If the latest polls are to be believed, the Conservatives are on course for a 220-plus seat majority. That could leave the Liberals, Canada’s so-called “natural governing party,” in danger of being exiled to the far reaches of the House of Commons chamber as the third party, behind the Bloc Québécois, which doesn’t much care what happens beyond the borders of Quebec.
In such a circumstance, there would be a temptation among many newly-appointed senators to form the unofficial opposition in residence, acting as a check on unfettered power of a majority government prime minister.
There are concerns in the Conservative caucus — and also among Bloc MPs — that the denizens of the Red Chamber are already auditioning for the role.
The Bloc is frustrated that its private members’ bill, C-282, has been before the Senate for over a year.
The bill proposes to block Canada’s trade negotiators from giving up any more concessions when it comes to the supply managed chicken, dairy and egg sectors.
It passed through the House in June 2023 with only 49 western Conservatives and five Liberals in opposition, but has received a rough welcome in the Senate, where the foreign affairs and international trade committee’s chair, Peter Boehm, and vice-chair, Peter Harder, are openly opposed. Bloc agriculture critic, Yves Perron, called the two former diplomats “unelected wannabe kings.”
The Senate does not prioritize private members’ bills and senators are within their rights to talk for hours about any given piece of legislation.
The bill is objectively awful: it would have implications for future trade negotiations, including the review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement in 2026, and would tie the hands of future negotiators, narrowing the range of concessions that they could make.
But it is hard to argue that senators are not thumbing their noses at the will of the House.
The Conservatives cite the case of Bill C-234, a Conservative private members’ bill to exempt propane and natural gas used to heat agricultural barns and greenhouses from the consumer carbon tax.
Senator Pierre Dalphond, a former Quebec Court of Appeal justice, proposed amendments, saying that the bill “poked holes” in the integrity of the government’s climate plan (this was before Justin Trudeau drove a coach and horses through its integrity with his home heating oil exemption).
The amendment to exempt drying grain but not heating barns was adopted in the Senate and sent back to the House last June, where the Liberals, who opposed the bill, ran out the allotted time for debate. C-234 dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence and no-one knows when it will be voted on again. In effect, the Senate gutted legislation it disliked that had the support of a majority of MPs in the House.
But the bill that currently has Conservatives gnashing their teeth about Senate overreach is one that is stalled in the Red Chamber’s banking and commerce committee: Bill C-280.
The bill, which proposes to protect fruit and vegetable producers when purchasers of their stock go bankrupt, sailed through the House a year ago, with only one MP voting against it. However, it has come up against a wall of opposition in the Senate, particularly from some members of the loosely affiliated Independent Senators Group.
C-280 proposes to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act so that the proceeds of fruit and vegetable sales are held in trust by the purchaser, and, in the event of bankruptcy or receivership, would give producers some ownership interest in property sold.
The bill was proposed by Conservative MP Scot Davidson, who testified at committee that he was motivated to bring it forward after having a conversation with a farmer during COVID, when there were heightened concerns about bank and retailer insolvencies. He said the farmer was worried about losing a farm that had been in the family for 200 years, if the retailer he sold to went bust and didn’t pay him. Davidson told senators that producers of perishable goods are uniquely vulnerable to bankruptcy, since they can’t get their produce back.
Brent Cotter, a senator from Saskatchewan and former professor at Dalhousie Law School, acted as an expert witness at the committee, saying he supports the bill as it helps to protect a sector that falls to the lower end of compensation as unsecured creditors. “Philosophically, I’m in favour of giving little creditors a bigger bite of the apple,” he said.
But he recognized that bumping up one group creates losers elsewhere, which is at the heart of objections by other senators, not to mention the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, as well as insolvency professionals.
Senator Paul Massicotte wondered why the risks and liabilities of fruit and vegetable farmers are more worthy than others. “Why not the butcher? His meat is going to go rotten,” he said.
Senator Toni Varone, who owns a hospitality and construction business, said the bill would increase the losses of all other creditors, including those similar in nature like dairy suppliers. “Where does the slippery slope stop?” he asked. “(The bill) offers exceptional treatment for a small and specific cluster and provides no evidence or background information. Have they been unfairly harmed or impaired as a group?”
Senator Tony Loffreda, a former vice-chairman of RBC, said the deemed trust would increase the risk to lenders and would impose capital constraints on wholesalers and retailers.
These are all fair points from credible, qualified individuals. Trudeau has sullied the appointments process in recent months by appointing a raft of card-carrying Liberals but there is a deep well of expertise in the Senate that does not exist in the House.
Much of the criticism directed at the three private members’ bill mentioned here is valid and falls well within the Senate’s mandate as the chamber of sober second thought.
The senators would no doubt argue they are simply doing their job.
But that is not how it is perceived within the Conservative caucus. One MP said “these kind of stunts put the entire institution in a poor light. And this is a foreshadowing of what is to come.”
A new Conservative majority government is not going to be in the mood to brook resistance from an unelected Senate, which many in the caucus view as not only a chamber appointed by the Liberals but one that aligns with the current government.
The official Opposition appears to be on a collision course with the Senate, and it may only be a matter of time before Pierre Poilievre asks Canadians to lend him their ears as he attempts to bury the Red Chamber, rather than praise it.
National Post
[email protected]
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.