SUPPORT US

In The Media

The Senate was independent long before Trudeau's partisan changes came along

by David Tkachuk (feat. Andrew Griffith)

Toronto Sun
October 14, 2017

Prevailing opinion is that, through the “new” and “revolutionary” Senate appointment process, the Senate will finally be able to function “as it was intended."

There is nothing new about this type of appointment process. In 2012, for instance, then-prime minister Stephen Harper established an advisory committee for vice-regal appointments.

Nor is it revolutionary. It is just a formal way of doing what has always been done informally. Prime ministers have always consulted people about who they should appoint to the Senate. This prime minister decides who sits on his independent advisory board (therefore who he consults) and retains final say over whom to recommend for a Senate appointment.

We are told that by appointing only independent senators, the Liberals are removing partisanship from the Senate. But as Dr. Gary O’Brien, former clerk and deputy clerk of the Senate, pointed out when he testified before the Senate Modernization Committee:

“To be quite honest, in my experience in the 37 years I served, senators did vote freely. I recall very few occasions when there were guns to heads.”

There will always be pressure on senators to vote a certain way: from caucus colleagues; from the media; from lobbyists; or from constituents. Perhaps even a phone call or visit from the minister to one’s office or to the chamber before an important vote, as happened in the spring. There will always be pressure. The fact that, through their appointment, senators don’t have to bow to that pressure is the source of their independence.

The way people use the word “independence” today, as it applies to the Senate, is a misnomer. What we’re being told is that to exercise independence in the Senate you need to be independent of a Party. But that is not what the nation’s founders had in mind.

The definition of “independence,” as used by John A Macdonald and the founding fathers wasn’t about being free of party membership; independence came through your appointment. You were independent because you were appointed until you died. No one could fire you.

What was the point of this? As Gary O’Brien testified:

“It is very important to remember that bicameralism was never put forward as the theory of the best government… Rather, its original purpose was to try to prevent the worst government.”

The worst government was tyranny. They wanted to guard against tyranny of a single monarch or tyranny of the majority. That is what the Senate was designed as a check against. And it was that irrevocable appointment for life that allowed senators to do just that. The idea was to protect the rights of minorities.

Who were those minorities? Not who you think. As historian Janet Ajzenstat points out, when John A. Macdonald spoke about protecting minorities through the bicameral system he was referring to political minorities: the political opposition in the Senate, the commons and in the populace at large.

Thomas Ryan, who was a member of the Canadian Legislative Council, Victoria Division, and among the first senators appointed in 1867 said it best:

“If the constituents of both houses are merely the same,” Ryan argued, “you lose the power of the check, or at least you will not have it effectual because you will have the same sentiment and feeling represented in this house as in the other.”

Andrew Griffith, writing in Policy Options magazine in February, pointed out that the group of non-affiliated senators appointed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau includes more activists than in the past and largely on the left. In working with them for almost two years now, I can tell you, they are almost all of the left.

Under the guise of what I think is a wilful misinterpretation of the word “independence,” the Trudeau government is appointing senators not of its party, maybe, but most, if not all of them, are, as Ryan wrote, of the same sentiment and feeling as the Liberal majority in the House.

This appointment process is subterfuge, in my opinion, something that cannot be viewed separately from Mr. Trudeau’s efforts in the House, twice, to change the standing orders, to remove procedural tools from the opposition and a similar, self-admitted effort by government representative Sen. Peter Harder to eradicate the opposition in the Senate — the Conservative opposition, let’s be clear. This is exactly the situation the Senate was designed for. Like an insurance policy.

This new Senate appointment process — and new Senate — is partisan politics. It is the brainstorm of the Liberal Party of Canada, and was part of its platform in the 2015 election.

I opposed the Liberal platform in 2015 and I oppose it now. I know it is more fashionable among “correct-thinking” people, including many in the national media, to believe that a new and inevitable tide of “independence” is sweeping the Senate. They better hope not.


Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTERS
 
UPCOMING EVENTS


No events are scheduled at this time.


SEARCH
EXPERTS IN THE MEDIA

Passport? What passport?

by Martin C. Barr (feat. Andrew Griffith), Laval News, June 29, 2022

Oil production test looms for OPEC heavyweights Saudi Arabia, UAE

by Editorial Staff (feat. Ellen Wald), S&P Global, June 29, 2022

Eric Nuttall & Amrita Sen - Oil & Energy Update

by Eric Nuttall (feat. Amrita Sen), Nine Point Partners, June 29, 2022

All talk, no traction

by Maura Forest and Andy Blatchford (feat. Robert Huebert), Politico, June 29, 2022

U.S. pushes for Russian oil price ceiling. Feasible?

by Matt Levin (feat. Ellen Wald), MARKETPLACE, June 28, 2022

Russia Ukraine Update

by Susan Bonner (feat. Andrew Rasiulis), CBC Radio One, June 28, 2022

Un sommet de l’OTAN pour tenir tête à la Russie

by Marie Vastel (feat. David Perry), Le Devoir, June 26, 2022

A geopolitical alternative system of co-operation for nations

by Staff Reporter (feat. Swaran Singh), The Zimbabwe Mail, June 26, 2022

Analyst says high oil prices spurs little drilling

by Lee Harding (feat. Kevin Birn), Western Standard, June 26, 2022

It’s time for Canada to get serious about defence

by John Ibbitson (feat. James Fergusson and Rob Huebert), The Globe and Mail, June 25, 2022

Trudeau meets with Rwandan president, expands diplomatic mission in Kigali

by CBC Newsroom Staff (feat. Colin Robertson), CBC Newroom, June 24, 2022

With New Threats Looming, Canada Commits Billions to Air Defense

by News Desk (feat. Andrea Charron), New Express News, June 24, 2022

Drop in oil prices is not a quick fix for global inflation

by Editorial Staff (feat. Amrita Sen), The National, June 24, 2022

Highs and Lows of the Spring Sitting

by Peter Van Dusen (feat. Andrew Griffith), Prime Time Politics, June 24, 2022

Oil Incurs Second Weekly Loss As Analysts Differ On Inflation, Demand

by Ship and Bunker News Team (feat. Amrita Sen), Ship And Bunker, June 24, 2022


LATEST TWEETS

HEAD OFFICE
Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Suite 1800, 150–9th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3H9

 

OTTAWA OFFICE
Canadian Global Affairs Institute
8 York Street, 2nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 5S6

 

Phone: (613) 288-2529
Email: [email protected]
Web: cgai.ca

 

Making sense of our complex world.
Déchiffrer la complexité de notre monde.

 

© 2002-2022 Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Charitable Registration No. 87982 7913 RR0001

 


Sign in with Facebook | Sign in with Twitter | Sign in with Email