Over the past week, the official Senate website has begun republishing some op-eds by senators who've been pushing back against the suggestions by Government Leader in the Senate err, "government representative," Senator Peter Harder, and his vision of a more "independent" Senate, and in particular his vision that the Canadian Senate adopt a sort of Salisbury Convention like the House of Lords has.  While some of these responses are from the more partisan Conservative senators, at least one response is from two of the now-Independent champions of Senate reform, which makes for a fairly interesting response.

To refresh your memory, the Salisbury Convention posits that the House of Lords can't veto legislation that was part of the manifesto that the government ran on, and Harder had written an op-ed for Policy Options to claim that such a convention de facto existed in the Canadian Senate (it doesn't), and that he wasn't advocating for senators to be a rubber stamp, before outlining all of the ways in which he felt that senators should accede to the will of the government.  While it remains to be seen how many of the newer Independent senators will be swayed by Harder and his arguments, it's important to see that at least some of the established voices that have since turned Independent are disputing what Harder has been saying.

Some of the Conservative reaction has been predictable that this is all about crypto-control by the Prime Minister to ensure that there's a pliant Senate, which I'm fairly certain doesn't really reflect the reality, based on everything I've heard but they nevertheless make a few salient points that can't be dismissed out of concern for partisanship, as which happens so often.  For example, Senator Larry Smith noted in his op-ed that one of the primary obligations of the Senate is to hear from voices that may not have been heard by the House of Commons during their deliberations (which can happen more often than you think).

"Senators have an obligation to listen to the informed views of Canadians and not simply to follow the political agenda set by the Prime Minister's Office," Smith wrote, and he's absolutely correct.

Likewise, Senator David Wells' op-ed pushes back against Harder's contention that it's the Conservatives who are responsible for any delays of legislation in the Senate, and that they are taking a "wrecking ball" to the effectiveness of the Chamber when they don't have the majority of the votes.  And more to the point, Wells takes aim at Harder's assertion that Senate independence is a "government initiative" while simultaneously decrying Stephen Harper's "ownership" of the Senate during his government.  If the Senate is to be independent, it should be free of government interference and "initiatives."

"After 150 years of clearly rudderless operation, we are so pleased a member of Trudeau's transition team has set us on the right, independent (government-mandated) course," Wells wrote with obvious and well-deserved sarcasm.

But it's the response to Harder by Independent senators Stephen Greene and Paul Massicotte that drives the point home hardest.  Greene (formerly a Conservative) and Massicotte (formerly a Senate Liberal) have been leading the charge when it comes to the Senate reforming itself.  And while I don't necessarily agree with all of their ideas, I respect that they've been having this debate from the very start.

The Green and Massicotte op-ed takes particular issue with Harder's Salisbury contention, and challenges the proof that Harder brought to the table, as the former senators he quoted to make his case that there was already a de facto convention were far more specific in their points that the promises that senators shouldn't oppose needed to be a specific or key promise, which is problematic when the current government made over 100 promises in an 82-page document (some of which, it bears pointing out, they've already abandoned because they were stupid promises to begin with *cough*electoral reform*cough*).

They also point to other problems in Harder's piece that he wants to extend the 180-day suspensive veto on constitutional amendments to all legislation rather than the current absolute veto that the Senate enjoys on legislation, or that senators should run for office if they want to challenge policy positions of the elected government an absurd proposition that severely mischaracterises the goal of a less partisan Senate as one that shouldn't allow Senators to take policy positions, or which overestimates what a democratic mandate means in our system of government.

The Senate is supposed to offer a challenge function to the government, which Harder seems to have a problem with.  Challenge doesn't mean that they should routinely defeat government bills indeed, the Senate has largely had enough self-awareness to know that this wouldn't be tolerated on a regular basis, but should be reserved for fairly extreme circumstances, but not necessarily from the enumerated list that Harder laid out.  Challenge can mean greater focus on amendments to bills, which the government has signalled their openness to, but the "challenge" function shouldn't mean a few hours of debate with nothing behind it.  And that's what Harder seems to be offering, which is in line with his vision of the Senate as a debating society.

I'm hoping that because Greene and Massicotte have some gravitas within the Independent Senators Group, that this op-ed of theirs will encourage more of the Independent senators to question just what it is that Harder is saying.  I do fear that they may be one of the few voices that those senators will listen to, as few of them have experienced senate staffers in their offices because so many of them have eschewed experienced staff out of fear that they would be tainted by partisanship (which is also why Harder has rejected experienced staff in his own office something that has had a dramatically detrimental effect on the operation of the Chamber).  Harder's attempts to steer the Senate towards being a talking shop with a rubber stamp should be rejected loudly and forcefully.