Tag Archives: The Senate

Roundup: The hinted appointment process

Posted on by

Programming note: I really have nothing to offer on the situation in Paris, so I’ll leave that to those better suited to comment, which is better for all involved.

Look up there – it’s the Senate bat-signal, with news that we may have an idea what the new appointment process is likely to look like. According to the Citizen:

  • An independent advisory body will be created that is composed of Canadians who are people of “stature” and who have public credibility. It will consider people who would be good senators and then refer the names to the prime minister, who keeps the ultimate authority (in accordance with the Constitution) to make the appointments.
  • There will be a public input component to the process, so that Canadians have a way of recommending themselves, or others, as future senators.
  • There will be a consultative role for the provinces, given that Trudeau wants the Senate to regain credibility as a representative of the regions.

If you said that this looks a fair bit like the vice-regal appointments committee, you’d be right, not that the article stated that anywhere. In fact, it went to great lengths to talk about what the House of Lords Appointments Commission in the UK, and meanders to the boneheaded suggestion by Greg Sorbara that we get members of the Order of Canada to choose senators. Also, nowhere in the piece does it seem to acknowledge that the new Canadian process could let these new senators chosen by an independent process choose which Senate caucus they want to sit in or remain independent, with a full understanding of the additional pressures that independent senators actually face. So while it’s good to get some more hints on what we’re likely to see, it might be great if we had reporters who could actually uses useful Canadian comparisons, and who actually understood how the Senate operates rather than engaging in more of the pointless speculation about the supposed chaos that we’re supposed to see in there in the brave new era.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A muzzle or a distasteful incident

Posted on by

The neutrality of the civil service has been an issue lately, with the distasteful episode of the cheering (and booing) at Global Affairs last Friday on the one hand, and to a certain extent, the “un-muzzling” of scientists on the other. Michael Petrou explores the former issue here, while Paul Booth offers some advice for the “un-muzzled” here, noting that there is a balance to be struck between talking about one’s research while at the same time maintaining their role of civil servants where they are not supposed to be critical of the government of the day if they want to keep their jobs, because they have a role to play. At the heart of both is that they ultimately serve the Queen and not the government of the day, no matter how much their advice or carrying out of government policy is criticised. While ink has been spilled on the cheering as being proof that the Conservatives were right to be suspicious of “official Ottawa,” one has to note a few different thing, including simple demographics – polling data repeatedly shows, time and time again, that education levels will affect political preferences, with the Conservatives scoring best among those who only have high school diplomas, while those who have attained increasing levels of higher education increasingly support Liberals. The vast majority of the civil service is university-educated, so their sympathy with the Liberals should not be a surprise. Should they have cheered Trudeau? Probably not. I will note that for context, the one clip I saw of the cheering happened after Trudeau said that he would be taking their advice unlike the previous government, while the booing of that journalist’s questions were both to the fact that they crashed a private event, and that it was a question for which an answer had already been given earlier in the day. Not that this should excuse what happened, because they should have known better, and I know plenty of other civil servants who were also critical of what happened there. But on the other hand, we should also note that they are human, and that the Conservatives exacerbated any distrust of the civil service with excessive dickish behaviour (such as Diane Finley walking into a department she was taking over and telling the staff that they were all Liberals and that she would clean up the joint). We should hope that this kind of incident doesn’t happen again, and it may very well not. I’m also not sure how helpful it is to light our hair on fire about it either, but I could very well be wrong about that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No ideological obstruction

Posted on by

There’s the Senate bat-signal again. Conservative Senate leader Claude Carignan says that his caucus won’t abuse their majority in the Senate to thwart Liberal legislation that comes forward, to which I say “Um, yeah. Of course.” Because wouldn’t you know it, Senators have a job to do, and they know it. Of course, I’ve never bought into the conspiracy theory that Conservative senators would be the puppets of Harper, trying to influence things beyond the political grave, or even the theory that they would be extra dickish just because they were Harper appointees. Then again, most people seem to forget that senators of any stripe suddenly get a lot more independent when the PM who appointed them is no longer in office, and they get really, really independent once leadership races kick off. So far we’re at the first of those two, and with the Conservatives as a whole allegedly experimenting with a less command-and-control style of leadership, we may see the yoke they unduly placed over their Senate caucus lifted. Mind you, we’re still waiting for a signal to see what Trudeau will do in terms of both the Speaker of the Senate and the Leader of the Government. Without a Leader, they might as well just cancel Senate Question Period, which would be a loss because it’s quite instructive for how QP in the Commons should be run. Some senators have floated the idea of just having Senate QP be about asking questions to committee chairs (which, incidentally, they already can do), but it’s not a good idea because those committee chairs aren’t going to have a lot to say about issues of the day, they won’t have access to briefing materials, and they aren’t conduits by which the government can be held to account, which is the whole point of QP – not asking details about committee work. But seriously – can we please stop worrying about fantastical hysteria about what the Senate is going to do? 99 percent of it is based on false assumptions and ignorance of the chamber, and it’s so, so tiresome. They have jobs to do. Let them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Liberal revisionism

Posted on by

Of all of the hopeful and optimistic things that our new cabinet ministers have been talking about, one is already raising alarm bells, which is our new heritage minister, Mélanie Joly. Joly says that her ministry is one about symbols, and she is going to go about changing those symbols to ones of “progressiveness,” saying that those promoted by the previous government weren’t those shared by Canadians. That of course is total nonsense, but it all points to the kinds of revisionism that both parties engage in, even though everyone seemed to think that it was only the Conservatives who did it. While some of this is no doubt in reference to the Conservatives’ fascination – almost to the point of fetishism – with military history and those particularly martial symbols, we shouldn’t pretend that we don’t have these traditions in Canada. Previous Liberal governments indeed liked to do so, with a focus on peacekeeping that may not have reflected reality, or at least the modern reality where the global landscape has changed and those kinds of missions may no longer be feasible the way they once were. The other one that I’m particularly worried about is whether this means that Joly will engage in a purge of monarchical symbols that the Conservatives themselves restored after decades of Liberals trying to push them aside. One of the things that I cannot forgive either the Liberals or NDP for doing in the previous decade was the way in which they allowed the Conservative government to politicise the monarchy by pretending that it only mattered to Conservatives. When they would reintroduce a monarchical symbol, they would complain rather than acknowledge that yes, we are a constitutional monarchy and we should all embrace it and its symbols rather than allowing one party to associate itself with it to the exclusion of all others. Unlike some other Liberals, Trudeau doesn’t appear to be a republican in his sentiments, and has stated that he has no intention of trying to distance Canada from the Crown, but when Joly starts talking about revisionism based on an exclusionary conception of who is and isn’t Canadian (and in this vision, Conservatives apparently aren’t), I worry. Revisionism is going to happen, but it should be called out as much as it was called out under the Conservatives because it’s still distasteful, no matter whose agenda it’s carrying out.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Still no Senate decisions

Posted on by

Amidst all of the activity yesterday, one of the things we did learn was that the new Prime Minister has yet to decide what he plans to do with regards to the Senate. It did not go unnoticed on Wednesday that there was no Leader of the Government in the Senate named to cabinet, but as we found out, it’s because he simply hasn’t decided what he’s doing yet, and that’s the same with regards to the Speaker. It raises all kinds of questions about how things are going to be managed with regards to the Senate, and Government House Leader Dominic Leblanc has been named the person to be the liaison between the two chambers, as is fair. What concerns me, however, is that in all of the talk of making the Senate more independent, what isn’t being considered is how it will do its job in holding the government to account if there is nobody in the chamber for them to do so (not to mention that it really is a problem if there is no member of cabinet in the chamber to shepherd government bills through either, which the Conservatives have been fudging for the past year or so). Some senators have been musing about cancelling Senate Question Period altogether, or having it simply focus on asking questions of committee chairs, but that seems particularly short-sighted, considering that they tended to ask far better quality questions of the government as compared to the Commons. Yes, the last couple of government leaders were not exactly great at responding to questions, but neither were ministers down in the Commons, and that era is hopefully over. The loss of the accountability function would be a huge blow to our parliament as a whole, and I hope that the Liberal government is considering this problem. Meanwhile, John Pepall urges caution with appointing too many good-hearted experts to the Senate, as it may empower them to challenge the democratically elected government too often as is starting to happen over in the UK, with the Lords starting to push back against their own limits. Food for thought in that there are consequences even for well-intentioned acts.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Moving on from Harper

Posted on by

So there we have it – the last hours of Harper’s time in government, and lo and behold, there were no last grasps for power, no refusals to resign, no attempts to make last-minute appointments, no craven behaviour of any kind. From all accounts, the exit has been gracious and orderly, but as befitting his time in office, he kept all of the big decisions behind closed doors because he didn’t want any clips of him resigning or visibly stepping down in any way. And hey, ten years later, we’re not a dictatorship, this isn’t a fascist state, there is no cult of personality that people are worshipping. We had free and fair elections, and instead of voter suppression (and conspiracy theorists insisting that they would try to stuff ballot boxes, or that the odd ballots that had ink blotches on them from the printing process), we had a dramatic upswing in voter turnout. All of those doomsayers and the hysterical who have been bombarding our Twitter feeds with the insistence that democracy was dead in Canada – all for naught. That Vapid Narcissist whose stunt as a Senate page was part of her somehow insisting that the previous election wasn’t free and fair either and that the results were somehow stolen or illegitimate and necessitating acts of civil disobedience – she’s been trying to take credit for the election result (and inexplicably, people are actually congratulating her) – but this has nothing to do with her. There was no evil Bond villain that needed to be vanquished. This was politics. Sure, it was nasty and dickish most of the time, but it was politics. Hopefully we can spend the next few years unclenching, but we all know that Trudeau Derangement Syndrome is as much of a thing as Harper Derangement Syndrome. Hopefully, however, the hyperbolic nonsense won’t be quite so awful and unhinged (but who are we kidding?).

Continue reading →

Roundup: New Senate appointment process isn’t rocket science

Posted on by

Apparently what is going on in the Senate is proving a little too confusing for some of the nation’s more obtuse pundits, so here’s a few points of explanation. John Ibbitson penned a column expressing optimism about the proposed new system of Senate appointments, and yet threw in a number of bizarre concerns that made me wonder. For one, it’s hard to see how they would all come “from Bay Street” when there is a set number of regional seats apportioned. His notion that they should come from “Main Street and the street” is also fairly mystifying because the Senate should be a place for eminent, accomplished Canadians. The House of Commons is for just that – the common people. The Senate has served best when it is a place where people who have achieved excellence can find a new way to contribute to public life in a way that they would not otherwise because they would not think to seek elected office – people like Romeo Dallaire or Kelvin Ogilvie. Ibbitson is also astoundingly obtuse when he calls Senate Liberals “Independents,” and figures that all new senators under this system would also be Independents, when neither statement is correct. Senate Liberals are still Liberals – they just don’t sit in caucus with the Liberals in the Commons so as to give them greater independence, and nowhere was it said that any senator chosen by an arm’s length process had to be an Independent when they could simply choose which caucus to sit in of their own accord. There is nothing wrong with that because there is nothing wrong with parties or with partisanship. Yes, the kind of hyper-partisan tribalism we’ve seen in recent years is a problem, but that’s a function of message control and discipline rather than the actual role and function of partisanship, and the two parties who relied heavily on message control and discipline were dealt blows in the last election, giving pause to those who believe in that kind of system. The Senate has generally always been a less partisan place because they’re not scoring points for re-election, which is half the point. None of this is rocket science, but you wouldn’t know it judging from some of the commentary we’re seeing.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Warning about possible Senate frustration

Posted on by

There’s the Senate bat-signal, so here we go again. On Evan Solomon’s radio show, Liberal Senator David Smith suggested that if Trudeau does not appoint a Government Leader in the Senate that it will create frustration in the Chamber if they have no means by which to hold the government to account, and that they could – if it got that far – start to stall or even vote against the government’s legislation as a protest. Mind you, as these things do, the headlines hype it up, but it does point to problems that I outlined in my National Post piece earlier this week. And because I know that some people have suggested it, no, just calling ministers before committee is not enough as it robs the daily exercise of accountability that is Senate Question Period of meaning (as Smith suggested), and those appearances might happen every couple of months. The existing protocol is for the Government Leader to have access to the same briefing books as the Prime Minister. If senators are to do their job of sober second thought and accountability, they need access to information on a timely basis, and the government leader, if he or she can’t provide that answer immediately, takes it under advisement and gets a written response as soon as possible. They have a job to do and they need information to do it. The threats over the past couple of weeks, as overhyped as they have been, have awakened Andrew Coyne’s concern trolling over the Senate’s veto powers, because he apparently doesn’t believe they should have enough power to push back against a majority government when necessary, and would rather the courts do it years down the road. Meanwhile, Senate Speaker Housakos has said that he plans to propose the creation of an arm’s length spending oversight body to give guidance to the Internal Economy Committee, but we have no details on this yet. I would once again caution that we need to ensure that the Senate remains self-governing for the sake of parliamentary supremacy (argued here). I would still like to see Senator McCoy’s proposal for a Senate audit committee comprised of three senators, an auditor and a former judge as the best solution, but I guess we’ll wait to see what Housakos’ proposition is.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Another reboot report

Posted on by

Yesterday saw the release of yet another expert report bemoaning all of our democratic woes, and proposed a handful of would-be solutions – or would be, if they actually bothered to correctly diagnose the problems they bemoaned. This time, it was the Public Policy Forum, and they have a pretty eminent list of people who compiled the piece. The problem was, while enumerating their grievances with our parliamentary system, they didn’t look at causes, and hence plan to treat symptoms rather than causes. “Restore cabinet governance” you say? Great! But no look at why the centralisation got more pronounced and how to fix the underlying reasons why. While their solutions regarding the public service and ministerial staffers are all well and good, their discussions around the committee system in the Commons stuck in my craw a bit. According to the report, we have too many committees, which is absurd considering that some of the busier committees don’t have the time to actually study a lot of bills with a reasonable number of witnesses getting reasonable turns to answer questions. So give them more work? Hmm. They want the whole Commons to vote on committee chairs instead of the committees themselves, like with the Speaker, but neglect to mention that this has bred its own particular set of problems in the UK, where this is the norm, where those chairs are becoming problematic personalities who have become somewhat untouchable when they start breaking rules. Their particular suggestions that committees not be bound by the parliamentary calendar is also a bit specious considering that they already have the power to meet when Parliament isn’t sitting, but those MPs tend to see the value in being in their constituencies during said periods when the House isn’t sitting. Give them more resources and staff? Certainly – they could do that tomorrow if they wanted, but it’s not because there are too many committees to do it adequately. And despite all of these suggestions, not one of them touches the underlying problem that the vast majority of MPs get elected without knowing what exactly their job is or how to do it, and what their responsibilities are once they get a committee assignment. But does this report once talk about better educating and equipping MPs themselves? Nope. So while it’s a valiant effort, perhaps they need to actually look at the forest for the trees.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Artificial anti-terror drama

Posted on by

With the Senate back in the news, it’s like my own personal bat-signal, so let’s delve into it, shall we? First up is a piece about some Conservative senators talking about changes to national security legislation (formerly C-51, which we need to stop referring to it as, since it’s passed and with dissolution the number scheme slate is wiped clean). Despite the ominous headline that warns that they could “disrupt” the plan to change the anti-terror act, there is very little indication in the story that they intend to do just that. They say they’ll study the changes, and they’re not opposed to creating a parliamentary oversight body, so where is the actual plans for disruption? Oh dear. It seems that we may have torqued a headline for the same of drama. I mean, they could disrupt any bill, but they don’t. Try again. Meanwhile, Senate leader Claude Carignan is trying to get assurances that Conservative senators will be able to vote on the interim leader, seeing as that’s in the party’s constitution, particularly because they are now all that is left to represent certain regions of the country – like the Atlantic provinces, or Toronto and Montreal. They will also have a particular heft to their representation, with 47 senators to a current 99 MPs. So that’ll be interesting. (Also, are we really down to four non-Harper appointed Conservatives already? Time flies). Senator Runciman talks about party renewal including proposing that they have their own Kingston Conference to lay the groundwork for their return to power, much as the Liberals have done in times past. Historian Christopher Moore thinks the party should return to caucus selection for permanent leader rather than an expensive and lengthy membership-driven process (which I would agree with), but somehow I doubt the party will buy it.

Continue reading →