Senate Reform

So Harper has taken the first tenative steps towards reforming the senate. Not enough but a start. I could fill a book on why reform is morally necessary but instead I want to talk about why the Canadian government model is so susceptible to corruption.

Think Adscam could have happened anywhere in the world? That it is just a symptom of politics in general rather than specific to Canada? Well these things can happen anywhere but are they more prone to places like China, France, Russia and North Korea. Yes. Why? Because like Canada they all have massive unchecked governments. Let's examine the difference between a government model designed to check any one individual's power (American model) and the Canadian model, a system without checks on individual power

Presidential System Goals:

To provide as many checks on government initiatives as possible. It is a system designed to keep overzealous governments from infringing on the rights of its citizens or more specifically the rights of the individual citizen.

Parliamentary Goals:

To create a system in which the country’s own division is powerless to stagnate and stall the nation. The Parliamentary system de-emphasizes the importance of checks and instead is specifically designed to allow a party leader to be able to efficiently run a country.

The importance of a federalist ideology was seen as paramount in Canada, a country so divisively divided that separation or war always seemed imminent. It sought to avoid the potential dangers (civil war) that could evolve (as was witnessed down south) when a split country is allowed too many checks on the others power. Stagnation only increases frustration eventually causing war. This is interesting, although the United States created a freer society it did succumb to war because of the division created through those “rightful” choices. Canada an equally divided nation did not succumb to war, although it was through the art of compromise, appeasement and policies antagonistic to the virtue of choice. 200 years later, still with policies more sensitive to individualism and choice America is a Unified country, whereas Canada, successful at avoiding war, but still disunited, apathetic, subversive and unhappy as a population. (A country defined through the negative values of tolerance, pacifism and metaphysical equality)

Legislative:

House of Commons/ House of representatives: No free votes in the house of commons. The lack of free votes removes accountability from the elected representatives in the sense that “they were sympathetic to constituents, but had to tow the company line”. And who then is accountable? The unelected Prime Minister? The carrot of “senate appointment” ensures uniformity amongst house representatives. A majority in the House of Commons allows the ruling party to appoint the Prime Minister, which removes another check on the power of the house.* Parliamentary powers are destined to be ruled by outside influences (Maurice Strong + Power corp.) due to the inherent nature in which they operate. A local representative is voted into power while the party officials “vote” in their leader. The lack of free votes in the Parliament condemns the local representative to the party’s whims which are decided by the appointed leader (a leader not voted in by the population)

In a Presidential system Senators are elected independent of the congress and President, which provides a check against congress and even a secondary check on the President. Senators are elected in equal numbers per state (2), which acts as a regional check on population based initiatives (banning large trucks… a bill which would be much more detrimental to a rural population that to an urban population)

In Canada…Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister. An appointed Senator is not a check on the ruling party when the ruling party chooses which senators to appoint. As well there are zero regional check against population based policies (NEP). As the appointment of Senators is left up to the ruling party who have little interest representing views outside of the “inner circle”.

Executive-- President/ Prime MinisterAmericans elect their president independent of their Congressman and Senator, which allows them to have a local and national voice, and which also creates another check on congress and the Senate. Canadians have their Prime Minister appointed by the party which holds the most seats. Whoever the party brass wishes to have elected is always ran in a secure riding to prevent competition as the title of MP is the only requirement to office.

Judicial

Judges in the parliamentary system are appointed to the Supreme court by the Prime Minister without a legislative vote. The (Canadian) system allows judges the ability to make amendments to the constitution and thus change fundamental laws (these are usually “amended” to the benefit of the party that appointed them.

In the presidential system judges are appointed by the President, but must face question periods before a vote is held to decide to whether or not accept the judicial nomination. Once elected a judges role is to interpret the constitution not to amend it “for the better”.

The American Political model was specifically designed to prevent a government from increasing its arbitrary powers over the rights of its citizens, so that government could never become overzealous and over powerful. In contrast the Canadian model was to speed this coerciveness up. Hence the rampant social engineering, scandal, theft, appeasement, side deals and accountability associated with the Canadian way