NDP takes political risk while still playing by the rules

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 11/03/2020 (1753 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

First things first: everybody take a deep breath.

For a second day in a row, the NDP used an endless stream of points of personal privilege to block the Progressive Conservative government from tabling the 2020-21 Manitoba budget.

For a second day in a row, we’ve had to listen to hysterics from Tory ministers, including Premier Brian Pallister, about how the NDP are ritually abusing the rules and spirit of parliamentary democracy.

What the NDP is doing is tiresome and, ultimately, risky. Particularly if voters see this as a desperate cry for attention from a party a long way away from challenging the governing Tories.

It’s hardly a crisis. We know that because we’re currently under threat from a real crisis.

Despite allegations of rules being broken and principles trampled, the NDP’s actions are well within both the rules and spirit of parliamentary democracy. As for the reasons the NDP have stated to bring the legislature to a standstill… that’s more complicated.

This is not a dispute about the budget, per se. The NDP says it is more concerned about the sheer number of bills tabled this week by the Tory government, and the timing.

On the same day the Pallister government tried to table the budget (Wednesday), it planned to table 21 other bills, in addition to the Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act.

There is no standard for how many bills government can or should introduce along with a budget but, historically, budget day does not feature a busy order paper. In the last three years the NDP governed (2013, 2014 and 2015), not a single additional bill was introduced on budget day.

Why is the number and timing of these other bills a concern? To answer that question, you need to go back to 2013, when a newly-minted Tory opposition leader (Pallister) was trying to find ways to announce his return to provincial politics with authority.

Angered by several pieces of NDP legislation, including then-premier Greg Selinger’s decision to increase the PST to fund infrastructure (after promising not to), Pallister was ready to rumble.

That spring, the Tories used a wide range of procedural tricks to delay both the passage of legislation and the end of the session. After sitting well into August, Selinger drafted rule changes to prevent the opposition from gridlocking the government’s legislative agenda.

In 2015, those new rules guaranteed passage for all legislation tabled no later than 20 sitting days after a throne speech; any bill introduced after that date could be delayed by opposition stalling almost indefinitely. The opposition could, however, delay passage of up to five bills tabled within the deadline, but until the fall session of the legislature.

Citizens may not see the value in a rule that allows such delayed legislation. However, slowing the legislative agenda, and by doing so creating more opportunity for debate and public input, is a reasonable check on the power of a majority government.

Under the rules, the NDP has only to March 17 to examine all 22 bills and decide which will be held back for more scrutiny and debate. Worried the Tories are trying to obscure some controversial measures, the NDP appear to be attempting to delay the tabling all bills until after March 17, meaning the Tories would have no guarantee they would be passed this year.

Is the Pallister government trying to pull a fast one?

The 22 bills touch on a wide array of issues that contain the potential for controversy: changes to advanced education and the University College of the North; the public school system and finance board; Labour Relations Act; civil service pension plan; climate change legislation; and Public Utilities Board.

Both the NDP and the PCs face possible risks in this standoff.

If we discover these bills are nothing more than legal housekeeping, the NDP is going to look like unmitigated fools.

If, however, if we pan out some controversial nuggets from the stream of Tory bills, the political risk shifts considerably to the government. Using the rules of the legislature to limit public and political scrutiny may not be a crime against democracy, but it’s pretty nefarious.

As far as the budget delay is concerned, there are a couple of facts to consider.

Thanks to the premier’s lack of delayed gratification, he has already revealed just about every newsworthy detail through a series of pre-budget announcements. These included plans to introduce a carbon tax, cut the PST, and increase the threshold for the payroll tax.

Having spent Wednesday in a budget lockup — where news media are given embargoed copies of the budget — I know what’s in the document, but I’m not permitted to report anything beyond the details the premier already enunciated.

Even so, I can tell you what’s left is distinguished mostly by what it does not do and what it does not contain. In other words, it’s pretty thin stuff.

So, as we watch the legislative standoff unfold, the public should take comfort. As ugly and silly as it all seems, this is what democracy looks like.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca