Depending on your level of political interest you may or may not be aware that Federally, much like Provincially, our various regions are divided up into what are called ridings. In a Provincial riding an MLA will be elected and Federally an MP– however it is the boundaries that ultimately determine which communities and geographical areas will exist within a particular riding.  

As growth can occur in some regions faster or more slowly than in others, from time to time the boundaries are reviewed and reconfigured to reflect population changes, given that in Canada we use a "Representation By Population" model when establishing riding boundaries. The independent non-partisan Federal  Electoral Boundary Commission has the responsibility to determine riding boundaries that adhere as strictly as possible to the principle of "Representation By Population". This is a very challenging task. In adhering to these guidelines often regional and geographical concerns may become secondary to keeping the population within each of the ridings, approximately equal. From the Federal perspective the riding boundaries are reviewed once every ten years and I believe 8 years at the Provincial level.

Those of you who follow Federal politics closely will be aware that the current electoral boundaries have been under review for the past year. The first draft of proposed new boundaries released in 2012 generated a significant amount of local opposition both in the riding of Okanagan-Coquihalla and more so in the riding of BC Southern Interior. Last week the final report on our new electoral boundaries for the next federal election was released and while some minor changes have been made from the preliminary proposed boundaries I expect those changes will not be to the extent that many were looking for.

Although a full summary is available online at the Federal Redistribution website I will summarize some of the more significant changes. The current BC Southern Interior riding represented by NDP MP Alex Atamanenko is by far the most impacted by the new boundaries. The communities of Rossland, Trail and Castlegar are no longer in a riding with nearby Nelson and instead will be in a new riding identified as South Okanagan-West Kootenay. Also in this new riding are the community’s of Oliver, Osoyoos and most notably Penticton........but do not include Summerland, Keremeos or Princeton.

For my riding of Okanagan-Coquihalla the commission has largely left the riding intact with West Kelowna, Merritt, Logan Lake, Summerland and Peachland still part of the riding that will be renamed Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola. Obviously the largest change is that Penticton will be removed from this riding and Keremeos and Princeton along with a portion of Kelowna will be added. Although some communities will be supportive of these changes, from what I heard when I attended the public input session and from speaking with various local government leaders and citizens, I am expecting that the majority will be opposed.

From a political perspective and given the change in boundaries, another question that may arise is.... in which riding will an incumbent MP run.... assuming they stand for re-election. In my case I have already heard this question from a number of local media and while I believe this issue is of little significance at this point given the next election is still a long time away, I also believe citizens deserve candid and timely answers from elected officials. From my perspective Okanagan-Coquihalla is a large and very diverse riding and I have spent the past few years becoming familiar with many important community issues as well as building relationships with community leaders, the vast majority of whom will remain within the new riding of Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola. Given the importance of knowing local challenges and the need to build strong community relationships to help resolve them, representing a familiar riding and working with community leaders you know, is , in my view, the way an MP can be most effective. In my case that would be Central Okanagan-Similkameen-Nicola. Having said that, it is also important to recognize that these new boundaries do not come into effect until the next Federal election and at the moment there are many projects and priorities in Okanagan-Coquihalla that we must collectively continue to pursue. I welcome your comments on this or any topic and can be reached toll-free at 1-800-665-8711 or via email at dan.albas@parl.gc.ca

The most discussed topic to arise this week is the announcement that the House of Commons will be prorogued and reconvening in October instead of mid September as the fixed Parliamentary calendar was originally set for. Prorogation is one of the more interesting and also misunderstood of all of the various procedures regarding parliamentary affairs. What is a “prorogation”?

In essence each “session” of Parliament is not unlike a chapter in a book. Much as each chapter will have a beginning and an end, so too will a session of Parliament.

Prorogation is officially defined as the ending of a session of Parliament. In this case the 1st session of the 41st Parliament will come to a close and when the House reconvenes in October there will be a throne-speech which is the Parliamentary tradition for opening a new session of Parliament as the Government outlines the direction and agenda of the coming session, that in this instance will be the second session of the 41st Parliament.

Although some will try to suggest that the Parliamentary act of prorogation is an unusual or uncommon one, in fact the opposite is true. Looking back at all 41 of our elected Parliaments and beginning with our first Parliament in 1867, there have only been five Parliaments that did not have two or more sessions. In fact many Parliaments had 3 or more sessions with some being as many as 5, 6 and even 7 sessions within the duration of an elected Parliament. To be fair, prior to the House of Common adopting a fixed calendar, the only way the House could adjourn was either by agreement of the larger parties, (something that rarely occurs even to this day) or by Proroguing the House. As we also know from more recent history, prorogation is not only used to allow for a throne speech and a new session within a Parliament, it can also be used by Government to avoid votes of confidence (obviously more common in a minority Government) or as was done recently in the Ontario Legislature, to make way for the governing party to choose a new leader- and thus a new Premier of the Governing party. It should also be noted that prorogation is a tool that can be used at the discretion of Government without the consent of the opposition (that would normally be required to adjourn the House). 

There are also some misconceptions that exist about Prorogation, the most common is that all bills, in particular Private Members Bills, are in effect “killed” when a House prorogues. This is partially true in that if a Bill is not re-introduced into the House of Commons, it would then cease to exist on the order paper. However Bills that are re-introduced can be reinstated at the same stage of debate within the House that existed prior to prorogation, the only exception would be if a Bill was in the Senate and in these circumstances it reverts back to the House of Commons at third reading. The other misunderstanding that I have come across pertains to the role of Ministers, contrary to what has been suggested, Ministers maintain responsibilities and continue to preside over the portfolio in question during a period of prorogation no differently than during a session. Likewise for Members of Parliament, we continue to meet with constituents and work within our constituencies no differently than when the House is adjourned.

In spite of Prorogation being a very commonly used Parliamentary practice established over many decades in the House of Commons by Governments of all stripes, the opposition will understandably denounce this move. The most common allegation is that prorogation “avoids accountability”. I will answer this criticism in advance because the reality is that prorogation can only defer debate – it does not prevent debate from occurring once the House resumes. I should also add that it was our Government that moved to add an additional 20 hours of weekly debate for the end of the summer session– a move that was opposed by the Opposition. 

Ultimately this decision by Government allows our Prime Minister to introduce and move ahead with a new policy agenda that will keep Canada strong. Although Canada already has the best job creation record in the entire G-7 we must not overlook the importance of jobs and those who are currently unemployed. I look forward to the second session of our 41st Parliament and the upcoming Speech from the Throne.