As more government bills move to the Senate, the push for independent senators to sponsor them grows.  If things were normal in the Senate, it would be a member of the government's caucus who did this job but there are government caucus members.  And when it comes to bills introduced in the Senate by the government, it would normally be up to the Government Leader in the Senate to be their sponsor as a member of cabinet who could be the point person on accountability.  Well, that doesn't happen here either.

While on paper, Senator Peter Harder remains the Government Leader in the Senate (though he may style himself otherwise), he is not a member of Cabinet (despite still getting support from the Privy Council Office as a cabinet minister would, and despite attending Cabinet committee meetings "as required"), and he has eschewed the task of doing the sponsorship of government bills with the exception of the first couple.  It's a curious sort of legal fiction that is put into place in order to maintain the notion that the Senate is to be more independent, as though dismantling some of the structures around Responsible Government as it can be exercised in the chamber is the way to go about it.  What it ends up doing, however, is creating more confusion around how accountability is supposed to flow.

The notion that independent senators are supposed to sponsor government bills has immediately opened them up to criticism that they're not really independents that, as (largely) Trudeau appointees, they are just crypto-Liberals doing the bidding of the man who appointed them, much as was the accusation of nominally partisan senators for the bulk of our post-Confederation history.  Those independent senators have immediately responded by saying that just because they're sponsoring the bill it doesn't mean that they're wedded to it, that some of them come into it looking to amend it right away, and generally with the notion that they're just there to shepherd the bill though the process.  But it's a position that I find a little troubling because it doesn't sound a lot like actual sponsorship of a bill.  In some cases, the very sponsors sound more like chief critics of a bill, which really confuses the debate, but more than that, it confuses any sense of accountability.

Where does accountability flow for a bill in the Senate if not with the government?  There is nobody from Cabinet who can answer on behalf of the bill, which is a pretty important consideration.  Government bills come from Cabinet as a whole Cabinet solidarity is a Thing and an important Thing in our system.  As I have repeatedly pointed out with the current drama over Bill Morneau and the introduction of Bill C-27 on federally regulated pensions, sponsorship of a bill doesn't mean that the minister as an individual is doing it out of personal interest, but rather because they have to answer on behalf of the department that it affects, and if they were shuffled out and a new minister shuffled into that same portfolio, they would pick up where the previous minister left off, because the bill is reflective of the will of Cabinet as a whole, and the minister's job is to answer for the department.

When it comes to the Senate, there remains the important consideration that someone can answer on behalf of Cabinet on a bill to ensure there is a flow of accountability.  Harder is supposed to be that someone, but has eschewed that responsibility.  Ministers still appear before committee, but it's limited to an hour or two, and Cabinet otherwise remains outside of the debate, and this is especially the case for government bills that are introduced in the Upper Chamber.  With no one from Cabinet there to shepherd the bill, and leaving that instead to an independent senator who is supposed to be free of the influence of the government, it means that the accountability gap grows, and this should be concerning because the role of Parliament, of which the Senate is a component, is to hold government to account.  It could also be argued that budget bill should also be sponsored in the Senate by the Government Leader rather than just a member of the government caucus because it deals with the requests for funds, vital for the continued operation of government.  But that's not what happens anymore.

With this in mind, it bears asking why Harder and his office need their $1.5 million budget, and numerous staff, when they're neither managing a caucus, nor doing the legislative groundwork in the chamber things that previous Government Leaders would do on the same allocation, which Harder demanded.  Plenty of senators are asking what this money is for, and I find myself curious as well.  It also makes one wonder if Harder is shirking the duties that he should be fulfilling in the role as Government Leader, regardless of whether or not he styles himself that way.  But you can't both represent the government and be independent (or non-aligned, as he is listed on the Senate's standings) it's just like being half-pregnant.  And that's partly why the demand for independent senators to sponsor government bills is perverse.

There would be no actual conflict for Trudeau to give the Senate more independence while still maintaining the proper roles of having a Government Leader that is in Cabinet and which acts as the conduit for accountability in fact, it would mean more independence for those senators because they're not being co-opted to sponsor bills on behalf of the government.  The Leader of the Government in the Senate is not the leader of the Senate, and people shouldn't be confusing the two something that Trudeau gives the impression of with this particular fiction that is being perpetuated.  We can have both a more independent Senate and proper lines of accountability so what is keeping us from doing so?