Roundup: Abusing the Senate for partisan ends

Posted on by

The parade of people looking aghast at that Senate committee interim report continued yesterday, much of it with the usual cartoonish depictions of the Senate as a whole, never mind that this was a small group of Conservatives that made the recommendations in an interim report, and the Liberals on the committee explicitly dissented from it. Yes, the proposal is problematic and no doubt there are many in the Muslim community who are sceptical because it’s not a monolithic religion. Even those who are supportive in theory, because of the problem of foreign-trained imams that are more likely to come from radicalised schools, are wary of the current government and its mechanisms for dealing with it, though it has also been noted that the government already issues work permits for these imams, so perhaps that is a tool they could better use now. The report did mention what happens in Europe, but the language is vague, and what does happen in many European countries is providing funding for imam-training schools, with the intention of helping them learn about the language and culture of the country they’re heading to. Could this be what they mean? Maybe, but it’s still an interim report, so we won’t know until maybe December, assuming that the next parliament is actually constituted by then. So what to make of it? John Ivison posits that the report reads like a Conservative election platform, and I don’t think he’s wrong. This government has not been above abusing the Senate for its own ends before, and it looks like they’re doing it again. And yes, you’re going to look aghast at the suggestion that the Senate is partisan, never mind that it is and always has been – it’s usually just less partisan because Senators don’t need to campaign for re-election. It’s also in a difficult period right now because the majority of the Conservatives in the Senate were appointed in a manner that stressed the Chamber’s ability to absorb them, and that in turn led the Conservative leadership therein to further abuse the chamber by going heavy on the whip. It is a problem that may not be solved until Harper is no longer the party leader and this group no longer feels beholden to him. Until then, we should be critical, but let’s keep said criticism in perspective. The institution itself is not to be faulted because it currently has some problematic appointments and a Prime Minister that is keen to abuse it.

Good reads:

  • The IMF has lowered its growth forecast for Canada, but Joe Oliver continues to insist there’s no issue and voting for anyone else will result in doom.
  • Here’s a look at the sorry state of our search-and-rescue aircraft, which still haven’t been replaced after they were supposed to have been a decade ago.
  • The new heads of the RCN and RCAF have joined the new head of the Army talking tough on combating sexual misconduct, making Lawson look like the odd man out.
  • Digging into the financial returns of riding associations, the Conservatives still come out on top, while the Liberals far outperform the NDP.
  • It seems that the Ches Crosbie affair may actually cripple what support the Conservatives still have in Newfoundland and Labrador.
  • Lindsay Tedds writes about how naming and shaming deadbeats may not actually work the way we hope it will.
  • The Broadcast Consortium debate dates have been posted, and the English debate is not in prime time, because gods forbid they have to pre-empt all of that American programming they paid for.

Odds and ends:

Stephen Harper met with Wisconsin’s anti-union, anti-gay governor, and didn’t tell anyone about it.

It seems that bellwether ridings are becoming a thing of the past.

Kady O’Malley pities the poor denizens of the Langevin Block whose windows are covered by giant flags.