Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing MP, Carol Hughes writes a regular column about initiatives and issues impacting our community.
One of the more interesting features of Canadian democracy and the work of the House of Commons is the confidence convention.
On vitally important matters, such as budget bills or the Speech from the Throne, Members of Parliament vote not only for the substance of legislation but also on their confidence that the government can continue to work on behalf of the people that elected them.
This convention has been used, and in some instances, abused by Canadian Prime Ministers since Confederation. It too frequently makes the Prime Minister the final authority on whether the House of Commons can continue to work, particularly since there are very few rules associated with its use. It allows, at the whim of the PM, to thrust the country into a general election without consulting parliament.
There is hope that this could change in the near future.
Daniel Blaikie, the NDPs Critic for Democratic Reform, recently put forward M-79, a motion designed to codify the rules surrounding confidence matters and prorogation that would ensure the House of Commons, and its 338 MPs, are the final intermediaries of what could be considered a confidence matter.
As the rules currently stand, while some votes such as budget bills, Speeches from the Throne, or supplementary budget measures, are always considered confidence matters, the Prime Minister has the ability to make any vote a matter of confidence. This has been used as a tactic by numerous Prime Ministers in the past to ensure MPs are functionally bullied into agreeing with them or risk plunging the country into an election.
The most recent example of this misuse of the Prime Minister’s authority was a threat to make a motion calling for a public inquiry into foreign election interference a confidence matter. In that case, the PM eventually relented, but the threat of its use has serious implications on how the House of Commons can manage itself. Using this method of forcing opposition MPs to decide the fate of any sitting government through a confidence vote has been abused for far too long and eliminating this option for a Prime Minister should be a priority if we are to push for greater ethics and accountability from our government.
M-79 sets out clearer guidelines to determine what confidence matters are. The motion itself states that “the House itself, not the Prime Minister, should be the final authority as to whether the government of the day enjoys the confidence of the House.”
This is important, as the confidence convention as it currently stands makes the Crown, and therefore the Prime Minister himself, the arbiter. This motion would change the rules so that the Prime Minister could not just determine any matter is a confidence matter at his own designation. It also sets terms for prorogation, which is a tool to allow the government to reset its agenda but has in the past been used by Prime Ministers to avoid scrutiny or threats to their leadership.
This was used by the current Prime Minister to avoid investigations into the WE Charity scandal and has been used by former PM Harper to shut down the possibility of a coalition pact with the NDP, Liberals and Bloc to replace his government. It forces the PM to explain his use of the prorogation and then forces a vote in Parliament as a matter of confidence, which should be enough for any Prime Minister to think twice about using prorogation as a method of sidestepping scrutiny.
This motion should be a no-brainer for any MP to support. It sets out clear guidelines for the Standing Orders (the rules the House of Commons abides by) that ensure that MPs are empowered to keep the work of Parliament moving forward and does so without needing to open the Constitution. It holds the government to account, ensuring they can’t run roughshod over elected MPs.
Prorogation and the power to make any matter a confidence matter are two of the greatest gatekeeping powers that any Canadian has, and it would be utterly hypocritical for any MP who rails against gatekeepers to refuse to support such a common sense issue.
Supporting a strong democracy means having rules in place that keep any individual from consolidating too much power. This motion eliminates the concentration of power, prevents abuse, and ensures that the will of the House is held above the whims of a Prime Minister.