Roundup: Annotating the 2016 Senate look back

Posted on by

The National Post had a look back over the changes made to the Senate over the past year, and a look at what’s coming up, so I figured I’d offer a few annotations along the way, because this is what we do here.

First of all, yes most of the new appointments came with small-l liberal values, and yes, that is a problem for the broader diversity of the chamber, which should have broad philosophical differences in it so that a more effective opposition to government policy can be offered. And as one Senator also said to me, it would be great if the next round didn’t all come from the social sciences. Because yeah, that too is another noticeable similarity. The Independent Senators’ Group also says that they won’t all vote together unless it’s an issue of Senate rules or logistics. This immediately prompted one of the most partisan of partisan defenders to leap to the attack.

I’m going to give some of these votes a pass because the bulk of the new senators are just that – new, and they haven’t had enough time to study up on the bills to come up with enough reasons to vote against them, other than perhaps for the sake of voting against them to show displeasure with the government. That these were mostly budget bills doesn’t really help Batters’ critique either because the Senate has to be careful with money bills, defeating them only on the most critical of issues which these budget bills were not. The rule of thumb is also that most senators become more independent with time, and these ones have barely managed to get their offices sorted, let alone figure out opposition stances.

There is but a brief mention under logistics that the Government Leader – err, “government representative” Senator Peter Harder says the “chamber will no longer be home to the government-versus-opposition Westminster-model,” but then leaves it at that. This is a very big deal, and one of the reasons why Peter Harder needs to be stopped. Throwing out the Westminster model in favour of 101 “loose fish” is a Very Bad Thing because it guts the effectiveness of the Senate as an accountability body, forcing it to rely either on subject-matter experts in the Chamber that may not disagree with the government, or by leaving independent senators vulnerable to the machinations of either Harder or government ministers promising favours. This, let me repeat, is a Very Bad Thing.

Finally, while it points out that senators have been more active in amending government bills, it requires a bit more context. Two of those bills, assisted dying and RCMP unionization, were born of Supreme Court of Canada decisions that the government of the day didn’t do a particularly thrilling job of drafting. The consumer protection aspects of Bill C-29? That was as much pressure from the Quebec Government as it was the Senate committee. And Bill S-3 on gender discrimination in Indian Act registration? Another bill stemming from a Supreme Court of Canada decision that was poorly drafted, but the fact that the government tabled the bill in the Senate instead of the Commons means that those flaws were exposed there first, and is not indicative of an overly aggressive Senate as it was a bad bill. Context matters, which this article doesn’t really get right.

Good reads:

  • Maclean’s has a lengthy look at Nick Kouvalis, Kellie Leitch’s brain trust.
  • Surprising nobody, a trade tribunal ruled that US drywall dumping is hurting Canadian industry.
  • The former head of CSIS says that they want expanded lawful access powers for counter-terrorism. Funny how they have yet to convince the courts.
  • Incidentally, CSIS didn’t seem to have any briefing materials prepared for the government on their metadata database.
  • There was a slight drop in compliance by First Nations to provide audits when the penalties for not doing so were lifted.
  • Here’s a look at the impacts of new carbon prices in Ontario and Alberta.
  • Lisa Raitt announced a major policy plank of…launching an anti-Kevin O’Leary website, followed by answering softball French questions in English.
  • Steven Blaney proposes reducing immigration and refugee targets. Apparently, he doesn’t read demographic trends.
  • Kellie Lietch went on Fox News to give her doubts about “socialized medicine.”
  • My Loonie Politics column this week looks at the need to start searching for a new Governor General (plus four lieutenant governors).

Odds and ends:

https://twitter.com/calxandr/status/816777916629614592