|
What About The Senate? Johnny: Well that’s it for the interviews. I found them informative, I hope you did too. With the few minutes we have left, I would like to talk about a former, uniquely Canadian institution which none of our guests talked about but which I feel deserves some mention. The Senate of Canada was the upper house of the Parliament of Canada. At The Fracture, the senate had 105 members, all appointed, as was the tradition, by the Governor General on advice from the Prime Minister. Since all appointments were at the discretion of the Prime Minister, the Senate was sometimes labelled by the media as a "country club" for friends of the Prime Minister; a convenient source of political patronage; undemocratic; grossly unequal; and largely useless. The Senate was in a no-win situation. When it quickly approved government legislation the media accused it of being a “rubber stamp” for the government; when it challenged government legislation it was accused of being undemocratic, thwarting the will of Parliament. Though it had quite a bit to offer, the Canadian Senate was nevertheless, according to the media “one of the most unpopular political institutions in Canada.” The question of what to do about the Canadian Senate was, if you believed the media, a central pre-occupation of Canadians. As politicians of all stripes were flailing around, unable to come to an agreement on how to solve the problems facing the country the media reported that Canadians were convinced that a solution to their problem rested in an elected Senate. If bad politics were at the root of the country’s troubles, as most of our guests have claimed, why did the country see the creation of more politicians as the solution to its problems. On the eve of The Fracture the media was still airing and publishing stories and editorials about how an elected senate was the key to solving all the country’s problems. When politicians from all levels of government were bickering among themselves unable to co-operate on even the most insignificant initiative to save the country, the best solution that the country could come up with, according to the media, was to get more politicians involved. I agree, that the way Senators were selected left much to be desired, but some good men and women of integrity were appointed to the upper chamber. What if the selection process for the Senate had been improved to allow more people of experience and integrity, from all walks of life, to bring that experience and knowledge to help draft legislation without going through the sometime soul destroying process that is being elected to Parliament. I have read some of the Senate reports on problems facing the country. They are a tribute to clear, logical thinking. I even interviewed interpreters and translator who worked closely with the Senate and the House of Commons. Most of them had only admiration for the way the Senate conducted it business. They always seemed to be better prepared, they said; better informed and asked more pertinent questions of the witnesses appearing before them than their colleagues in the House of Commons. This should not come as a surprise. Senators tended to have a more varied experience; came from a more diverse section of the population and they generally had more time to get to know the legislation than the elected Members of Parliament who, by necessity and because of their role, had to look after their constituents. Also, since a Senate appointment could not be rescinded because you didn’t vote the way the government hoped, you could vote your conscience without fear of retribution, which was not usually the case for Members of the House of Commons. I am not suggesting here that Canadians should have allowed the Senate to usurp the role of Members of Parliament in dealing with the problems facing the country. The House of Commons had to be supreme, but institutions like the Canadian Senate did have a role to play and that role was not necessarily a political one. What if the Senate had been taken more seriously, given more clout? What if Canadians had ignored the media and the Prime Minister’s call for more politicians? What if changes had been made to ensure that only worthy individuals were appointed to the Upper Chamber. What if...? A lot of whatifs. The sad thing is Canadians didn’t even try. If they had maybe Canada today would still be making history, not be history. Thank you and good-night. END OF FIFTH INTERVIEW
|
