Tag Archives: Speaker Scheer

Roundup: Succession and Senate consequences

Posted on by

University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé writes the definitive look at the Crown succession bill the government introduced last week, and proves how the government and its arguments are entirely wrong about it. Australian constitutional scholar, and the authority on succession issues, Anne Twomey, writes about the bill and how it de-patriates our constitution back to Britain, as well as is a telltale sign about the lengths the government will go to avoid dealing with the provinces.

Speaking of the lengths that Harper will go to in order to avoid the provinces, regarding last week’s other big news – the Senate reference – Paul Wells notes that Harper’s plan seems to have been to try to destabilise the legislative equilibrium by pushing what small changes he could and take advantage of the resulting free-for-all – which sounds about right. Over in the Globe and Mail, there is a look at what an elected Senate under the current proposal means regarding provincial parties running candidates in a body dominated by federal parties. The result is almost certainly chaos that would be largely unworkable, reduced to issue-by-issue coalitions, grinding the legislative process to a halt. Free-for-all that a PM could try to work some additional executive powers out of in order to “break the logjam”? Don’t discount the possibility.

Continue reading →

Roundup post: Retributive justice for mentally ill offenders

Posted on by

The release of a mentally ill offender has the government reaching for yet another knee-jerk response to a high-profile case. James Moore went on TV yesterday to say that making laws on single cases is bad policy, but those cases expose flaws in the system, and said that the government wants to put in place changes that will put the victim “at the heart” of the justice system. Now, if you know anything about justice or the rule of law, this should be setting off the big red klaxon because some of the most important features of the justice system are that it a) be blind, and b) not be retributive. Putting the victim “at the heart” of the system debases those two central tenets. Yes, the public reacts with outrage when someone is released after they have been treated for an illness which caused them to do terrible things, because they believe that they haven’t suffered enough, and that they’re using insanity as a way to get off easily – never mind that mental illness is real and can have terrible effects, and that when treated the risk the person poses to the community is minimal at best, and never mind that said person is also being supervised in order to ensure that they remain being treated. And even when the government says they want “science” to determine these things, we don’t see them putting additional resources into treatment or prevention by means of early detection of mental illness. It remains reactive and now, they want to add an element of retribution.

The Commons finance committee has recommended that there be a royal commission on the tax system in order to modernise and streamline it. Or you know, they could do it themselves, being as they’re a gods damned parliamentary committee and all. But no, doing it themselves would be unseemly as it would be terribly partisan and all of that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: MPs head home while the F-35 storm rages on

Posted on by

The House has risen, and the MPs are all headed back to their ridings. Not the Senate though – they’re still sitting, and I’ll be heading up their for Senate QP later today.

Okay, so now the big news from yesterday – the KPMG report on the F-35 procurement process. With a cost now pegged at $46 billion over 42 years, the government says that it’s officially pushing the reset button on the process – or is it? The former ADM of procurement at National Defence, Alan Williams, says that it’s meaningless unless the department redraws the Statement of Requirements to make stealth a “rated feature” with a point value rather than a pass/fail and it then goes for open tender. There’s also the problem of attrition and the additional costs of buying replacement aircraft, which is outside of the $9 billion procurement envelope being set. John Geddes rips apart Peter MacKay’s remorseless performance yesterday, and notes that the officials noted that it will be difficult to keep the aerospace contracts for supplying F-35 parts if we don’t end up going with that plane. John Ivison goes through the process and finds that if the Conservatives still end up going with the F-35s, it will look like incompetence. Andrew Coyne takes offence that the government continues to spin the numbers and calls bullshit – it’s not 42 years, but $46 million over 30 years, and that the government tacked on those extra 12 years to cover “development and acquisition,” which costs a few hundred million, but by making it look like a little over a billion dollars a year, the government is trying to make it look more palatable. Paul Wells notes the Conservatives’ tendency toward hubris when they should be listening to their critics, who do have a point. Of course, the US “fiscal cliff” may end up killing the F-35s as it would slash their defence spending.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Trudeau apologises! Let’s obsess some more about it!

Posted on by

Our long national nightmare is over – or is it? Justin Trudeau apologised for his comments about Alberta, saying he meant Conservatives when he said Albertans. Well, then. And so we continue to obsess over it all. Trudeau’s camp tested the sincerity of the apology by immediately putting out a fundraising letter to help them counter the Conservative attack machine. Martin Patriquin dissects the pandering in fantastic style. Andrew Coyne examines the comments and apology alongside those made by David McGuinty, and concludes that in their proper context, McGuitny’s were downright admirable for calling out parochialism, whereas Trudeau’s makes one question the breadth of vision required to govern a country such as ours.

The Premiers concluded their meeting and are talking about collaborating on energy issues, skills training, trade, and infrastructure. Also, Redford and Clark didn’t get into a catfight, and Marois apparently acquitted herself well for her first time out, in case anyone was wondering.

Continue reading →

QP: All over the map before the summer

Posted on by

The last QP of the sitting could be described in a single word: Scattershot. Apparently everyone was looking to get as many YouTube clips for their MPs’ websites to sustain them through the summer on a variety of topics, so there was very little coherence to any of the debate. Thomas Mulcair asked about F-35s (Harper: We’re rebuilding the Canadian Forces with the equipment our men and women in uniform need!), the cut in funds to minority francophone newspapers (Harper: There’s this funding formula in place, and hey, you ran all kinds of unilingual Anglophone candidates in francophone ridings), and about the myriad ethical lapses of the Conservative front bench (Harper: This was one of the most legislatively productive periods in Canadian history, and you’re an ineffective opposition!). So there. Nycole Turmel then took a turn batting away at those ethical lapses (Paradis: Our government’s done a good job on the economy!) before Bob Rae got up and went after Flaherty’s mortgage announcement earlier in the morning, noting that the new changes return the policy back to where it was in 2006 when the government took office (Harper: We’re being prudent after listening to the experts!). For his final question, Rae noted that it was National Aboriginal Day, and given all of the 1812 celebrations, why hasn’t the government resolved the Six Nations land claims dispute that has been going on since said war. Harper assured him that they were in negotiations, and hey, they have new land claims legislation.

Continue reading →

Cutting the Speaker some slack

Posted on by

Attacks on the Speaker are, generally speaking, the last refuge of the desperate, and those unwilling to look at their own complicity in the state of affairs they decry. And yet we have seen an increasing amount of grumbling about Speaker Scheer in the past few weeks, not only over venues like the Twitter Machine, but also by way of anonymous gripes to the Halifax Chronicle Herald.

It’s not to suggest that Scheer has done a perfect job, because let’s face it – his ruling this week that he couldn’t rule on the quality of written responses to questions was problematic. This isn’t to call him partisan, but rather, it’s to acknowledge that he’s in a pretty tough spot. The response was clearly a non-answer, and the government has a demonstrated pattern of trying to limit the flow of information and control what opposition parties – and the media – can see. And yet, Scheer is also bound by the rules of the Commons, known of course as the Standing Orders.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Between 67 and 159 votes

Posted on by

The Speaker has whittled down 871 amendments to between 67 and 159 votes, depending. In other words, about 18 to 26 hours of consecutive votes, more or less, which they’re now preparing themselves for. Speaker Scheer also ruled that because there are no firm rules for omnibus bills that this one is permissible, but hey, why don’t you guys lay down some rules for the future over in the Procedure and House Affairs Committee. And so, the votes will take place probably Wednesday, and probably starting late at night since the government also moved to extend sitting hours to midnight every night for the remaining two weeks.

With the ruling on May’s point of order in mind, after QP, Nathan Cullen tried to argue that the omnibus budget bill has become a contempt of parliament because the government won’t release the data on the cuts to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Scott Brison takes to the pages of the National Post to say that the issue of income inequality is not a left-or-right issue, but one that Parliament should be addressing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Prepare for marathon voting

Posted on by

And so begins the week where it all happens. All of those marathon votes, as many as the Speaker is determined to allow (the number of which we should know by around noon today).

Another leaking pipeline in Alberta has premier Alison Redford in damage control mode, professing confidence in the measures in place to deal with leaks as they happen, but critics say that there is too much industry self-reporting that needs to be addressed.

Preston Manning calls Thomas Mulcair a hypocrite for not making his “polluter pay” and internalising environmental cost ideas apply to Quebec’s hydro sector, which flooded forest areas the size of Lake Ontario.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Scheer gives himself passing grades

Posted on by

Speaker Scheer feels that decorum has been improving in the Commons, and while it’s not perfect, he thinks that we mostly don’t notice the improvement because only the bad behaviour gets noticed. He also says that some of his discipline is quiet, so that it doesn’t draw more attention to the behaviour in question. As a regular attendee of QP, I’m not sure how much of this I would attribute to Scheer himself. Some of the “improvement” can be attributed to the NDP’s unctuous sanctimony with their so-called “heckle ban” – which they do break all the time, but they are on the whole quieter than the Liberals (well, those who don’t feel the need to yell constantly anyway). Scheer however seems just as reluctant to bring the hammer down in public as Milliken was, and at times he seems to ignore some pretty unparliamentary language. Suffice to say, I’m not terribly convinced.

It seems that not all Conservatives are happy with Bev Oda’s spending habits, or the fact that she has been changing her expense reports without explanation.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Truth and ministerial accountability

Posted on by

As mentioned earlier, the Speaker has ruled that there was no prima facia breach of privilege in the government’s answers on the F-35s in the House. So what does this actually mean. First of all, it should be noted that Speaker Scheer parsed things pretty finely, and in that respect, noted that it was difficult to prove a deliberate misleading, which is why he couldn’t make his ruling. (You can read the text here). Fair enough, one supposes, but there were some additional eyebrow-raising aspects to this, in that he pretty much dismissed the notion of ministerial accountability out of hand. In other words, not his problem. This means that as always, this remains a problem for the Crown, and in that, it means that the only people who can punish the Crown for ministers not taking responsibility would be the Commons, by means of withdrawing their confidence. And of course that would mean in this case that backbenchers would have to be sufficiently exercised to want to punish their own party’s government (which this current lot of spineless louts is highly unlikely to do). Marc Garneau raised the additional point after the ruling that this further insulates a government from the actions of the civil servant because they can henceforth claim ignorance, and ministerial accountability may well be a past concept.

Here is the text of the motion the NDP are proposing for splitting the omnibus budget bill. Elizabeth May blogs about the various changes found within the bill and wonders if government spokespersons haven’t read the bill considering that their talking points don’t match the reality of the text. Maclean’s Aaron Wherry has an extremely trying interview with Peter Van Loan about the bill, and his justifying the omnibus-ness of it all.

The Veterans Ombudsman has released a scathing report about the conduct and performance of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, saying some 60 percent of cases were handled improperly. The minister’s response? That they’ll soon be launching a new Action Plan™ to deal with it.

The NDP “digital issues” critic wants to investigate if social media sites are doing enough to protect privacy. Fair enough – but I don’t think that labelling them “Big Data” is really helping anyone.

Here’s a look at the number of contaminated sites that need cleaning up across the country.

And a potential Liberal leadership candidate is launching trailers for his “exploratory committee” bid, but there are cautions about what kind of fundraising he can actually do at this stage.

Up today – the Mental Health Commission is releasing their first report, outlining their strategy, priorities and recommendations, which includes the need for $4 billion in new funds over the next ten years.