NDP MP wants 'democratic controls' on the prime minister's powers

A New Democrat MP is trying to convince his colleagues to change the rules that govern the House of Commons in a series of ways he says would instill "democratic controls" on the prime minister's "unfettered" powers.

Manitoba NDP MP Daniel Blaikie has presented a motion seeking to change the rules known as 'Standing Orders' to clarify what can be declared a confidence vote, and empower MPs to have authority as to whether the government of the day has the confidence of the House.

The motion also would have the effect of making it harder for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and all of his successors to misuse prorogation and dissolution as political tools to reset or swerve accountability.

"The prime minister enjoys a lot of power in the Canadian system of government, but perhaps one of the most important powers that the prime minister has is the ability to dissolve or prorogue Parliament at will," Blaikie told reporters during a press conference on Parliament Hill Monday.

• Capital Dispatch: Sign up for in-depth political coverage of Parliament Hill

"What that means is the prime minister can call an election at any time that he wants. And, at any point if he's not happy with what's going on in Parliament, he can he can tear up all that work, stop Parliament with a prorogation … This is something that I don't think makes a lot of sense … because Parliament is the body that's supposed to hold the government to account."

The motion—revisiting an initiative the NDP's democratic reform critic tried to pass in the last Parliament—received its first hour of debate on Friday, and Blaikie said he's hopeful the second hour of debate and coinciding vote will be scheduled before the summer break in late June, otherwise it would be pushed to early in the fall.

In making his case for the package of reforms he calls "meaningful democratic controls" and why he thinks it should receive all party support— despite early indications that the Liberals and Conservatives won't back it— Blaikie took direct aim at Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and his pledge to remove "gatekeepers."

"The Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre spends a lot of time attacking the prime minister and attacking the gatekeeping powers of the prime minister… And, now he's got a clear opportunity to go after the gatekeeping powers of the prime minister, and where is he? Nowhere. Nowhere to be seen," Blaikie said, accusing him of being "not serious" about tackling the "unfettered power" the prime minister has.

"I say to Canadians: beware the man who criticizes gatekeepers, but has no solutions to limit their power, and asks only that you give those powers to him. That's a person to watch out for because he's not serious about attacking the problem of gatekeeping. He's just trying to become the principal gatekeeper himself."

WHAT EXACTLY DOES THE MOTION PROPOSE?

If M-79, as it's titled, receives enough votes to pass, then the Standing Orders of the House would instill a new rule stating that the government of the day "must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons," and outline new timelines and specific parameters for what qualifies as the calling of, and debate on confidence votes.

The motion would also create a new rule requiring that either once the prime minister expresses an intention recommend to the Crown that prorogation occur—ending a session of Parliament essentially wiping away all work left unpassed—or immediately after, a confidence vote be held to determine whether the government still has the confidence of the House. 

Prorogation is a procedural move prime ministers have used numerous times over the years, for a range of reasons. The last instance happened in August 2020, when Trudeau prorogued Parliament amid heat over the WE Charity controversy. Though at the time, the prime minister attributed the decision to a desire for a COVID-19 pandemic reset of the Liberal agenda.

Blaikie shot down suggestions the motion would have knock-on effects on the ongoing Liberal-NDP confidence and supply agreement that has the New Democrats propping up the governing minority Liberals on any confidence votes in exchange for progress on a slate of progressive policies. 

He said he's interested in seeing the rules change because it appears minority governments are becoming more of a norm than majority governments—Canada is on its fifth minority of the 21st Century, he noted— and so it's becoming increasingly important to clarify "what the rules of engagement are."

"I think that's helpful whether you're operating under a confidence and supply agreement, or not. I think Canadians deserve to know, and parliamentarians deserve to know when a vote is happening, is it a confidence vote or not? Right now, you need to call in a bunch of constitutional experts and PhDs in order to figure out what's a confidence vote … or who's acting appropriately in the context of a parliamentary crisis."

Asked Monday whether he thinks there is any hypocrisy in the NDP pushing for reforms limiting Trudeau's ability to declare a vote a matter of confidence when his party is essentially protecting the Liberals from these votes, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said no.

He said the proposal is aligned with the party's priorities, is aimed at giving more power "to the people," and tries to tackle issues that have spanned successive Parliaments.

"We want to make sure that we're holding government to account, and we want to have better laws and better tools in place that prevent this government from eroding democracy by just arbitrarily proroguing the Parliament or deeming something confidence when it should not be," Singh said. "I think it's an important way to limit their powers, and to ensure that we have a full functioning democracy." 

WHAT ARE OTHER PARTIES SAYING SO FAR?

MPs had a chance to speak to M-79 on Friday, offering early indications of how the various parties feel about these proposed reforms.

Based on discussions he's had and what he heard during last week's debate, Blaikie said it's his impression the Bloc Quebecois and Greens will vote for his motion, as will the NDP caucus.

He said the Liberals have yet to take a clear position one way or the other. During Friday's debate, Liberal MP Chandra Arya's focused on speaking to the longstanding confidence convention and the Crown's prerogatives regarding the dissolution of Parliament, while expressing an "open mind" should the House fully consider the implications the motion would have on its procedures and practices.

Speaking to the motion and detailing past prime ministers' use of prorogation to evade scrutiny over political scandals, Bloc MP Christine Normandin said she hopes Blaikie's "entirely justified" framework passes.

"Linking prorogation to a confidence vote will hopefully make a government that wants to use it… think twice about the risk of being defeated and triggering a general election," she said. "The government should never be able to hold an opposition responsible for defeating a government… on an issue that should never have been a matter of confidence."

While some Conservative MPs attended a briefing Blaikie held to explain his proposal, the party appears poised to vote against it. Blaikie will need votes from either the Liberal or Conservative caucus in order for the motion to have enough support to pass.

During Friday's debate, Conservative MP Michael Cooper questioned why his colleague was trying to make changes to the Standing Orders in such considerable ways following just two hours of debate, when it's a move historically done only on consensus or with study at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC).

"I will be unable to support this motion, primarily because of the process that the member has proposed in making changes to the Standing Orders," Cooper said, noting that while MPs have studied past prorogations, Blaikie's specific ideas haven't been consulted on. He also raised concerns over potential constitutional implications given the governor general's prorogation authorities.

"There are a number of considerations that need to be studied… And on that basis, it would be premature to adopt the motion at this time," Cooper said.

Though, Blaikie said the advice he's received from parliamentary legal counsel and constitutional efforts is that his motion "pushes the authority of the House of Commons right to the constitutional limit."

He also defended seeming to usurp the role of PROC in this proposed rule change, noting how many other pressing issues are currently before that panel of MPs, including a pair of studies connected to the issue of foreign interference, and another on federal riding boundary redistributions.

"I'm an action-oriented person, and I'd like to see us actually do something about this. I know that a lot of good ideas go to PROC to die," he said. "If parliamentarians in the future think that it's not working out the way it was intended, or that it can be improved upon it will be up to them… But I don't see any good reason not to move ahead to make things harder for the prime minister to abuse these powers."