LP_468x60
ontario news watch
on-the-record-468x60-white
and-another-thing-468x60

One of the hallmark difficulties the current government has had as it approaches the midpoint is in making Governor in Council appointments, whether it's to positions like the Immigration and Refugee Board, superior court judges, independent officers of parliament, or as it turns out, Senators.  While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did put a new appointment process for senators into place to fill the backlog of vacancies that he inherited from Stephen Harper, and the fact that it happened relatively quickly compared to other appointment processes, it seems to have fallen to the wayside as the number of Senate vacancies mounts.

Currently there are seven vacant seats in the Senate, which will climb steadily by September, and there will be eleven vacancies by the end of the year, possibly more (especially if Senator Jacques Demers opts to resign, as he has not yet returned to work after the stroke he suffered in April of 2016).  This lack of new appointments is becoming a problem for the Senate, particularly because it creates an expectation for another mass appointment.  While it's unlikely that Trudeau will let it get to another twenty or so vacancies as Harper did on two different occasions, the fact of the matter is that the Senate simply isn't designed to take big groups of newcomers at a time.

The way things should run is that the PMO should be aware of upcoming vacancies and already have the people who are in charge of appointments his arm's length committee in this case on the case months in advance so that when one senator reaches their retirement date, that there is someone ready to take their place, with those who resign early taking a little longer, but you would think that a well-run appointments office would have their feelers out in each of the provinces and territories for someone who could fill the role.  That way, the Senate is able to absorb new members naturally, and in a manner that has them supported and guided by the existing membership and acclimatizes them to the environment in a manner that doesn't stress the chamber.  And make no mistake, mass appointments do stress the institution.  They did in 2008 when Harper made his panic appointments in the wake of the prorogation crisis, and because so many senators came in to fill the depleted Conservative ranks in the Senate, it was too easy to tell them that they were there to do his bidding and to brandish the whip before them especially when the Senate leadership was rather supine in the face of overreach by the PMO in their attempts to control the Senate.  Trudeau's mass appointments since he formed government have stressed the chamber in yet more ways, with independents thrown to the wolves without the support or guidance of a caucus or enough other independent senators to mentor them.  Under intense media scrutiny, they were and expected to hit the ground running, without necessarily understanding how the Chamber operates.

If things continue down their current path, we are on track for a second stress incident, with the question mark of how those independents and Trudeau has insisted that all of his appointments will be independent will integrate given the formation of the Independent Senators Group, a quasi-caucus whose leadership is now up in the air, which could be very bad for the integration and mentorship of the incoming batch.  That batch will also push the ISG into the position of being the largest caucus, and that will have repercussions as those senators gain control of important committees like Internal Economy and Rules, and will be able to start reshaping an institution that they don't fully appreciate the operation of in order to fulfill a vision that they have.

This question of vision leads me to my next point, that the appointment process that Trudeau put into place may not have been the best one, in particular because it relies on people to apply for the job rather than on the committee seeking out community leaders with good records who may not have otherwise considered public service in such a capacity.  Indeed, it was the vision of political scientists like Emmett Macfarlane, who Trudeau consulted with when he shaped his more independent Senate, that nomination was preferable to application.  Why is this an issue?  In part because I think that a certain humbleness is being lost under the new system.

Which isn't to say that a lot of really worthy senators haven't been appointed, because there have been some really great picks.  But I'm also hearing talk about some senators developing outsized egos, which should have been expected if you're asking for people to apply for this kind of position, and some of that is starting to bleed out into the public if you pay close attention.  I'm finding that we're getting fewer senators like Romeo Dallaire, who would never have otherwise sought office until approached by the government of the day, and instead we are getting a new contingent of activists in social science fields who have their own ideas about how to shape policy without going through the political process, and that has the potential to be increasingly problematic as time goes on.

One of my concerns is that the appointment process has empowered some of these senators in such a way that makes them deaf to public criticism, because they intend to use their newfound power.  Indeed, I've heard stories that among some of these new senators, a level of sanctimony is developing, irking fellow colleagues and leading to accusations of arrogance.  And it's hard not to see why it happens, when you have a group of people who were leaders in their fields, who have goals they want to achieve, and who are less likely to be collaborative like the Senate has traditionally been.  These are all by-products of the process that Trudeau has instituted, which for all of its good intentions, is creating its share of problems, and those problems compound the longer they continue.

Photo Credit: National Observer

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.


Another day, another superficial profile of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the transparently false Messiah of modern progressivism.  Another shrieking backlash from the Canadian left and right.  Another well intentioned but ultimately doomed attempt to show that there's more to Canada than platitudinous nonsense about our "live-and-let-live-ethos".

Ho-freaking-hum.

Those of us who aren't too thrilled about this pinkwashed version of Canada substituting for the real thing in the international media can agonize over cringeworthy lines about Trudeau's socks or the "Royal Canadian Mountain Police" all they please.  They're not getting to the root of why this version of Canada is what the PMO is pushing on unsuspecting and frankly clueless foreign journos.

The truth is, as much as some of us are complaining about this puffery, it's a safe bet.

Just like how you won't find any proud Canadian Nickelback fans even though they must exist there is a barely hidden subset of Canadians who want a false, clean and shiny Canada that we can show off to the neighbours even though they know it to be an utter fraud.

They don't want to talk about problems.  They don't like it when opposition politicians talk about problems.

No deficit talk.  No talk about systematic racism.  No troubling reminders about our past sins or about how much more we have left to do.  The deeper we sink into the depths, the more desire there is to imagine ourselves as a progressive utopia, and the greater the national satisfaction when this mirage fools someone.

Do not reveal our shame, the Prime Minister says as he alternately cozies up to Trump and subverts him by meeting with state governors.  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  Take the path of least resistance.

A million convenient evasions keep this illusion alive.

One of Kathleen Wynne's MPP's tweets that a dead man was murdered by a police officer before a verdict has been rendered, and she keeps her job by blaming a possibly fictional, possibly real staffer.

Christy Clark tries to stage yet another of her famous comebacks.  She pledges to fight, then backs down.  Those who know her are shocked.  Those who really call the shots in the province of BC are less so.

A man takes a matter of some broken steps in need of repair into his own hands and fixes them himself.  The Mayor of Toronto is not pleased and says so.  The steps are dismantled by city employees and everyone pretends it never happened.

Saudi Arabia is using weapons sold to them by Canada against its own citizens!  Whose fault is it?  The Saudis, of course!  Trudeau had the best of intentions and only wanted to protect Canadian jobs in Southwestern Ontario.  Cut him some slack, huh?

And in each case, the people choose to believe what they are told, against the sight of their own eyes.

Doubtless those on the left who try to talk up their own outrages, with even less success, feel the same frustration at trying to get anyone to take action, much less recognize the existence of a problem any problem.

But the left, who are necessarily resistant to the very concept of personal responsibility and will forever be committed to making the case for humanity's essential goodness, prefer to blame shapeless entities like capitalism, the patriarchy and systemic racism for what ails the world.

They cannot see that these exalted academic concepts are just more sophisticated evasions.  If all are part of the system, then none can be responsible, and nothing has to change.  All that is then possible is the virtue signal, the slacktivism, the violence of the ultimately meaningless and hollow gesture, which is precisely what Trudeau the cardboard cutout saviour embodies.

Do not ask why we voted for this man.  The answer is obvious.  He personally asks no sacrifice from the voters though his government exacts heavy penalty.  He smiles and is easy on the eyes and only lays blame at the feet of those who have condemned themselves to be the scapegoat for all that is wrong with the country the hated Opposition.  He recognizes that Canadians don't want to be bothered with the fine details and likely wouldn't understand them if they were.  Just keep it light and dumb and passive-aggressive!  That's how we like it up in Canada.

And until we, as a nation, stop evading the truth and look it straight in its vacant blue eyes, nothing will change.

Photo Credit: Rolling Stone

Written by Josh Lieblein

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.