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

FORSETH -- Given the noted infractions of this agreement with OneBC leader Dallas Brodie, I request the Party immediate suspend the leadership campaign of Yuri Fulmer

I have personally emailed the following to the Board and Administration of the Conservative Party of BC:   TODAY (03/30) Yuri Fulmer, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of BC, made a pact with ONEBC leader Dallas Broldie, that if he is elected will commit the Conservative Party to the following. Specifically, the pact states : This Memorandum of Understanding outlines the definitive electoral and governing alliance that will be executed upon Yuri Fulmer’s election as Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia OneBC Party commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in 88 of British Columbia’s 93 electoral districts. In exchange, the Conservative Party of BC, under the leadership of Yuri Fulmer, commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in five (5) specific electoral districts . OneBC will be the sole standard-bearer for the right in those five districts. The specific ridings will be determined through mutual negotiation and fin...

Delays to the replacement of the Red Bridge? Kamloops North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer says they are, “Totally Unacceptable.”

I think it’s totally unacceptable that on one hand the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (MoTT) is saying they’re going to be responsible for putting together multiple replacement options with public engagement, and then in the same breath they're saying, ‘Oh, and by the way, we're going to start our geotechnical environmental and archaeological site assessments on both sides of the river, possibly beginning this summer.’ According to Stamer, that should already have been done. “Obviously, we're pretty sure it will be in the same location because there's really no other place to put it. So, if you're going to put in a bridge, you think that at least you'd be doing the archaeological assessments first off”, stated Stamer.   “If it's determined it has to be a free-span bridge, and it can't have anything or very minimal impact in the riverbed, they should already be determining that. It would help in the design, wouldn't it?” Stamer indicated...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more