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.
Tag Archives: The Senate
Roundup: Threats from the Senate
There are a couple of issues arising out of the Senate right now, both of which deserve a bit of exploration. The first is over the selection of the party’s interim leader – the party president has indicated that the Commons caucus would make the selection (per the provisions in Michael Chong’s lamentable Reform Act). Senator David Wells says that no, the party constitution says that an interim leader would be chosen by the Parliamentary caucus, which would include senators. Why is this important? Because right now, the party has no East Coast MPs, nor any from the GTA or Montreal, whereas they have Senators from those regions who can provide some of that input. (In fact, it’s yet another reason for why the Senate is valuable – for years, it used to mean that the only Albertans in the Liberal caucus were from the Senate, until of course Trudeau’s Great Expulsion). And as Wells points out, this is an issue in the party’s own constitution, which makes the party president’s position that much more untenable. The other issue is certain Conservative senators trying to flex their muscles and saying that they’re under no obligation to pass Liberal legislation, much as in 2006, Liberal senators were giving the Conservatives a hard time with some of their bills. This whole thing is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, this is likely someone talking out of their ass (and I have my suspicions as to who it is). With Harper no longer leader, and no longer PM, any leverage that he had with the Senate has pretty much evaporated. Newer senators no longer have someone to feel beholden to, and there is no longer the emotional blackmail of “You want to support the PM, don’t you?” Those non-existent levers of power that the PMO was trying to exercise (per Nigel Wright’s complaints) no longer have anything to back them up when it comes to threat or reward. And then there’s the matter of 2006 that these oh-so-brave “senior senators” are referencing, particularly the Accountability Act. The problem was that it was a bad bill that had all kinds of problems and loopholes, but they didn’t get fixed on the Commons side? Why? Because the Liberals of that era were so cowed by their election loss that they left the fight up to the Senate rather than take the blowback themselves, while Pat Martin was the Conservatives’ accomplice, giddily rubber-stamping the whole affair in order to punish the Liberals some more. So the Liberals in the Senate did the battling for the needed amendments, most of which they actually got. I’m going to be optimistic and say that the legislation coming from this crop of Liberals is likely to be of higher calibre because they’re not opposed to listening to civil service advice for kneejerk reasons. On top of it all, there has to be enough shreds of self-awareness in the Conservative senate caucus to know that if they start playing games, they’ll damage themselves and the Chamber’s reputation as Trudeau tries to rehabilitate it, and everyone will lose as a result. So you’ll excuse me if I don’t take these threats too seriously.
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/657348537873735682
Welcome Back, Wallin
Note: This is a piece I wrote on spec a few weeks ago for publication that didn’t get picked up. I figured I would share it here, and hopefully it’s not too dated.
With her suspension lifted after the dissolution of parliament, Senator Pamela Wallin is reportedly back on the job. Shortly after her suspension was lifted, it was reported that she had requested her BlackBerry back, and my own Senate sources confirmed this fact. And recently it was reported in the Toronto Star that she is back at work, splitting her time between Saskatchewan and Ottawa.
You’ll forgive me if I shake my head a little at this news, because I’m not exactly sure what it is she expects to do with Parliament currently dissolved and there literally being nothing she can do. Just what she has to “catch up on” for the past two years is a little unclear because she literally hasn’t had an office to be away from. If it’s two years’ worth of activity in the Senate, well, I’m not sure why she couldn’t have kept abreast of it during her suspension given that everything is public: reports, committee hearings, the audio stream of the Chamber itself during debates. If she had nothing better to do for the past two years, then I’m not sure what she exactly missed.
Roundup: Munk debate a success
The Munk Debate on foreign policy was actually really well done – probably the best and most substantive debate we’ve had so far during this election, with a good format, good moderation, and bilingualism that more or less worked out (though there could have been a bit more effort into the French). (Kady’s liveblog here). We also started to see a bit more of a change in the leaders. Harper was more or less his usual self, and in foreign policy, well, he’s got ten years of experience, but he also has a record to defence. Trudeau stepped up his game in this debate, and was the most confident and self-assured he’s been of any debate. The improvement was marked, and given the low expectations going in, where people figured that foreign policy was his weakest area (especially as it’s where most of his notable gaffes going into the election were), but those fears were largely put to rest. As for Mulcair, people expecting a statesmanlike performance were largely dashed as he tended to more personal attacks and swipes, while avoiding a number of answers – possibly because his party’s foreign policy platform is the thinnest of the three. Trudeau also defended his father’s record from attacks by Mulcair, and seemed to have a few of his best moments doing so, and it did get notice over the Twitter Machine. (It was also, he noted the fifteenth anniversary of his father’s death, so that certainly did weigh on his mind at the time). Here is some debate reaction from Michael Den Tandt, the Ottawa Citizen’s panel, and over Twitter, Bob Rae (who was subject of another of Mulcair’s swipes on stage). Oh, and audience polls seem to indicate that Trudeau was the big winner. Make of that what you will.
https://twitter.com/carbonexplorer/status/648663698819694592
Very tired line from Mulcair – "sort of like being attacked by a dead sheep"- proud to have led a govt that re-built Ontario at a tough time
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 29, 2015
I didn't always agree with Pierre Trudeau but he was a great man. I can't say the same about Tom Mulcair #cdnpoli
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 29, 2015
Mulcair's entire "record" on the environment was when he was a Liberal. So I guess it didn't count. #cdnpoli.
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 29, 2015
Nastiness is one thing, recycled nastiness is worse. #cdnpoli
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 29, 2015
Apparently Mulcair said he's campaigning for a "strong stable majority government". Even his fantasies are written by someone else #cdnpoli
— Bob Rae (@BobRae48) September 29, 2015
APTN's Iqaluit bureau correspondent has never heard the 'big sled no dogs' quip about Harper in Nunavut https://t.co/u3V1khtKN5
— Jorge Barrera (@JorgeBarrera) September 29, 2015
https://twitter.com/kateheartfield/status/648657546933325824
Harper doesn't get obvious segue to talk about how much he supports Israel so he makes his own.
— Michael Petrou (@michaelpetrou) September 29, 2015
Oh, Trudeau veering into deficit spending. #MunkDebate pic.twitter.com/8jFLR6qStT
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 29, 2015
Roundup: Two senators are not enough
After Thomas Mulcair indicated that he’d been approached by a couple of Senators who would be willing to help him pass his agenda, we now get a couple of names – Liberal Senator Larry Campbell, and Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, though the latter isn’t talking about it (and personally I wonder why she would volunteer considering how shoddily she’s been treated by the NDP after she made that joke about camembert, and yes, it was a joke). But it’s not quite as cut-and-dried as Mulcair seemed to make it out to be. Campbell, in an interview with CBC, said he’d be willing to ensure that bills get due credit, but that’s not exactly putting oneself in the position of shepherding through an entire NDP agenda. I also have my doubts when Campbell says that the Senate doesn’t need a leader of the government and a leader of the opposition, largely because it clashes with our system of Responsible Government. The current framework allows for Senators to hold the government to account in the way that MPs can, by asking questions of a member of cabinet – nominally the leader of the government in the Senate, never mind the fact that Harper’s current leader is not in cabinet because he churlishly is trying to distance himself from the Senate. And one of the most underrated ways in which Senators perform this accountability is in the leader’s ability to take questions on notice and provide written responses. Losing this ability would be a blow to the Senate’s accountability function, which is a vital part of their role of Sober Second Thought. You need answers from government if you are to properly consider their legislative agenda, and losing that conduit is going to hamper that ability. Campbell and Senate Liberal whip Jim Munson also mused about making the Senate Speaker elected by the chamber, but I’m not sure how easily this can be accomplished considering that the Senate Speaker has duties beyond what the Commons Speaker does in terms of protocol and diplomatic duties, which is one of the reasons it’s a Governor-in-Council appointment. He or she is the “Queen’s man” (or woman as the case may be) for a reason, and there may be a lot of hoops to jump through in order to make that change. I’m not saying it’s not doable, but it may not be easily doable – particularly if you have an NDP prime minister who has no interest in doing anything for the Senate. Suffice to say, it’s not enough for Mulcair to use these couple of senators as an excuse to ignore his constitutional obligations.
Roundup: F-35s flare up again
Talk of the F-35 fighters dominated the discussion yesterday, with Harper going full-bore on trying to say that Trudeau was living on some other planet if he thought that pulling out of the F-35 programme wouldn’t “crater” the country’s aerospace industry, while Mulcair – a vocal critic of the F-35s for years – suddenly said they should stay in the competition process. Of course, it sounds increasingly like Harper is trying to indicate the F-35s are the government’s choice all along no matter the procurement process that they’re going through right now with great fanfare, while Mulcair sounds increasingly like Harper – something Trudeau probably doesn’t mind. As a reality check, there are no contracts to tear-up, because we haven’t signed or committed to anything. As well, there is no guarantee that Canada pulling out of the F-35s would damage our industry because those companies supplying parts for the aircraft were chosen for quality, and because we paid into the development process, but didn’t commit to buying the full craft itself. Not to mention, any other plane we would go with (say, the Super Hornets) would have the likelihood of as many if not more regional industrial benefits. (And while we’re on the subject of reality checks, the Liberals apparently really bungled their costing figures for the F-35s in their own backgrounders). As for how you can have an open competition but exclude the F-35s? I don’t think that’s rocket science – it seems pretty clear to me that you simply add the specification to the procurement process that it needs to have more than one engine. That would rule out the F-35 pretty effectively, no? Suffice to say, it’s a lot of sound and fury, and plenty of flashbacks to the last election where this was an issue. Paul Wells writes more about it, and how it positions the leaders.
open competition does not necessarily mean open to all. Ruling out the most expensive and most criticized is not necessarily problematic
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) September 21, 2015
Roundup: About those Senators who approached Mulcair
Thomas Mulcair is telling people that he’s had senators approach him to say that they would be willing to work with him to pass a hypothetical NDP government’s legislation, but he won’t name names. While this may well be true, at least to a certain extent – we have been seeing numerous examples in the past couple of weeks of Mulcair exaggerating the truth – this should be unpacked a little bit. The first and most obvious thing is that we need to put aside the Harper Derangement Syndrome conspiracy theory that all of the Conservative senators are going to simply defeat any Liberal or NDP legislation that comes through because the fact that they were Harper appointees will apparently make them extra dickish, or something. Never mind that we’ve had plenty of parliaments where the party not in power held a majority in the Senate and lo and behold, things got passed with little difficulty. This will not change in the future. The second is that these Senators all know that they have a job to do, and that’s to scrutinize bills that come before them. Most of the time they pass. Occasionally they get amended and sent back. On very rare occasions, they get defeated, almost always because those bills are either fatally flawed, out of order, or unconstitutional and got passed on a whipped vote. And if the NDP holds up that climate change bill as an example of one the Senate killed, well, it’s because it was out of order and never should have been allowed to pass the Commons. That said, they are not rubber stamps, and won’t simply pass bills because the Commons did. It’s not their job, and if Mulcair has a problem with that, there’s a Supreme Court reference decision he should read. Third is that even if Senate Liberals formed a quasi-government caucus in the Senate should the NDP form government, it’s because the system needs to operate somehow. They are likely going to have to kluge together some kind of procedural workarounds to the fact that there won’t be an actual Leader of the Government in the Senate who can answer on behalf of the government, and if a hypothetical Prime Minister Mulcair doesn’t appoint a Senate Speaker, that is pretty much a constitutional nightmare waiting to happen. But Mulcair refuses to answer these fundamental procedural issues, while at the same time, he and his people continue to do nothing but hurl insults at the Chamber and its inhabitants while promising their abolition (which won’t happen, but they’re going to try anyway), while continuing to actively ignore the constitutional obligation to make appointments. So no, I’m not reassured by these senators who have allegedly approached him, because there’s more to it than just passing bills. We have a parliamentary architecture that he continues to ignore, and that should be worrying to anyone who cares about parliamentary democracy.
Roundup: May’s magical thinking
It was Elizabeth May’s turn to go before Peter Mansbridge last night, and as with all other leaders, she too got the basics of government formation wrong – but unlike the others, May just got it wrong in a different way. She insisted that if Harper got a minority government, the opposition parties should be able to call the Governor General to insist that they get a chance to form government before Harper. Nope, that’s not how it works, because the incumbent remains the Prime Minister until he or she resigns. That’s because the position can never be vacant. Ever. Her Majesty must always have a government in place, and it’s the GG’s job to ensure that happens. So really, no matter the result on election night, the leader whose party wins the most seats isn’t invited to form government – the incumbent is still the government until they choose to resign, which may or may not involve testing the confidence of the Chamber first. May also revealed that she has the GG’s number and will make that call herself, as though he is obligated to take it. Remember of course that May has also previously written the Queen about issues, and treated form letter responses as vindication. It’s part of her particular problem of over-reading her mandate – she’s hugely conflated her role as an MP with that of being in government in the past, and it’s a problem with how she interacts with the system. It’s also part of her curious insistence that somehow, a handful of Green MPs sitting in opposition and not in a coalition cabinet would magically make a minority parliament a less fractious place. How, exactly? Did none of the proponents of more minority governments learn any lessons from the three minority parliaments prior to 2011? Apparently not, because the magical thinking prevails.
Roundup: Uncomfortable tax truths
It’s one of those funny things that happen during campaigns, when one leader tells an uncomfortable truth about an issue, and the other leaders rush to condemn him or her about it. In this particular incidence, it was Justin Trudeau telling Peter Manbridge that he was less keen on a blanket reduction in small business taxes than he was in tweaking the system, because a “large percentage” of those small businesses are wealthy Canadians using those businesses to pay less tax. And he’s absolutely right about it – particularly after changes were made to the system a few years ago that basically turned it into an income-splitting mechanism for some particularly wealthy Canadians. The Conservatives and NDP, however, are outraged, as they are promising small business tax cuts, the NDP going so far as to demand that Trudeau apologise for “smearing” small businesses – except that they don’t have the facts on their side. The Canadian Press’ Baloney Meter™ checked out Trudeau’s statement, and found it to be true, with minor quibbles about the meaning of “large percentage.” (Trudeau seems to be relying on the studies that say that up to 60 percent of small business filers are problematic). There is also the added contention that another good percentage of these filers aren’t actually job creators, like the Conservatives and NDP keep saying – mom and pop shops aren’t, for example. Economist Kevin Milligan delves further into the issue, and notes that Quebec has been making changes to their small business tax laws to ensure that companies have at least three full-time employees to be eligible – thus ensuring that it’s a “ job creator” and not a couple splitting income or a mom-and-pop shop that has no intention of hiring someone else. It is a problem that needs fixing and not platitudes, and it’s good that at least one leader sees fit to recognise that fact, and has so far stood up for it despite the heat he’s taking.
Roundup: Mulcair’s Senate delusions
It was Thomas Mulcair’s turn to talk to Peter Mansbridge, and it was a bit of a doozy. Not only because he too insisted that whoever wins the most seats should form government (with a bunch of “it’s a really complex constitutional question but…” thrown in), but rather because of his continued wilful ignorance about how he proposes to deal with the Senate. It’s not just about his fantasy notion that Senate abolition could ever happen (which it won’t), or that he’ll somehow be able to sit down with the premiers and make it happen right away (even if he brings the federal cheque book to the table, it’s still not going to happen). No, it’s his attitude for how he would deal with it should he form government. Not only are vacancies mounting, but he told Mansbridge that he wouldn’t even appoint a Government Leader in the Senate. This is actually a Very Big Deal. Why? Because if legislation is to pass the Senate, it needs to happen according to proper procedure, and proper procedure requires a government voice – particularly one from cabinet – to be in the Chamber to shepherd government bills through, an to answer questions on behalf of the government in Senate Question Period. Now, Harper has already been petulant about this when he refused to make his current Senate leader a member of cabinet (even though he still gets PCO support, and as we’ve learned, PMO handlers to deal with messaging), but there is still a government leader in there to do the things that he’s supposed to do. If Mulcair would be so completely cavalier as to further break an already damaged institution by refusing to let it do its job properly under the pretext of daring them to vote down bills passed by the Commons, it’s unconscionable. We have someone campaigning to be the leader of the country on a platform of thumbing his nose at the constitution, whether that’s around a refusal to make appointments, or in ensuring that it can do its job. And this is more than a question of “democratic expression” of a government that has won an election, as Mulcair phrases his bullying tactics – it’s about process. And what is democracy? Democracy IS process. Process matters, just like the constitution. Why are we giving him a free pass when he seems to be of the notion that the constitution and the institutions of parliament don’t matter?
Mulcair going on about the Senate is nonsense. LET'S IGNORE THE CONSTITUTION! IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION ANYWAY, AMIRITE? #CBCNational
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) September 10, 2015