Many people seem to be in some confusion about the government’s plan for the new independent, non-partisan Senate. Does it not suggest some confusion on the government’s part, they ask, that six months on it can neither explain nor defend the changes it has made — that, indeed, the Senate itself seems unsure how to proceed?
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the government’s Senate plan is simplicity itself, the clarity of its strategy exceeded only by the easy intelligibility of its design. If anyone should be having sober second thoughts, it’s the critics!
A quick refresher course. Senators are appointed to represent provinces, according to a very simple formula whereby each region gets 24 seats and each province that is not also a region gets six — except Prince Edward Island, of course, which gets four. Thus New Brunswick and Nova Scotia get 10 each, rather than six, to give Atlantic Canada the regulation 24, or 30 if we’re really going to count Newfoundland.
Under the old system, senators were simply appointed by the prime minister. Under the new system, they are appointed by the prime minister, on the advice of an Independent Advisory Board, all of whom were appointed by him. This obviously greatly enhances their legitimacy — for where previously they were appointed by an elected official, now they will be elected by appointed officials.
If anyone should have sober second thoughts, it’s the critics!
Changes have also been happening in the Senate’s composition. Previously, Liberal senators sat in caucus; now they are all independents. That is to say, they still sit as a caucus, but not in caucus. That is to say, they are no longer Liberal senators, but senators who are Liberals, or rather “independent Senate Liberals” — not to be confused with senators who were appointed as and by Liberals but sit as independents. These Liberal independents are entirely independent of the independent Liberals even if they have lately been invited to caucus with them.
By contrast, Conservative senators are generally thought to be Conservative senators, excepting those now sitting as independents or suspended.
Needless to say the government leader in the Senate, the former civil servant Peter Harder, is not the government leader: he is not a member of cabinet and, as a CBC report delicately put it, “identifies as an independent.” Rather, he is the government’s “representative” in the Senate. Or rather, since there is no provision in the rules for a government “representative,” he is officially the “leader of the government in the Senate styled as the government’s representative.”
As a leader who is not the leader of a caucus that does not exist, he occupies a position not unlike that of the government on pipelines: less a cheerleader, more a referee. His job is to introduce bills in the Senate on behalf of the government, but since he is not part of the government he is in no way responsible for any of them. Senators who wish to ask questions of the government will instead be invited to buttonhole passing members of cabinet.
The leader-styled-the-representative has lately appointed a second in command, Diane Bellemare, though naturally she is neither his deputy leader nor his deputy representative, but his “legislative deputy.” As it happens, she is a Conservative, or was until last month, when she quit to become an independent, in hopes, as it was reported, of “organiz(ing) independent senators to give them more voice.” As an agent of the prime minister’s office, she now has the chance to live that dream.
The whip — whoops, the “government liaison” — meanwhile, is Grant Mitchell, a lifelong Liberal until Monday when he, too, left to become an independent. As government whip-styled-liaison, he will not whip the Liberal senators, as there are no Liberal senators, at least in the sense of Liberal senators, and if there were he is no longer among them. Rather his job will presumably be to enforce the non-party line on the independent senators. I anticipate some tense scenes in which they are ordered to vote exactly as they like, on pain of expulsion from a caucus to which they do not belong. Unless … well I was going to say unless he really is the government whip, and all this independence guff is just a charade. But one doesn’t want to be cynical.
If all this sounds perplexing, relax: the powers of the Senate, at least, are unchanged. Although on paper equal to those of the House of Commons, by convention they are rarely exercised, or would be but for the important convention that senators are not bound by convention. Thus, the Senate generally defers to the Commons, except on relatively minor matters like abortion, free trade, global warming and assisted suicide.
The rules of the Senate, likewise, are crystal-clear. For example, senators are allowed to claim expenses only on matters related to “Senate business,” strictly defined as anything senators do. Similarly, senators may only file for living expenses incurred while in Ottawa if their principal residence is not in Ottawa, unless, say, they live in Ottawa. Senators who violate these rules will be suspended from the Senate until they are not, after which they will be given full pay, in recognition that they did nothing wrong, but not back pay, in recognition that the Senate did nothing wrong in suspending them.
Which is just as well. Because if the Senate were wrong, who would be left to correct it?