Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

The legislation was revised however it remains an affront to Parliament and the separation of powers on which the Canadian system of government is built


FRASER INSTITUTE: On Wednesday morning, the government, with the unanimous consent of the Opposition parties (Conservatives, NDP, Green Party and Bloc Québécois), passed legislation giving sweeping powers to Finance Minister Bill Morneau, including the power to unilaterally spend and borrow without parliamentary approval until September 2020.

While the original legislation was revised, removing the ability to change taxes unilaterally, it remains an affront to Parliament and the separation of powers on which the Canadian system of government is built. 

Indeed, Bill C-13, An Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19, grants the federal health and finance ministers the power to spend “all money required to do anything in relation to that public health event of national concern.”

While the Liberals agreed to accountability measures including an undertaking that the minister provide to the Commons Standing Committee on Finance a biweekly report on all actions undertaken under certain parts of the Act, these measures fall short of requiring Commons approval for spending measures.

And while the ability to impose taxes unilaterally and without parliamentary approval was removed from the original legislation, the government still has the unilateral ability to borrow. Government borrowing today leads to the need to tax tomorrow. Put simply, the government now has the power to control the budget by increasing indebtedness, thereby increasing the need to pass new taxes in the future.

The new legislation provides that spending may include:

(1) the purchase of medical supplies,
(2) assistance to the provinces for safety and emergency response needs,
(3) providing income support ... and ...
(4) funding public health-related programs or covering expenses incurred by federal departments and agencies.

While this list might appear to limit or at least provide guidelines for the government’s spending powers, in reality, these categories cover the entirety of the federal government’s $340 billion budget, which for 2020-21 consists of $106 billion in “Major transfer to persons,” $80 billion in “Major transfers to other levels of government” and $154 billion in “Direct program expenses” (i.e. departments and agencies).

The question for Canadians, particularly those concerned by the original proposal, is ... how is the revised legislation effectively different from the original bill?


Finance Minister Bill Morneau
The timeline for this unprecedented authority granted to the government, a minority government no less, has been reduced to six months. Beyond the shortening of the timeline (from the end of 2021 to September 2020) and the addition of reporting requirements, however, the suspension of Parliamentary oversight of spending and borrowing remains.

Six months ago, the Canadian electorate decided the Liberals should not have a majority government. Their minority status requires them to work with Opposition parties to pass legislation.

It’s unfortunate the Liberals have used a health pandemic to give themselves powers Canadians didn’t vote for and the Liberals have not earned. And equally unfortunate that the Conservatives, NDP, Green Party and Bloc Québécois have acquiesced.

The COVID-19 bill effectively eliminates the need for all parties to work together to pass spending legislation for the next six months.

Removing Parliament’s role in overseeing spending and borrowing will not bring our country together to solve the problems now ailing the Canadian economy.

The authors of this commentary, Niels Veldhuis and Jason Clemens, are economists with the Fraser Institute. Bruce Pardy is a professor of law at Queen’s University and frequent contributor to Fraser Institute legal work.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

RCMP gag order comes after BC NDP catch heat for diverted safe supply (Northern Beat)

In the wake of several high-profile police drug seizures of suspected safer supply that put the BC NDP government on the defensive last month, BC RCMP “E” division issued a gag order on detachments, directing them to run all communications on “hot button” public safety issues through headquarters in the lead-up to the provincial election. “It is very clear we are in a pre-election time period and the topic of ‘public safety’ is very much an issue that governments and voters are discussing,” writes a senior RCMP communications official in an email dated Mar. 11 in what appears to have gone out to all BC RCMP detachments . . . . CLICK HERE for the full story

PEATS: I am writing with a critical concern regarding the imminent closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic, a vital healthcare facility in our community

The following is a copy of a letter sent to me, which was sent to BC’s Minister of Health Adrian Dix. It is with regards to the impending closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic in Dawson Creek.   Dear Minister,   I am writing to you today with a critical concern regarding the imminent closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic, a vital healthcare facility in our community. The closure, scheduled for the summer of 2024, is a result of the utterly burdensome terms and conditions imposed by the bureaucratic Northern Health. As a result, Dawson Creek stands to lose four doctors who have made this city their home, and who wish to continue serving the people of our community.   The impending closure of the Eljen Medical Clinic is a significant blow to our city. Not only will it result in the loss of highly qualified and dedicated healthcare professionals, but it will also deprive thousands of Dawson Creek residents of access to their primary physicians. At a time when healthcare se

KRUGELL: BC NDP turns its attention from BC United to BC Conservatives

The BC NDP turning its attention, from BC United, to BC Conservatives was reported over the weekend from a variety of sources. It is the result of the surge in the BC Conservative's polling numbers and the subsequent collapse of BC United. The NDP has largely ignored the BC Conservatives, instead they opt to talk about issues directly or attack their old foes BC United. Practical politics says that parties closer to the centre tend to ultimately prevail over the long haul. They do wane but often make comebacks. A good example is the federal Liberals going from third party to government in 2015. Centrism has a lot of appeal on voting day. The NDP shifting its fire from United to Conservative is a reflection of reality. BC United did buy advertising online and radio over the last few months. Did that shift the polls back to them? Nope. The reality is today, the BC Conservatives are the party of the Opposition, and day by day the Conservatives are looking like a party not ready to fig

Labels

Show more