Tag Archives: Caroline Cochrane

Roundup: Ministers in the Upper Chamber

Posted on by

Something rather unusual happened in the UK, which I figured I would explore a little bit here for how it relates to our shared Westminster system of government. There was  Cabinet shuffle in Westminster yesterday, and prime minister Rishi Sunak appointed former prime minister David Cameron to the House of Lords, and to be his new foreign secretary. Cameron is a particularly interesting choice, given that his spineless decision to call the Brexit referendum to appease certain segments of his party blew up in his face and created much of the foreign policy chaos the government finds itself in,

One of the big questions around this kind of appointment is how MPs get to hold a minister who doesn’t sit in that chamber to account. There are mechanisms in the Lords for asking questions of the government, and while usually that’s directed to the Leader of the Government in that Chamber, this gives Lords an opportunity to ask questions of the foreign secretary directly. There was talk of creating a mechanism to use Westminster Hall, which is the “second chamber” used for debates in Westminster, to allow some sort of mechanism that’s not the Commons, but it never got off the ground the last time this was an issue. For the record, because of the way Australia’s parliament is structure, it is fairly common for several ministers to sit in their Senate, and to answer questions during their Senate Question Time, or however they term it there.

As for Canada, the last time we had a fairly major minister in that Chamber was Michael Fortier, starting in 2006 when Harper formed government and felt he needed a minister from the Montreal area, but didn’t have any MPs from there. So, he chose Fortier, his campaign co-chair, and made him minister of Public Works, which was a bitter twist of irony considering this was just post-Sponsorship scandal, and the complaint was there wasn’t enough accountability for that department. Fortier was later appointed minister of international trade, and faced questions from the Liberals in the Senate, but there were complaints the Bloc and NDP couldn’t use the same avenue, though they could ask questions of his parliamentary secretaries in the Chamber, or question him at committee. Previously, Joe Clark had appointed his minister of justice from the Senate, as he had no Quebec seats at all, while two of our prime ministers—John Abbott and Mackenzie Bowell—were senators and not MPs, so we do have that bit of history to draw on as well.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukrainian forces say that Russians have intensified the bombardment around Avdiivka, as well as tried to make a push around Bakhmut again. In Romania, the F-16 pilot training hub for Ukraine and NATO allies has now opened, but training Ukrainian pilots likely won’t start until next year. Here’s a look at how the information warfare happening has created confusion with legitimate news sources, particularly when they can’t get independent verification.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Hurt feelings and punitive lessons

Posted on by

There is a vote coming up on Monday, when Parliament returns from the constituency week, which is on the Conservatives’ Supply Day motion to allot the opposition an additional three Supply Days, which the Conservatives are trying to spin as a “lesson” for the Liberals, because they apparently haven’t gotten the memo that it’s a hung Parliament. Also, the Conservatives’ feelings are hurt that their previous Supply Day was moved from a Thursday to a Friday, and they feel like it was being done as “punishment.” Never mind that the rules allow the government to allot a certain number of Supply Days to Wednesdays and Fridays (which are half days), and every government has monkeyed around with Supply Days in the past – most especially the Conservatives.

To that end, I find it particularly galling that Candice Bergen thinks that the Liberals need to take some lessons in humility because it’s a hung parliament, considering how the Conservatives behaved during the minority years. Humility? Conciliatory note? Nope. It was daring the opposition, declaring non-money bills (some of them in the Senate) to be confidence measures, screwing over the other parties by changing the federal rules governing spending limits on leadership campaigns while the Liberals were in the middle of theirs, and it culminated in a finding that the government was in contempt of parliament because of how they were withholding information that parliamentarians had a right to see.

Meanwhile, I would also issue the warning that this kind of stunt, which will further limit the government’s available calendar, will inevitably wind up with the government needing to use time allocation or other similar measures in order to pass time-sensitive legislation. Bergan may think she’s being clever by using these kinds of tactics, but this kind of thing always blows up in someone’s face, and nobody wins in the end.

Continue reading →