As the Independent Senators muse openly about how they want to start seeing rule changes within the institution, there are warning signs that come out in the open. This past week, another one presented itself over Twitter, as Ontario Senator Tony Dean mused about the utility of Senate Question Period. "[Senate] copying the House of Commons-style political question period in the Senate Chamber adds no value to our work on behalf of Canadians," Dean tweeted. And I can assure you that he is very wrong.
A couple of things first there has been a Question Period in the Senate for decades, and the usual practice is that senators will ask questions of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is normally a member of cabinet, and he or she is provided with briefing notes from Privy Council that are essentially the same materials that the prime minister receives. When senators ask the Government Leader a question, they would either get a response based on the briefing materials, or the Government Leader would take the question as notice and get back to them in written form at a later date. As well, on the occasion when a cabinet minister was drawn from the Senate as opposed to the House of Commons which does happen, most recently with Michael Fortier as minister of Public Works in Stephen Harper's first cabinet, and his Government Leader, Marjory LeBreton being given the cabinet responsibility for seniors in addition to her Government Leader duties, during a later session it gives senators the opportunity to question these ministers as MPs cannot.
But things are currently different. The new Government Leader err, "government representative," Senator Peter Harder, is not a member of cabinet, and while he gets some Privy Council Office support and presumably some briefing materials, he is not a member of cabinet who can actually answer on behalf of government, which weakens the accountability role. And in order to compensate for this as part of the "new independent Senate," an agreement was reached with the government to set up a ministerial question period in the Senate, where a government minister would appear in the Chamber once a week on a rotating basis, and senators could ask him or her questions related to their portfolio. It's less responsive than Senate QP used to be with the Government Leader in cabinet and there were instances where issues had come up after the House of Commons had risen for the summer but the Senate was still sitting, and they could ask the pertinent questions that MPs could not but it still provides at least some level of accountability, and more importantly, gives ministers a chance to hear from senators in some regions of the country where there is no opposition representation in the Commons, like Atlantic Canada.
Dean's assertion that this is "House of Commons-style" is also wrong on its face. Senate QP and Commons QP are completely different beasts, owing entirely to the reduced partisanship in the Senate (even under normal circumstances), while the different rules set a markedly different tone. In the Commons, there is a 35-second clock, and both sides are playing to the cameras especially lately, where the exercise has become not only a "buffet" of media clips, but an actual marketing exercise of generating those clips for their social media platforms. There is none of this in the Senate. Without the pressure of the clock, questions are more thoughtful, generally less accusatory or performative, and answers can be fleshed out and given in a more robust manner than trying to get in a talking point under the clock.
The recent ministerial Senate QP has been an interesting exercise to observe because the ministers themselves act in different ways in the Senate than they do in the Commons. Some ministers who struggle with the 35-second clock in the Commons are able to give thoughtful responses, and you will more often hear actual answers to questions rather than some pabulum designed to mollify questions that are being used to get them in trouble. I've found that several ministers shine in Senate QP the way they aren't able to in Commons QP, going unscripted (though some staffers have told me that they use the scripts to stick to the 35-second time limit, which I am dubious of, but take it for what you will) and generally looking like ministers. It's amazing to see.
The other reason why Dean's assertion is wrong is because the whole point of Parliament as a whole which includes the Commons and the Senate is to hold the government to account. Just because the Senate is not a confidence chamber doesn't mean that it is exempt from this existential duty. But this is a theme that has been coming up again and again. I seem to be coming across increasing examples of the Independent senators who are increasingly precious about their independent status, and who seem to think that the Senate is some kind of debating society or council of elders rather than a body whose institutional independence is absolutely designed to provide a challenge function to the government. The structural make-up of the Senate enables it to speak truth to power without fear of consequence, which is why it's the important check on the power of the executive that it is.
Senators can't ignore that fundamental aspect of the institution because they seem to be confusing partisanship with the necessary accountability mechanisms that the Senate provides. This allergy to any perception of partisanship is detrimental to the proper functioning of the chamber. Having partisan caucuses has benefits to the organization of the work of the Senate, and can focus the challenge function, which is not a bad thing. But trying to dress up the Senate as being above all of that ignores so much about Parliament, Westminster democracy, and the unique qualities of the Canadian Senate. Be an independent senator that's fine but don't pretend that you don't still have constitutional obligations to perform, and that includes holding ministers to account.
