Read on Twitter
One of the people I thank in the acknowledgements of my new book on the Senate reference (coming this April! https://www.ubcpress.ca/constitutional-pariah) is @acoyne, who in past Twitter chats and with columns like today's challenges my own thinking on the Senate. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-senate-must-not-stand-in-the-way-of-legislation-even-if-in-the/?utm_medium=Referrer:+Social+Network+/+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links
Ultimately, I remain unpersuaded. Senators are but one unelected set of actors that have impact on legislation. Judges are another, but forget not the DoJ lawyers who assist in drafting, or political staff in the PMO who have enormous influence on govt agendas.
Andrew seems less offended at the idea that the Senate might propose changes so much as it has the power to 'threaten' to veto bills, even tho, as he acknowledges, it rarely has in the last 30 years. But what is the problem, precisely, with this particular safeguard?
One key issue, the gist of Andrew's conclusion, is 'just wait until they amend legislation in a way *you* disagree with' - to which I say: they do all the time. The question is whether the House agrees or, as it routinely does, rebuff said amendments.
Ah, Andrew says, but the mere fact that the House *does* sometimes accept amendments is the problem! Why? This deference, or the House "giving way" to the Senate in his words, seems to me not a problem but evidence that the amendments are acceptable - indeed, desirable - ...
from the very *democratic* perspective that concerns Andrew about the Senate's role in the first place! The House either accepts amendments out of an honest belief they improve a bill or because there's political pressure to do so. Either way, it seems like a democratic process.
I'd suggest this sort of safeguard role of the Senate might ultimately be far more valuable, far more democratic, far more 'dialogic' than the one that happens with the courts, who (usually) can only kill legislation outright.
The big question, in my view, is not whether unelected actors like judges, senators, or officers of Parliament enjoy policy influence, but whether they do so in the context of an overall system we can recognize as robustly democratic.
The biggest flaws in our system in that regard is not the influence of these unelected actors, generally, but issues of transparency, and hyper partisanship that results in concentration of power into party leaders and that fails to translate societal preferences into policy.
The irony there is that the newly 'renewed' Senate might be one of the only effective checks - along with the courts - on the brand of authoritarian, anti-transparent prime ministerial power we're always complaining about in this country.
And while the record is young, and much remains to be seen, I argue it's a check that very well could, more often than not, preserve rather than undermine democracy at the end of the day. Fin.
