LOVE THAT SENATE SCANDAL COMEDY

      THE MOST INTRIGUING, ENGAGING and entertaining political news story of this year will have to be labelled the Duffy-Wallin-et-al show. And, quite properly, it is getting plenty of coverage.

      I have to say, though, that I have a problem with the nature of that coverage: Most of what I've seen and heard on it is just too damn serious in tone. And through being so serious -- both the print and electronic versions -- something is being lost.

      "But," you may respond, "it is a very serious business. You know, the allegation of fiddling on expenses is not an admirable thing, especially when it comes to our tax dollars. The public is entitled to know about it, every bit of it."

       My view is that the public isn't getting quite every bit of it. There's still a Big Question involving the news reporting on the senators' difficulties. It piques my curiosity because I have yet to see this Big Question answered, or even raised, in any news coverage I've encountered. And so I figured: Well, guess I'd better ask the question myself -- along with any further questions that it might spawn.

       I'll get into the(those) question(s) in a moment. First let me say I don't plan to list the details of the scandal, because, in itself, that scandal is secondary to the point I'm making. Who did or didn't contribute politically to whom, and who did or did not okay it, seems to me a rather empty discussion. In fact, it might well be asked, "Don't they all do it, from the top on down?" Beats me. It seems that eventually it's the Mounties who'll be answering such questions in this case.


      I BELIEVE WE NEED TO DO a little reflecting on the matter. I will admit, personally, as a Canadian, that The Senate of Canada tries hard to be a place of great dignity.  I, in my past, have walked its well-carpeted halls and byways (usually just to get from one place to another through that massive Parliamentary building complex in Ottawa), and one impression that remains with me is the silence in those halls, most especially on the Senate side.

      I guess silence is a big part of dignity, especially in the "corridors of power," dignity and power being qualities too many senators believe they have. Inside the Senate chamber, of course, those senators do put forth some effort, droning on and on, for all of about three months a year, into their "work" obligations.

      Let us examine the word "senate." It comes from the Latin senatus, meaning highest council of the state in ancient Rome, or "council of elders." And from senis -- old man; see also: senile. Hmm. Could we be getting somewhere here? Average age of the Canadian Senate, by the way, is 64.53 years -- at least it was in February, 2013, date of the latest calculation. Well, 64.53 years old is a pretty young old these days, the way I look at it.


      THE CANADIAN SENATE has 105 seats, of which I believe half-a-dozen or so are at the moment vacant. The body was created more or less with Canada (you can look up all the precise historical details), and its purpose was, depending on whose history you read, to provide "sober second thought" to the doings of the elected House of Commons, our true house (most of the time) of democracy.

      It's true, however, that one point of view away back then was that one of the motives for having a senate, from the far right, was to keep Canada from becoming "too democratic." To which the peanut gallery no doubt will chorus, "Right up your alley, eh, Harper!?"

      During my five years in Ottawa I spent a great deal of time sitting in the Press Gallery, right there, inside the House of Commons, covering big news stories (in the Diefenbaker-and-then-Pearson days). We Gallery reporters all loved the Commons daily question period, as Gallery reporters do to this day. (By the way, the very lively, argumentative Commons question period, in which the government responds to daily questioning by the Opposition, does not involve an awful lot of dignity.)

      But I also did occasionally visit The Senate press gallery in the Senate Chamber, on the rare, the very rare, occasions when actual news was made there. So, I can justly say I'm more than slightly acquainted with "the workings of Parliament." (Although I cannot remember just what that news was which occasionally drew me to the Senate Press Gallery looking down from above the senators, lo, those many years ago.)


       FAST-FORWARD TO October,  2013, and we see that the Senate has taken a top spot in news-outlet budgets. The Senate is being recognized now more than ever as an institution for rewarding of political war horses in need of a richly fertilized grazing ground for their retirement.

      "Richly" is a word I use advisedly, because those senators do drink deeply at the public trough, receiving annual  income of $132,300 (Cdn.) plus fairly liberal expenses, as in Duffy-Wallin. I must also point out that senators receive excellent medical and dental coverage. That's right, and it explains why the common Canadian masses never see on TV any senator (or MP for that matter, since MPs get such coverage, too) without whiter-than-white, and very even, teeth. Would that all Canadians could have such dental coverage.

      All right: Now that we have set the stage, let's get to the nub of things; the following are my questions (and, trust me, Ms. Wallin and Mr. Duffy will not like them, nor will one Mr. Stephen Harper, except that Mr. Harper has even more incentive now to get rid of, or severely reform, the comedy known as The Canadian Senate).

          Ms. Wallin and Mr. Duffy were in the news reporting and commentary business for many years. So here's The Big Question, which I'm sure many members of the public would like, along with me, to have answered:


      WHAT SERVICES DID THEY provide in their news work that politically helped Mr. Harper and his Tories? I know of no such services, but I still think it's a question that ought to be asked -- and looked into and answered. People like Harper simply do not appoint anyone to rewarding "jobs" like the Senate for no bloody good reason.

     Most Canadians are aware that appointments to The Senate are usually highly political inspired; they are for political services that have been performed for one party or another (in this case, the Tories). The term "political payoff" has, I know, often been applied to Senate appointments (which are made solely by a prime minister). But I, of course, am too dignified in my commentaries to use such a vulgar term as "political payoff." (Oh, goodness, there I go -- I've just used it twice. Well. . . rhetorical license. . .?)

      Anyway, I ask such questions from my point of view as one who spent nearly all of his working life in news, and most of it reporting political news. I did my very best to operate as an objective reporter in my work -- just as reporters still are duty-bound to do. In pursuing that ethic, a reporter finds that a lot of material he writes does not meet with the approval of powerful political figures. Consequently, if a reporter does his or her work according to those ethical obligations that reporter if highly unlikely to be asked to receive any plum appointments, such as senator.

      Yes, I know: more than a few reporters have taken positions with political parties, often in public relations roles for cabinet ministers, for governments, and so on. I say that if they are happy with that, so be it.  No law against it. I also say, though, that when I hear of such appointments my face takes on what might be best described as a sardonic grin.


      NO DOUBT MS. WALLIN AND MR. DUFFY are not grinning that or any other way very much just now. But, and although I will watch for an answer to my Big Question somewhere in the progressing Wallin-Duffy-Senate comedy show, I can't resist the temptation to offer an opinion on where it will all end.

      I think the Senate will wind up being terribly, uhmm, conservative, and that its members will be concerned that new standards of conduct might come out of it if they are too stern with their so-called "offending members." In which case -- oops, they would themselves have to meet such new standards, possibly a tough challenge for some of them.

      Senators might also worry about the possibility of lawsuits from Duffy, and maybe Wallin,  too, which could lead to great expense. (And I'm thinking Duffy and Wallin might be able to make a good legal case, if Senate rules on such matters are as fuzzy as they seem to be.)

      On the other hand, perhaps Senate-and-related-powers-that-be are not much concerned with expenses; after all, the Senate of Canada, according to government records, costs Canadian taxpayers more than $64,000,000 per year. Including senators' expenses, naturally.
   
      Hell of an expensive comedy show, I'd say.