Over on the Government Representative Office website, Government Leader in the Senate – err, “government representative” Senator Peter Harder has been hosting suggestions from former senators of late on how to “reform” the Senate. Because of course he has. And not all of the suggestions are particularly helpful, or good for the Senate in the long run. The latest example is from Senator Pierre De Bané, who was a senator for thirty years and an MP before that. De Bané seems to think that what the Senate needs more than anything is the independent oversight body that the Auditor General wants instituted before voluntarily neutering its powers by passing a motion to only use a suspensive veto. Because hey, if it’s good enough for the UK…

I’ve written numerous times that the notion of an independent oversight body risks the senate’s status as a self-governing parliamentary body. I would be okay with an audit committee that includes outside members but is still made up with a majority of senators in order to ensure that it remains in Senate control because it’s important that our parliamentary bodies retain self-governing status. Otherwise we might as well turn power back over to the Queen, because we obviously have no business governing ourselves. I’m also forever baffled by the notion that we should neuter the Senate’s ability to exercise hard power and defeat a bad government bill when necessary. It’s part of their necessary duties to hold government to account, and before you say that it’s good enough for the House of Lords, the Canadian Senate is a vastly different body than the Lords, with a very different history, and the Senate was never the primary legislative body as the Lords was for centuries. These are differences that can’t be papered over.

De Bané’s other suggestion is that the Senate start creating a series of special committees tailored to senators’ special interests to…do advocacy work, apparently. I’m not opposed to senators undertaking an advocacy role on issues that are of particular interest to them, I am less keen on the proliferation of special committees because I worry that it will draw the focus away from the actual legislative responsibilities of senators – especially in an environment with independent senators who are beholden to nobody and who aren’t able to be corralled into getting work done. We’re already having problems getting bills passed in a timely manner because the leadership within the Senate refuses to do things like negotiate with one another – now imagine that these senators are otherwise engaged with busywork of their own interest rather than with the boring work of scrutinising legislation or holding government to account. I do fear that creating an environment where personalized committees can proliferate will have a detrimental effect on the Senate overall, and I’m a bit surprised that a former senator doesn’t see this possibility.

Good reads:

• The Canadian and US ambassadors are holding a series of town hall meetings to allay any fears about the New NAFTA.
• Here’s a look at the progression of the relationship between Chrystia Freeland and Robert Lighthizer over the course of negotiations.
• The government looks like they will relent on some amendments to the Access to Information reform bill in the Senate.
• The Liberals are looking to get social media companies to extend their election ad transparency requirements to Canada.
• Canadian law enforcement agencies seem to be in no hurry to shut down online marijuana companies operating illegally.
• The former ambassador to Saudi Arabia is going over what happened with the diplomatic spat with that country, and what he thinks needs to happen now.
• An expert panel thinks Canada should build closer trade ties with China using sectoral agreements that won’t trigger the new NAFTA agreement.
• The Supreme Court of Canada will rule on a case as to whether Section 35 duty to consult extends to before legislation is tabled or not.
• Perhaps not unexpectedly, the number of missing and murdered Indigenous women continues to climb.
• Here’s an interview with the Canadian former ISIS fighter now being held by Kurdish forces.
• Jean Chrétien is critical of the new judicial appointments process, citing that it waters down the accountability for poor candidates. He’s not wrong.
• Here’s a look at Jagmeet Singh’s efforts in campaigning for the by-election in Burnaby South (whenever it’s called).
• With the Commissioner of Elections getting new powers to compel testimony, Nathan Cullen wants the Robocalls investigation reopened.
• Maxime Bernier has officially filed his paperwork with Elections Canada to launch his “People’s Party of Canada.”
• Susan Delacourt wonders what it will take to “sell” voters on the issue of climate change.
• Andrew Coyne reads Stephen Harper’s book in which he attempts to put himself in the populist camp, but mostly sticks to banal bromides.

Odds and ends:

The Canadian Club of Toronto invited media to a talk by Stephen Harper then uninvited them. Because of course Harper wanted to avoid Canadian media.

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.