This week, the Government Leader in the Senate err, "government representative" Senator Peter Harder launched a new website for the Senate Government Representative Office, which tries to offer some more clarity about what his office is and what he sees his role to be as the Senate continues its path of modernization.  It's not entirely bad, and in fairness to Harder and his team, they get some things about the Senate right.  The problem, of course, lies in what they're omitting, and in how selective they're being in some of the facts they present.

Off the start, the GRO lists itself as having two main roles shepherding government legislation through the Senate, and championing Senate modernization.  The site says that they sit as non-affiliated senators because they don't sit in the government caucus which may well be, but you cannot be both independent and represent the government.  That's like being half-pregnant.  It's partially why it's a bit of a farce that Harder himself continues to eschew the label of Government Leader despite the fact that it's the role he fills in the enabling legislation.  The site FAQ makes it clear that while Harder is not a cabinet minister like a Government Leader should be, he is a member of the Privy Council and attends cabinet meetings "as appropriate" to discuss the legislative agenda and update the government on the process of modernization.

What they don't mention is how this impacts the exercise of accountability.  While people are quick to insist that the Senate doesn't play a role in Responsible Government because it is not a confidence chamber, that too ignores that the whole exercise of Parliament is to hold the government to account something that the Senate does as just as much as the House of Commons does, even if it doesn't defeat governments.  Why it's important that the Government Leader be a member of Cabinet is that there is a line of accountability between the Senate and the government (meaning Cabinet), and that a member of the government can be in the Senate to answer on its behalf.

Now, to be sure, having ministers appear before committees and in the new ministerial Senate QP sessions that happen weekly, is a form of accountability, but it's muted compared to the usual practice of having the Government Leader be in cabinet.  Similarly, it's also why the Government Leader would normally be the sponsor of government legislation in the Senate particularly for government bills initiated there, but also with money bills that the Commons sends over.  Such bills should have a cabinet minister shepherding them so as to be able to answer for Cabinet about why they are asking Parliament for those expenditures.

But how does Harder and the GRO see the issue of sponsoring bills?

"Sponsorship is not based on a Senator's allegiance to a political party, but rather on their expertise and support of a specific bill's policy.  Sponsors keep an open mind as debate proceeds, and as the Senate considers potential amendments (changes to a bill) or observations (messages to the Government about the bill's contents)."

There is a red flag here because sponsoring the bill shouldn't be about who has expertise, but rather support for its aims.  If anything, expertise should be the criteria for choosing who should be the lead critic of a bill, because it allows them to more fully dig into its contents and find ways to hold it and the government to account.

Nowhere on the site did I see any mention of accountability, other than stating the GRO's goals as advocating for a Senate that is "less partisan, more independent, accountable and transparent," and that to me seems like a big problem if you are trying to reframe the role of the Senate within Parliament without acknowledging the fundamental role of Parliament itself.

And this is part of why I do worry that constant discussion of modernization is still stuck on Harder's revisionist vision of history and selective reading of what a Westminster parliament consists of, given that his previous op-eds on the subjects remain posted prominently on the site (not to mention his problematic op-ed calling for independent oversight of the Senate, which would have grave consequences for Parliament's ability to remain a self-governing body).  If the GRO sees itself as a champion of Senate modernization, then we need more clarity as to just what vision of a "modern" Senate they are proposing.

Just saying that they can't compel senators to make changes to the institution is not really comforting, particularly because there are a lot of new senators who don't have a good grounding on how the institution works, who are very susceptible to notions about what they think a "more independent" Senate should look like, despite the fact that it could very well break a system that is already stressed by continued mass appointments, and a new cohort of activist senators who are looking to make a name for themselves.  That the GRO sees their role as "offering ideas, delivering speeches, taking part in panels, producing policy papers and working to educate Canadians on the Government's approach to Senate renewal," isn't comforting either, because as far as I'm aware, the government's approach is to let the Senate do its own thing, whereas Harder has staked out definite positions positions that less experienced senators could take a little too seriously if they don't understand the broader consequences.

This all having been said, I will say that the site does a pretty good job on a few things debunking that it's somehow the GRO's responsibility to deal with misbehaving senators (though that never seems to stop politics show producers from inviting Harder on when something happens); talking about why the Senate is not an elected body going back to Confederation and why being an elected chamber would neutralise its role of sober second thought; and dispelling any notion that it would be an easy fix rather than amending the constitution.  So, props to Harder for that.  But even with those positive aspects, the omissions grate, and have the potential to sow confusion for the sake of promoting his vision and agenda, which could have longer term consequences if these ideas aren't challenged, but rather taken as gospel.