Ban Senators from Fundraising for Political Parties

[g_bambino]

The Senate is not used for that. Whats on paper and whats in practice are mutually exclusive. To suggest that the Senate represents regional interests is a Charade. The Senate Represents political party patronage. That is the reality. Its sad but true.

I'm sorry, but the Fathers of Confederation didn't sit about in the 1860s scheming on how to establish an institution that would be an infinite reward for patrons of their parties. Since they were forming a federation (well, a confederation), they needed a bicameral parliament to make laws for that new polity, which requires a solid, long-term membership upper chamber to balance the transient populism of the lower house. Yet, unlike the UK, Canada had no peerage from which to draw lords, and the fathers didn't want America's model, which they saw as one of the catalysts for the civil war that country had just gone through. So, in typical Canadian fashion, they settled on something in between: a senate filled with individuals appointed by the governor general to serve for life representing a region of the new federation.

The form of the Senate has been debated ever since; the way it was set up does lead directly to the assumption that every senator got their position because they were a friend of the prime minister at the time of their appointment. I'm not saying there can't be reforms, but to claim we could do better witout one of the checks in our constitutional system is patently false. There would be nothing but the governor general in the way of the passage of any law that was proposed and hastily approved, for whatever reason - stupidity, political opportunism - by the House of Commons. Under scrutiny in the Senate, bills have been shown to contain clauses that were badly written or dodgy; those would've become law, otherwise. (On that note, shouldn't the NDP be thanking the Senate for blocking legislation that would've restricted abortion?)

There never was an NDP Senator.

It seems that, technically, that's true. She still, though, considered herself to be NDP, until she joined the Liberals in 2009.

[+]

Edited January 27, 2011 by g_bambino

[DrGreenthumb]

Going down those lists of Senators, its a list of patronage appointments for Party Operatives and Bagman.

Call it a pot, call it whatever u like.

You like the concept of the Senate as drafted in the Original BNA. But it never panned out as penned.

The rest of the talk about the Senate is more what u would like it to be rather then what it really is.

The thread topic is about how the Senate is used as a tool for Political Parties and Not for the Country.

That is fact. And thus the kickoff of this discussion.

Yet the Senate Defenders like this Practice of Liberals and Conservatives appointing SEnators to then do fundraising for their Parties while being paid by the taxpayer as a Senator.

These parties milk the cow and the taxpayer pays and the parties benefit.

The defenders of this practice.

Are Liberals and Conservatives...

So I am not surprised at the responses.

The general public, would never miss the Senate. And I wouldn't miss Mike Duffy swinging into to town on the taxpayers dime to raise TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars for the Conservatives while billing us for his trip and meals, and party vacations.

Great post, my thoughts exactly.

[The_Squid]

Great post, my thoughts exactly.

Agreed... Mad Max's post summed things up nicely!

[madmax]

Sounds like a good start.

Senators should be impartial to influencing the lower chamber. Considering many are party hacks, bagman, cronies and other typical party backroom activists, of which many can't get elected are Gifted positions in the Senate for their partisan work. The favour should stop there.

Another old quote and thread I started a few years back...

Now it sure seems wise after the Senate Trio Fiasco!!!

This whole thread is worth a reread. and its pretty short too

Edited November 16, 2013 by madmax