Tag Archives: The Senate

Senate QP: Opioids and bovine TB

Posted on by

Today’s special guest star for Senate Question Period was Health Minister Jane Philpott, whose birthday it also happened to be. Senator Ogilvie led off, and he raised the social affairs committee’s report on dementia, which the full Senate endorsed last night, and he wanted to know if she was aware of its contents. Philpott said that she has had a preliminary briefing on the report and she personally has experience with the file, given her own father suffers from it and she was looking to working on the file together.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Peter Harder is trying to bamboozle you

Posted on by

Behold Senator Peter Harder, the “government representative” in the Senate. Faced with attacks from his (mostly) partisan detractors, he bravely mounted his steed, and galloped out to the webpages of Policy Options where he oh so bravely slew a straw man to defend his particular moves in modernising the Senate. And in case this wasn’t clear enough, let me spell it out for you – Peter Harder is trying to bamboozle you.

The particular straw man that Harder bravely faced was the notion that those who defend the Westminster model in the Senate are trying to keep it a mirror of the House of Lords. This, incidentally, is complete malarkey. Nobody has ever made this argument. The Senate of Canada has never borne any resemblance to the Lords (aside from the fact that each is an appointed upper body), and nobody has advanced an argument to make that claim. But Harder went on at length to prove how different the two chambers were (again, nobody claimed otherwise), and then went on to showcase all of the other upper chambers in Westminster countries and how different they were too. Look at how flexible the Westminster model is! Harder proclaims. And it’s all very “Father knows best,” as he schools everybody on parliamentary democracy. And then he starts his subtle subversion. Look at Nunavut, he suggests – they don’t have parties there! It’s a consensus legislature.

And this is the point where I want to punch someone in the throat. But I have that urge everyone someone brings up the Nunavut legislature.

The Nunavut legislature works (more or less) on a party-less consensus model because a) it has a mere 22 members; and b) it operates within the cultural context of its Inuit residents for whom consensus-making is a norm. The Nunavut legislature model is neither scalable nor portable, and anyone who tries to suggest otherwise requires a smack upside the head. The other part, which escapes Harder’s point, is that it still has an executive council and an ostensible opposition whose job it is to hold said Cabinet to account. And that’s the basis of the Westminster model that Harder quite carefully ignores in his defence of said model’s mutability. You see, the real basis of the Westminster model is that of Responsible Government, and the exercise thereof needs both a government and an opposition to hold it to account, and that can replace the government when they lose confidence. Oh, but wait – the Senate isn’t a confidence chamber, you might be saying. And that’s right. But they still have a part to play in the exercise of accountability, whether it’s asking questions of the government in their own QP (which is why the Leader of the Government is supposed to be a cabinet minister), and why they have an absolute veto, which is a necessary check on executive power.

Harder’s other suggestion – that perhaps instead of an official opposition, there instead be an “opposition representative” to mirror his role as “government representative,” is as much about undermining the ability of senators to organise opposition to the government agenda as it is about extending his own power base among the independents. 101 loose fish cannot be an effective opposition force just as much as they cannot be a consensus body (not that the Senate’s role is consensus). Harder’s attempt to delegitimise the role of partisanship in the Senate has nothing to do with trying to respect the chamber’s constitutional role (which he uses revisionist history to assert) and everything to do with his own ambitions, and he’s willing to slay as many straw men along the way as it takes to convince everyone that he’s on the right path. Don’t let him get away with it.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Partisan crybabies and skewered straw men

Posted on by

As machinations and protestations go, the current drama in the Senate is starting to try my patience, particularly because so many of the players seem to be getting drawn off onto silly tangents at the expense of the bigger picture. In particular, the Conservative senators continuing to push this conspiracy theory that all new independent senators are just Liberals in-all-but-name is really, really throwing them off the message that Senator Peter Harder is trying to destroy the Westminster traditions of the Senate, and has a stated goal of removing any sense of official opposition from the Chamber. But when the complaints about Harder’s machinations are drowned out by their conspiracy theorizing, they’re only harming their arguments by making themselves look petty. And it is concerning what Harder has been up to, his latest move being a closed-door meeting for all senators to “discuss short-term and long-term government business.” Add to this are a number of the more established independent senators, who previously felt shut out, excusing Harder’s actions because he’s trying to bring them in, oblivious to the fact that this is how he’s trying to build his little empire.

Add to this conversation comes former senator Hugh Segal who penned an op-ed for the Ottawa Citizen, bravely skewering straw men all around him about those darned partisan senators not giving up committee spots to independent senators (when he knows full well that it’s an ongoing process and that committees don’t get reconstituted until after a prorogation), and coming to the defence of Harder, with whom he worked together all of those years ago during the Mulroney government before Harder transitioned to the civil service. Poor Peter Harder, whose budget has been cruelly limited by all of those partisan senators and how he can’t get the same budget as Leaders of the Government in the Senate past (never mind that Harder has no caucus to manage, nor is he a cabinet minister as the Government Leader post is ostensibly). Gosh, the partisan senators are just being so unfair to him. Oh, please.

So long as people are content to treat this as partisan crybabies jealously guarding their territory, we’re being kept blind as to what Harder’s attempts to reshape the Senate are going to lead to. His attempts to dismantle the Westminster structure are not about making the chamber more independent – it’s about weakening the opposition to the government’s agenda. Trying to organise coherent opposition amongst 101 loose fish is not going to cut it, and Harder knows it. The Senate’s role as a check on the government is about to take a serious blow so long as people believe Harder’s revisionist history and back-patting about how great a non-partisan Senate would be. Undermining parliament is serious business, and we shouldn’t let them get away with it because we think it’s cute that it’s making the partisans angry.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The scourge of billionaires

Posted on by

If you thought that the temptation to blame elites for everything was simply the crass tactics of Kellie Leitch – herself among the most elite of elites – then you’d be wrong. Yesterday Rona Ambrose decided to take a page from the very same playbook and rail in a speech open to media about how the Liberals were elites who were *gasp!* meeting with billionaires to talk about investment opportunities in Canada. OH NOES! The horror of it all! And not just billionaires – billionaires from Beijing and Dubai! Because it never hurts to get a bit of a protectionist/xenophobic twist to your moral panic. But then again, the Conservatives never could decide if they actually wanted to attract or shut down foreign investment, as they left rules deliberately vague so that they could indulge their protectionist, populist impulses when it suited their needs politically.

Part of what’s galling is the real lack of self-awareness that Ambrose is displaying in this kind of speech. While she’s trying to take a populist tack, her examples are all poor ones to prove her case about those darn elites being against ordinary working folks. Leaving aside that as MPs, they are the elites, the examples of things like cancelling the children’s fitness tax credit don’t even fit their rhetoric. Why? Because the Liberal not only replaced those myriad of tax credits with a broad-based income tax cut, but also with far more generous and untaxed child benefit payments, while those tax credits were non-refundable, meaning that they were generally inaccessible to low-income Canadians who needed them, but rather were far more beneficial to higher-income families who had the money to spend on the sports or arts or whatever to get the full benefit of said credits. In other words, trying to make a “regular families” argument in the “us versus the elites” narrative doesn’t stand up to logic or reality. The fact that they are willing to start indulging in this kind of rhetoric should be alarming, because the last thing we want to do is start trading in the politics of resentment like we’ve seen in the States. Only madness lies that way.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A blistering condemnation of Peter Harder

Posted on by

I’ve long held suspicions about the work that Senator Peter Harder, the “government representative” in the Senate, has been doing, and I will say that I was completely alarmed by some of the things brought to light by Liberal Senator James Cowan yesterday in his speech about Senate modernization. It’s a blistering speech, and I suggest you take the 25 minutes to listen to it all, but some highlights: Harder is engaging in revisionist history to claim that the Senate was never meant to be partisan (which is false), and he is trying to do away with the roles of government and opposition (which are integral to the Westminster system) in order to create a bureaucratic-like structure. In a chamber full of independents, there will be fewer checks on the government, and Harder will amass power by acting like the leader of the Senate as a whole, further weakening the chamber’s role as a check on the power of the executive. Harder has gone so far as to start offering to set up meetings with senators and the premiers of the provinces they represent – meeting he would be present at – which is completely improper and something a government representative should have no role in doing. It’s disturbing to listen to how his plans to reorganise the Chamber would take shape, and Cowan’s speech is blistering in its condemnation.

Continue reading →

Senate QP: Unions and migrant workers

Posted on by

Six new senators had just been sworn in, and other senators in the chamber had been shuffle around, making for a fuller chamber. This week’s special ministerial guest star was employment minister MaryAnn Mihychuk (and I can’t recall if she’s been here before). Senator Carignan led off, asking about union certification and secret ballots, taking a shot at Senator Bellemare while he was at it. Mihychuk, after getting him to repeat the question, said there was no real reason to move away from the card check system, and noted that while intimidation does exist, they are returning to a system that worked well for years.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The whinge of the everyman

Posted on by

I had hoped that after the last round of appointments that we were done with the vapid narcissistic “everyman/woman” wannabe candidates for the Senate would finally go back into the woodwork, but no, I see that we are indulging them once more in a plaintive wail about how terribly unfair it is that deserving, qualified candidates with decades of community and specialty experience got the nod and not them. Because who wouldn’t want an expert in the field when you could get a hot dog vendor or a draftsman who will totally enrich the legislative experience by…um, well, I’m not really sure. I mean, that’s kind of why we have a House of Commons, right? So that the everyman/woman can run and get their chance to do their part and influence policy and so on? And then the Senate goes over their work to ensure that they haven’t made mistakes with the legislation and that it’s all looking good. You know, that whole sober second thought thing? Still failing to see what value a hot dog vendor is going to add to that process. But oh noes! Elites! To which I simply reply “So what?” Do you, hot dog vendor and draftsman who are complaining to the media that your application was passed over, actually know the role and function of the Senate? Because based on everything you’ve said here, I’m not seeing that indication at all.

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/795439635535110148

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/795440234980839424

Meanwhile, Senator Peter Harder is coming to the defence of the new appointment system (as he obviously would, being a recipient of its beneficence already), but takes a few gratuitous swipes at the partisans still in the Senate while he’s at it. But there’s a key paragraph in there toward the bottom, where he talks about how Trudeau “voluntarily relinquished one of the traditional levers of power of his political party and of his office” when he expelled his senators from his caucus, and it rankles just a bit. Why? Because Trudeau didn’t so much give up one traditional lever of power so much as he used the show of relinquishing his lever to gain control over a bunch of other levers instead that are less obvious, from centralizing power over the MPs in his caucus with their institutional memory driven from the room, or his now using ministers to meet with individual senators to try to cut deals for support and using Harder’s own empire-building efforts to “colonize” the new independent senators with his offers of “support” and constant attempts to bigfoot the efforts of the Independent Senators Group to establish their own processes. So no, government influence has not been driven from the Senate – it’s just changed forms, and not necessarily as transparent as it was before, and yes, that does matter.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No need for a turf war

Posted on by

The possibility of committee allocations in the Senate turning into a turf war is something that I’m not sure is an imminent issue, but Kady O’Malley nevertheless faithfully explores in her weekend column, including some potential procedural manoeuvres that Senator Peter Harder could attempt to employ to force the modernization committee report to come to fruition as government business (which it currently is not), but as is not unexpected, she got some pushback from Senator Leo Housakos.

Just to add my own two cents, I have indeed heard some concerns from both the Conservatives and Senate Liberals that the Non-Aligned Senators have not yet been able to fill their committee spots, which may also have been why Senator Peter Harder has been organizing to “help” the new independent senators out, essentially big footing the efforts of the Independent Senators Group, but one has to add that they’re building their own processes and organization from scratch.

So we’ll see. I still think that the newly appointed 21 senators shouldn’t be in any hurry to get committee spots, but take the time to get adjusted to their new environment as the committees are currently operating okay and we aren’t seeing a lot of cases where senators are doing triple duty just to keep committees filled (as was the case with the Conservatives pre-2008, when Harper was obstinately refusing to fill seats the first time around). And as I’ve said previously, they can spend some time participating in committees as they have the right to now – they just can’t be voting members, which is probably just as well in terms of getting them acquainted to the place. So everyone should relax because there is no actual crisis.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Policy or privilege?

Posted on by

Yesterday after QP, NDP trade critic Tracey Ramsey raised a question of privilege in the Commons, claiming that the tabling of CETA implementing legislation was contrary to the rules, not only because it didn’t follow the 2008 departmental policy on tabling treaties which lays out that 21 sitting days be given before introducing any such bills, and because it didn’t contain any explanatory memorandum.

They key phrase to remember in there is that it’s a departmental policy and not a standing order or other rule of the House of Commons, which means that this point of privilege is pretty much doomed to fail – and this was pretty much Bardish Chagger’s brief submission to the Speaker in advance of a more robust response to come at a later date. I would add that while Ramsey says that it’s unfair that Parliamentarians have to digest all 1700 pages of the treaty on their own without these explanatory memoranda, it’s not like these details have been in the dark. The text of the agreement has largely been available for a year now at least, which is a lot of time for the parties to do their research on the agreement, and yes, this is why they have research budgets and staff who can assist with these sorts of things. And it also sounds a bit like the opposition is complaining that the government isn’t doing their homework for them. Maybe I’m wrong, but that would certainly fit with the trend that has developed across the board in the House of Commons – that MPs expect everyone else to do that homework on their behalf, whether it’s the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Auditor General, or any other Officer of Parliament.

I would also add that many of the changes that the Conservatives made policy-wise to things like treaties and military deployments were done under the illusion of giving the House of Commons a greater role to play when many of these matters are actually Crown prerogatives that they were looking for political cover in exercising, or in partisan gamesmanship designed to divide the opposition. I’m not sure how much this particular 2008 policy is a reflection of that Conservative mindset, but if the way the government went about this was a more traditional exercise of prerogative powers, then that’s all the more reason for them to do so, rather than to continue to indulge some of the bad habits that the Conservatives put in for their own purposes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Six more makes a full chamber

Posted on by

The final six Senate appointments have been made, all from Québec, and all were very much in the same pattern that we’ve seen to date from this government – well qualified, certainly, but without much in the way of ideological diversity, and as of yet, no new openly LGBT senators (that are very much needed). There could very well be some selection bias at play here, which is part of why asking people to apply rather than seeking to nominate people continues to be a problem, and promises of transparency would mean some kind of a statistical breakdown of the short lists presented to the PM, but one doubts that will ever happen.

Now this all having been said, the performative outrage by a number of Conservative senators is getting to be really tiresome. I am also failing to see the logic in how appointing a bunch of partisans and telling them that they are to be whipped (which no, senators are not supposed to be) is somehow preferable and “transparent” than it is to appoint a number of ideological similar individuals who aren’t assigned a party label, nor are they being told that they’re subject to a whip. It really makes no sense, particularly when there are all manner of other perfectly legitimate criticisms that can be levelled at the nomination process and the pattern that has emerged from the appointments, but to insist that it’s all a “con job” is really, really rich. It’s bad if they all vote for the PM who appointed them if they are “independent,” but it’s a-okay to vote under an illegitimate whip by the PM who appointed them so long as it’s under a party banner? Huh? (Also, to correct Senator Housakos, nothing stops any of these new senators from joining a caucus of their choice).

Meanwhile, we’re going to get more grousing about committee slots and research budgets, but honestly, that’ll work itself out within a few weeks and bellyaching won’t actually help make the process work faster or better. There is also some grumbling right now that the current crop of independent senators haven’t managed to fill the two slots per committee they’ve been allotted as is, so why give them yet more seats? It will happen, but the rules don’t really allow committee reconstitution until a prorogation anyway, so I’m not sure why there’s such a rush. Better to let the process take the time it needs rather than going too fast and ballsing it up and creating room for unintended consequence.

Continue reading →