Bill 204 dispute: government of Quebec above the law?

This Telegram Editorial, published on June 8, 2011, explains how the Government of Quebec has lost critical thinking and capacity analysis, and acts, with Bill 204, as if above the law.

**************************

BENDIND TIME

There probably aren’t many people in this province who care about an internecine dispute in the Parti Québécois — a dispute over a private member’s bill, no less.

But the issue at the core of the dispute is something that seems to be growing in this country: a willingness by legislatures to retroactively change the rules to dig themselves out of trouble.

The issue in Quebec has to do with Bill 204, a piece of proposed legislation that the PQ is bringing forward to solve a particular problem. The law would go back in time and make legal a 25-year management deal Quebec City has struck with Quebecor Media Inc. The agreement would see Quebecor manage a $400-million amphitheatre and arena, and in return, the head of Quebecor has committed to getting Quebec City an NHL franchise.

Problem is, the deal didn’t go to public tender, and therefore violates Quebec’s Cities and Towns Act, leaving the deal open to court action from others who would have liked to have bid on the venture.

The PQ’s solution? Retroactively make the deal legal. The head of the PQ, Pauline Marois, ordered her caucus to vote for the bill, and Monday, three senior members of her caucus quit, saying that the PQ leadership had become too authoritative. More were threatening action on Tuesday.

Why should we be concerned? Why should we even pay attention?

Because retroactive laws are bad laws.

And we’ve already seen attempts in this province to use the primacy of the legislature to give government status before the courts that can only be classed as an unfair advantage.

Take the province’s expropriation of AbitibiBowater assets. While the end might have been laudable, the means used were a legal sledgehammer. Not only did the legislation strip AbitibiBowater of its rights to take the province to court over the seizure of its property, it also stripped the legal rights of anyone affected by the seizure of property. The actual clause reads: “An action or proceeding does not lie or shall not be instituted or continued against the Crown or a minister, employee or agent of the Crown based on a cause of action arising from, resulting from or incidental to the operation of this act.”

But that’s not the most egregious use of legislation — that still has to rest with laws meant to turn back the clock.

The honour for the ugliest attempt would have to rest with the province’s move in 2008 to pass legislation protecting itself from court action over a liquor levy of a type that was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. Facing legal action from bar owners, the government passed a bill in 2008 that purported to take effect in 2001, moving backwards in time to extinguish all legal liability for collecting the improper levy.

That effort was overturned by the Supreme Court in this province.

The message to both the government of this province and to the PQ should be clear.

Bending time to fix your own mistakes may be possible, but it will always be an abuse of power. What kind of message do you send if your solution is “if the rules work against you, change them retroactively to your own benefit”?

It’s simple: you view yourself to be above the law.

Loss of critical thinking / capacity analysis, trivialization of issues related to transparency & ethics at government of Quebec

Pierre Curzi
When an MP declares he reached his personal limit, he can no longer look at himself in a mirror with a clear conscience, impairment of the relationship between the government and citizens has reached a threshold.

Resigned MP Pierre Curzi denounced the growing distance between political parties and citizens of Quebec.

Here's a sample of texts read yesterday by MPs Lisette Lapointe, Louise Beaudoin and Pierre Curzi in announcing their resignation from the Parti Quebecois, published in Le Devoir on June 7, 2011: "Shockwave at Parti Quebecois - My personal ethics threshold of tolerance has been reached". («Onde de choc au Parti québécois - «Mon seuil de tolérance éthique personnel a été atteint»)

[Pierre Curzi] I choose to leave the Party because of my inability to concur with a proposal which deprives citizens of a full right to exercise their civic and legal responsibilities.

Partisanship and opportunism: I perceive democratic life as being elevated, to something most significant, that is to say, the full and free participation of citizens in shaping their society. This latest episode of our parliamentary life collided head first with these values, and is a powerful indicator of the growing distance between political parties and citizens of Quebec. I think this is largely due to the fact that political parties, in particularly in the context of a sclerosing bipartisanship, too often put their partisan interests and opportunism before the interests of citizens and citizens.

Joyless, I leave the [Parti Québécois]. Citizens must take control of their democratic institutions. I will now spend my political commitment to contribute freely and without any bitterness to recovery charge. There you go.

How is Pierre Curzi intending to "contribute to the recovery charge"? I repeat endlessly the same song as a gramophone, an open government would restore harmony in the relationship between the Quebec government and citizens.

How come this solution of an open government does not emerge when the National Assembly is sinking in a democratic crisis?

Premier Jean Charest has pushed back to the fall the adoption of Bill 204 (which causes all these gyrations). MPs were to vote on the bill before June 10. "Liberals are split on Bill 204, without tearing each other apart as the PQ does", reports Marco Fortier in Rue Frontenac.

Transparency, participation and collaboration would establish a relationship of co-creation co-production between the government and citizens. Problems would be turned into challenges, citizens would be invited to collaborate and this would offer an opportunity for unexpected solutions to emerge.

Yesterday, the president of the Quebec Federation of Municipalities (FQM), Bernard Généreux, expressed concerns about the National Assembly "trivializing the issues related to transparency and ethics".

"What game are we playing?" he wondered. "There is this feeling that the National Assembly is losing its critical thinking and capacity analysis, necessary for the adoption of a law. Even if the management agreement between the City of Quebec and Quebecor is not clear in terms of transparency, it gives rise to a "grand concert of forced unanimity", lamented Bernard Généreux. "People see that and it's a very bad message. What we are doing is undermining credibility of the municipal world," he predicted.

Issues such as loss of critical thinking and capacity analysis, trivialization of issues related to transparency and ethics, could be avoided with an open government. An open government would ensure transparency in legislation as well as in developing new policies and programs, would provide an opportunity for citizens to intervene when critical thinking, capacity analysis and ethical issues would be undermined.

The National Assembly is taking a break for the Summer, June 10 is the closing end of parliamentary activities. What does Henri-François Gautrin’s team, responsible for an analysis mandate of the potential of Web 2.0, planning for the summer? Their new website for public consultation, expected to be launched in May 2011, is running late. The team is behind on timeline.

This week’s incidents show there is a need to implement an open government initiative in Quebec. Everyone would benefit from it.