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

BC cannot regulate, redesign, and reinterpret its way to a stable forestry sector. Communities need clear rules, predictable timelines, and accountability for results.

Photo credit:  Atli Resources LP   BC’s Forestry Crisis Continues with Closure of Beaver Cove Chip Facility   As industry leaders, Indigenous partners, and contractors gather this week at the BC Natural Resources Forum in Prince George, the gap between government rhetoric and reality could not be clearer. Just hours after the Eby government once again touted reconciliation, certainty, and economic opportunity under DRIPA, Atli Chip Ltd, a company wholly owned by the ’Na̱mg̱is First Nation, announced it is managing the orderly closure of its Beaver Cove chip facility. The closure comes despite public tax dollars, repeated government announcements, and assurances that new policy frameworks would stabilize forestry employment and create long-term opportunity in rural and coastal British Columbia. “British Columbians are being told one story, while communities are living another,” said Ward Stamer, Critic for Forests. “This closure makes it clear that announcement...

Stamer: Hope for Forestry Completely Shattered After Another Provincial Review Driven by DRIPA

IMAGE CREDIT:  Provincial Forestry Advisory Council Conservative Critic for Forests Ward Stamer says the final report from the Provincial Forestry Advisory Council confirms the worst fears of forestry workers and communities; instead of addressing the real issues driving mill closures and job losses, the NDP has produced a report that ignores industry realities and doubles down on governance restructuring. Despite years of warnings from forestry workers, contractors, and industry organizations about permitting delays, regulatory costs, fibre access, and the failure of BC Timber Sales, the PFAC report offers no urgency, no timelines, and no concrete action to stop the ongoing decline of the sector. “ This report completely shatters any remaining hope that the government is serious about saving forestry ,” said Stamer.  “ We didn’t need another study to tell us what industry has been saying for years. While mills close and workers lose their livelihoods, the NDP is focused on re...

FORSETH – My question is, ‘How do we decide who is blue enough to be called a Conservative?’

How do we decide who’s blue enough to be a Conservative? AS OF TODAY (Friday January 30 th ), there are now eight individuals who have put their names forward to lead the Conservative Party of British Columbia. Having been involved with BC’s Conservatives since 2010, and having seen MANY ups and downs, having 8 people say “I want to lead the party” is to me, an incredible turn-around from the past. Sadly, however, it seems that our party cannot seem to shake what I, and others, call a purity test of ‘what is a Conservative’. And that seems to have already come to the forefront of the campaign by a couple of candidates. Let me just say as a Conservative Party of BC member, and as someone active in the party, that frustrates me to no end. Conservatives, more than any other political philosophy or belief, at least to me, seems to have the widest and broadest spectrum of ideals.   For the most part, they are anchored by these central thoughts --- smaller and less intru...

Labels

Show more