I would love to see the senate abolished. However, despite the fact that the Bloc favor the senate’s abolition, Quebec is showing every sign that it is willing to use the issue to hold the rest of the country to ransom. I believe I speak for most “western” Canadians in saying that if Quebec thinks they can extract special concessions in return of abolishing an “ineffective” institution they are 1) sadly mistaken and 2) they can go fuck themselves. As for NDP's Musclair, if he wants to see the NDP loose every seat West of Winnipeg, save Vancouver East, he should keep on musing how Quebec should be guaranteed 25% of the seats in the House of Commons in return for abolishing the senate.
However that is not the worst of it. I am afraid with the help of a soulless Liberal party the Conservatives may succeed in reforming the senate. That would be the worst of all possible words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I would love to direct you to the Wiki article on bicameralism - countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral
Note that most countries in the world fit that bill : the US, France, Australia, Germany. Have a close look at the map.
Would you care to explain to your readers why you think that we should move away from bicameralism to a unitary state?
I would love to. First though I would love to point out that no Canadian province has a senate, they abolished them, and they function just fine thank you very much.
Before I begin, I should also point out one more thing. The name of Britain’s two houses, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, should tell you something about way we have a senate in the first place. The purpose of having a House of Lords was to check and balance out the will of common people. One of the main purposes of the Canadian senate and the US senate, which were both modeled after the British system, was to do the same.
The other purpose of the senate in both the US and Canada, of course, was to provide regional representation. Smaller states and Provinces wanted their interests protected before agreeing to form a Federation. For example, the Southern States wanted to make sure the Northern States, were most Americans lived, would not be able to abolish slavery. Yes the US senate has done a lot of good over the years.
Anyway, where was I again? US? France? Australia? Germany? Oh yes Canada. Some believe that the regions need more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. The problem is two fold. First such an argument rests on a false contrast; seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on a rep by pop basis, but in actuality that is not the case. For example, PEI has a population of 135,851 and has 4 MPs and people in the riding of Oak Ridges Markham has a population of 169, 642 obviously only has 1 MP. In other words, a vote in Oak Ridges Markham has less the 5th the value of a vote cast in Charlottetown. The second reason is that comparing province to province is a perverse misnomer. It is comparing apples to oranges. What one should be comparing is the political resources of people in any two ridings. When one does this it is abundantly clear that people in Canada’s urban centers in particular are getting the short end of the stick and that people living in the less populous regions of the country already have far more clout on a per person basis by virtue of the fact that the provincial and territorial jurisdictions in which they are a member or far less populous. Indeed, PEI and its population of 135,851 and 4 MPs, as a province, has revenue streams available to it that are simply not available to Oak Ridges Markham and its population of 169, 642 and 1 MP. Oak Ridges Markham does not get Federal transfer payments for one. Empowering X PEI senators to represent the interests of 135,851 people while only empowering the same number of Ontario Senators to represent the interests of 12.1 million Ontarians simply adds insult to injury. It is also grossly undemocratic.
Be careful what you wish for - with the nincompoopls we have in parliament today - you certainly need the sober second thought.
If a PM has a large majority, for example, and there is no senate to keep the cheques and balances we might as well have a dictatorship - there would be no difference.
I think before there are any changes there should be a program showing exactly what the senate does, the Constitutional issues about it, etc.
Most people in Canada don't even understand what the senate does and the indepth reports and knowledge they give us.
anon says:
''If a PM has a large majority, for example, and there is no senate to keep the cheques and balances we might as well have a dictatorship - there would be no difference.''
Funny how that is important now, with a Conservative government in power.
Liberals have had a majority in the House AND the Senate for years, and not a peep about 'dictatorship' .
The Senate CAN'T stop a majority Government. They can slow it down with muliple ammendments.
example: The Conservative GST the Liberals first wanted to kill, now want to raise, still passed thru the Senate.
IMO each province should have the same number of elected Senators, making sure that no one region has the final say in how the country is run.
The 'fear of a majority' isn't just a Liberal fear.
The Lib majority (House and Senate) pushed thru SSM, even tho the majority of Canadians wanted Civil Unions.
And now, from the opposition benches, Libs accuse Cons of wanting to do exactly what they did.
Ignore the majority and ram their ideology into law.
IMO, Canadians want a MINORITY government as a result of the 'example' of SSM instead of Civil Unions,
and what a majority in both levels can do.
I know those on the left won't agree, but pause and give it a thought.
I don't think Canadians will give the Liberals a majority until the Senate is reformed,
because only Liberals are in the position to abuse their majority status, and they did. And they will.
The Senate should be reformed and kept so as neither downtown Toronto nor rural Alberta decides legislation, in a majority government.
When talking dictatorship - you have to consider the person who is PM - we have a dictator already.
>>>> The Lib majority (House and Senate) pushed thru SSM, even tho the majority of Canadians wanted Civil Unions.
Christ Wilson. Chrétien promised to legalize SSM in June 2003. It was not until July 2005 that SSM bill was passed. In other words, they did “push” “ram” the SSM bill through parliament. Two, most polls showed that slim majority favored SSM. For example: the Feb 2004 Leger poll, the June 2006 Environics poll, October 2004 Ipsos-Reid, the Feb 2005 EKOS Marketing poll. Three, once the bill 38 was passed a solid majority of Canadians did not want to revisit the issue. Four, the Civil Unions are the privy of the provinces and hence most pollsters did bother asking. Five, the Supreme Court ruled that Quebec was right to declare civil unions unconstitutional. Their exact words were that the decision “flowed from the charter”.
Loraine
I should have mentioned this but forgot.
New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Iceland , Portugal and Croatia are unicameral.
"New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Iceland , Portugal and Croatia are unicameral."
Indeed they are, but are any of them federal states?
"...no Canadian province has a senate, they abolished them, and they function just fine thank you very much."
Again, what's the point? What historic or defined sub-regional interest would they possibly exist to protect?
Let's have more of this Mulcair character on TV. He's a gold mine for those of us hoping to see the NDP tank in the 307 ridings outside of Outremont.
Canada is federal state that is de facto unicameral. That is what is Reform party meant when they were calling for an "effective" second house.
Anyway, I reject out of hand the notion that provinces need "protection". The division of powers gives Canada's smaller provinces all the power and "protection" they should every need and then some. It is ridiculous how much power, say, the 135,000 people of PEI have. The Reform party treated provinces as if they were persons. When in reality provinces are no more nor less the the people that live there.
"Again, what's the point? What historic or defined sub-regional interest would they possibly exist to protect?"
There is certainly more point to having a provincial senate, given how powers are devided up in Canada than it does to a second house at a Federal level. That said, I am glad there are none.
Post a Comment