The Conservative national council, plus about twenty other individuals including MP Diane Finley, are nearly set to lay out their leadership campaign rules, including the date of the vote – likely sometime in 2017. I’m sure we’ll start seeing the campaigns start to rev up soon after that – Kellie Leitch and Jason Kenney out the door first, and over time, I’m sure a not-Jason-Kenney candidate will emerge for others to start coalescing around. People keep saying Lisa Raitt, but I haven’t seen any sign of her French improving, and that is going to be an important consideration with the party having improved its fortunes in Quebec in the last election. And then there’s Peter MacKay, who leads in the polling on the subject, but I’m not sure that he’s had enough time and distance from politics just yet, not to mention the fact that he really isn’t the Red Tory that most people seem to think he is (just because he very briefly led the Progressive Conservatives after winning the leadership on a promise that he immediately turned around and broke). I’m not unconvinced that there needs to be someone who was much more of an outsider, largely untainted by the Harper years, who will be the instrument of the party broadening its base more as part of the leadership process, and again, I really doubt that MacKay is that person. He is intimately tied with Harper for his joining with him in the creation of the party, and I fail to see how that would be any kind of asset in a leadership race where the party would need to show that it is moving on from those years, rather than simply moving to relive them.
QP: A New Dawn
It was the first Question Period of the 42nd parliament, and the excitement – and indeed nervousness – in the Chamber was palpable. Would it be a gong show? A serious discussion on policy matters? Would there be the same kinds of canned talking points and obfuscation that we’ve come to expect, or would the era of openness and transparency take hold and offer up substantive answers to substantive questions? And it was a bit of both.
(I did have the full, detailed recap written up, and then my WordPress iOS app swallowed it whole with a “saving error,” so apologies for not being able to provide it today).
Roundup: Looking forward to the first QP
It’s the first full sitting of the new parliament, which includes the first Question Period of the new session. Hooray! It’s going to be exciting, but there remains so much to be seen, so it’s hard to pre-judge the whole thing. Not to mention, the Liberals are keen to change the rules around QP by the New Year, so what happens this week may be a glimpse into a future that never will be. Will Speaker Regan enforce his heckle ban? Will MPs respect it? While Kady O’Malley offers a preview of what to expect, and the rest of the Ottawa Citizen staff gives their expectations for some of the match-ups, I’ll offer a few of my own observations. First of all, the first few QPs of any new parliament aren’t likely to be exciting because, frankly, everyone’s still a bit sanctimonious at this point. There’s all this hope and optimism, and of course they’re going to be civil and constructive because why wouldn’t they be? It’s also early enough that there really haven’t been too many screw-ups or missteps by the new government yet, so there’s not too much for the opposition to sink their teeth into just yet. We’ll see if Trudeau is going to show up, and how many questions he’ll answer, seeing as he plans to change the rules so that he’ll only be required to show up one day per week (but answer all questions on that day). As for some of these match-ups the Citizen staff came up with, well, it’s pretty obvious that they didn’t really watch QP in their last parliament because some of their descriptions and predicted “winners” are complete nonsense. Advantage Irene Mathyssen over Kent Hehr? Seriously? Mathyssen who reads her questions with sheets of legal-sized paper in front of her face is more impressive than Hehr, who has years of provincial experience? Sorry, no. Cullen as a “strong performer?” Seriously, did anyone actually listen to him ask questions in the last parliament? Because he didn’t so much ask questions as give soliloquies as to how terrible the government was with no actual question asked. Not sure how that makes him a “strong performer.”
Roundup: An “efficient” Speech
Yesterday’s Speech From the Throne was all of the pomp and pageantry we’ve come to expect from the opening of parliament, with a few new elements this year to reflect a few of the things Trudeau is trying to emphasise – an Indigenous drummer after the Governor General arrived, and a lengthy reception line with a number of local youths, immigrants, and Syrian refugees. The Speech itself was short and per Trudeau’s characterisation, “efficient,” which is just as well, though it led to the opposition leaders bellyaching that it didn’t mention the laundry list of things that they felt it should, including dollar figures and timelines for promises (as though any Throne Speech ever has done so). And hey, Thomas Mulcair started making snide comments in TV interviews, so the new tone of civility really lasted. Content wise, there were no surprises in the Speech, which isn’t a surprise considering that we just came out of a lengthy election, plus the ministerial mandate letters are already public, so it’s just as well that Trudeau didn’t insist on reiterating the whole platform in florid language that would have bored everyone present. (Maclean’s has an annotated copy of the Speech here). With the Speech over, the Commons proceeded to engage in some housekeeping – the pro forma Bill C-1 that asserts the independence of the Commons from the Crown, the nomination of Bruce Stanton as Deputy Speaker, bringing the Procedure and House Affairs committee into existence, and tabling of the Notice of the Ways and Means Motion that get the process of Trudeau’s middle class tax cuts rolling for January 1st. As for reaction to the Speech, Aaron Wherry, Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells all note the ambition of the agenda, while Chantal Hébert puts it all in a bit more historical context.
The SCC Judges seated at the #ThroneSpeech . Very exciting time . A new beginning #senCA pic.twitter.com/3lJvgO7nBj
— Sen. Mobina Jaffer (@SenJaffer) December 4, 2015
C-1 is really important! It's the You're Not The Boss of Us, Your Majesty bill. #SfT15
— kady o'malley (@kady) December 4, 2015
Aww, a unanimous motion to make outgoing House Clerk Audrey O'Brien clerk emeritus, with permanent right to enter the Chamber. #SfT15
— kady o'malley (@kady) December 4, 2015
Carried, and so deserved. And I hope she uses her new privilege to visit on occasion. #SfT15
— kady o'malley (@kady) December 4, 2015
Roundup: Some answers on the Senate question
That Senate bat-signal? It came with air raid sirens today. To recap, the government named Senator George Furey as the new Senate Speaker, which was a positive step, then they handed down their plan for their new appointment process, and amidst this all, Conservative Senator Jacques Demers quit caucus to sit as an independent. So where to begin? Well, with Furey’s appointment, it lays to rest issues around whether the government would ignore their obligation to make the appointment, and to the questions of what to do with Housakos after the allegations of his breaching senators’ privilege with the AG leaks. Senator Elaine McCoy was disappointed that Senators couldn’t choose their own Speaker, but I’m not sure she’s aware that it would require a constitutional amendment for that to happen (but one with a minor amending formula, granted). And then there the appointment panel – it’s designed much like the Vice-Regal Appointments Commission, with three permanent federal members and two ad hoc members per province with a vacancy, and they will draw up a short list for each vacancy for the Prime Minister to choose from. It’s constitutional and creates the atmosphere for the Senate to change from within, based on the recommendations from Emmett Macfarlane. The plan is to draw up a temporary process to name five Senators quickly in the New Year (two each for Manitoba and Ontario plus one for Quebec, where the representation levels are getting low), and the permanent process will then take over and fill the remaining vacancies, plus new ones as they happen. The plan is also that the provincial will give input on the appointment of board members from their province (though the federal government will appoint them for the temporary process). Christie Clark said that she’s not interested in participating, which is fine – the government can appoint BC representatives for the committee without her government’s input, and the same with Brad Wall if he joins her obstinacy. It was also announced that one of those five first appointments will be named the government leader in the Senate, but that they won’t be in cabinet and will be more of an administrator or a legislative coordinator, thus impacting on the accountability aspect (which I will write about in a future piece). It does provide a bit more clarity, however, but much remains to be worked out. As for Demers, I have little sympathy for his whinging that he didn’t want to vote on certain bills when he was in caucus, but he did it out of loyalty “to the team,” and to Harper. He had a choice. He singled out Bill C-377, which four other of his colleagues either voted against or abstained on in the final vote when they found the intestinal fortitude to do so. He could have joined them but chose not to, and only now leaves once Harper is gone. He’s a grown-up and had choices all this time.
.@senatcarignan and @SenCowan escort Speaker @GeorgeFureyNL to the chair in #SenCA Chamber #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/iKuOoBWdv1
— Senate of Canada (@SenateCA) December 3, 2015
https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/672432061702017024
Interesting that they want a new Senator as government leader, as opposed to one who has experience. This could be important. 1/2 #SenCA
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 3, 2015
It takes an average of three years of a new senator to fully get up to speed. Throwing a newbie in as leader is steep learning curve. 2/2
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) December 3, 2015
Sask remains opposed to unelected unaccountable Senate. Why? Because it is 2015
— Brad Wall (@BradWall306) December 4, 2015
Commence the 42nd parliament
There was general excitement, and MPs milled about, getting to know one another or to see colleagues they had not seen in some time. When the appointed hour arrived, there was a call to order, and the knock at the door from the Usher of the Black Rod, summoning MPs to the Senate. There, the Governor General’s deputy, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, awaited. MPs filtered out of the Chamber, headed down to the Other Place, where they were told that they wouldn’t be admitted until they had a Speaker. So back to the Commons they went.
New Speaker @GeorgeFureyNL welcome Chief Justice SCC to the Senate Chamber. We await for MPs to present themselves pic.twitter.com/t6R0tGANKP
— Sen. Mobina Jaffer (@SenJaffer) December 3, 2015
The Usher knocks #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/JRd3e6gJVP
— Cormac Mac Sweeney (@cmaconthehill) December 3, 2015
Roundup: Welcome, parliamentary secretaries
Justin Trudeau named his parliamentary secretaries yesterday – 35 of them, with three for his office alone, each representing particular portfolio issues. Those appointments aren’t at full gender parity, but then again, they’re not cabinet ministers either. The question now is what becomes of them – will they have useful and meaningful roles while still respecting the letter and spirit of Responsible Government in our system, or will they be used as human shields and ministerial proxies as they were in the last parliament? According to the Open and Accountable Government document that the PMO put out, the role of a parliamentary secretary is not to be a replacement cabinet minister, but to attend Question Period; help shepherd their minister’s legislation through the process in the Commons and in committee (but not voting in committee); supporting their minister’s position on Private Members’ Business; supporting their minister on committee issues and appearing before committees; and carrying out other House duties, such as leading government responses to Opposition Day motions and participating in the Late Show (aka Adjournment Proceedings). All of these are important, but let me make a couple of cautions. First of all, parliamentary secretaries should not – and I cannot emphasise this enough – sit on committees. This practice has been banned in the past, but when repealed, we saw what happened in the last parliament what became of it, which is that the committees were (in the words of Scott Brison) turned into “branch plants of ministers’ offices.” With their special PMO staffer behind them at committee meetings, it allowed the PMO to basically control the committee agendas, robbing them of any semblance of independence like they are supposed to have. This cannot be allowed to continue in the new parliament. We should also discontinue the practice of allowing parliamentary secretaries to field questions in QP. They are not members of the Ministry, and don’t have access Cabinet briefing materials, so they can’t answer. Under Responsible Government, the government is being held to account, so government needs to answer – not their proxies. Having them do so shields the minister from answering, and if the minister is not present, then they need to have a designated deputy in Cabinet to field those questions (and yes, there is a list of the deputies). Let’s keep the roles separate, and keep government accountable to parliament, the way it should be.
Roundup: A troubling allegation
There’s a rather disquieting story in the Huffington Post that quotes a couple of unnamed former Senate staffers, who point the finger at Senate Speaker Leo Housakos as the source of the leaks of the Auditor General’s report into senators’ expenses. And to be clear, in the past couple of weeks, I’ve heard similar tales being floated by someone else on the inside who witnessed it happen, and later witnessed Housakos deny it to other Senators. And indeed, Housakos was in the big chair when he found a prima facia breach of privilege when Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette raised the issue in the chamber, and with that finding, it went to the Senate’s rules committee to study the matter; that study was suspended when Parliament was dissolved, but it could be revived once the committee is reconstituted. That breach of privilege is a pretty big deal, and the fact that more than one person is now coming forward to say something is telling. This going public is also going to put pressure on Prime Minister Trudeau with regards to what he’s going to do with the question of appointing a new Senate Speaker. To be clear, this is a Prime Ministerial appointment because, unlike the Commons Speaker, the Senate Speaker is higher on the Order of Precedence as he or she fills a variety of additional diplomatic and protocol functions that the Commons Speaker does not, and is considered a representative of the Crown. If the current representative is not deemed to be trustworthy, and has indeed violated the privilege of Senators for his own ends, then it seems difficult to see how he can be trusted to stay in the post, and it may light a fire under Trudeau to do something about it, while the rest of the Senate remains in the dark about how they’re going to organise themselves as Trudeau drags his feet.
Roundup: A dubiously predicted rejection
There are days when the Senate bat-signal shines in the sky, and I’m likely to sigh and say “Oh, you again.” And it’s one of those times, wherein the Hill Times writes a screaming headline about Liberal senators saying they’ll oppose an appointed Government Leader, only for the story to be about one unnamed Senate Liberal source (not even necessarily a senator) saying that they might objet to an appointment, but no one really knows because it’s all up in the air. So, chalk another one up for hyperbole without any real basis for it. Now, it does seem like there are some issues that need to be sorted, such as whether they count as a Recognized Party for budget reasons when it comes to leadership, but that would seem to me to be an issue that they could solve internally as the Senate is self-governing. And for sure, the sense of uncertainty amongst Senate Liberals is likely getting frustrating because I’m sure they’d like to know if there will be things like Senate Question Period still carrying on without a member of the government to hold to account, or how they will shepherd government bills through the Chamber, or even how they will organise seating (as there really isn’t a government and opposition side any longer), but again, it’s all up in the air. One does hope that the Liberals on the Commons side will start getting more communicative about what’s going on, seeing as having a functioning Parliament would be a good thing to get sorted, but it seems that we have to remain patient a little longer. Hyperbolic headlines don’t help.
Roundup: One week of excitement
This is the week that Parliament returns, and we’re already getting a hint of what it’s going to look like, with clues from Government House Leader Dominic LeBlanc as to the agenda. According to The Canadian Press, LeBlanc’s plans are for the Commons to sit for one week in order to move a motion on the tax changes the government plans to make (I’m guessing it’s a Ways and Means motion), and there will be a move to reconstitute the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, as well as Finance Committee, in order to get the ball rolling on procedural changes in the former, and pre-budget consultations in the latter, but leaving other committees to start up in the new year, and likely with more resources and staff in order to help make them more independent – all good things. While I remain sceptical about the proposed changes to make the Prime Minister only show up once a week in Question Period (as I outlined here), at least they are providing the framework for the discussions to happen before Parliament really gets into the thick of it. Thus far, there have been no decisions made about what’s happening with the Senate, which is starting to get a bit bothersome, particularly as it relates to either choosing a Speaker or a Leader of the Government in the Senate, and word has it that the Senate is likely to end up cancelling its Question Period altogether (which would be a tremendous shame considering that it’s a far better debate than what happens in the Commons). As for other items on the government’s democratic reform agenda, Léonid Sirota isn’t sure that some of them – like mandatory voting or limiting third-party spending outside of a writ period – will pass the constitutional muster.