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

The jockeying for status in the Senate in the wake of recent moves has some of its loudest reform proponents making renewed claims for their particular vision of what needs to happen, in spite of the fact that the move by three Independent senators to the Progressive caucus has blunted their momentum.  Case in point for this particular braying was Independent Senator Tony Dean, who penned a "status update" op-ed for iPolitics this past weekend, in which he declared premature victory, announcing that these moves would only "accelerate the transition to a more independent Senate as opposed to undermining it."  It is with no small irony that it should be pointed out that the Senate is and always has been an independent institution, and it is the efforts of these would-be reformers like Dean and ISG leader, Senator Yuen Pau Woo, who are undermining that independence.

"Senate reform is proceeding steadily which should be good news for Canadians, who understandably expect an effective and efficient Senate of Canada as opposed to the previous partisan mirror of the House of Commons," Dean proclaims, apparently oblivious to history and simple logic.  He provided several markers about the "drive toward a more independent and less partisan Senate," much of which was utter hokum, but a few of his points deserve particular attention.

While Dean notes that the Senate has moved beyond the Liberal and Conservative turn-taking power duopoly which is actually a good thing because the duopoloy was the source of many of the Chamber's problems with abuses of power he nevertheless misreads the whole point of the institution.  In praising that the dynamic of the governing party time-allocating the passage of bills, he ignores that the only reason that time allocation has fallen into disuse is because the Government Leader in the Senate has opted not to use it for fear that he would not have the votes to do so.  If he felt that the opposition was unduly holding up government legislation, the power could absolutely be invoked, and presumably the Independent senators who felt the delay tactics were abusive could vote in favour of said time allocation.  That's a mere matter of political judgment.

But Dean badly misreads those "range of delaying tactics" in the hands of the opposition.  While he insists they are "hardly a recipe for sober second thought," it's in fact exactly what they are used for to ensure that a governing party that has the majority of the votes can be slowed down so that they don't steamroll over the rights of minorities, which the Senate is explicitly charged with upholding.  That's why the Senate was designed the way that it was so that minority regions would have enough Senate seats to counterbalance those with large populations in the House of Commons; and so that there would be guaranteed representation for religious and linguistic minorities (which were the chief concerns in 1867, which soon grew to embrace other minority communities), which is the whole point of why Quebec has senatorial districts because many of them were defined enclaves of those minority communities.  The same rules against "frivolous delays and obstruction" that Dean decries are the same rules that ensure that those minority representatives in the Senate can use to ensure that legislation is slowed down so that their concerns can be fully heard and expressed.  That he doesn't grasp that fact is boggling.

As well, Dean laughably insists that "our debates have become more open and information-driven," with the non-sequitur of the number of adopted amendments being his proof even though the two are unrelated, and the fact that the bulk of amendments that were accepted by the House of Commons were the ones that the government itself put forward.  Dean insists that the way the Senate approaches its work is "archaic and unorganized," and points to the organizing of "themed debates" on major bills which again ignores how the Senate has traditionally operated.  Instead of hours of pointless speeches at Second Reading, the Senate traditionally operated by letting the sponsor of a bill give his or her speech in support of a bill, and several days later the designated critic would give a speech in response to the points made by the sponsor, and from there the bill would be sent to committee where the substantive work would happen.  This is actually the preferably way for legislative work to be organized.

Like Oedipus going to great lengths to avoid the prophecy that he would murder his own father and marry his mother, or Anakin Skywalker's fall to the dark side in an attempt to prevent his vision of his wife's death in childbirth coming true, both ended up fulfilling the fates that they tried to avoid, and I see that very dynamic playing out in the Senate.  As reform proponents like Dean keep insisting that they are heading toward some kind of non-partisan ideal, they nevertheless keep pushing the Senate to behaving more like the House of Commons in very substantive ways.

By way of example, Dean presses for the creation of a "business planning group" which Woo called a "programming committee" whose sole purpose would be to time allocate all business, making the flow of work even more regimented than it is in the Commons.  As well, the way that it would facilitate "themed debates" is simply aping the House of Commons' reliance on canned speeches that are not actual debate, but speeches read into the record for the sake of reading speeches into the record.  Changing the rules to end the so-called "obstruction" or "frivolous delays" would simply turn the Senate into a distorted mirror of the Commons, where the majoritarian impulses would swamp the very minorities that the Chamber was built to protect.  And as much as Dean decries the partisanship of the Senate's bad old days, the kinds of behaviour that Dean and other Independents have exhibited toward the Conservatives certainly looks and sounds nakedly partisan.

As much as Dean, Woo, and their fellow travellers claim to be trying to usher in this era of independence, they are merely removing roadblocks from government domination of the Senate and its business.  Like Oedipus or Skywalker, with every step they take to move away from something they claim they don't want, they end up pushing to make it happen because they are blind to their reality.  It is a slow-moving Greek Tragedy for those of us who can see it.

Photo Credit: The Bay Observer

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.


Virus or no virus, pandemic or no pandemic, lockdown or no lockdown, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants to enjoy the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer free from the pesky oversight of a little institution we like to call Parliament. 

As we all know by now, thanks to the able assistance of the New Democrats (remember them?), Trudeau's Liberal government recently suspended full Parliamentary sittings until September 21. 

So, like a teenager whose parents have left him alone in the house for the weekend, Trudeau will have free reign to party, with no Opposition around to keep a wary eye on him. 

And please don't tell me the Canadian media will hold him to account. 

I'm pretty sure, for instance, the CBC's parliamentary reporting will be focused on whether or not Trudeau's face mask is color coordinated with his socks. 

It's understandable therefore that people who care about democracy and parliamentary traditions might be a little bit concerned about the Liberal government's power play.  

Yet, it's also likely such concern will be a minority opinion. 

After all, with the COVID-19 virus lingering in the air, average Canadians are probably more worried about walking to their mailbox these days than they are about the state of Canadian democracy, which means Trudeau will have an opportunity to get away with a lot of stuff. 

But will he? 

In other words, will public apathy combined with no Parliamentary oversight, allow Trudeau to use the pandemic crisis to transform himself into a more adorable version of Joseph Stalin, a leader who can basically indulge his every whim? 

Nah, don't worry, it won't happen. 

Why? 

Well, let me put this way, even if Trudeau was tempted to expand his powers during a parliamentary hiatus (which he most probably will be) any dictatorial ambitions he might be harboring would still be restricted, or at least tempered, by political realities.

To be blunt, Trudeau wants to get re-elected, meaning, in a way, it's his pollsters who will keep him accountable. 

For example, he realizes that if he's going to return to majority government status in the next federal election, he will have to win more seats in Quebec. 

What this means in practice is that the Liberal government can be counted on to appease, placate or otherwise pander to Quebec's voters. 

Hence, even though Trudeau might personally oppose Quebec's immigration laws or its cultural policies, he won't drop any sort of federal hammer to change the status quo, even if Parliament is in stasis, since such a move would be politically unpopular within the province. 

Then there's the whole question of Canada's relationship to China. 

Let's face it, if Trudeau were to act solely according to his own personal wishes, I'm betting his preferred policy would be one of playing nice with China, of trying to move our two countries closer together both diplomatically and in terms of trade. 

Remember, this is the same guy who once proudly stated that he admired the efficiency of the Chinese communist government.  

Heck, even in the darkest day of the pandemic his Health Minister steadfastly refused to criticize China, and even likened any questioning of Chinese policy to a "conspiracy theory". 

I guess Trudeau still had fond memories of the time when the Chinese communists playfully dubbed him "Little Potato." 

Who wouldn't? 

Yet, public opinion polls are telling us that a vast majority of Canadians don't think too highly of the Chinese government right now, which seems to have something to do with, you know, a rampaging killer virus, that's wrecking the entire world's economy. 

This is why I sense Trudeau will eventually put his aside his own warm, fuzzy feelings about China's leadership and start acting more like a tough guy. 

As a matter of fact, he's already taken to mildly criticizing certain Chinese actions. 

At any rate, my point is, even though it'd be nice to have Trudeau answering questions (or should I say not answering them?) in the House of Commons, we can still rest easy knowing the imperatives of democracy will help keep the prime minister in check. 

The real problem will arise if Trudeau gets delusions of grandeur (let's be honest, he's already halfway there) and decides to do away with elections so that he can proclaim himself as Canada's divine God-Emperor. 

If that happens, we should definitely get worried.

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.