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

It is difficult to express in words the sense of whiplash I felt when I heard the news that Senator Peter Harder, former Leader of the Government in the Senate, suddenly joined the Progressive caucus after spending years discounting the very notion of caucuses within the Chamber.  To say that the move was unexpected is an understatement, but Harder's explanation for his decision to make the move is also very worth noting, because it points to some of the more troubling developments in how this "new" Senate is evolving.  Harder made his bed, and suddenly realized he was going to have lay in it, and didn't like what he saw.

Let me reiterate that for years, Harder was pushing for a notion of a Chamber full of independents 100 "loose fish" (once you discount the Speaker, the Government Leader, his or her deputy and whip, and some kind of opposition leader counterpart), who would be some kind of apolitical technocratic body, a Council of Elders that would wisely consider legislation and provide helpful feedback to the government of the day.  Structurally, it was to operate like a government department, given that it was the frame of reference by which Harder, a career bureaucrat and former deputy minister, could operate.  Over those years, Harder put out op-eds and papers to describe how unnecessary caucuses were, and pointed to the consensus legislatures in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, and a few more exotic Commonwealth examples, in order to "prove" that parties weren't an essential feature in a Westminster parliament.  And as the number of independent appointments started to mount, reaching over half of the population of the Chamber, it looked like things were going to head in that direction.  And suddenly Harder realized what mad science hath wrought.

We did get an inkling that Harder was starting to see the error of his ways when he was resigning as Government Leader, and he suddenly stated that perhaps the prime minister should consider appointing more people with actual legislative experience to the Senate, rather than just accomplished academics, as the complete lack of it was hampering the necessary work of the Chamber getting done.  (Another Senator has described this as "Too many Ravenclaws, not enough Slytherins.")  We saw a proliferation of needless speeches in the Chamber, particularly at second reading of a bill, and a number of senators who felt compelled to speak to every piece of business, and if you think the Senate is starting to feel a little more like the House of Commons these days, you'd be right (and I don't mean that as a compliment).

With this in mind, what shocked me the most was what Harder wrote in his note to other senators to announce his decision to join the Progressives.

Work in any legislative body is best managed through affiliation with a caucus or group.  I am pleased to be joining a new, progressive, experienced group of parliamentarians committed to working toward a less partisan, more independent Senate that is a complementary body to the House of Commons.

This recognition of the need for caucuses is a direct repudiation of Harder's previous vision of loose fish, but it's also a shot across the bow of Senator Yuen Pau Woo and his somewhat shambolic leadership of the Independent Senators Group.

In an interview with the CBC, Harder stated that he was motivated to join the Progressives because of Woo's behaviour in moving motions such as the one to strip committee seats from any Senator who leaves their caucus for another one.

"I've made my decision as to which group to associate with in that context, absolutely," Harder said, and also stated that he wants to be part of a bulwark against "a Senate in which there's one group that so dominates that there's the temptation not to treat all senators as equal."

More to the point, Harder now worries that the growth of the ISG has created an opening for "majoritarianism" to become the "new partisanship," as Woo has steadily tried to use the ISG's numerical advantage in ramming through decisions that would traditionally have been done by consensus, witnessed most recently with trying to force through the report of the Selection Committee for populating committee spots, or the selection of his favoured candidate, Senator Pierrette Ringuette, as the Speaker Pro Tempore.

It also sounds like Harder has also seen the light in terms of Woo's attempt to convince the government to change the Parliament of Canada Act and the Rules of the Senate to eliminate the special status of the Opposition, calling it a "needless rabbit hole to go down."

"I'm not offended by the notion of contrarian or opposition views," Harder told the CBC.  "I think it sharpens the government's thinking.  It caused me to work hard to achieve the compromises necessary to advance legislation."

With Harder now on board with the Progressives, that means that they only need one more senator to join their ranks before they can be once again considered an officially recognized caucus, which should make Woo very worried.  Once that happens and given that we know that there are unhappy members of the ISG who have previously contemplated leaving, that could be sooner than later Woo will no longer be able to keep the Progressives from any of the committees as he has been, and it diminishes his ability to hold the leverage over the Chamber as he pushes for those rule changes.  In fact, because the Selection Committee report has not been adopted, it makes it even easier for anyone to leave the ISG because they won't have to worry about sacrificing their committee seat they have not been finalized, so they could very well keep it under their new banner.

As well, with nine vacancies now in the Chamber, it means that when any new senators join, there is a more viable way for them to join either the Progressives or the Canadian Senators Group instead of just immediately heading to the ISG.  Harder's change of heart has made this way of limiting the damage being done to the Senate possible, and it goes to prove that senators' conception of the institution evolves the longer they are a part of it.

Photo Credit: CBC News

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.


This content is restricted to subscribers

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.