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 This practice has been banned in the past, but when repealed, we saw what happened in the last parliament what became of it, which is that the committees were (in the words of Scott Brison) turned into “branch plants of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.
Tag Archives: Megan Leslie
Roundup: Some laudable goals, and a lead balloon
The writs might as well have been dropped for the kinds of campaigning that was going on yesterday – Trudeau in Ottawa, and Mulcair in Toronto. While Mulcair largely reheated past statements about support for the manufacturing sector (not that he spelled out what that support means) or lowering small business taxes (of the kind that could actually help out whose wealthy Canadians who incorporated themselves for tax reasons), it was Trudeau’s package of announcements that got the big play. The package included 32 measures for “real change” to bring more openness and transparency to government – a familiar song and dance, but there were some pretty laudable concrete proposals in there, around things like Access to Information, improving service standards at CRA, or repealing this government’s “fair” election laws. The part that got everyone talking – and my head exploding repeatedly – was Trudeau signing onto the electoral reform bandwagon. While Trudeau was talking about consultations and then legislation within eighteen months, the fact that he’s buying into the completely and demonstrably false notion that votes don’t count under our current system (in fact, they not only count but all count equally) is disheartening – particularly after he spent his leadership campaign talking about how he didn’t believe in PR systems (as opposed to Joyce Murray, where that was a central plank for her). Without turning this post into a denunciation of electoral reform, let me simply say that it’s false to say that votes don’t count now, and that changing the system will simply replace one set of problems – or perceived problems – for a whole new set of problems. There were so many other laudable proposals in his platform, one or two duds excepting, that it’s too bad that this one particularly bad one sucked the air out of the rest of it all. If he want’s “evidence based policy,” then perhaps he should reconsider this particular promise. Paul Wells writes about the earnestness of it all, with some historical perspective for good measure.
Liberals are now using "Ottawa is broken."
No. Just stop. pic.twitter.com/CQMdpoeIL5— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 16, 2015
Oh FFS – every vote already counts *equally*. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp? #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/E2skdjI5fo
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) June 16, 2015
Roundup: Only 359 pages
The first of the 2014 budget implementation omnibus bills has now been tabled, and this one is only about 359 pages long. Included in its many, many pages are provisions relating to aligning trademark rules to match international regulations, changes to the temporary foreign workers programme when it comes to better enforcement mechanisms, formalizing the reintroduction of the “royal” titles to the Royal Canadian Airforce and Royal Canadian Navy, capping domestic roaming rates for wireless calls, keeping suspended MPs and Senators from accruing pension benefits, adding new Superior Court judges in Alberta and Quebec, funding the Champlain Bridge replacement (*drink!*), and implementing a controversial tax-sharing agreement with the US, to name but a few (more items here, while you can find the whole bill posted here.
Roundup: The minister of state who could not be shamed
Pierre Poilievre once again affirmed his complete and utter shamelessness yesterday, as Harry Neufeld, the author of the report that Poilievre likes to cite, appeared before committee and said flat out that Polievre is misquoting the report, that he never said anything about voter fraud, and that the portions of the elections bill that remove vouching as an option should be scrapped, and if they’re not, the bill as a whole should be. But never mind that, Poilievre not only carried on selectively quoting Neufeld, and then said that Neufeld may have written the report but he couldn’t write the law. No, seriously. Because the best response to being caught out misquoting is to double down and insist that the author is wrong. Well done.