Roundup: Everyone’s an expert

Posted on by

More amendments to C-14 in the Senate, and the very real threat from senators that they would rather veto a bad law (such as the bill as originally drafted) than let it pass and have to head back to the courts, is prompting everyone to consider themselves an expert on the Senate and how to reform it. After days of clutched pearls by pundits and the odd bit of praise (such as Martin Patriquin’s grudging admission that the Senate is a necessary evil), we’re also starting to get some pretty bizarre pieces out there, like one from iPolitics, where they got a mining company CEO to weigh in on reforming the chamber.

No, seriously.

Apparently, according to this “expert,” Trudeau has gotten it all wrong by creating a situation with “no enforceable rule,” and apparently we’ve never had a situation in the past 149 years where bills bounced back-and-forth between the chambers. Err, except that there have never been real levers by which a Prime Minister could control the chamber, only sentiment on the part of senators in his or her caucus, and we’ve had plenty of situations where bills went back-and-forth, including to having conferences between chambers (a situation which is unwieldy in the current configuration of the Senate). And while Trudeau has made mistakes, he is not to blame for the Senate’s actual constitutional powers, which are currently being demonstrated.

But wait – there’s more!™

Our CEO “expert” says that the solution is not Triple E (thankfully), but rather to reduce senators’ term limits to 12 years, to give provinces a veto on their nominees to represent them, and to ensure that a nomination panel ensures that “a new Senate is younger, more representative and better qualified for the work by credentials and life experience.”

Term limits are a solution in search of a problem because they reduce institutional independence. The problem, identified in the Ontario factum to the Supreme Court reference, is that a senator nearing their term limit can start to curry favour with the government in hopes of a post-Senatorial appointment to a tribunal or diplomatic posting. By ensuring that their end date is age 75, it scuppers those plans and keeps Senators from sucking up. Provincial vetoes? Well, senators are not there to represent provincial governments. They are not even technically representing provinces, but rather regions, and their representation tends to be for minority communities, be they linguistic, ethnic or even religious, which was the express purpose for why the Senate was built in the way that it was. And demands for a younger Senate clash with the desire to get accomplished Canadians to serve in its ranks toward the end of their careers so that they can draw on their decades of experience, and if you look at some of the qualifications of our current senators, they are on the whole a very accomplished group indeed (some exceptions apply).

So rather than get some CEO to bloviate without any actual institutional knowledge or awareness, perhaps we should all brush up on our civic literacy and learn about the chamber as it currently exists before start weighing in on how to fix something that is not actually fundamentally broken.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau talks to Paul Wells about “big” infrastructure plans, and the Saudi arms deal, which he is uncomfortable with but breaking the contract is worse.
  • The Conservatives backed down and let Mauril Bélanger’s national anthem bill to go to a vote, which will be on Wednesday.
  • Here’s an interview with Senator Chantal Petitclerc about the assisted dying bill.
  • Members of the aerospace industry are balking at the possibility of a Super Horner procurement deal. Lockheed Martin is now outright threatening the government that Canadian firms will lose contracts if we don’t buy the F-35.
  • Here’s a look at the dozens of consultations the government is doing over the summer.
  • Unsealed court records show that the RCMP have been using cellphone interceptors with little regulation or oversight as part of investigations.
  • An internal RCMP report says they need to increase their international footprint or risk losing the war on terrorism.
  • Public service unions want an end to contracting out work, apparently oblivious to the fact that they’ve made it nigh impossible to hire staff on a permanent basis.
  • Maclean’s has a profile of Mélaine Joly and her political history.
  • The Canadian Press’ Baloney Meter™ tests the government’s assertion of a growing capability gap in the RCAF.
  • Tony Clement says that the Conservative Party needs a “new vision.” Still no word if he wants it to be his vision.
  • From Alberta, Danielle Smith writes about why she got frustrated with her own party and how those same voices are now trying to teach Brian Jean a lesson.
  • Susan Delacourt thinks the House of Commons has been the victim of neglect by the Prime Minister.
  • Andrew Coyne notes the increasingly obvious complexity of the electoral reform exercise and advises the government to forget the 2019 deadline to get it right.

Odds and ends:

I compiled this week’s The Gargoyle column once more.