When Parliament resumes next week, and the final push of legislation before the summer break starts, I can pretty much guarantee that there will be some gnashing and wailing of teeth in the Senate about the crush of bills headed their way, and the fact that there isn’t a plan to manage it. And from Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative,” Senator Peter Harder, we’ll get a reminder that he’s proposed a business committee to do said managing of the Order Paper. And lo, in Policy Options yesterday, we got an endorsement of the notion of a business committee from a former political science professor, Paul G. Thomas, which read a lot like it was could have been commissioned by Harder’s office.

To wit: One of the reasons why I object to the creation of a business committee is because it will create a powerful clique that will determine the legislative agenda of the chamber in a manner that has the very real possibility of trampling on the rights of individual senators in the name of expediency. Currently the rules allow for any senator to speak to any item on the Order Paper on any day – something Thomas notes has the potential to delay business, but under most circumstances, this can be managed through negotiation, and if abused, a vote can be used to clear that obstruction. But what Thomas’ glowing endorsement of the notion of a committee ignores is the fact that sometimes, it can take time for a senator who sees a problem with legislation to rally other senators to the cause. We have seen examples of that in the current parliament, with bills like S-3, which wound up getting majority support from senators to fix the flaws in the bill, or even with the amendments to the omnibus transportation bill last week, where Senator Griffin’s speech convinced enough senators that there was a real problem that the amendment was meant to correct. Having a business committee strictly lay out timelines will stifle the ability for the Senate to do its work when sometimes it needs time to do the work properly.

One of the reason why this kind of committee should be unnecessary is because the Senate has operated for 151 years on the basis of the caucuses negotiating the timelines they need at daily “scroll meetings,” but it requires actual negotiation for it to happen, and since Harder took on the role of Government Leader, he has eschewed his responsibilities to do so, believing that any horse-trading is partisan. Several of the new Independent senators follow a similar mindset, which is a problem. And while Thomas acts as Harder’s apologist in trying to downplay the criticism that a business committee will simply allow Harder to stage manage the legislative process – and it is a possibility that he could, but only in a situation where there are no party caucuses any longer, and that the Senate is 105 loose fish that he could co-opt as needed – my more immediate concern is that he would use the committee to avoid his actual responsibilities of negotiation and shepherding the government’s agenda, more so than he already has. We already don’t know what he’s doing with this $1.5 million budget and expansive staff, so if he is able to fob off even more responsibility onto this clique, what else does that leave him to do with his budget and staff? It’s a question we still don’t have any answers to, and yet another reason why the creation of such a committee is likely to lead to more problems than it does solutions that aren’t actually necessary if he did his job.

Good reads:

• Justin Trudeau went to MIT as part of his US visit yesterday and talked innovation.
• Trudeau has also been more strategic in his communications approach around NAFTA talks, while a rift opens in the US over getting a quick resolution or not.
• With the G7 meeting fast approaching, there are questions as to whether the agenda has been entirely tossed into the air thanks to Trump.
• While Toronto opens “emergency” reception spaces to deal with incoming asylum claimants, Ahmed Hussen says Nigeria will cooperate in removing failed claimants.
• Hussen also says Nigeria is helping to dispel the myths that illegally crossing the border is a “free ticket” to Canada, and suspects false “consultants” spread them.
• The Ethics Commissioner has decided to look into the Arctic surf clam bid after all.
• That former ISIS fighter took a polygraph to prove that he didn’t actually kill anyone, and it came back…inconclusive. So expect more questions on Tuesday!
• Apparently there are now functional call centres for civil servants to call about Phoenix pay system problems, two years later.
• The government hasn’t yet revealed what its benchmarks for “success” will be with the Mali peacekeeping deployment.
• A group of environmentalists is taking the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to court because he won’t investigate Canadian embassy staff in Mexico.
• BC says they’ll take Alberta to court if they try to proclaim Bill 12, which threatens to turn off the (federally regulated) oil taps to BC.
• Stephen Harper will be speaking at an event for PC MPP hopeful Michael Harris Jr.
• Emmett Macfarlane is none too impressed with the Supreme Court deciding to withhold their papers for fifty years after every decision.
• Chris Selley sees the disturbing plausibility in the alleged scheme around the stolen 407 ETR data – and the willingness for party members to shrug it off.
• Chantal Hébert notes the pact made to implement electoral reform in Quebec after the next election in that province.
• Colby Cosh gives his take on this weekend’s royal wedding, and Prince Harry’s status as the world’s most eligible bachelor since Edward VIII.

Odds and ends:

Here’s an American justifying constitutional monarchy and why it’s better than republics (but he doesn’t quite get the whole taxpayer/Crown Estates bit).

Programming note:Taking Monday off for Victoria Day and the Queen of Canada’s official birthday. See you Tuesday!

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.