Roundup: The “dangerous” Senate

Posted on by

Remember last week when John Ivison had that ridiculous column about the Senate apparently becoming such a terrible beast that the finance minister was being forced to change his upcoming budget to placate them, and then Andrew Coyne got the vapours about it? Yeah, well, over in the Vancouver Sun, they found a couple of people for whom that Ivison column made them utterly hysterical that they made it the BC angle. And as much as I like Peter O’Neil, who wrote the piece, it was really terrible and didn’t appear to challenge any of these so-called experts at all, or even what Ivison wrote – it took Ivison as gospel and went to town with it, despite the fact that it was torqued and wrong.

The “experts” consulted were a former BC Liberal leader, a law professor, and a recycled quote from the current BC premier. Said former BC Liberal leader spins conspiracy theories that because BC only has six senators, it means that the other senators are going to sneakily start amending bills to funnel BC’s wealth eastward.

No, seriously. He actually said that.

The law professor? He asserts that, apparently based on the Ivison column, that the “half-reformed” Senate is emboldened to exercise its powers without correcting the institution’s “considerable faults,” which aren’t. Never mind that we haven’t actually seen much in the way of them being so “emboldened” other than the fact that they’ve found legitimate flaws in government legislation and insisted that it be either corrected or removed. You know, like they’re supposed to because that’s the whole raison d’etre of the institution. And Christy Clark? She simply asserts that the Senate doesn’t work now. Erm, except that it actually seems to be considering that they’ve catching flaws in government legislation and dealing with it. Seems to be working to me.

Part of the problem with the framing of the article as well is the fact that it is coming from this particular grievance-based claim that BC is underrepresented in the Senate because it only has six seats when Ontario and Quebec each have 24. The flaw in this argument is that it ignores the regional construction of the Senate – it is not designed for provincial representation, but rather regional blocks – Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes, and the West, with the territories and Newfoundland and Labrador each being additional regions unto themselves. The reason why it was designed with regional rather than provincial equality in mind was to provide a counterbalance to the representation-by-population of the House of Commons, and if you look at the populations of each regional bloc (Newfoundland & Labrador and the territories excepted), they are roughly analogous. That’s not a bad thing, but BC is acting a though the Senate was designed in another way, which it was not.

The problem with pieces like this one is that the important facts and context are left out. We are left with a few tantalizing quotes that crank the hysteria up to eleven, but there is no actual civic literacy to counter any of it, whether that’s out of ignorance or by design I can’t say. But it’s not edifying. It’s cartoonish, and in fact promotes an ugly cynicism about our institutions that creates bigger problems of perception that are not based on fact, and that’s a problem.

Good reads:

  • From the Cabinet retreat in Calgary, ministers met with Trump advisor Stephen Schwarzman who says not to worry about NAFTA. (Media remarks here).
  • Donald Trump has killed the TPP, and says he’ll meet Trudeau within 30 days to talk about renegotiating NAFTA.
  • PMO sources say that Indigenous Affairs and Democratic Institutions have not made their deliverology goals.
  • What’s that? The Canadian Rangers are lacking access to supports and health care? You don’t say!
  • CSIS apparently warned the government about technology that China would gain if they acquired a Canadian company that the government is giving a second look at.
  • Here’s a look at how trade has been a guarantor of peace for Canada since Confederation, particularly with the United States.
  • The NDP have scheduled a leadership debate for March, even though they have no actual declared candidates.
  • Here’s an explainer of how the leadership system works for the Conservatives, and why it makes it hard to determine who’s on top.
  • Conservative leadership also-ran Pierre Lemieux says he would repeal the trans rights bill because free speech. No, seriously.
  • Kevin O’Leary is now responding to the various open letters by members of the Ontario government.
  • Colin Horgan writes about the cynicism of Kevin O’Leary, while Colby Cosh writes about O’Leary’s Ignatieff Problem.
  • Scott Reid hopes that Trump becomes a giant flaming disaster, even if it hurts Canada, to stop his style of awful politics from becoming entrenched and ubiquitous.
  • Kady O’Malley writes about the tight spot that Trudeau is in trying to balance his progressive ideals with dealing with the Trumpocalypse.
  • Paul Wells says that Trudeau seems to be handling the Trumpocalypse file well so far, all things considered.
  • Stephen Gordon warns that reports like Oxfam’s on income inequality are missing the bigger picture and making our economic literacy even worse.

Odds and ends:

Tristin Hopper looks through that big declassified CIA database for mentions of Canada.

Over in the Law Times, I look at how a Senate bill on bail reform could cause problems for courts if MPs override the government and pass it.

4 thoughts on “Roundup: The “dangerous” Senate”

  1. yes of course like the Captain of the Titanic reassured passengers there was no problem just extra ice for the drinks at the bar. PMJT and others like Carr have no choice but to reassure otherwise you will have mass panic.

  2. I’m not sure where to start, Dale, and I’m not going to use insulting terms like “cartoonish.” I think you are clearly oblivious to thinking over many years among many western Canadian scholars* who have argued that an empowered Senate — and i sat down the other day with a Senate staffer gleeful over the idea of sending a budget bill back to the House, as he felt quite empowered and wasn’t shy about saying so — was to Alberta-BC’s distinct disadvantage. Yes it is speculative at this point re. how far this more independent Senate might go, but when a senior political person is telling my colleague John — who has great sources in this town — that they are catering more to the upper chamber, i think it is reasonable to remind them of these concerns. If i don’t no one will, because the overwhelming majority of folks in central and Atlantic Canada, you included clearly, are unaware of and/or disinterested in this potential problem.

    Second, you appear to be perfectly fine with the current seat distribution because like so many in these parts you presumably view “the west” as a monolith. Yes, if the four western provinces had a somewhat similar political culture, history, and demographic makeup as the three other regions one might be able to make this case that a region with 32 pc of the national population is adequately represented by having 23% of the seats in a powerful legislature. But BC has, going back to the WAC Bennett days, argued that it should be recognized as Canada’s fifth region, and the province reacted bitterly in 1995 when Chretien’s constitutional veto scheme lumped in BC with the Prairies. I don’t know if you’ve ever lived there but it is truly like being in another country — read Jean Barman’s The West Beyond The West to get a flavour. The idea that a clearly “distinct” province with 13 per cent of the population would have less than 6 per cent of the seats, or that Alta-BC as traditional economic engines would have a quarter of the country’s population/gdp but 11.4 per cent of the seats, is indefensible.

    I don’t mind, and neither Gibson nor the U of Vic dean of law mind, the Senate doing its job by fixing flawed legislation. But i think they wanted to send a shot across the bow in the event there’s an inclination to go further than that. I would note that Justin Trudeau boasted to La Presse in 2014 about how the Senate gave Quebec a clear advantage over BC/Alta, and prior to that Tory MP John Williamson crowed to his NB constituents about how an elected Senate would give his province (where i was born and raised btw) disproportionate clout (2% of population, 9.5% of Senate seats) in the federation.

    I think if you’re going to portray yourself as an authority on our democratic institutions you need to broaden your perspective to take into account views from outside the bubble.

    *See https://www.pressreader.com/canada/vancouver-sun/20111007/284575944586570
    I would note that Gibbins, after he left the CWF, reversed his position for the same reason Gordon Gibson, Tom Flanagan and many others gave to explain their opposition to any move that would give the Senate greater legitimacy. And trust me that Premier Clark’s objection to Trudeau’s plan is very much in line with this thinking.

    • Hi Peter,
      A couple of things:
      1– Part of this was my frustration with the way that this issue keeps being raised in the media, without context or nuance. It’s always “undemocratic” and “dangerous,” and never seems to explain anything. I think it’s a problem, which is part of why I have this blog.
      2– I have yet to meet a senator or staffer who is gleefully drunk with power now that they are more “independent.” I have, however, met many who feel that when they send a bad bill back that they are vindicated, that they have proved that the Senate has value amidst the constant narrative that they are useless and need to be abolished. There is a difference.
      3– I’m fully aware that ministers are having one-off meetings with senators in the interests of getting bills passed, and you’re damn right that I think it’s a problem and have said so several times. That said, it’s not dangerous or undemocratic, but rather that this is the government lying in the bed they made, and maybe one day they’ll come to their senses and realizing that cutting senators out of their caucus was a stupid and short-sighted action and that maybe it was preferable when senators made their influence known inside the caucus room.
      4– I’m not so much “fine” with seat distribution as trying to explain how and why it works. There has been plenty of discussion about BC becoming a separate region with more seats – and there was once a bill to put forward a constitutional amendment to that effect – but I’m cautious about how that will affect the regional balance in the chamber. I’m also from Alberta, so I’m well aware that the West is not a monolith. But neither are Ontario or Quebec for that matter.
      5– As for Trudeau’s 2014 statement, sure I remember it, but he also says a lot of boneheaded things off-the-cuff and usually recants them when he’s called on it. Do I think it’s a genuine threat to the West? Not really.
      As for my perspective, the fact that I run counter to most of the group-think that happens in the “bubble” is an indication that I am capable of broadening my perspective outside of what everyone else is saying.
      Thanks for listening.

      • Thanks for your thoughtful and respectful reply, I appreciate that. I think we in fact agree more than disagree about the potential problem of having senators not tied to a caucus. On the regional seat distribution thing, i guess we’ll have to agree to disagree because i think there has always been a real problem that could worsen if the senators as a body decide to more frequently assert themselves as regional representatives.

        The Senate sometimes does good work, issues interesting and occasionally influential reports, and if we accept that they’re sometimes useful it’s hard not to accept that this is a problem if there is a gross seat imbalance, and you can’t seriously argue that NS having 11 seats and BC having 6 isn’t absurd in the extreme. I suggest you read a transcript of the fisheries committee. All these Atlantic Canadian senators focussing on AC issues and earnest Nancy Greene Raine, who lives 400 km from the coast, trying to represent what i consider a more important and complex fishery by herself.

        It’s always a struggle to get this particular angle in the paper, editors in Alta and BC are always baffled — “how is electing senators a problem?” and “how is appointing smarter and more independent senators, as opposed to bagmen, a concern?” So I have no doubt it’s even tougher getting this point through to readers. But i think it’s an important story to get on the public record every once in a while.

Comments are closed.