Bipartisan Subduing of NDP Motion Upholds Prime Minister’s Unchecked Power

22

In a significant braving of the legislative tides, Members of Parliament hailing from both the Liberal and Conservative factions have subdued an endeavor by the NDP to overhaul the operational guidelines of the House of Commons. The principal aim of this venture was to democratize the unconstrained influence wielded by the prime minister.

The deferral of this reform, asserts the NDP MP, Daniel Blaikie, who was propelling the motion, fundamentally safeguards a channel for potential future Canadian premiers to exploit their executive powers and manipulate the operations of the House of Commons.


Blaikie’s historic proposition involved modifying the so-called “Standing Orders” to elucidate the prerequisites constituting a confidence vote. Additionally, it sought to endow MPs with definitive authority in determining whether the currently ruling government actually enjoys the faith of the House members. However, this proposition saw an overwhelming defeat, losing 269-55.

Despite the endorsements by the Bloc Québécois and the Green caucuses, both the prime minister, Justin Trudeau, and his Conservative counterpart, Pierre Poilievre, sided with their respective party members in strong opposition to the motion.

If approved, the motion would have introduced restrictions limiting the ability of future prime ministers to recklessly employ prorogation and dissolution as strategic tools to avert accountability.

Prorogation, a standard maneuver deployed by prime ministers, irrespective of their affiliations, throughout history and for diverse reasons. Trudeau too resorted to this strategy in August 2020, amid the WE Charity scandal. At the time, Trudeau justified this by citing the necessity for a comprehensive COVID-19 agenda reset.

Explaining the intent of his motion, Blaikie observed, “The motion aimed to establish clear ground rules against abruptly halting the operations of the House of Commons only to resume it later as if nothing transpired.”

Paradoxically, the collaborative sidelining of his proposal by Trudeau and Poilievre, whom Blaikie says now maintains “his gatekeeping power of Parliament,” is both “bizarre and rather irksome.”

With an increasing trend of minority governments becoming the new normal, and Canada now dealing with its fifth minority of the 21st century, Blaikie opines that MPs missed the opportunity to unequivocally delineate the rules of engagement.

Responding to queries about the reluctance of his Liberal and Conservative peers to back his proposal since its presentation to the House last May, Blaikie explained their preference for a more thorough study before implementing such significant changes was a common response.

In sum, Blaikie argues, their decision supports the troubling message that future prime ministers can employ, with immunity, this unchecked power for their political advantage. They implicitly favor safeguarding these interests over the greater collective concerns of the country.