Roundup: The lobbyist’s Senate speculation

Posted on by

Courtesy of the Hill Times comes a hot mess of an article that speculates that the new independent Senate is going to have a much more active policy role upfront in the future, which…I’m not so sure about. The thesis of this former MP-turned-lobbyist is that the Trudeau gang knows exactly what they got into with their Senate reform plan (err, I’m really, really dubious about that based on what I’ve seen to date), and the loss of top-down Senate management means that Senators need to be brought into the legislative process from the conceptual stage rather than in their current role as revising and amending. Okay, so while his point that no government can take the Senate for granted anymore is true to a certain extent, most governments have paid a price when they did and found that the Senate wasn’t willing to put up with it. And it’s this particular passage that really makes my skin crawl:

Mr. Jordan said that with new dynamics in the Red Chamber, Senators could prove to be a useful ally of opposition parties and lobbyists, especially in majority governments when governing parties can pass any legislation they wish in the House of Commons. So, if an opposition party or a lobby group wants to stop the government from doing anything, their best bet would be to reach out to Senators.

“You could now go to the Senate and rally support,” Mr. Jordan said. “Make your case.”

It feels a little too much like Jordan, a lobbyist himself, is licking his chops at the prospect. It also undermines the role of the Senate as a kind of constitutional safeguard, who has the power of unlimited veto and of institutional independence to say no to a prime minister with a majority when there is no other option to stop an unconstitutional bill, not to become a partisan competition with the Commons. In fact, the Supreme Court reference stated explicitly that it was not the role of the Senate to be that competitor, and yet this is what Jordan both envisions and says that Trudeau must have known when he started making his push for a more independent upper chamber. (Again, I have my doubts). Turning the Senate into the tool of the opposition and lobbyist allies is antithetical to its nature and its purpose, and for him to start putting this kind of nonsense out there is not helpful, whether as a point of speculation or as a meditation on where senate reform is headed. And if anything, it proves that Trudeau didn’t know what can of worms he opened when he kicked his senators out of caucus, but here we are.

Good reads:

  • The Electoral Reform committee heard from academics who are reform proponents, who all coincidentally don’t think that a referendum is necessary. (Liveblog here).
  • Hunter Tootoo says that he’s completed his alcohol addiction treatment, and is ready to return to work.
  • The Royal Canadian Navy is dealing with mould issues on its frigates, and there are concerns that it’s too broke to effectively solve the problem.
  • The opposition has managed an emergency committee hearing on the Phoenix pay debacle, but one wonders if that might wait until the problem is solved.
  • Ambassador Kevin Vickers manhandling that protester caused “days of paperwork” for the Irish foreign ministry. Okay then.
  • Marc Garneau said that the DOT-111 rail tanker cars will be retired ahead of schedule.
  • Jason Kenney said that it’s a “non-negotiable” that the next Conservative leader has to be bilingual (possibly trouble for Lisa Raitt, Kevin O’Leary and Deepak Obhrai).
  • Professor Paul Thomas says that there’s no need for compulsory voting.
  • Michael Petrou reminds the NDP of their roots when it comes to socialists fighting fascists as he encourages them to end their isolationist policies.

Odds and ends:

The Senate is going to start garnishing Mike Duffy’s salary, now that the deadline for him to voluntarily repay has passed.

Here’s an interview with Kim Campbell about Hillary Clinton and women in politics.

One thought on “Roundup: The lobbyist’s Senate speculation”

  1. I was disappointed by the academic witnesses.

    Many of their pronouncements seemed based on personal values rather than on academic research; they demonstrated, I thought, a shocking lack of respect for voters and voters’ decisions, particularly evident when they blamed the failure of provincial electoral reform initiatives on everything BUT the electorate’s considered decision; and finally, in their rejection of a referendum to settle what the rules of elections should be.

    If these guys are the elite thinkers on electoral reform, we are in greater trouble than I thought.

    The only moment I enjoyed when was Jason Kenney tangled, quite ferociously and successfully I thought, with Brian Tanguay.

Comments are closed.