was his own fault and that of the Prime Ministers's Office.

Enlarge Photo

The Canadian Press

Prime Minister Stephen Harper pauses during a meeting with Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and government officials in Ottawa, Tuesday.

Harper's decision to ignore parliament's fixed-date election legislation was shameful in light of the fact it was Harper government legislation. His repudiation of the law of the land, in hope of a quick election win, shows little respect of parliament. Action like this contributes to making parliament dysfunctional.

Harper and some of his caucus members created a dysfunctional parliament by disrupting the work of House of Commons' committees. In the minority situation he was in, the combined opposition members could outvote the government members. It is in the committees that most of parliamentary work is done.

At times the combined opposition members did not support government measures in the committees, and outvoted them. In most committees, the rules provided for a government chair. This led to Toy abuse of the workings of some of these committees. When a chair sensed the committee might defeat a government proposal, or approve a measure supported by the combined opposition, there was an easy way to obstruct the work of the committee: the chair could leave the meeting. It could not continue without a chairperson present. When another Conservative would be nominated as chair, other Tories on the committee would decline to serve. And just to make sure, Tory members of the committee who needed help in disrupting committee work could consult a 200-page guidebook outlining exactly how government members could disrupt committee work. And Prime Minister Harper dares to claim the opposition members were making parliament dysfunctional?

There should be a public burning in front of the Parliament Buildings of the 200-page guidebook on how to disrupt the work of opposition members, particularly in committees. This is one case where a book-burning would serve democracy.

What a difference there was between Stephen Harper in opposition and Stephen Harper as the authoritarian prime minister. In opposition, Harper boldly proclaimed that when his party came to power things would be different. In his 2006 election campaign, he said he would clean up "the Liberal-created mess in Ottawa." He promised he would "establish a Public Appointments Commission to set merit-based requirements for appointments to government commissions, boards and agencies to ensure that competitions for posts are widely publicized and fairly conducted."

Well, where is this commission? Harper nominated Gwen Morgan, former CEO of EnCana, the world's largest independent oil and gas producer, as chair but members of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Government Operations and Estimates for Review did not approve the nomination because of his previous comments on immigration. Morgan had been critical of some Jamaican and Vietnamese immigrants, whose societies he saw as dominated by violence and lawlessness. He said "the party [Liberal] that has governed our country over most of its history [was] embroiled in behaviour comparable to that of countries at the bottom of the world corruption index."

Harper was furious with the committee's rejection of Morgan. He could have overruled the committee's rejection, but instead said the Public Appointments Commission would have to wait until a majority Conservative government was in place. And when will that be?

So things were to be different in Ottawa with a Harper government? They're not, and there are many hundreds of satisfied Tory political appointees to prove it. If Harper is to have any political credibility on the patronage issue, then bring on the Public Appointments Commission. Otherwise nothing will have changed in Ottawa, despite Harper's campaign promises.

Opposition MPs should make it abundantly clear that they expect something more than Harper's "my way or the doorway." He must now face another minority government. In the current atmosphere of our fiscal meltdown, there will need to be a more functional government.

Harper may find this unpleasant, but he must now treat the nation's MPs, both government and opposition, with civility, and they will have to respond in kind. Time is up for the old dysfunctional "politics as usual."

Wendell Fulton was involved in Robichaud-era politics and was a former legislative researcher for 30 years. He is now retired and resides in Frecericton.