Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

If you think it's bad now…

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, February 2, 2011 1:07pm - 52 Comments

A Conservative senator defends the Senate’s decision to allow senators to continue sending partisan attacks through the mail, just so long as they don’t attack other senators.

David Tkachuk, chair of the committee on internal economy, budgets and administration, said he sees nothing wrong with partisan newsletters but his committee will revisit the issue later this month or next. “My newsletters in the 90s that I used to put out were way more partisan than anything that has been out there,” the Tory senator said Tuesday, after receiving more than 100 e-mails.

In other news, public support for abolishing the Senate has grown over the last four years.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    I've said for years that we should either leave the Senate alone, or abolish it altogether….but we shouldn't ever tinker around with it.

    See what tinkering has now wrought? More partisan rhetoric, more cheesy flyers!

    Abolish the sucker.

    • Mandatory Jedi

      I'll be…I completely agree!

      Abolishment!

      • Emily

        LOL it was bound to happen sometime!

        • Mandatory Jedi

          What's next? Dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

  • DBM

    The problem is that guys like David Tkatchuk who were on the fringes of the PC party in the 90s form the core of the current Conservative party.

    I imagine Heath MacQuarrie is rolling in his grave at the words 'David Tkatchuk, chair of the committee on internal economy'.

    • DBM

      Just realized I misspelled the good Senator's name. Sorry, Senator Tkachuk.

  • tobyornotoby

    It used to be worse way back when is just a variation on the "other guys used to do it too." It was always wrong and truly honourable members would get that.

    Anyone who doesn't understand that it's an abuse of public trust to slag other politicians on the taxpayer's dime doesn't have the capacity to represent Canadians on a reality show let alone in Parliament.

    • Crit_Reasoning

      Anyone who doesn't understand that it's an abuse of public trust to slag other politicians on the taxpayer's dime

      Canadian political parties are funded on the taxpayer's dime. Political campaigns are financed on the taxpayer's dime. Whenever politicians slag other politicians in TV ads, websites, campaign literature, mailouts, etc. it's usually on the public dime.

      If you really want to stop politicians from slagging each other on the public dime, the best way is to eliminate taxpayer subsidies for political parties, including the per-vote subsidy and the political donation tax credit.

      • Mike T.

        Not so. They'd just use their private money for teh same purpose. For better or worse, the if you really want to stop it, you have to ban it. (Which comes with its own share of difficulties).

        • Crit_Reasoning

          You can't ban political speech in a democracy. It's absurd to suggest that politicians should be prohibited from "slagging each other". If we want to cut down on cynical, adversarial politics, the best we can do is to stop paying for it.

          • Mike T.

            It would definitely be a daunting task to create measures that would ensure a higher level of political discourse, it may be next to impossible.

            The failure is equating slagging with public funding (which isn't exactly the original posts point or quite where you went with it, but it was close). POlitical parties will use whatever money for whatever they deem the most effective. If negative ads are considered effective, money will be spent on them whatever the source. If they are deemed to be more effective than other forms of communication, they will be less likely to be "cut", and reducing public subsidy will mean a proportional INCREASE in negative ads. If a party feels the best way to survive, political and financially, is to raise fears amongst and extremist base at the expense of reasoned discussion, you can bet you'll see that too.

            It's one thing to discuss the use of a certain expense like a mailing subsidy. But extrapolating that to public money = negatvie ads doesn't really follow.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            It's one thing to discuss the use of a certain expense like a mailing subsidy. But extrapolating that to public money = negatvie ads doesn't really follow.

            There was no extrapolation. Read the thread again and you'll notice that I was responding to Tobyornotoby's point that it's an "abuse of public trust to slag other politicians on the taxpayer's dime."

            Also, the Senator mailouts that we're discussing aren't really "slagging other politicians". They're critical of other parties' positions, but they're not personal attack ads. Nobody has produced an example of personal attacks being mailed from a Senator's office. If you read the debate transcript, you'll see that Senator Munson's complaint was about "Conservative senators who have attached petitions to their newsletters advocating various positions".

          • tobyornotoby

            Pretty easy to stop funding attack letters from Senators.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Not really. It would require a change to the Rules of the Senate to remove Senators' privileges to communicate with the public.

          • tobyornotoby

            The money not the privilege.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            The money is the privilege. Senators get free postage, with some restrictions. That privilege would have to be removed in order to stop mailouts that are deemed to be partisan.

          • Mike T.

            Fortunatley no one is talking about removing the Senators privilege to communicate with the public.

            The specific matter in question could be accomplished with less difficulty than it was accomplished as regards the House.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Senators can communicate with whoever they like, just like anyone else.

            The "privilege to communicate with the public" is the privilege to send ordinary mail to Canadians with free postage. Senators have always had this privilege.

          • Dave

            It's not hard to change such a rule.

  • Jenn_

    I disagree with Emily.

    What I would like to know is how a person gets such an (I'm sorry I've tried to come up with another word but it's all I can think of) entitlement mindset that he could come out on the record with using actual words to actually support spending tax dollars on such a complete waste. I don't care what party you're in or how many years you've been a Senator (and I support the Senate's existence) but there are so many other things to spend our money on–including a massive deficit! This takes gall to an absurd level.

    These people do understand that billions of dollars are made up of millions of dollars, which are made up of hundreds of thousands of dollars, etc. right?

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Here's a link to the Senate debate: http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/chambus/senate…

  • Emily

    Government's new 'economic action plan' ads dovetail with partisan Tory campaign
    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingn…

    Everything is being tossed into the mix….and all on the taxpayer's dime

    • Dave

      Those "government" ads are fun! Everytime you see a blue object, you take a drink!

  • Mike T.

    Having exhausted examples of "The Liberals did it too!" the CPC must now resort to "We did it worse before!"

    • Thwim

      Oddly.. I don't mind that metric nearly as much. If it's true, it indicates progress at least.

    • tobyornotoby

      You have to admit it's believable at least.

  • Leo

    You go girl!!!

    Senator LeBreton: Honourable senators, I believe Senator De Bané incorrectly described the mailing as a brochure. Senators on both sides of this house have strong views on many issues, whether it is health care, education, the environment, law and order issues or justice matters. I believe, honourable senators, provided it follows the Rules of the Senate, far be it from me or any senator on either side to restrict the rights of that senator.

    As I have indicated before, senators on the other side have done likewise on matters about which they feel particularly concerned. Of course, it was okay to do that then, but now that there has been a news story in that newspaper of such non-partisan views, the Toronto Star, all of a sudden it becomes a big issue.

    • tobyornotoby

      Except that it was an issue in QMI

      • Leo

        Her point was made earlier in the debate……something about throwing stones…..

  • Richard_S_Argent

    Ban both political advertising and political donations. I guarantee our discourse won't suffer one little bit. :)

    • Mike T.

      With no donations, though, only wealthy hobbyists could take part in the business of operating a political party.

      Otherwise your idea has merit!

      • Richard_S_Argent

        What if we raise the subsidy to $2.50/vote and cap donations at…say…$1m (so lesser parties like the Greens can at least have a fighting chance)?

        Basically I'm beginning to feel like I do when babysitting my nephews – if you can't play nicely with your toys then I'll take them away :)

        • Mike T.

          That sounds quite reasonable.

          Although without measures in place to ensure that no advertising can take place (including defining advertising), it's possible we'd just see $1M (+subsidy) of attack ads.

          • Richard_S_Argent

            Oh it'll take some doing, but trust me…it'll be worth it. :)

          • Mike T.

            Oh, and you hate the troops.

  • Stewart_Smith

    Perhaps a small tweak that could be made in short order would be to cease to require that Senators be described as honourable.

    It it is intended to be sincere, it simply seems like false advertising to me, if it is an attempt at humor then I suspect we could come up with something better.

  • Out There

    If things seem bad now, wait to see what happens if Conservative partisans gain control of the Senate and a party other than the Conservatives gains control of the House. There's a distinct possibility that the Senate might then start delaying or vetoing all legislation sent to it by the House, purely out of partisan spite.

    And then, of course, suggest a Conservative government as a solution to the deadlock.

    • Mike T.

      Two months ago I would have said this was unthinkable. That was before Harper took the unprecedented step of actually using the senate to kill a bill.

      You just can't tell what vindictive or absurd thing the Harper government will do next, or the means they'll use to do it. I've said it before, but they're like young boys throwing rocks at cars for fun.

      • TimesArrow

        Young boys are at least under the delusion that it is just for fun. They're more like old guys throwing rocks at cars because at last they can, and just about nobody can stop them.

    • Blue

      I honestly thought OT was being sarcastic when he was talking about the opposition Party having partisan control of the Senate and it`s committees, and how disastrous that would be to the government in Parliament———–kinda like 2006 when the minority Conservatives faced a Senate where the Liberals had stacked it with 66 Liberals to 25 Conservatives.

      Then, I noticed OT had a couple replies confirming his theory, so maybe he was being serious.

  • Emily

    LOL good gawd no…no recalls anywhere.

    • Thwim

      Oh? Why not?

      • Emily

        That's what elections are for.

        Senators retire or die off, and aren't much use otherwise anyway.

        • Thwim

          So basically because you have no idea of what the senate does. Hm. I was hoping for something better than that. Ah well.

          • Emily

            Don't be patronizing dude….I know exactly what the Senate does, and it's no longer necessary.

            Stop trying to play with the knobs allatime, and just get rid of it.

          • Thwim

            That you say it's no longer necessary shows very much that you have no clue what they do.

  • MostlyCivil

    “It must be an independent House, having a free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch, and preventing any hasty or ill considered legislation which may come from that body, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.”
    The Right Honourable Sir John A. Macdonald, Parliamentary Debates on Confederation of British North American Provinces, Quebec 1867.

    • Thwim

      And while I think we have the first part in the senate, it seems the second part remains lacking. This is the reason I suggest the ability for citizen recall.

    • Emily

      Fine words around the mulberry bush, but the Senate was put there in imitation of the House of Lords in England, to ensure the riff-raff in the HOC didn't get out of hand. LOL

      'preventing any hasty or ill considered legislation'

      Since most of our MPs are now literate, and at least one of our senators isn't….it's no longer an acceptable expense. Mainly they redo committee work done at the Commons level. Duplication.

      The UK….under a Tory govt no less….is now eliminating the House of Lords.

      Labour had already tinkered it into a dog's breakfast anyway…..so let's just skip that step and move to abolish.

    • TimesArrow

      Our first PM votes no elected senate i fear. [ and second]

  • Merrill S

    Abolishing the Senate would require a constitutional amendment with all that entails. Back in the 60s the NDP, under David Lewis, tried to get Senators pay reduced to $1 a year. Too bad they never had a chance to try that.

  • Emily

    The constitution has been amended, they've just learned to do it a piece at a time and keep it restricted to that.

Previous

Next

From Macleans