Government and opposition proposals for “fixing” the Senate have been in the news again in the past few days, because everyone wants to be seen to be doing something about it – never mind that due process takes time. Apparently we demand instant gratification, and so, we are being subjected to yet more discussion about things that are not really broken.

To start with was a proposal revealed last week, which saw the government calling in constitutional lawyers to try and MacGyver some kind of mechanism to kick out Senators if they are found to bring “disrepute” to the Chamber. And then this morning, we were subjected to concern trolling by the NDP, who came up with a trio of largely unhelpful new suggestions for rules changes that the House has neither the authority to attempt to implement, nor are they actually thought through.

The former proposal, about rule to kick out Senators, is actually a pretty useless gesture because such rules pretty much already exist. In fact, the attempt was abandoned because it was a “bit of a legislative mess.” It also ignores that as an independent body of Parliament, the Senate is already the master of its own destiny. It has the power to remove Senators if need be, but it has never needed to employ that power before. Why? Because at the end of due process, any Senator who is indicted will generally resign to save themselves the humiliation (and more often, their pension). Remember that we have a presumption of innocence in this country, and that there have been no convictions in the cases of Duffy, Wallin, Brazeau or Harb. At the point that investigations are concluded and charges are laid, then sure, the Senate would be motivated to act, but until that point, the baying for blood and trial-by-media are not justification enough for the Senate to hold that vote to declare a seat vacant. In fact, it would be pretty ironic if one of the chambers of Parliament couldn’t even abide by the basic legal protection of the presumption of innocence.

And then there are the NDP proposals, which were unveiled at a press conference this morning under the rubric of increasing transparency and accountability “on the road to abolition.” Well then. The proposals are that Senators be barred from parties and caucus as a means of limiting the partisan work they can do, to tighten their travel rules to restrict anything that is not directly related to “legislative work,” and that their ethics officer be combined with the Commons’ Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

Dealing with each proposal in reverse order, there is little to be accomplished by the Ethics Officer proposal, given that the Commons’ commissioner a) doesn’t actually deal with ethics, and b) is not exactly a model for a stringent watchdog of MPs’ activities either, especially given Mary Dawson’s penchant for reading her mandate so narrowly that almost nothing comes under her jurisdiction, and if she does find wrongdoing, a sternly worded letter is pretty much the only punishment afforded. I’m not sure exactly what is to be gained by putting Senators under this regime, especially since MPs can’t be bothered to review their own code of conduct in a timely basis, as they are too busy getting the Ethics Committee to investigate one another’s alleged wrongdoings. Remember too that this was attempted under the Federal Accountability Act in 2006 and Senators rebelled because they wanted to retain their chamber’s independence.

Limiting Senators’ travel sounds good in theory, but we need to be aware how these limits are being drawn. Is “legislative duty” strictly to and from Ottawa when the Senate or its committees are sitting, and when the committee is off to do a study? Because that does limit the amount of independent study and policy work that Senators currently engage in, let alone any kind of consultative work they may engage in as the representatives of their regions. Could there be better policing of this travel? Sure – I’ve previously proposed means-testing the expenses by means or reports written or legislation tabled when it comes to the personal initiatives of Senators. But limiting the definition of “legislative duty” is not respecting the broader policy role of Senators, and is frankly NDP mischief – especially since they qualify that this should only apply to those who aren’t elected. There was no mention of limiting their own travel expenses to “legislative duties.”

The proposal of limiting membership and partisan activity is concern trolling of the highest order. Yes, Senators are political. It’s the nature of Parliament. And yes, they are generally less partisan than MPs because they don’t need to perform for the cameras to show their tribal loyalties to their voters. And guess what? Using Senate resources for partisan activity is already against the rules. How well those rules are being enforced can be debated, I’m sure, but for the NDP to say that Senators should be barred from party membership is beyond overkill – it’s also a boneheaded suggestion that completely ignores the roles of government and opposition in our system of government. (This should not be completely unexpected given that their “proposition not opposition” motto similarly ignores much about the role of the official opposition). Our system of government works on the principle that the opposition holds the government to account, and this is echoed in the Senate, whereby the Senate holds the government to account by asking questions of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is nominally a member of cabinet, so that the government can respond to those questions. (That the current leader is not in the cabinet is an issue of juvenile politicking by Harper in an attempt to put distance between himself and the Senate spending scandals). Not to mention that if the NDP thinks that factions won’t emerge in a chamber of nominal independent senators, or that partisanship can be simply abolished with the stroke of a pen, then they’re being pretty delusional.

I don’t dispute that there should be more distance between the Senate and House caucuses of both parties – but that is for the sake of a more independent Senate, where meetings between MPs and Senators become more formalised, and aren’t just seen as an exercise of party leaders whipping their Senate caucuses (which they really can’t do with any degree of effectiveness anyway, given the Senate’s institutional independence). That shouldn’t mean that they can’t be party members, because parties exist for a reason. (Also, that may impact on their Charter rights of freedom of association). The fact that the NDP hammer on the fact that party organisers were elevated to the Senate ignores the fact that these same organisers are just as in touch with the people in their constituencies – possibly even more so than MPs, because they tend to be at it for far longer. It also goes back to the same double-standard that they apply to the limiting of flights – that supposed partisan activity should be outlawed for appointed positions, but for elected ones, there apparently should be no prohibitions. Using your MP travel points to go support someone in a leadership contest or to help out in a by-election? Apparently fine if you’re an MP, but bad if you’re a Senator.

At the heart of all of this is the fact that the Senate really can take care of itself – upon the conclusion of due process. If Senators are found to have been using their resources for partisan purposes, there are rules in place to govern that. If they are convicted of a crime, they are out. Everything else is cheap politics.