The debate about how the Senate should audit its members has been a live one since the height of the expenses scandal typified by the trial of Senator Mike Duffy.  In his report, the Auditor General was horrified by the notion that senators were judging senators and making up their own rules, and wanted to have a completely external audit committee that would oversee the expenses going forward.

As I've written about in this space several times, that kind of a suggestion should be a non-starter because Parliament is self-governing, and instituting an external body to do that kind of oversight is detrimental to that very notion.  That the Government Leader in the Senate err, "government representative," Senator Peter Harder, has signed onto this particular vision of accountability and tried to scour the length and breadth of other Westminster parliaments in order to prove his point ignoring the different constitutional or statutory frameworks and then going so far as to ensuring that his vision of an independent oversight body that wouldn't have binding authority, was a bit of a confused mess.  And that, unfortunately, is something that we've come to expect from Harder and his office, who still seem to be having a difficult time in grasping some of the finer intricacies of how the institution operates.

Where this debate has progressed is in at the Senate's internal economy committee, which is in the middle of changing up its leadership thanks to the recent round of committee shuffling that happened at the end of last week as the interim order to accommodate the new senators expired.  As part of this shake-up in order to rebalance committee representation and leadership to better represent the changed make-up of the Senate with so many independents now in the chamber, the Independent Senators Group (ISG) has been given control of the Senate's internal economy committee, with former Liberal Senator Larry Campbell now being given that chair.

As was reported in the Hill Times on Monday, the issue of the proposed Senate Committee on Audit and Oversight is one where the proposal going forward would have the five-member committee's membership be comprised entirely of senators, who would hire and direct an external auditor to review the expenses of senators and senate administration, with the reports being public and published.  The new committee would be separate from Internal Economy and report directly to the Chamber, while its membership would be barred from also sitting on the Internal Economy committee a laudable idea.

This goes entirely against the wishes of Auditor General Michael Ferguson and Senator Harder, and while much of what is proposed looks good on the surface, I nevertheless find myself a bit queasy by the fact that the proposed make-up of this committee is entirely internal to the Senate, without any outside membership.  The reason that's concerning is because it certainly makes it look like senators haven't entirely taken to heart the lessons of the expenses scandal, and that it looks a little too much like they are protecting their own interests.

It's why I think that the Senate has to rethink the proposed membership, and to go back to the idea floated by former ISG facilitator, Senator Elaine McCoy, back when the expenses scandal was raging.  McCoy looked to the House of Lords in the UK for their audit committee solution, which translated in to Canadian terms would see three senators on the five-member committee, while still retaining two external members to provide some of the oversight that the public demands.  McCoy's suggestion is that those external members include an auditor as well as a former judge who can help to adjudicate disputes that come up around expenses much like former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ian Binnie continues to do for the Senate post-Auditor General's report.

Having three members out of five be Senators would be important it keeps control of the committee within Parliament, and ensures that it respects the self-governing nature of the institution.  That self-governing ability is important because it ensures that the Senate retains the ability to discipline its own members part of the privileges that the chamber enjoys under the constitution, and ensures the separation of powers between Parliament and the courts.  This is one of the reasons why a totally independent audit committee would be a problem constitutionally, since it would blur that separation of powers, making Parliament's ability to be self-governing a problem going forward.  (This issue is going to be a very big sticking point in the Commons as the Federal Court challenge regarding the NDP satellite offices goes ahead, as the decision MPs made to have their Board of Internal Economy be a statutory rather than parliamentary body could have a very real impact on their ability to claim parliamentary privilege and to maintain the separation of powers as the Court feels that it can weigh in on the Board's decisions).

Conservative Senator David Wells, the former chair of Internal Economy, favoured the five-senator model of the committee's make-up, but given the changing membership of the committee, the debate over the audit committee's make-up will happen in earnest.  This make-up will certainly be an optics problem because there will always be suggestions that its reports won't be credible.  Having external members of the committee will help to mitigate that appearance, especially if they are credible individuals like an auditor and a former judge.

As the ISG now takes over the chair committee and a greater proportional say as to what goes on, it will be up to them to weigh in and decide how they want the audit committee's make-up to go ahead.  One hopes that they won't be swayed by Harder's plans, which will damage the Senate going ahead, while one suspects that they will reject the Conservatives' proposal by virtue of their genesis a pattern that is emerging in how the Senate is operating these days.  This decision could very well have lasting repercussions for the Senate and Parliament itself, so let's hope they make the right, balanced choice of a mixed three-senator, two-external member committee.

You would think that the number of pundits reaching for their fainting couches on Wednesday night, when news spread that Governor General Julie Payette made supposedly derisive comments about climate deniers and creationists in a speech to a group of scientists that evening, that we were on the verge of a constitutional crisis.  "How dare she comment on things that are under debate?" came the aggrieved cries, as pearls were clutched.

One of the most aggravating parts of this whole incident is the refrain from my learned fellow pundits is that the country's vice-regal is supposed to be a "figurehead" who shall refrain from any and all statements that could possibly be construed as controversial.  She should, apparently, be a mannequin, or at most, an animatronic puppet who can deliver pre-packaged sentiments about how great Canada is, and something about maple leaves and puppies.  Which is completely wrong.

But first, Payette's comments.  Part of the problem is that they were reported over Twitter and elsewhere in text form, without seeing the tone in which they were delivered.  The inferences of tone came from the Canadian Press reporter who relayed them, and who didn't give the full context of what it was that Payette was saying.  And as with anything, context is what matters.

Yes, Payette was somewhat incredulous that there are houses of government in learned societies where climate denial is being discussed, and creationism.  But what seems to have escaped most of her critics is that these kinds of discussions are not happening in Canada, and that this was more likely a reference to our neighbours to the south.  Here, all mainstream parties have accepted that climate change is man-made and the policy differences are in how to deal with this.  Payette did not comment on those policies.  Likewise, creationism is not a public policy debate in Canada there are no provinces for whom it is mandated in their curriculum, unlike again, in the United States.  These are not live public policy issues in Canada, and are not partisan issues for which she should steer clear.  Likewise, I'm not aware of any parties who have taken a position that Canadians should live according to their horoscopes, or that placebos combined with wishing and hoping are acceptable medical practices.  These are not policy debates, and it's galling that mainstream pundits in Canada seem to be implying that they are.

The other part that the commentariat missed, if they bothered to watch the whole clip, is that Payette was bringing up the problems where misinformation is amplified by social media in a way that is largely unprecedented, and that is why there needs to be vigilance by the crowd of scientists that she was addressing.

"Democracy and society have always gained from learned debate, whether it is political, scientific, or economical, but we have to remain vigilant, and we cannot let ourselves fall into complacency," said Payette.  "We must to be vocal, all the time, everywhere, every single one of us, so that we can deconstruct misinformation and don't end up in an echo chamber where we just end up listening to what we want to hear."

I'm not sure what part of this is objectionable.  I don't think she was actually mocking religion given that creationism is a belief held by a narrow slice of mainstream religions, and there are many including mainstream Catholics for whom evolution is accepted fact.  (Some people are also pointing out that she represents the Queen, who is the head of the Church of England, forgetting that Payette represents the Queen of Canada, who is not head of said Church.  That title belongs to the Queen of the UK, and yes, that distinction matters).  Meanwhile, we seem to be proving her point by taking part of what she said out of context and then rattling it around the echo chamber of punditry so that we can have a chance to tut-tut at her and let her know that she's wrong.

It should also be noted that Justin Trudeau didn't help the situation when he was asked about the comments and he said that he was proud that she stood up for science, but neither did the media in trying to torque her actual message into some kind of scandal.  The appearance that Trudeau and Payette are a tag team is none too savoury for our system of government, but as with so many things these days, perception is being built by those who are trying to create sensation for the sake of driving clicks, and that's having a detrimental effect on democracy because it's amplifying the same kind of selective misinformation that Payette was calling on her listeners to deconstruct.

As for the calls that Payette guard her tongue in order to preserve her role as figurehead, that needs to be smacked down because the GG, like the Queen, is not a "figurehead."  They still have actual political powers that can be used, and in the GG's case in particular in Canada, is called upon to decide who gets to form a government.  Just months ago, we saw how vital this vice-regal role was after the fairly inconclusive results of the BC election, where that province's lieutenant governor had to make a call in the face of the howls of partisans and two-bit pundits who shouted demands at her in the face of the advice that she was receiving from the incumbent premier.

We appoint our vice-regal representatives because we have to be confident in their judgment, and that they will exercise their powers in a constitutionally appropriate manner, while making it clear that yes, they do have discretionary powers.  Payette is clearly someone for whom we have appointed for her accomplishments, and because we believe that she will have the good judgment in using those discretionary powers.  If we wanted to appoint a mannequin to the role who would simply smile, nod, and sign bills on request, then we wouldn't bother with finding exemplary individuals for the role, but settle for media darlings instead.  That's not the case, and we should stop pretending otherwise.