Roundup: The coming Senate legislative crunch

Posted on by

While the legalized cannabis bill passed the House of Commons last night and is off to the Senate, questions about the kind of reception it will find there are sure to be buzzing about in the days to come. While the bill’s Senate sponsor wants a process akin to the medical assistance in dying bill to take place (something I find overzealous and ignores the context of what happened then), it’s unlikely to happen that way, and we may see the Conservatives in the Senate trying to dig their heels in. But it’s still early days, so we’ll see.

With this in mind, I wanted to turn to Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column yesterday, where she looked at how the Senate could gum up the government’s end-of-season legislative plan, as they try to push through a number of bills before the Commons rises in just under three weeks. The Senate is already seeing a growing backlog of bills on its Order Paper (a function I’m told has to do largely with the Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” and his unwillingness to negotiate with the caucuses in there on timelines), and will likely sit up to the 22nd to try and get most of them passed. But what O’Malley described in the refusal by the Senate to engage in pre-study of the budget implementation bill as being a sign that of uncertainty, I will note that the circumstances around this demand for pre-study were unusual from a procedural standpoint. As he outlined in his speech against the pre-study motion, Senate Liberal leader Joseph Day pointed out that the point of pre-study is for the Senate to do a parallel committee process and send recommendations to the Commons before they complete their own study so that they have the chance to make amendments that the Senate proposes at that time. The problem is that this particular bill had already reached Report Stage in the Commons before the motion to pre-study was moved in the Senate by Senator Harder, meaning that the opportunity to offer amendments had already passed, and there was no actual cause for pre-study, and what Harder was looking to do was short-circuit Senate procedure for his own scheduling purposes, and well, the Liberals were having none of it. And in the end, neither were the Conservatives and several of the Independents.

And this is one of the things that I think O’Malley missed in her column – that part of the problem in the Senate right now is that the leadership (meaning Senator Harder) is not exactly doing the government any favours with his inability to manage the legislative agenda in that chamber, especially when he tries to do an end-run around the rules to suit his purposes. It will be a problem if he keeps this up, because the veterans in that chamber won’t stand for it.

Good reads:

  • At an interview in Toronto yesterday, Justin Trudeau said that there needs to be a mindset change in Canada to tackle the issue of sexual assault.
  • The government has apparently earmarked $100 million for compensation as part of their apology to persecuted LGBT Canadians.
  • In case you missed it, Pierre Poilievre spent QP insinuating that Bill Morneau engaged in insider trading. Morneau later put out a statement staying this is false.
  • Surefire fodder for QP today is this report that four PMO staffers have recused themselves from the search for a new Ethics Commissioner.
  • Kirsty Duncan doubled down in her calling out Andrew Scheer’s campus free speech concerns with regards to that Catholic university banning an abortion film.
  • Inuit leaders say that the apology for Newfoundland and Labrador residential school survivors must also be accompanied by resources.
  • The Competition Bureau will be reviewing that Postmedia/Torstar swap/closure of local news outlets – but they may not be able to do anything about it.
  • Former NDP MP Craig Scott wants the International Criminal Court to look into Canada’s conduct with detainees during the Afghanistan war.
  • Here’s that Hill Times story of rookie MPs anonymously whinging that the Morneau stories make them “nervous” that was the concern-trolling fodder for QP.
  • CRA is targeting wealthy neighbourhoods to compare tax filings in an attempt to study tax avoidance. MP responses to this are pretty laughable.
  • With the Canada Infrastructure Bank nearly up and running, here’s a look at what it might be able to accomplish.
  • Ruh-roh! The Auditor General says that Indigenous issues he raises get less parliamentary study than other issues.
  • The government won’t appeal the court decision that struck down the $1000 deposit that anyone running for federal office must pay.
  • Here’s a reminder about some of the outside advice that the Liberals got in January 2016, which said that the Phoenix pay system was ready to roll.
  • Maclean’s looks at the question of what happens if the MMIW Inquiry doesn’t meet their two-year deadline (though they may yet request an extension).
  • Rob Salerno outlines the other anti-gay laws on the books that still need to change if the government is sincere about their apology to LGBT Canadians.
  • Stephen Gordon looks at how the “Economist Party” helped to reshape some Liberal policies, and looks at how they may help the Conservatives and NDP.
  • Paul Wells offers an early year-end look at Trudeau’s ability to be his own worst enemy at times.

Odds and ends:

Now online is my Law Times package on environmental law, looking at flooding, brownfield assessments, Indigenous consultation, and carbon prices.

Former Alberta premier Alison Redford is now a policy advisor to the Afghan government on developing their oil and gas resources.

With the engagement announcement by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, here are five things to know about what transpired.