“I’ve personally always felt slightly embarrassed by the terms of reference of the Board of Internal Economy. MPs overseeing themselves in total secrecy, behind closed doors as to how they’re using taxpayers’ money seems to be something that doesn’t fit with this century. Considering what’s gone on in the last little while, I can’t imagine that anybody in the country would be able to justify continuing in the way it was,” former NDP MP Nelson Riis, who served as his party’s House leader for 10 years between 1986 and 1996 and was a longtime member of the Board of Internal Economy, told The Hill Times last week.
Mr. Riis said his experience on the board was “awkward” and embarrassing because of the complete secrecy. All members of the Commons Board of Internal Economy are sworn to secrecy and only two MPs are allowed to speak about decisions, but rarely do.
Mr. Riis said anything is better than the current structure, but ideally the board should be replaced, rather than simply opened up.
“The people are angry and disgusted and frustrated and rather bitter about just how people are using their money. I can’t imagine any Member of Parliament standing up and being able to justify any version of the Board of Internal Economy continually,” Mr. Riis said.
He said while personnel issues could be discussed in camera, every decision made and the rationale behind that decision needs to be made public, and anything else related to House oversight should be conducted in public. “I don’t think there’s any other choice,” he said.
MPs voted unanimously to look at how to move forward to abolish the secretive Board of Internal Economy, which oversees the House of Commons administration, but there’s no guarantee it will actually be replaced by an independent oversight body especially if Parliament is prorogued this fall, however, opposition MPs say they’ll do everything it takes to make sure it happens.
“I’ve been hearing about these [prorogation] rumours for some time. I’m not necessarily buying that, but there are lots of options if the government tries to back out on this, there are lots of options,” said NDP MP Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster, B.C.), whose motion was included in a larger unanimous consent motion to pass several bills and adjourn the House early for the three-month summer recess.
Government House Leader Peter Van Loan (York-Simcoe, Ont.), a member of the Commons Board of Internal Economy, told The Hill Times last week that the government agreed to the motion because transparency is something the Conservatives support.
“We had already, of course, taken steps earlier in this government both to reduce spending by Members of Parliament through our deficit reduction initiatives when I wrote to the Board of Internal Economy and as a result we reduced the spending in the House of Commons by a significant chunk,” Mr. Van Loan said. “We’ve also taken steps which are beginning to see reflected to more transparently report what Members of Parliament spend, so anything that continues to move in that direction, we’ve made it clear we’re content to have studied and looked at and we don’t have a problem with that.”
When asked if he agreed whether the board should be abolished, he said: “Well the Procedure and House Affairs Committee will study that proposal [abolishment]. They’ll also study the proposal from Justin Trudeau, they’ll come up with an approach to doing this. I’m not going to prejudge what those studies are. That’s one of the ideas they’re going to be studying.”
The motion, which was an instruction to the House and must be carried out, states that the Procedure and House Affairs should “conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body.”
It called on the committee to invite the auditor general, the House clerk, and the House chief financial officer to take part in the hearings, and study best practices on administrative oversight across the country and internationally. The committee will also study Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s (Papineau, Que.) motions that were previously defeated on making expenses more transparent and having the AG regularly audit the House. The Procedure and House Affairs Committee will then propose necessary legislative and policy changes and report back to the House by Dec. 2. MPs are not obligated to follow through on the report’s recommendations, however, and if the board is to be abolished, the government will have to make legislative changes to the Parliament of Canada Act.
As part of giving her unanimous consent to adjourn early and pass several bills quickly, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich-Gulf Islands, B.C.) negotiated a role on the Procedure and House Affairs Committee to study the board’s future. She and the other “independent” MPs, such as the Bloc Québécois, Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton-St. Albert, Alta.) and Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay-Superior North, Ont.), will be able to sit on the committee as a temporary, non-voting member. They’ll be able to ask questions and give recommendations, but not vote on anything during the duration of the study.
“I think it’s very important. I’ve been scandalized by the Board of Internal Economy for a very long time, well before I got elected,” Ms. May said. “I mean, the institution, not the people on it, is a very odd idea that you have so many critical decisions made completely in a black box. So, I think opening this up is really an important opportunity. The timing is right. Certainly the Canadian public is sick of finding out that money is being spent by people who have a conflict of interest and increasing their own salaries and not telling anybody about it until later.”
Government, opposition claim victory on spring session
Both the government and the opposition are claiming victory in the House of Commons after a hyper-partisan and volatile five weeks of midnight sittings before MPs headed back to their ridings for a three-month summer break.
Government House Leader Peter Van Loan (York-Simcoe, Ont.) told The Hill Times last week that despite the ongoing Senate expense scandal and subsequent RCMP investigations involving the Prime Minister’s Office and a caucus defection, the Conservatives’ legislative agenda was full and productive.
“From our focus on delivering results, it went really, really well,” Mr. Van Loan said, noting that even though the midnight sittings, often adjourning at 2 a.m., took its toll on MPs, it was very successful.
“I was actually quite heartened. I was concerned that when we started out that folks would get cranky and tempers might flare and people might be complaining about having to work so hard and I found quite the contrary. Certainly on the Conservative side, I found our team was quite determined. They enjoyed the chance to really be able to deliver on the commitments they made to Canadians and to get bills they cared about through the House of Commons,” Mr. Van Loan said. “I think people were pretty proud of what we did and that to me was what made me pretty happy because five weeks of working that late is draining on anybody.”
Since the beginning of the year, Mr. Van Loan said, 29 bills have received royal assent, including the several bills affecting First Nations on matrimonial real property rights and safe drinking water (S-2 and S-9); S-15, establishing Sable Island National Park; C-60, the budget implementation bill; C-43, Removal of Foreign Criminals Bill; and C-37, Increasing Offenders’ Accountability for Victims, among others and several private member’s bills.
NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair (Outremont, Que.) told reporters last week that the NDP was successful however in keeping the government accountable and got some important concessions from them before adjourning for the summer.
“For the official opposition, this has been a session where we’ve been able to communicate to Canadians the fact that we’re dealing with a tired, used Conservative government that refuses to come clean on issues like the Senate scandal and Nigel Wright’s payment of $90,000 to Mike Duffy [and] a Prime Minister who goes into hiding instead of providing answers,” Mr. Mulcair said outside of the NDP’s caucus room in the House.
“He’s only showed up five times in the House of Commons in the past five weeks. That’s who we’re dealing with,” Mr. Mulcair said.
Mr. Mulcair noted that while the NDP has been opposing the government on issues such as immigration, MPs are also “proposing,” as it did when it negotiated a motion to abolish the Board of Internal Economy and passing Bill C-32, Civil Marriage of Non-residents Bill, at third reading in exchange for adjourning three days earlier than the scheduled sitting.
“We were also able to take a step in the right direction for getting rid of the secretive Board of Internal Economy as the only place where expenses of this Parliament are vetted. We want a better system. And what we’ve proposed will actually produce a result. That’s what the advantage is,” he said. “What Peter Julian has put on the table as chairman of our caucus and as the person who represents the Official Opposition will produce a result. So it’s not a talking point. It’s not a flash in the pan. It’s not something to just get through an afternoon scrum. This is something that’s going to be the object of substantive work.”
The unanimous consent motion stated that bills C-54, S-14, S-17, S-15, C-32, and C-425 be passed and provisions for “replacing the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body” be studied at the Procedure and House Affairs Committee with findings reported back by Dec. 2, 2013, and that the House stand adjourned until Sept. 16.
When asked why the NDP let the government “off the hook” when it criticized the Conservatives for not answering questions, Mr. Mulcair said that’s not what happened.
“No, that’s completely false because, don’t forget, [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper had already clearly indicated he was not going to be here and you know as well as I do that he wouldn’t have been here,” he said.
Mr. Van Loan said there was not a lot negotiation that went on behind the scenes. “It was a question of waiting for the NDP to decide they were ready to do it,” he said.
“We had certain bills we wanted to get cleaned up and I think they were by and large non-contentious bills,” Mr. Van Loan said. “We had organized things that way so that the more difficult bills were passed earlier and towards the end it was easier to get consensus on things and both the NDP and the Liberals had their proposals on transparency and we’d already been quite clear that we were publicly open to supporting them. We were fine with both of those, and those will be studied. It was pretty simple.”
In response to Mr. Mulcair saying the government was a “tired” one, Mr. Van Loan said the Conservative government is the opposite.
“I think a government that is producing and delivering on new legislation at double the rate of a typical Parliament is not tired,” he said. “On average private members’ bills became law at one a year, we’ve had 14 so far make it to royal assent with more to come in just two years of this Parliament. That indicates to me a very active and engaged hard working Parliament, and hard working government.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Van Loan said that while he doesn’t know if Mr. Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) will prorogue Parliament in the fall as he’s expected to do after a Cabinet shuffle this summer, he cleared the deck so that there won’t be too much left on the Order Paper if it happens.
“He’s going to make that decision, but it certainly is a natural point at which to do so. I’ve done what I think I have to do in terms of clearing as much as possible off the Order Paper to give him the ability to do that without too many bills dying or being left behind on the order paper,” he said. “Typically I think prorogations have happened about once every one and a half years, we’re now a little more than two years in this government, so if he decides to do that, it is a sensible time.”
Original Article
Source: hilltimes.com
Author: BEA VONGDOUANGCHANH
No comments:
Post a Comment