The transparency games - Macleans.ca
 

The transparency games

The NDP makes a move


 

After denying unanimous consent to Justin Trudeau’s motions last week, the New Democrats have tabled their own motion on MP expenses.

That, in order to bring full transparency and accountability to House of Commons spending, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: 

(a)  conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body; 

(b)  invite the Auditor General, the Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer of the House of Commons to participate fully in these hearings; 

(c)  study the practices of provincial and territorial legislatures, as well as other jurisdictions and Westminster-style Parliaments in order to compare and contrast their administrative oversight; 

(d)  propose modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General Act and any other acts as deemed necessary; 

(e)  propose any necessary modifications to the administrative policies and practices of the House of Commons; and 

(f)   report its findings to the House no later than December 2, 2013 in order to have any proposed changes to expense disclosure and reporting in place for the beginning of the next fiscal year.

The New Democrats say they won’t be seeking unanimous consent to pass this motion, but will instead use one of their opposition days to have the House debate and vote on the proposal. Unfortunately, they don’t have an opposition day scheduled this week and the House is expected to rise for the summer by week’s end, meaning this proposal will have to wait until the fall.

Update 6:22pm. The New Democrats say that if there is unanimous support among the parties, they will move the motion before the House rises.


 

The transparency games

  1. Short Title : Let’s do Nothing.

  2. Parliament of Canada: It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    • You’re supposed attribute there buddy. Although Bill has been dead long enough now not to mind too much.

      • I know. I’m also lapsing into the commenting style of TonyAdams/Hester What’s-Her-Name.

        Guilty of omission and regression, both in one momentary lapse.

        • Don’t be too hard on yourself, at least it wasn’t out of context.

  3. (C) sounds very sensible to me. But other than that all the dippers have done here is look petty. Trudeau should probably vote for it anyway – at least the parts that correspond to his motion. I’d even acknowledge any improvements , if there are any, just to show he’s not going to play these petty, silly games.