|
Monday March 28, 2005 |
BACK |
NEXT
The Senate, a cheap photocopy of the House
by Angelo Persichilli
THE HILL TIMES
What’s the difference between people in Dante’s
Inferno, people who work out in a gym and Senators who work in the Upper
Chamber? Not much. They’re all doing useless, hard work.
The Canadian
Senate is filled with mostly distinguished individuals who work long hours
in tedious committees, they prepare in-depth reports that nobody uses, speak
for long hours in the Upper Chamber while one journalist dignifies them of
an audience, unless of course if it’s during the Throne Speech.
In the gym we see people sweating profusely lifting heavy weights only to
put them back in the same place. Ten times, twice; they run fast without
moving an inch, and go un and down the stairs without moving a floor.
Inferno, gym,
Canadian Senate: yep, they’re al the same, but with a significant
difference: Dante was sending people to his Inferno to be punished, Prime
Ministers send people to the Senate to be rewarded.
I have no doubt
that all the Senators have left a very successful private and professional
life; unfortunately the reason they are in the Senate has a lot to do with
their political affiliation and not much with their professional ability.
The original concept of the Canadian Senate has been hijacked by the
Canadian political system making this institution the most provocative and
expensive expression of the worst element of Canadian politics: patronage.
I believe that the
idea of balancing Canada’s regional power in Ottawa by using the Senate is
not a bad one; I also believe that by using the work of Parliamentarians not
concerned about re-election, would produce more in-depth and
thought-provoking reports on the most important national issues.
Unfortunately the
Senate is none of this.
Governments, all
of them, including the last one, are using those appointments only to reward
political friends and to protect their partisan leadership.
The Senate, in
terms of usefulness, has become an expensive, but cheap photocopy of the
House. The Senators work hard in many committees and special committees,
but their reports are brushed aside like a fly on a meal. Many are saying
that the Senate has failed at carrying its mandate. I don’t agree:
political organizations, through the government of the day, have ignored the
work produced by Senators first, have tempered them through the mechanism of
appointments, and lastly have castrated the mechanism by reducing financial
and human power support.
Take a look at the
numbers.
For many months,
the Senate had 58 Liberal Senators, 23 Conservatives, five Independents and
three Progressive Conservatives.
Up until last
week, that is. Considering that there are 15 committees and each one should
have seven members from the majority and five from the minority, it is clear
that there are not enough Senators to do their jobs properly. There are
Senators hopping from a committee to committee trying to be experts on
defence, health or whatever other committee there is on the daily list.
Secondly: why are
there no NDP Senators? It is because the government of the day appoints only
people of their own political organization. Take a look at the history of
the Senate.
The most prolific
Senate- summoner was former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien: with 75
appointments he is second only to former Liberal prime minister Wilfrid
Laurier who appointed 80 Senators. Laurier, however, did it in a span of 15
years, Mr. Chrétien in 10.
More revealing is
the numbers of Liberals appointed.
Jean Chrétien
appointed 72 Liberals out of 75, and three Independents.
Brian Mulroney
appointed in nine years 57 Senators, including 51 Conservatives, one Liberal
and one Independent. Joe Clark, in one year, appointed 11 Senators, all
Conservatives.
Pierre Trudeau was
the most “generous” with the opposition. In 11 years (1968-79), he
appointed 60 Senators (55 Liberals, six Conservatives, two Independents and
one Social Credit). He, however, “redeemed” himself with the
patronage-loving Liberals two years after: in four years (1980-1984) he
appointed 19 Liberal Senators and “mortgaged” three from his successor, John
Turner.
John Diefenbaker
in seven years appointed 36 Conservatives and one “Independent
Conservative,” while Lester Pearson in five years appointed 38 Liberals and
one “Independent Liberal,” of course.
As we can see, the
Senate is not even the photocopy of the House, but an extension of the
government of the day. It is not an institution to plan for the future, but
only an institution to pay, with public money, for the political debts of
the past.
From the time I’ve
started following Canadian politics it has always been like this, and it’s
going to be exactly the same with this government. |
