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.”
Tag Archives: Refugees
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: 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.
Roundup: Official residence refuseniks
In a piece in the Huffington Post that gives yet another farewell from Andrew Scheer to the office of the Speaker, we find that at least two of the people running for the job – Mauril Bélanger and Yasmin Ratansi – are vowing that if elected Speaker, they wouldn’t use the official residence in Kingsmere. While Bélanger could certainly make the case as an Ottawa resident that there’s no real need, anyone else eschewing the use of the residence is, frankly, being obtuse. Scheer makes some good points – that the National Capital Commission needs to spend money to keep the place functional anyway, so it’s not a huge savings if that’s the motivation, and the fact that the “luxurious” apartment the Speaker gets in the Centre Block is anything but (the piece has photos of it, and well, I would hesitate to call it a two star), and it’s not really healthy to live at the office. Beyond that, the whole point of having an official residence is that it’s to be used for entertaining – MPs, diplomats, and even journalists during the annual barbecue at Kingsmere every June. That entertaining can be pretty important, particularly among MPs. Speaker Milliken used to hold dinners that always included MPs of different parties so that they could get to know each other better outside of the Commons – something that is increasingly important with the demise of evening sittings and the fact that MPs simply don’t socialise together the way they used to. Vowing to do away with the official residence – and the space to hold this kind of necessary entertaining – is not being frugal, it’s playing into cheap politics that ultimately serves nobody, and in fact feeds into the toxicity that surrounds the perception of politics as it is. None of this is actually some kind of luxury five-star extravagance that is soaking the taxpayer. It’s relatively modest, but reflects the office – one of the reasons why we have official residences to begin with. Rejecting it, even for symbolism, does nobody any favours.
Roundup: Action on assisted dying
We’re now less than a week away from the opening of Parliament, and there’s a lot for the Liberals to do. One of those things is deciding what to do about the assisted dying file, and it looks like the Liberals have planned to strike a special joint committee of MPs and senators to quickly examine the issue and provide some legislative recommendations to the government. Remember that the deadline the Supreme Court gave the government is February 6th, and they haven’t decided if they will as the Court for an extension – one they may not be granted, and one where that extension will be a burden to those on the ground who may actually need the law in a timely fashion. There are a couple of reasons why the inclusion of senators in the process is noteworthy – one is that it can help to speed up the process of passing the inevitable legislation, because it can be like a bit of pre-study, getting them involved earlier in the process in order to speed up their own deliberations on the bill when it arrives. The other reason is that the Senate was debating a bill on doctor-assisted dying in the last parliament, which had been sponsored by Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, based on her consultations with former MP Stephen Fletcher, and had workable solutions to some of the issues raised in protecting the vulnerable. That bill was debated over several days at second reading, but never was voted on to send to committee, likely because of some foot-dragging, but that debate happened, and those same senators are still there. If it’s something that can help speed the process, it’s not a bad idea that they’re in the loop and participating in solving the problem, which could potentially get legislation in the system before that Supreme Court deadline, and with a little luck, they won’t need to ask for an extension.
Roundup: A plea without merit
At a security and defence conference in Ottawa yesterday, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson gave a plea for warrantless access to people’s Internet subscriber data. Trust us, Paulson said – we won’t abuse it or violate the Charter. Never mind that every privacy expert ever, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada, has said that no, they don’t need this kind of information without a warrant. At one point, Paulson made the comparison of getting a warrant to run license plates, which is patently ridiculous because you can’t get nearly the same information from a license plate that you can from someone’s browser history. Paulson raised all manner of bogeymen by which he needs warrantless access, from cyber-attacks to child pornographers, but the funny thing is that after the Supreme Court’s decision against warrantless access to subscriber data, RCMP data shows that forcing the police to get a warrant to see your IP history hasn’t hampered investigations, which makes Paulson’s plea all the more problematic. Trying to get this particularly dangerous power is not a surprise, but it is perhaps a little unbecoming knowing coming from a Commissioner who should know better.
Roundup: Changing the refugee timeline
The Liberal government has released their official refugee resettlement plans, and surprising probably no one, they had to back away from the pledge of 25,000 by year’s end. The revised goal is 10,000 by year’s end, the 15,000 remaining by the end of February, and while that number will be both government-sponsored and privately sponsored, they pledge to have a least 25,000 government-sponsored refugees by the end of 2016. All security screening will happen on the ground in the refugee camps, while they will be offered mental health services once in Canada. There are spaces for 6,000 that would be prepared in a couple of different military bases, but those are intended only as a back-up, with the intention to have communities take them right away. So in all, more resettled refugees than the previous government would have done, but not quite as ambitious as they had initially hoped for. As for why the government changed their minds, Trudeau told Matt Galloway in an interview that it was because they wanted to “get it right,” at which point, we ask ourselves how we consider the accountability question. Do we blast them for breaking the campaign promise? Do we point out that it was possibly a reckless promise in the first place, as they were trying to one-up the other parties? Do we try to have a more grown-up conversation where we allow them the ability to change their minds with changing circumstances (and before you say it, no, I don’t think that the attacks in Paris changed anything, particularly about the question of security)? The Conservatives have certainly decided to declare victory on this one, but it should probably be noted that while things are going slower than promised, the doors are not closed, which is unlike the calls we’ve seen in several American states and others. Trudeau is sending the message that these refugees are not some outsider menace, as it should be noted that in fact the vast majority of attacks that have happened to date were from those who were born in the country where the attacks happened, and they were radicalized later in life. It does send a message that keeping up with resettlement is happening in spite of the Paris attacks, and that should perhaps be noted too.
Roundup: Nonsense parliamentary suggestions
It’s not just the Senate bat-signal I see in the sky, it’s also the Parliament bat-signal as a whole. Starting with the Senate, one of those so-called “Senator-elects” in Alberta writes a baffling column about “restructuring” the Senate to better reflect regions, while moaning about how Alberta’s oil industry isn’t getting the same help as the auto industry would when being faced with job losses. I’m not quite sure what he’s trying to get at, but the thing with the traditional moans about “Western alienation” and hoping that cockamamie schemes like a “Triple E” Senate is that it would do precisely zero to counter the problem, particularly as the problems they’re trying to fix generally can’t be solved by the Senate in the first place. Moving along, former NDP MP and former democratic reform critic Craig Scott pens a gong show of an op-ed about changing the Office of the Speaker in the Commons, supposedly to better insure its independence but it comes off pretty much as the sour grapes of third party grumbling that it really is. Giving the Speaker all kinds of new powers with no real checks on them? Giving him or her the independence to rule with an iron fist despite the real threats inherent within Responsible Government? Plus a bitter kick at the protocol position of the Senate Speaker? It’s incoherent nonsense. Speaking Speakers, outgoing Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer has some thoughts about reforming Question Period, most of which make more sense than what Scott had to say. I have a column out later today that picks up on these points, and I promise you it’ll make far more sense than Craig Scott’s rambling.
#WBIT https://t.co/ZeGazy0jnY pic.twitter.com/81pmkXXtuS
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) November 24, 2015
Because seriously, if this is the state of the democratic reform debate, this is pretty much the state of play: pic.twitter.com/IeeA3oaYnO
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) November 24, 2015
Roundup: Alberta and the first ministers
The talk of the week will fall into two categories – climate change, and refugees, but for today, climate change is going to be the big topic of discussion, given Alberta unveiling their momentous climate change plans yesterday, followed by the First Ministers Meeting on the subject today. Alberta’s plan is ambitious and courageous – carbon pricing that matches BC’s by 2018, phasing out coal-fired electricity (the vast majority of the province’s grid) by 2030, absolute emissions caps on the oilsands that are a little higher than where they stand today – and lo and behold, the energy sector didn’t freak out, but rather embraced the changes (given that they’ve been demanding a price on carbon for years anyway). In fact, there was commentary that these kinds of changes may be necessary in order to allow them to grow (though if the idea is the gradual phase-out of fossil fuels entirely, I guess we’ll see how that goes). And with this new plan in place, Alberta premier Rachel Notley can come to that First Ministers meeting later today and have something to put on the table, which may indeed help to put pressure on other lagging provinces to start making changes they may be hesitating to do. Jason Markusoff has more on the Alberta plan, and the questions that it raises.