Liberal’s point man in the Senate denied $80,000 provided to his predecessor
Peter Harder asked for the same amount given to Conservative Claude Carignan when he was government leader in the Senate.
OTTAWA—The Liberal government’s point man in the Senate walked into a political storm Thursday over what he felt was a practical request for more than $800,000 from the upper chamber to effectively do his job.
Peter Harder told the committee that he wasn’t asking for anything more or less than what Conservative Claude Carignan received when he was government leader in the Senate under former prime minister Stephen Harper.
Carignan had to ask the Senate for office money because he was not a part of Harper’s cabinet like his predecessors, which made him ineligible for financial help from the Privy Council Office, the central bureaucracy that aides the prime minister and cabinet.
Harder, whose role is complicated by the fact that Liberal-appointed senators are no longer considered part of the party caucus, said he was told no funds would be forthcoming because of the precedent the Senate set with Carignan.
The money would cover the cost of nine staffers in his office as government representative in the Senate — four fewer than what Carignan had during his tenure under the previous Conservative government when he was leader of a caucus of more than 50.
Harder made the pitch for the money to help him usher through government legislation through the upper chamber — a process made more difficult by the lack of senators affiliated directly with the government — and try to build support for bills from the growing number of independent senators.
Harder said he expected the independent ranks to swell by 20 by the fall when the government makes its next round of appointments, creating more pressure points to garner votes without the hammer of party discipline.
The Conservatives on the internal economy committee, which oversees Senate spending, wanted details of how Harder was going to use the money and details of how the Senate would operate — and how funding would flow — if partisan caucuses disappeared and the Senate became a house of independents.
No comments:
Post a Comment