CRANKINESS RULES AS MPS, SENATORS HEAD HOME FOR SUMMER BREAK
They have risen! Both the House of Commons and Senate decided this week to hang up their legislative hats and begin the parliamentary summer break. The session was fraught with procedural bickering and it remains to be seen whether any resentment left over will still be simmering in the fall. Before the barbecue season starts in earnest, the National Post’s Marie-Danielle Smith highlights a few items you may have missed from the spring sitting:
CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE
A perceived standoff between the two houses fizzled civilly Thursday morning when the Senate decided to defer to the elected government on its budget bill. But snippy exchange of words between the chambers hints at further brinkmanship in the future.
The Senate decided Thursday not to insist after all that the Liberals remove an escalator on alcohol taxes from the federal budget. On Wednesday, though, the House had decided to leave for the summer without even waiting to learn what the Senate would decide — and they dropped the mic by including in the adjournment motion a persnickety statement that the Senate amendments “infringe upon rights and privileges of the House.”
In response the Senate sent a pointed message to “acquaint” the House with its “privileges, immunities and powers as provided under the Constitution to amend legislation, whatever its nature or sources.” In procedural terms, them’s fighting words.
PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS
In the Commons, there are harder feelings than usual between government and opposition over proposed changes to procedural rules. A report this week by the procedural and house affairs committee is proof of that.
It dealt with a point of privilege raised by Conservative MP Lisa Raitt, and subsequently Maxime Bernier, saying they were prevented from voting because a shuttle bus to the Hill came too late.
In the six-page report, the committee found the incidents “troubling” but didn’t reach a conclusion on whether a breach of privilege took place.
The parties’ real opinions are in eight pages of “supplementary opinions” in which Tories and NDP concur privilege was breached and Liberals do not. Liberal MPs say the members in question were free to “head to the House on foot,” and they missed the vote because “they simply did not allow enough time to get to their seats.”
MONEY THE GREAT EQUALIZER
The House internal economy committee, which deals with matters of administration, recently published the minutes from a meeting in May during which MPs agreed on an increase to the “secondary residence rate.”
The rate doesn’t just cover hotels but also members’ rent if they’re living at, say, an apartment in Ottawa while the House of Commons sits. The current rate would give them about $930 per month to work with. That’ll increase to about $1,500.
It’s a substantial increase from $30.92 per day to $50 per day. The rationale is it’s “consistent with the daily private, non-commercial accommodation rate set out in the National Joint Council’s Travel Directive that Members may claim when they choose to stay in private, non-commercial accommodations.” The council is made up of major public service unions and some employers.
TOO LONG A CAMPAIGN
Another report from the House procedure committee this week expanded on recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer following the 2015 election.
The committee decided to concur with his recommendation of a shorter writ period.
MPs from all parties decided to approve the idea that formal campaign periods should be between the current minimum of 37 days and a new maximum of 43 days, “or up to one week longer than the minimum period.”