Because it was making the rounds yet again on the Sunday morning politics shows, I figured I should reiterate a few points, plus make a couple of new ones, concerning the new Senate appointments, and the role of the new “government representative.” The first point is that yes, the Senate is going to have to change a few of its rules, and that is a process that has already started and probably won’t be concluded for a few more weeks or months. That we have a name and a face to go with this new role may accelerate the process rather than it being nebulous with Dominic LeBlanc and Maryam Monsef just shrugging and declaring that they were confident that the Senate could work it out. With Peter Harder now in the picture, with an idea about how he wants to tackle his role, there is something a little more concrete in terms of how he wants to shape the new rules to suit his purposes. His budget as “government representative” as opposed to Leader of the Government in the Senate is also up for some debate, particularly within the Internal Economy Committee, just as they are going to have to take up what to do with the new “Independent working-group” and how they want to organise and style themselves so as to give a voice to the independent senators who are currently being frozen out of decision-making processes. (This goes as well for the Rules Committee, which has already been undertaking the question of how to better allow independent senators onto committees, as that process is mostly done behind closed doors by the caucus whips). Harder’s decision to remain officially an independent while taking on this role does complicate things, but nothing is so difficult that it cannot be solved with a little more diligence, and hopefully it won’t be too impeded by some of the more partisan senators on either side of the aisle whose feelings have been bruised by the talk of independence being an improvement on the way the Senate operates. The final point is this constant concern trolling that somehow the budget won’t get passed, or that the government won’t be able to get its agenda through if nobody is there to crack the whip. It’s a lot of specious reasoning predicated on a number of straw men, ignorant of history and civic literacy. Apparently every time the governing party in the Senate was in the minority there was some kind of constitutional crisis, which is false, and no, budgets were not held up or defeated. The Senate is very reluctant to stop any bill because they are aware of their democratic legitimacy (and yes, they do have it by virtue of Responsible Government so don’t even go there), and when they have defeated legislation, it is generally for good reason, such as constitutionality, the legislation being out of bounds, or the fact that the country was not on side with it, and it needed to be put to a test (such as with free trade in the 1980s). They have a job to do. I’m particularly galled at those concerned that the Senate is going to suddenly be empowered to use their constitutional veto powers if they are more independent and less beholden to the government of the day, never mind that the Senate has not abused its veto in decades. They were given those powers for a reason, and yes, sometimes elected legislators get things wrong and there needs to be a mechanism to stop their legislation. But this pearl-clutching about the new state of affairs really needs to stop.

Good reads:

• Maclean’s has assembled a group of economists to give some charts to demonstrate what they’ll be looking for in the budget.
• Here are some of the tea leaves being parsed around the budget and deficit figures.
• David Dodge wants the budget to “set the stage” for growth, but doesn’t agree with returning OAS to 65.
• Adorably, Thomas Mulcair now says he’d be okay with a deficit if it helps Canadians.
• The senior bureaucrat in Treasury Board has warned the government about scientists being too un-muzzled, and undermining government policy.
• Of our new Senate appointees, we have a few concerns from Murray Sinclair, and André Pratte hopes to avoid lying as part of his new political duties.
• It will soon be time for cabinet to decide on putting a $104 billion downpayment on new frigates for the Royal Canadian Navy.
• NDP MP Jenny Kwan wants the “cessation” provisions in refugee law to be struck down, as it creates two-tiers of permanent residency status.
• Peter MacKay is now actively hinting he’s considering a leadership bid. Kady O’Malley crunches the fundraising numbers of the would-be candidates.

+1 million. Responsible Government, people. It’s a Thing. https://t.co/Bax3JLmV9y

— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) March 19, 2016