UPDATE: I should note that, although Trudeau's pro-transparency bill is indeed on the Notice Paper for today, that doesn't necessarily mean he'll introduce it this morning. although members generally do so as soon as they make their intention of doing so clear.
Meanwhile, with the parliamentary clock now counting down the final hours until the summer adjournment, the government is gearing up for a final legislative blitz, beginning with the penultimate stage of its bid to crack down on corruption of foreign public officials, which has already been passed by the Senate and now faces two more votes in the House before being added to the growing queue of bills awaiting Royal Assent.
Also on the agenda today: Final Commons approval of the government's proposal to tighten the rules on those deemed not criminally responsible, which will likely complete third reading debate today, and be voted tomorrow.
]]> Undaunted, it seems, by the continuing -- and apparently at least partially PMO-driven -- controversy over his past speaking engagements, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau will embark on a second attempt to impose more stringent transparency requirements on the Board of Internal Economy -- this time, via private members' bill, which will take considerably longer to work its way through the House than those motions for unanimous consent that he unsuccessfully attempted to table last week, but which have the benefit of not requiring all-party support to succeed.UPDATE: I should note that, although Trudeau's pro-transparency bill is indeed on the Notice Paper for today, that doesn't necessarily mean he'll introduce it this morning. although members generally do so as soon as they make their intention of doing so clear.
Meanwhile, with the parliamentary clock now counting down the final hours until the summer adjournment, the government is gearing up for a final legislative blitz, beginning with the penultimate stage of its bid to crack down on corruption of foreign public officials, which has already been passed by the Senate and now faces two more votes in the House before being added to the growing queue of bills awaiting Royal Assent.
Also on the agenda today: Final Commons approval of the government's proposal to tighten the rules on those deemed not criminally responsible, which will likely complete third reading debate today, and be voted tomorrow.
On the committee front:
This afternoon, Treasury Board Minister Tony Clement is set to preview the latest version of the government's open data portal during a visit to XMG Studios in Toronto, including a post-reveal Google+ Hangout session with "open data experts and text innovators," as well as Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who will sign on from Surrey, where he, too, is slated to make a data-related reveal at an immigrant support centre.
Elsewhere on the ministerial circuit:
Finally, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair convenes a press conference in Quebec City to "discuss the regional caucus' parliamentary session."
Much to the surprise of those parliamentary denizens and political pundits who were so confidentially predicting an early end to the sitting, the House of Commons is still chugging along towards the calendar-imposed adjournment date of June 21, although there's a faint hope that the occupants may manage to muster up the necessary unanimity to break a day or so early.
Until and unless that happy day arrives, however, MPs will continue to work their way through the government's legislative to-do list, starting with the already all-but-official renaming of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which will resume report stage consideration with a little over an hour left on the clock before the time allocation hammer comes down.
Next in the priority queue is the distinctly more controversial bill to tighten up the rules for those deemed not criminally responsible, which is not yet under a government-imposed deadline for the final two stages of debate, but likely will be by tomorrow.
Meanwhile, the standoff at Citizenship and Immigration may come to a reasonably peaceful conclusion when the committee reconvenes later this morning, particularly if permanent chair David Tilson is back in charge.
If he is, he'll almost certainly , he'll call the vote on the Conservative-backed motion to request a 30 day extension for the further consideration of backbencher Devinder Shory's proposal to strip citizenship from dual nationals who commit 'acts of war' against Canadian Forces, which would bring the four-days-and-counting delaying tactics by opposition members to an abrupt halt, and almost certainly ensure that the battle over the bill itself will be postponed until the fall.
Hit the jump for the full post.
]]> Is it too early to say I told you so?Much to the surprise of those parliamentary denizens and political pundits who were so confidentially predicting an early end to the sitting, the House of Commons is still chugging along towards the calendar-imposed adjournment date of June 21, although there's a faint hope that the occupants may manage to muster up the necessary unanimity to break a day or so early.
Until and unless that happy day arrives, however, MPs will continue to work their way through the government's legislative to-do list, starting with the already all-but-official renaming of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, which will resume report stage consideration with a little over an hour left on the clock before the time allocation hammer comes down.
Next in the priority queue is the distinctly more controversial bill to tighten up the rules for those deemed not criminally responsible, which is not yet under a government-imposed deadline for the final two stages of debate, but likely will be by tomorrow.
Meanwhile, the standoff at Citizenship and Immigration may come to a reasonably peaceful conclusion when the committee reconvenes later this morning, particularly if permanent chair David Tilson is back in charge.
If he is, he'll almost certainly , he'll call the vote on the Conservative-backed motion to request a 30 day extension for the further consideration of backbencher Devinder Shory's proposal to strip citizenship from dual nationals who commit 'acts of war' against Canadian Forces, which would bring the four-days-and-counting delaying tactics by opposition members to an abrupt halt, and almost certainly ensure that the battle over the bill itself will be postponed until the fall.
Elsewhere on the committee front:
Also on the Hill today: Representatives from national health organizations join health care workers with "direct experience treating refugees" to call on the government to reverse the cuts that have been made to the program during an appearance at the Centre Block press theatre.
Later this evening, Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent will hold a town hall session with local veterans at an Ottawa branch of the Royal Canadian Legion.
On the ministerial circuit:
Finally, in Ireland, the PM wraps up his week-long European tour by going behind closed doors with his G8 counterparts in Ireland.
]]>Not surprisingly, Conservatives are castigating the opposition for resorting to crude delaying tactics in order to protect the rights of convicted terrorists, while in response, opposition party members are accusing the government of once again hijacking the private members' bill system to sidestep the traditional legislative process.
As always, the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle of the muddle, albeit all but buried in talking points and partisan rhetoric.
Hit the jump for the full post.
]]> strip Canadian citizenship from dual nationals convicted of terrorism.Not surprisingly, Conservatives are castigating the opposition for resorting to crude delaying tactics in order to protect the rights of convicted terrorists, while in response, opposition party members are accusing the government of once again hijacking the private members' bill system to sidestep the traditional legislative process.
As always, the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle of the muddle, albeit all but buried in talking points and partisan rhetoric.
After all, back when the bill was first put forward by Conservative MP Devinder Shory, it garnered the support of both the NDP and the Liberals, although even at that point, there were already questions being raised over the constitutionality of the proposed sanctions, which would treat an act of war committed by a dual citizen as a request for the renunciation of his or her Canadian citizen.
Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, however, not only gave it his immediate, enthusiastic endorsement, but promptly began ruminating on how it could be extended to cover terrorists as well, a suggestion with which Shory, as the bill's sponsor, was in wholehearted agreement.
That was enough to convince opposition parties that this was, in fact, yet another example of a minister launching non-hostile takeover of a private members' bill when he could easily bring in legislation to do the very same thing, and began to back away from their initial support for the bill.
Meanwhile, the committee's review of the bill revealed at least one potentially fatal flaw in the bill as drafted: namely, the lack of any internationally or domestically recognized legal definition for "acts of war".
Eventually, even the Conservatives were obliged to concede that, in order to ensure that each and every one of the government's proposed amendments made it into the final version, the committee had to go back to the House to request permission to expand the scope of the bill far beyond the version first put forward by Shory -- a move that, not surprisingly, sparked objections from both the New Democrats and the Liberal, who saw this as proof positive that what had started out as a private members' initiative had been transformed into a de facto government initiative, and should be treated as such.
On May 22, the speaker ultimately concluded that the expansion request was in order, but despite that victory, it remains in limbo, as it hasn't yet been formally concurred in by the House, a pro forma exercise that nonetheless does require a motion to be made official.
(According to Kenney's parliamentary secretary and committee pointman Rick Dykstra, he's been in the House, ready to do so, "each and every day," only to be blocked by opposition members, although quick check of Hansard reveals that, since the speaker's ruling on May 23, there have been many opportunities for Dykstra, or any other MP, to move the necessary motion.)
While the committee waited for the House to green light its request to expand the scope of the bill, the parliamentary calendar continued to tick down the days until June 21, the date the bill would automatically be deemed reported back to the House without amendment.
(It's worth noting that particular provision that applies only to private members' bills, and was created to ensure that committees couldn't simply leave them in referral limbo forever.)
Which brings us, finally, to what happened at this week's regularly scheduled Tuesday morning meeting: specifically, a seemingly non-contentious proposal from the Conservative side of the table to ask the House for a 30 day extension, which would give them plenty of time to deal with both the expansion request and those temporarily sidelined amendments this fall.
(Such requests are fairly standard for committees wrestling with particularly complex private members' bills, although only one can be granted.)
That, as it turned out, was all it took to trigger a classic filibuster, complete with marathon-calibre speeches -- at one point, NDP MP Sadia Groguhue read into the record the full text of Speaker Scheer's ruling on the request to expand the scope of the bill -- peppered by points of order from both sides of the table, many of which would go on to spark lengthy tangential sub-debates.
Due to the absence of the permanent chair -- the gruff, no-nonsense David Tilson -- the committee is currently under the control of acting chairs drawn from the opposition side of the table: NDP MP Jinny Sims and lone Liberal committee member Kevin Lamoreux, who have allowed members to take as much time as they feel they need to explain their opposition to the proposed extension.
Outside the committee room, the government, not surprisingly, leapt to the offensive.
Not only were Kenney and Shory dispatched to the Commons Foyer to wax indignant over the delay, but the Conservative Party managed to whip up an insta-petition campaign that accused the NDP of "standing up for convicted terrorists," while bemoaning the lack of media coverage.
In any case, after racking up more than 24 hours of meeting time over the following three days -- the acting chairs allowed frequent 'health' and 'comfort' breaks, and also suspended for the night to give MPs at least a few hours of sleep -- the committee reconvened on Friday morning just long enough to agree to take the weekend off, with the debate now scheduled to resume on Monday morning.
If Tilson is back in the chair on Monday, the vote on the extension request could be held on the spot, which would get it back before the House just in time to be approved before the House rises for the summer, although the fate of that complementary expansion motion -- which, unlike the extension request, requires a full 3 hour concurrence debate before it can be put to a vote -- is somewhat less certain, particularly given the prospect of a mid-summer prorogation, which would kill it on the spot.
Alternately, if Tilson is still abroad when the committee gets back to business -- or, for that matter, if he decides not to shut down the debate right away -- Shory's bill may well end up back in the House and up for final consideration as it was originally proposed, drafting oversights and all.
So, to sum it up:
Are the opposition parties blocking a bill that would strip citizenship from terrorists?
Yes, although not directly -- they're actually blocking an attempt by the government to buy time in order to amend the existing bill to do so. If their tactics succeed, the bill will go back to the House as originally put forward -- with no reference to terrorists at all.
Is the government hijacking a private members' bill to circumvent more exhaustive House scrutiny?
Answer: I suspect that wasn't actually the original plan, but due to a badly drafted bill and the minister's perhaps overly ambitious amendment proposals, it's not hard to see why it may be seen that way.
Will the bill make it through the House before summer?
Answer: Signs point to no, although at least there's no chance it will die on the Order Paper at prorogation -- yet another perk for private members' bills.
Meanwhile, the ongoing filibuster at Citizenship and Immigration is set to head into a fourth day as opposition members continue to block a Conservative attempt to buy a little more time -- 30 days, to be precise -- to consider backbench MP Devinder Shory's bid to strip the citizenship of dual nationals convicted of acts of war, which is due to be automatically reported back to the House without amendments on June 21.
Both Shory and Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney are keen to expand the bill to cover those convicted of acts of terrorism as well -- a particularly crucial change, as there is currently no legal definition for 'acts of war', which renders a good chunk of the original draft effectively moot.
The opposition parties, however, have been steadfast in their collective resistance to what they see as a transparent attempt by the government to launch a non-hostile takeover of a likely fatally flawed private members' bill when the minister could easily bring in his own legislation to accomplish the very same thing.
According to Conservative MP David Wilks, the committee broke just after midnight last night, and is scheduled to reconvene at 10am, at which point they may well wind up sitting right through the weekend.
Hit the jump for the full post.
]]> With just five days left before the Commons calendar runs out on the spring sitting, the few luckless MPs stuck on House duty will spend the half day remaining before the Commons rises for the weekend on the government's proposal to rebrand the Canadian Museum of Civilization as the Canadian Museum of History, which was reported back from committee earlier this week, and will almost certainly soon be placed under one of Government House Leader Peter Van Loan's trademark time allocation motions, thus ensuring that it will at least make it to the Senate before the summer recess.Meanwhile, the ongoing filibuster at Citizenship and Immigration is set to head into a fourth day as opposition members continue to block a Conservative attempt to buy a little more time -- 30 days, to be precise -- to consider backbench MP Devinder Shory's bid to strip the citizenship of dual nationals convicted of acts of war, which is due to be automatically reported back to the House without amendments on June 21.
Both Shory and Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney are keen to expand the bill to cover those convicted of acts of terrorism as well -- a particularly crucial change, as there is currently no legal definition for 'acts of war', which renders a good chunk of the original draft effectively moot.
The opposition parties, however, have been steadfast in their collective resistance to what they see as a transparent attempt by the government to launch a non-hostile takeover of a likely fatally flawed private members' bill when the minister could easily bring in his own legislation to accomplish the very same thing.
According to Conservative MP David Wilks, the committee broke just after midnight last night, and is scheduled to reconvene at 10am, at which point they may well wind up sitting right through the weekend.
Outside the precinct, the union representing Canadian foreign service officers reveals their plans for an "escalated eleventh week of job action", which will include "continued pickets and service withdrawals at key international locations."
On the pre-weekend good news circuit today:
Also out and about today: New Democrat Leader Tom Mulcair tours Quebec City, where he's slated to meet with supporters of the Quebec Search and Rescue Centre, including its former director, Hubert Desgagnes.
Finally, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May journeys to Montreal, where she'll "kick off" the 2013 AGM for the Quebec wing of the party at an opening cocktail party.
]]>Earlier today, Day introduced a bill that would narrow the scope of that provision to apply to family members only, while simultaneously expanding the existing disclosure regime to cover all such gifts that are not received from a relative, by filing, within 30 days, a "public declaration that provides sufficient detail to identify the gift or other advantage accepted, the donor and the circumstances under which it was accepted."
Via press release, Day observes that he and his colleagues had tried to change those very same provisions back in 2006, when the Federal Accountability Act was before the Senate.
"Unfortunately, the Government said the amendments were 'an inappropriate intrusion into the private lives of public office holders'," he recalls.
"Considering the recent events surrounding Parliament, I am hopeful that the NDP and Conservative members will join my Liberal colleagues and me in strengthening this legislation in the interest of greater accountability and transparency,"
While it's tempting to make the link between the proposed up-tightening of the 'gift' exemption and that now famous $90 K cheque from former PMO chief of staff Nigel Wright to then-Conservative Senator Mike Duffy, it's worth noting that Duffy is not considered a reporting public office holder, which means that he doesn't fall under the purview of the the Conflict of Interest Act.
In fact, the Senate conflict of interest code already requires full disclosure of all gift with a value of over $500.
You can read the full text of the bill here.
]]>Although frustratingly light on specifics, the minutes do provide a rare glimpse at the variety of issues that come before the committee, which run the gamut from the logistical -- for example, the May 29th report reveals that only a 'limited number' of Hill denizens will be permitted to test drive the new BlackBerry 10 devices over the next six months -- to more potentially questions of security, access and legal assistance for MPs facing claims.The Board of Internal Economy is now posting the minutes of its meetings on parl.gc.ca. The minutes are the record of decision of each meeting.
The Board has taken this step to facilitate access to this information. The minutes from all Board meetings of the 41st Parliament are now posted. Board minutes will continue to be tabled in the Chamber, a practice that has been in place since the 35th Parliament.
The Board of Internal Economy is the governing body of the House of Commons. The Board is created by the Parliament of Canada Act and has equal representation from the governing party and the officially recognized parties (i.e. those holding at least 12 seats in the House). It is chaired by the Speaker of the House.
The Board of Internal Economy is responsible for establishing by-laws, policies and guidelines relating to expenditures and resources provided to Members in order to carry out their parliamentary functions. This authority is given to the Board by the Parliament of Canada Act.
For more information about the management of public resources and public disclosure at the House of Commons, please consult the backgrounder
In an emotional address to the Commons, Del Mastro accused Elections Canada of leaking both documents and "select details" of confidential meetings to reporters while refusing to provide him with the same material -- an act that, he averred, left him feeling "violated and betrayed by an agency in which I and every other member of this place, indeed in which all Canadians, must place their trust."
He also expressed his frustration and disappointment at what he saw as the inexplicable failure of Elections Canada to drop its inquiry months earlier after he handed over evidence that, to him, "very clearly demonstrates I did not exceed my personal donation limit, that I did in fact adhere to my election spending limit and that all public declarations related to my campaign are entirely accurate."
His proposed remedy: Send the whole matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in order to give him the opportunity to clear his name -- which, he argued, is essential to allow him to function effectively as an MP, unfettered by the "unfounded hatred, contempt and ridicule" to which he says he has been subjected since July 6, 2012, the day he was contacted by a reporter looking for a comment on the investigation based on a "sealed court document" that he claims could only have come from the files of Elections Canada.
While there's no way to predict how the speaker will ultimately rule on the matter, it's worth noting that, as former Commons Law Clerk Rob Walsh pointed out on twitter, it appears that Del Mastro's dispute with Elections Canada relate to his status as a candidate, and not an MP, which could effectively moot his complaint as a matter of privilege.
MPs, after all, are free to seek relief through normal legal channels, and parliamentary privilege was never intended to replace the civil and criminal justice systems to which all citizens can avail themselves in an effort to right perceived wrongs.
It's not even clear exactly who -- or what -- Del Mastro is charging with having breached his privilege: Elections Canada? The reporters who got the allegedly leaked document? The individual who, he suggests midway through his speech, is behind all the allegations lodged against him? At times, he seems to be blaming all of the above, as well as the courts for allowing the production orders to go through, but at no point does he explicitly identify the source of the alleged breach.
In any case, given the complexity of the question before the speaker, it seems unlikely that Scheer will bring down a ruling before the House rises for the summer.
Watch his full address here: