Parliamentary democracy in Canada has been on the ropes for awhile. The Prime Minister does not act as ‘first among equals’, but increasingly like a Roman Emperor. The Prime Minister and his cabinet do not respect principles of the supremacy of Parliament, but act in arrogant and unaccountable ways—denying Parliament key information, even information as essential to good government as basic background to fiscal decisions.

RELATED: Elizabeth May Tables Bill Targeting Excessive Party Discipline

Fundamental to these dangerous trends is the rise in control of MPs by political parties. The political party overlay on Westminster parliamentary democracy is a relatively new and growing phenomenon. Not until the late 1960s did the name of the candidates’ political party appear on the ballot. Simultaneous with that development, the Elections Act was amended to require the leader’s signature to verify that a candidate was properly from the party claimed. A seemingly innocuous change has led to the ability of leaders of political parties to use the threat, that nomination papers will not be signed, to keep their MPs in line.

And the role of leaders of parties has started to ape the US system to such an extent that federal (and provincial) election campaigns are run as though the ballot choice was the election of a Prime Minister (or Premier). We do not elect Prime Ministers in Canada, but this confusion is undermining the essence of representative democracy.

Compounding these trends, which to greater or lesser degree pre-date Stephen Harper’s administration, we now have the political arm of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) reaching into previously off-limit areas. The PMO operatives are bullying the civil service into corrupting the policy making process with blatant spin and doctoring of evidence.

When Kevin Page, Canada’s first Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), spoke on April 4 at a Green Party sponsored lecture at UVic (well worth watching in its entirety on Youtube: http://www.andrewjweaver.ca/video_an_evening_with_kevin_page), he noted that ‘every Parliamentary institution is under assault.’ His two take-away messages: that the control of the public purse must return to the House, and that decisions must be based on evidence.

The Court Ruling

For a while, knowledgeable commentators have taken to pondering if Canadian democracy has a pulse. Then on April 22 and 23, two unrelated events took place, quickening the pulse of Canadian democracy.

The first was the ruling of the Federal Court of Canada on the lawsuit launched by the PBO. Kevin Page refused to accept the refusal of the Clerk of Privy Council, shamefully telling the PBO that none of what he wanted was available; accepting commands from the PMO and denying that the impacts of the falling of the axe must be transparent to MPs and to Canadians.

And so Kevin Page went to court. The court ruled that the PBO was within its mandate to request information about the impact of the cuts in the 2012 budget. The Federal Court confirmed the supremacy of Parliament, the right of each MP to have access to information: about where the budget cuts landed and what effect they have on government programmes. In fact, the court ruled this information should be available to any back-bencher.

Thanks to Kevin Page, the right of any MP, and the PBO itself, to access documentation about government finances has been confirmed. The court went on to find that Page had not fully demanded the information after the clerk said he couldn’t have the information. So, on that technicality, it might appear Page lost. But the right to access that information has led the acting PBO to demand the information.

The SO31 ‘Game’ – Not

The very next day, the Speaker ruled on a recent complaint by Mark Warawa, Conservative MP from Langley, BC. To understand his complaint, you need to know that for 15 minutes every day in the House of Commons, there is something called Members statements (under Standing Order 31, so sometimes called “SO31s”). An SO31 allows a member 60 seconds to make an uninterrupted statement. They are usually about events in the riding, or eulogies for recently departed local heroes. Lately, the Conservatives have mis-used the opportunity for prepared attacks on the NDP claiming they want a $21 billion carbon tax.

Each party whip coordinates which MPs are going to make their SO31s. Apparently, the Conservative whip also vets (and censors) the statements. One day, Mark Warawa was told his statement was unacceptable and his chance to speak was withdrawn. He did something unprecedented in the life of Mr. Harper’s reign. He complained to the Speaker.

Over a few weeks, many MPs supported the complaint, making the case that MPs have the right of free speech. Of course, I spoke in support of Warawa’s complaint, but so did about 7 other Conservative MPs.

The Chief Government Whip argued that the Speaker was a mere ‘referee’ and that the party leader and his operatives were like the coach with the right to decide which players to play.

On April 23, Speaker Scheer’s ruling supported the right of free speech. He completely rejected the sports metaphor and confirmed that only the Speaker has the right to recognize MPs. The convention of the party whips in giving the Speaker a list of MPs to call on was only adopted to assist a previous speaker who had difficulty remembering names (or so goes the story).

The Speaker’s ruling confirmed the absolute right of Members of Parliament to free speech. And it is the duty of the Speaker to maximize that right of free speech. The Speaker, similar to the PBO court ruling, went on to find that Mark Warawa had not tried to speak, by catching the speaker’s eye and trying to get the floor. As such, the Speaker found his rights had not been infringed.

Nevertheless, two rulings, back to back have confirmed the absolute right of free speech and of the right of all MPs to have fiscal information essential to the role of the Parliament as a whole to govern.

We have a pulse!

The post Canadian democracy – pulse found! appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[ZUgw5ETqw3s]

Green Party Leader and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands Elizabeth May introduced Mr. Page prior to his talk on the future of Canada and how we need to make decisions based on research and evidence.

The post An Evening With Kevin Page appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“The non-partisan work of the Parliamentary Budget Office has been enormously helpful to me and to the Green Party, even before I was elected as an MP. I have been very grateful for the deeper and more reflective work of Page and his small but dedicated team,” said May. “The reaction to his work from the Harper Conservatives has been a nasty, ad hominem campaign. He deserves the thanks and praise of every Canadian.”

The Green Party Leader stated that the Parliamentary Budget Officer must be fully independent, chosen by a majority of party leaders, and accountable to Parliament, not the Cabinet; he or she must have a clear mandate with adequate powers, security, and funding to ensure that the federal government and its various departments are open and honest about their spending plans and practices.

“Parliamentarians and citizens alike have had a crash course on how easy it is for taxpayers’ dollars to be spent without explanation, and how valued public services can be cut without scrutiny,” said May. “Now that we have seen how vulnerable our democratic system is in this and other areas, we must insist on immediate changes.”

The post May Praises Page; Calls for Major PBO Changes appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, arising from a question of privilege that we raised just recently, it is incumbent upon us to respond to the government’s intervention on this point.

As you will remember, Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege had directly to do with the access to information that all members of Parliament require for the vote that is coming quite shortly with respect to Bill C-38.

The question of privilege that was raised is a significant one because it talks about the central role of members of Parliament from all sides and, in particular, the role of the opposition to hold the government to account. We listened very carefully to the House leader’s response from the government, and perhaps he was ill-prepared or ill-informed, but his points beared no merit to the case that we presented. We wanted to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that you understood the case as put forward by Canada’s official opposition. In particular, the government House leader raised the issue of timing.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, questions of privilege must be raised at the earliest possible moment. The fact is that since the budget was introduced, we have sought, through every available means that we have at our disposal, such as questions on the order paper, during question period, at committee and through the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to find out what the implications are of this particular piece of legislation, in particular, the cuts to services and the cuts to employment that Canadians will be facing.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, from our deposition of yesterday, that information exists. The government has refused to offer that information for what we believe borders on bogus terms that came from the Privy Council Office directly, which works, obviously, hand-in-hand with the Prime Minister.

It is unlawful for the Privy Council Office to keep this information from parliamentarians and from the Parliamentary Budget Office. The timeliness of this was required as we waited for the government to provide the information that it was legally obligated to do. It was only after its final refusal in letters dated April 12 and then confirmed on May 9 that we knew that we had a question of privilege in front of us.

We have demanded and continue to demand that the government release this information so that we do not have members of Parliament voting blind on a piece of legislation. Again, it is incumbent upon all members of Parliament to be informed before they vote. The fact that the Conservatives seem to have no problem voting blind is a concern to me but not our problem. Our concern in the opposition is that we have everything available to us before we vote.

The third point, which is an important one, is that, in the intervention from the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister’s chief bureaucrat, it is illegal to break section 79.3(1) of the Parliament Canada Act, which is to hold known information from parliamentarians,in this case, holding it directly from members of Parliament and also through an officer of Parliament in the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We have been demanding this information for quite some time.

The last point is that the government house leader made some response that we needed to cite any particular section or provision of the bill but he knows better than this. As we know, a question of privilege is the intervention on the rights of all members of Parliament to perform our duties. The particular example here with Bill C-38, the Trojan Horse bill, is one more example that privilege applies in the individual or the collective when members of Parliament are unable to perform our functions on behalf of Canadians while the government knowingly withholds information that is pertinent to the vote that we are about to take.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as Speaker Milliken knew in one of his last rulings before leaving this place, this is significant. In the case of Speaker Milliken’s ruling, it had to do with the Afghan detainees. In this case, it has to do with the budget. However, the consistency of withholding information is the same. This is problematic, not just for the government in place now but for the function of Parliament and for the sanctimony with which we hold this place.

In order to do our jobs for those we represent every day, we must have the information that exists. The information exists and it has existed for some weeks. The government has refused, at all stages and at every opportunity we have given it, to respond in an honest and forthright way.

The second act the Conservatives moved once in government was the accountability act. This breaks their own act but, more important, it breaks the right and respect that we have for this place and the privilege that members of Parliament have to seek the truth and to understand the information available to us so we can vote with a clear conscience. That is a principle of Parliament and one that we will consistently hold.

Mr. Speaker, as you will make your ruling in some hours to come, I ask that you find this to be a breach of privilege in the individual and the collective case.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for his further contributions on this point.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to belabour the point but I do support the question of privilege just made by the hon. House leader of the official opposition.

I think we should all be quite shocked, as I was, that our Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose job it is to advise parliamentarians so we can do our work reviewing how the public purse is being dispensed and the impacts of the decisions we make in this place on the full functioning of the apparatus and the architecture of our government, has been unable to obtain information that should be readily available to his office, as it should be to all of us, represents a breach of privilege and, indeed, a further contempt.

Hon. Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, in further response to this question of privilege, which, as I said, seems a little out of place, the reason I challenged the NDP House leader to cite which provisions of the bill or which sections were impugned by the lack of information he was looking for, which normally comes through appropriations, is because he is saying that we cannot go forward with the bill because he does not have the information related to it.

I do not see any of the information that he is seeking being related specifically to any provision of the bill. As I said, the disclosure of government spending on programs like this is normally done through appropriations bills, which are provided to Parliament, not through legislative structures in a budget implementation bill. I am sure the NDP House leader, as he becomes familiar with this process, will come to appreciate that.

The other element I want to address very briefly is the notion of the contrast with the other situations he raises. He raised the situation where there had been a resolution of a parliamentary committee or of Parliament’s sending for papers. This budget bill went to the committee and the committee did its evaluation. The committee did not send a request to the government for papers, for information or for any of the things that he here is today seeking. I do not see that those situations are at all analogous.

The core issue is that what he is talking about is not part of a budget bill. The core issue is that what he is talking about is part of an appropriations bill. It is the information that gets disclosed to Parliament through the appropriations process. Therefore, there is really no merit to the question of privilege that has been raised here.

Hon. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, the government ended up being charged with contempt for not providing proper information, which, basically, is the bottom line. This is very similar to that. The government has a record of not providing information to committees, to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and to this House. I think that is a very serious issue.

When we are asked to vote on a bill that covers some 70 pieces of legislation in one omnibus bill and Parliament, which is representative of Canadians, is not provided with proper information, that is, indeed, a very serious issue.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I have not had time to fully answer the government House leader’s point but I would refer him to section 578 of Bill C-38, for which we have not had any effort to assess the impacts but which will be severe on Canada’s economy and environment.

Mr. Speaker, I again refer you to clause 578 within Bill C-38.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. members for their further contributions and I will get back to the House in due course.

The post Question of Privilege – Bill C-38 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Liberal MP McCallum put forward a motion for the Committee to study why the Treasury Board delayed its report until May 7^th. The motion was put to a vote and defeated. While this is a new topic for the Committee, it proved to be an issue that polarized and challenged both sides of the table.

The post Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Following the memorable historical plunge from a high place experienced by former PM Brian Mulroney over threats to alter our pension plans (“Good bye Charlie Brown”), I can only imagine the shock of Conservative backbenchers at home in Ottawa when their boss stepped out on the ledge in Davos.

The contradictions flew back and forth, (the Conservatives spin machine claimed media was incorrectly interpreting his remarks, and then clarifications ensued that pensions would be changed.  Each contradiction was prefaced with “let me be clear.”).

As the dust settles, it seems increasingly clear that Budget 2012 will include a change in which retirement age shifts from 65 to 67.  I had a more or less clear reply from Minister responsible for Seniors, Alice Wong, on this point when I put the question to her in the House.  The only real question about Harper’s intent remaining is whether the changes will be sudden or gradual and over what period of time.  My bet is that the budget will tell 50 year olds to be prepared to work another 17 years.

The question we should be asking is: is this necessary?  The Parliamentary Budget Officer says “no.”  The PBO report issued February 8 states that, having off-loaded 2 % of health care costs on the provinces, Ottawa has room to absorb the bump created be retiring baby boomers.  In fact, the PBO report says we can increase OAS.

Some commentators are wondering why Stephen Harper would risk changing basic entitlements to OAS.  Many assume he both protects his base and keeps his election promises.  This might be a good time for the seniors who lost their savings with Harper’s reversal on taxing income trusts (Halloween 2006) to brief those counting on retirement at 65.  We can push back and protect Old Age Security.  It is time to mobilize. This is no time to retire from activism.

Originally published in the CARP publication CARP OnlineAction

The post On Old Age Security appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I am pleased to present this important legislation. I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for seconding the bill and for supporting efforts to promote transparency and accountability, which are so important to our role as members of Parliament.

The position of parliamentary budget officer was created in 2006 after the Liberal sponsorship scandal, as part of the Conservatives’ commitment to government accountability. But despite their promise to create an independent parliamentary budget office, the Conservatives refused to grant the PBO the same independence and the same authority as other officers of Parliament, such as the Auditor General.

In accordance with the legislation, the PBO’s appointment can be revoked at the discretion of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, and not Parliament, has the power to hire and dismiss the PBO. This restriction is not imposed on other officers of Parliament.

Canadians and their members of Parliament deserve to know the real costs of policies and laws, and the PBO must have enough power and independence to achieve this goal.

Canadians and their MPs deserve to hear about the real costs of policy and legislation, and the PBO must have sufficient power and independence to meet this goal. The bill would allow the PBO to operate independently with a budget to fulfill his or her mandate.

Canadians want the government to be held accountable. We must be focused on ensuring that fiscal transparency and accountability are standard operating procedure in Ottawa.

Seconded by Elizabeth May December 12, 2011.

Click here for the entire document

The post Bill C-381 – An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Budget Officer) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

It has never been a perfect division. Some bureaucracies have been controlling and thwarted good decisions. The BBC series Yes, Minister beautifully captured some of the drawbacks of the expert civil service in the machinations of the fictional Sir Humphrey. The classic line from Yes, Minister, ‘This government has the engine of a lawnmower and the brakes of a Rolls Royce,’ was once repeated to me by a frustrated Finance Minister, Paul Martin.

At its apex, Ottawa once had a superior civil service peopled with skilled mandarins. And we had quite excellent cabinet ministers who worked well with, and respected, the advice of their civil service. People like Harry Swain and Gordon Smith, former deputy ministers now living in Victoria, worked with a long list of ministers.

Not all relationships were perfect, but for many decades, Canada’s government could meet the Constitutional aspirations of ‘peace, order and good government.’ No longer.

Jim Travers of the Toronto Star recently described the Harper government’s attack on our institutions as ‘vandalism.’ The independence of the regulators and senior civil servants has never been so brutalized.

The list is long. The firing of the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Linda Keen, was one of the most egregious acts. When our MP Gary Lunn fired her in January 2008, she was acting to ensure public safety by insisting the Chalk River nuclear reactor live up to its licence requirements. Both the PM and Mr Lunn vilified her as though she was a Liberal partisan. She had merely been appointed by a previous Liberal government. The legislation that guided her actions required her to act to ensure reactors did not operate when out of compliance with licences. Attacking her with the charge she was insensitive to the needs of cancer patients, the government claimed getting the reactor on-line was a matter of life and death.

In the same way that a fire marshal cannot re-open a hospital if the sprinkler system isn’t working, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had to comply with its Act. Firing Linda Keen was followed by amending the Act to require that the CNSC consider the needs to produce radio-nuclides for medical diagnosis. A year later, when the reactor broke down again, the government announced that producing radionuclides was no longer important.

Meanwhile, serious damage had been done to the principle of independent, arms’ length regulation. As Auditor General Sheila Fraser warned, it had a ‘chilling effect’ throughout the whole civil service. But the sackings were just beginning.

Anyone in the civil service who criticizes Harper government policy now realizes they are putting their job on the line. Here is a short-list of those who have been told they will not be re-appointed after becoming thorns in government’s side: Paul Kennedy, head of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, Pat Stogran, Veterans Affairs Ombudsman, Peter Tinsley, chairman of the Military Police Complaints Commission who was investigating the torture of Afghan detainees, Marty Cheliak, the head of the Canadian Firearms Program who was actually shifted out of his position by the Harper government claiming he had to undergo routine French training. The head of Elections Canada, Philip Kingsley was hounded out of his role and his successor, Marc Mayrand, has been under fairly constant assault including a number of court cases against Elections Canada by the Conservative Party.

There have been other positions, simply eliminated by the government, so that a firing is not just personal–it ends the existence of a position in government. In that category, go Dr Art Carty, Science Advisor to the PM, Karen Kraft Sloan, Ambassador for Environment and Sustainable Development, Jack Anawak, Ambassador for Circumpolar Affairs. That’s right. None of those positions exist anymore.

Public attacks on those who criticise form another list. The most prominent example was Richard Colwin, the Foreign Affairs official who was subpoenaed by the Parliamentary committee looking into Afghan torture allegations. He was attacked as though he was a Taliban stooge. One could add Rémy Beauregard who headed the NGO Rights and Democracy, run with a board appointed by the federal government with federal grants. He was hounded out of his job and then died suddenly of a heart attack following a board meeting.

Pubic resignations are rare. Munir Sheikh, Canada’s Chief Statistician (a role equivalent to Deputy Minister to Statistics Canada) had been prepared to implement a policy which he believed to be deeply flawed–cancelling the long-form census. But when Minister of Industry Tony Clement, to whom he reported, told the media that no one at Statistics Canada had warned him that the long-form census was critical, Sheikh felt he had no honourable choice but to quit. He had, of course, warned the minister that killing the census would undermine policy-making across the board.

Without good information, a government is flying blind. It’s like shutting down traffic control at the airport. What Munir Sheikh did encapsulates how the civil service is supposed to work. He made a case to Clement. The Harper government (rumour has it the order to kill the long-form census came directly from the Prime Minister’s Office) ignored his warnings. But he kept his criticisms to himself and would have implemented the change, if not for the fact that the Minister lied and said no-one had warned him.

The most recent loss and the one that prompted me to write about these disturbing assaults on the fabric of our institutions is that of Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page. The position was, ironically, created by the Harper government. It was part of the 2006 Accountability Act, but no one filled the position until Kevin Page was appointed in 2008. With a skeleton staff and a small budget, the PBO under Page has provided clear and transparent assessments of Canada’s fiscal policy and worrying trends. Page has been in a struggle with government from the beginning. He announced last month that he would not seek re-appointment when his term ends.

It is no wonder that morale in the civil service is at an all time low. People doing their job in an impartial way are treated as partisans and enemies. The atmosphere is toxic. Good people are leaving government. We are losing ‘peace, order and good government’ to a mood of oppression and fear. It does look a lot like vandalism.

Elizabeth E. May, O.C. knows her way around Ottawa. She served as Senior Policy advisor to the federal Minister of Environment 1986-88. She is leader of the Green Party of Canada.

The post The Harper hit list: keeping track of the heads that have rolled appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The extravagance of taxpayers’ money that was the G8/G20 summit received most of the media attention. The ‘fake lake,’ the restored steamboat in Tony Clement’s riding that is still not in the water—among various amusing and infuriating examples of pork-barrelling—will be fodder for electioneering, but far more substantive aspects of the event need to be discussed and reviewed.

These questions fall into two categories: what did the leaders actually accomplish (at a cost to Canadians of $50 million/hour), and were there options to avoid the street clashes that will be the enduring memory of Toronto last weekend?

The most substantive achievement from the G8/G20 meetings is the $5 billion maternal healthcare commitment. Canada’s contribution is generous, especially in contrast with the other donor nations. We have committed $1 billion to maternal health, or slightly less than what the summit cost. Our generosity is tainted by the Harper government’s refusal to allow our funding to include provision of safe and legal abortion services, such as are available to Canadian women, to the poorest women in the world. Nevertheless, despite this offensive and illogical stance, we must hope that the Canadian contribution of $1 billion will help alleviate suffering and improve health services.

Efforts to confront the problem presented by financial institutions which rely on being viewed as ‘too big to fail’— but never ‘too big to bail out’—were something of a wash. Those nations committed to create a tax on banks will proceed individually.

The larger potential for a tax such as that envisioned by the late James Tobin, Nobel Laureate in Economics, to reduce the destabilization of currencies through speculative trading was only noted as deserving further study. The Green Party fully supports the Tobin Tax as well as regulation to ensure banks maintain an embedded capital contingency fund. Such a fund would essentially require them to ‘bail themselves out’ without turning to the taxpayers.

Deficit reduction became the big story, with G20 leaders agreeing that developed countries will cut their deficits by half by 2013. The instability in global markets, the risk that the recession is not over, may lead the world leaders to re-think the rigidity of this commitment. Certainly, we would not want deficit reduction to result in greater recessionary trends and serious cuts in social programmes around the world. Unemployment is still worryingly high in many countries. We, in Canada, have been spared the worst of the recession, largely thanks to the fact our banks were denied the ability to ‘go global’ when former Prime Minister Jean Chretien rejected their requests for mergers in the 1990s. Mr Harper likes to take credit for our superior banking system, and conveniently forgets that he agreed with the banks in their bid to merge and engage in the same global financial risky behaviour of the Big Boys, like Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers.

Some world leaders have argued that more stimulus is needed to address persistent unemployment. Certainly, for Canada, we should move to reduce the deficit as soon as possible. We should not proceed with further corporate tax cuts. I presented the Green deficit reduction plan in January to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We were the first party to do so, and we remain the only opposition party to have worked up detailed approaches to deficit reduction and shared them with the PBO.

We can also cut in certain areas where growth in budgets has increased deficits. Chief among these globally has been military spending. In the last ten years we have seen a 50% increase in military budgets up to a worldwide total of $1.5 trillion (US$). This increase in military spending is a big part of the reason our deficits have grown; however, not one word was uttered at the G20 about cutting military budgets as a means of reducing deficits.

Nearly invisible in G20 reports was the new nuclear trade deal brokered between India and Canada. I was certain this move violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, and contacted our former Ambassador for Disarmament, former senator and MP, the Honourable Doug Roche, OC for comment. He had this to say: ‘The Canada-India nuclear trade deal bypasses the fact that Canada is prohibited under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty from entering into nuclear commerce with non- NPT parties, in this case India. Instead of throwing its weight behind the gathering movement in the world for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, which would be a treaty banning all nuclear weapons, Canada has chosen to expand its commercial interests through the weakening of its disarmament efforts.’

This deal is all the more galling in that in 1974 India violated the requirements in Canada’s 1956 gift of a nuclear research reactor by using spent fuel to build a nuclear weapon. Former Minister David Emerson, in re-opening talks with India, said ‘India’s been in the penalty box long enough.’ Now, the Harper government has moved Canada into the penalty box alongside India as a nation undermining non-proliferation goals.

Lastly, and perhaps most disappointing, is the absolute lack of progress on the climate crisis. The one silver lining is that climate was mentioned at all, given the Harper government’s efforts to keep it off the agenda. Nevertheless, this communique has the weakest, least helpful climate language from either the G8 or G20 since the late 1970s. It does nothing to create momentum for the Cancun negotiations in late November-early December. Let us hope that the South Korea meeting can do better. That nation’s top diplomat, UN Secretary General Ban Ki- Moon, is certainly aware and committed to global climate action and may assist the host government in making up for ground lost in Toronto.

The second aspect of the G20 that bears mention is the questions raised by the huge costs of security and the acts of vandalism on the streets of Toronto. My sense, although I was not present at the G20, was that the police themselves were extremely restrained and performed well under pressure. Still, the orders from the top need to be reviewed. Why were police told to allow vandalism, without interference or arrest, but to charge and arrest people who were non-violent? The practices employed by the Toronto police, creating cordons and ‘sweeping the streets,’ appear very similar to those of the London police in last year’s G20, which resulted in false arrests and charges of police brutality in the UK. One year later, charges are being dropped as UK juries have found alleged provocateurs to be innocent bystanders caught up in the melée. Can we learn lessons from the over-militarized approach to security and the possibility that such displays of militarized force increase the risk of violent clashes? Can we learn from the Toronto Summit and provide advice to other governments of the best way forward to balance the needs for freedom of expression, protection of private and public property, and security for the leaders themselves?

Due to the serious allegations of unacceptable erosion of civil liberties connected with the summit, the Green Party has called for a public inquiry. Canadians deserve to know why the summit cost so much, accomplished so little and left an impression of Toronto as a war zone. Perhaps there were no alternatives once world leaders were invited. For the future of us all, we have to hope that there are indeed acceptable alternatives.

Elizabeth May is leader of the Green Party of Canada and has participated in G8 summits, both the official and Peoples’ Summits, since 1995.

The post G20 –Was It Worth It? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Six years ago, that untried Conservative Party leader led a fledgling party (created by the merger of Progressive Conservatives and Alliance party) into an election. In that 2004 election campaign a tenuous minority government went to the Liberal Party.

But within 18 months, that same Conservative leader took his party to government with a well-focused, disciplined campaign with one core message: ‘demand accountability.’ Stephen Harper’s election in 2006 owed much to the surfacing of the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

Ironically, Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin’s reaction to the sponsorship scandal—anger at former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien on whose watch it had taken place— contributed to his defeat. Had he shrugged the scandal off he might have survived the election. But Martin was so outraged at the discovery that hundreds of thousands of dollars had been diverted to Liberal ad agencies and kick-back schemes under Jean Chretien that he established an investigation headed by John Gomery, focusing the nation’s attention.

Accountability Since 2006

Those who had hoped for real accountability—reduced access to lobbyists and a real commitment to meet electoral promises— have been gravely disillusioned.

The Federal Accountability Act was passed in Parliament, but omitted about 30 key measures that had been in the Prime Minister Harper’s 2006 campaign pledge. In fact, the bill, once passed, actually removed the ‘duty to act honestly’ which had previously been in place for senior bureaucrats and Cabinet members.

Accountability has been since been ducked by ignoring bills passed by Parliament which the government never wanted (the bill to demand climate action) or which the government initially wanted and then found to be inconvenient (the fixed election date law).

Why Prorogation Again?

The most recent prorogation of Parliament has been linked by many to the government’s wish to shut down the hearings into allegations of torture of Afghan detainees.

Richard Colvin, that singularly decent federal civil servant, appeared on a subpoena to the committee. As a trusted and high-ranking member of Canada’s foreign service in Washington, he hardly fits the ‘whistle-blower’ profile. He told the Parliamentary committee that those handed over by Canadian military to Afghan authorities were not necessarily combatants. They were taxi drivers, farmers, men at the wrong place at the wrong time. He testified it was a virtual certainty they would be tortured and that he passed this information to Ottawa. Last week his lawyer accused the government of seeking reprisals by refusing to pay his legal bills.

The full truth is even stranger and more Machiavellian. It turns out that when Colvin was first subpoenaed, a Justice Department lawyer offered to be his counsel. Knowing that his personal legal interests and those of the government might diverge, he immediately refused the offer.

Subsequently, justice lawyers claimed that, since he was once a client, all communications with Colvin going back to when he sent emails warning of torture were ‘privileged.’ So the production of the documents to prove Colvin was telling the truth is being blocked by the bogus claim that it would violate his solicitor-client privilege.

Still Using Taxpayer Money To Promote Political Parties

Let’s return to the kind of scandal where government misspends taxpayers’ dollars to boost their electoral fortunes. This is an area where Stephen Harper’s tactics make the Sponsorship Scandal look like a Sunday school picnic.

The abuse of MP householders, mailings paid for by the taxpayer, is being used to bombard voters with partisan propaganda. Giving up at getting some veto over the Conservative use of these fliers, the federal Liberals are now doing it too. Millions upon millions of federal dollars were also spent last fall to urge voters not to allow the government’s stimulus programme to be slowed—as if an election would do that. There has been zero accountability of the amount of money spent on advertising.

The level at which accountability is currently being evaded would shock traditional conservatives. Demands to know the amount of money being spent to advertize the wonders of the stimulus programme fall on deaf ears. Martha Hall-Findley, Liberal MP, charged that the spending to orchestrate the last stimulus package update in September was one million dollars for one day alone. No government member rejected the claim.

Stimulus Creating Structural Deficit

Last week I met with Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He has, quite rightly, pointed out that Canada faces a serious structural deficit. The Harper government denies it despite the fact that it is undeniable.

Nonetheless, the government stimulus package is being rolled out without any mechanism to trace if money is being spent on its intended goals. Meanwhile, in the US, President Obama created web sites for the citizenry to trace every single project. When asked how Canada was tracing the flow of the billions, Transport Minister John Baird rejected calls for accountability. Incredibly, he stated that it was not the role of ‘big government’ to trace how the money was spent. How can it not be the role of government to make sure taxpayers’ dollars are spent appropriately? Yet, relying on message over sense, he demonized the call for government accountability as ‘big government’ intrusiveness.

This is something of the tip of the iceberg. No doubt there have been other politicians whose actions in office would have earned their contempt when they were in Opposition. But Stephen Harper’s cynical rejection of accountability has taken such hypocrisy to new heights.

Elizabeth E May, Order of Canada, is the leader of the Green Party of Canada and candidate in Saanich Gulf Islands.

The post Talking About Ottawa: Fiscal Accountability appeared first on Elizabeth May.