About two years ago the U of M hiked their student fees because they desperately needed money to operate. Without a tuition freeze, the university could have without guilt added the extra fees to the tuition. The U of W also suffers massively. Without funds we have less professors who have the potential to REALLY open up our minds. Many profs who DESERVE tenure can take off to another province that might be able to offer it...the university sure can't. A large amount of our classes (at least in the Politics department) are taught by amazing professors who are just not getting what they deserve. Beyond that though, the students aren't either with the smaller than normal course selection. There just are not enough resources to offer what should be offered.
In my first year of university I became aware of how ingrained the culture of 'keeping the tuition freeze' really was. The UWSA even wanted us to wear little buttons saying we supported it. NOT ME. As a 17 year old first year student I could tell these people were crazy.
I began hearing word from my peers a while ago that the tuition freeze might thaw out but I was holing out for more concrete information. I'm happy the crazy people lost their battle, the future of academia won...and I can be sure that we are on our way to a proper post-secondary education system.
Gary Doer has DONE something that I support...finally. The tuition freeze will end in 2009 (which is fairly quick....I'm happy).
As for the election promises, I'm not entirely sure that a formal press release stating they are interested in doing something constitutes the only way to prove a politician promised something to the public. It may or may not have been a promise, and at this point I don't care, I didn't vote for him.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Warm Spring Weather Melts Manitoba's Freeze
Saturday, March 29, 2008
EARTH HOUR
Tonight is EARTH HOUR!!
I meant to write this a week ago (as usual)....but I have been swamped with other work......
in any case...that picture is of Earth Hour 2007...Australia is almost in entire darkness!.......
Hopefully this year Canada and the rest of the world will join them (8-9 pm YOUR local time)...it reduced energy consumptions in Australia considerably. :)
I'm excited to see the results of this years!
remember, TAKE PART! turn off (AND UNPLUG) everything!
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Something....on senate reform
this may be ridiculously long, and for that I apologize, I just wanted to share. I wrote this on what one of my term papers will be about in one of my seminars....it's rough but Enjoy
The reason I chose this topic was because I was slightly shocked at the remarks by Stephen Harper while he was in Australia late 2007 saying he would support the abolition of the Senate, if consensus on reform could not be reached. I was concerned that the reform he proposed was not even the most beneficial reform that could be undertaken. Because of this, I’ve chosen to answer that question in my paper.
The Senate is essential to the formal make-up of Canadian government. Our bicameral system provides both many advantages and disadvantages. It is because of this that the Canadian Senate has been an off and on issue within Canada since its conception. Senate reform has been put on the radar again by the current government. Albeit, not very high on the radar, it is undoubtedly still there. In 2006 when the government was elected it introduced two Senate reform bills. One of the bills (Bill S-4) proposed Senate term limits, while the other proposed Senate elections (C-20). Both of these bills were highly contentious, and as a result of the Senate’s distaste for them, were reintroduced (this time, both in the House of Commons) as bills c-19 and c-45 respectively.
With this paper I will investigate into whether the government is proposing optimal reforms for the Senate. I will explore the purpose of the Senate (why its role is important), and the past and current reform proposals as well (this will provide a basis for identifying the problems/shortcomings of the Senate, as understood by proponents of reform). From these, the ideas of academics will provide a basis for deciding which problems are indeed in need of attention, and which are not. Is the government advocating for the most beneficial type of Senate reform? My presentation and paper will answer this.
David Smith provided much insight in the article ‘improvement of the senate by non-constitutional means’ with regard to the importance of acknowledging the purpose of the Senate. Without putting the purpose and intent of the Senate first in proposing reform, he states that it is like putting the ‘horse before the cart’. This seems to be common sense, as understanding the purpose will only help to understand the problems and the reasons for it being the way it is. in addition, negative unintended consequences are easier to avoid if one takes into consideration the purpose.
The purpose of the Senate has evolved over time, and therefore there are two sets of purposes: the original, and the modern. [1]
The original purpose was two fold: first it was to represent what Sir John A. Macdonald called ‘sectional interests’. This is the reason the seats are distributed the way they are (with regard to sections, and in most cases not provinces). It was intended to be a representative body of regional interests. The second was the ‘sober second thought’ notion, to provide a sort of check and balance to the elected House of Commons. In a way then, it was thought that the Senate would provide a voice to the minority not elected in the lower house. This includes review of legislation. The senate was also given powers equal to those of the HOC (not with regard to money bills though) in order to provide a significant counterweight ability.
The modern understanding of the Senate has been influenced by the popular political culture. The Senate has lost much political authority, as its using its veto powers has become politically unacceptable. Most likely as a result of a growing concern of an unelected body using a veto on legislation passable by the elected officials of the lower house. It’s been argued that because of this Senators are ‘no longer prepared to use its power except on rare occasion’, and ‘ can no longer act as politically powerful representatives of regional interests’[2]. The role has now become one that is complementary to the House of Commons (as they have not even rejected a bill since 1961). It improves legislation, and delves into the policy questions the House of Commons is unable to look into, due to time constraints, etc.
Proposed reform should take into consideration these roles of the Senate because they show the Senate’s strengths and weaknesses. If one is to open up formal Constitutional reform (which here will refer to direct amendments to the constitution, rather than changing the rules of the constitution, changing parliamentary convention, or passing legislation with the support of both houses, which I will consider to be nonconstitutional reform) the entire structure can be changed. I will not be arguing for this though, as I think the intended roles of the Senate are beneficial to the Canadian Federation. I will be arguing to strengthen the roles that have been proven beneficial.
The obvious strength shown in the definition of the modern Senate is that it has the ability to provide substantive review of legislation and public policy. This strength should not be hindered by any sort of reform as that would be counter productive. A weakness in the modern understanding of the Senate is quite possibly the loss of legitimacy in the public eye. This again, should be strengthened, as it’s been argued in the 1984 joint committee on senate reform that this lack of legitimacy created the Senate’s lack of ability to exercise their powers.
So what does the Harper government see as imperative to the improvement of the Senate’s functions. I think it’s essential to discuss these senate reform proposals in some detail, as they are central to my discussion.
Essentially then, there are two main reform proposals that are tabled. Bill C-19: An Act to amend the constitution act, 1867 (Senate Tenure), and Bill C-20: Senate Appointment Consultations Act. Both bills were introduced for the first reading on November 13, 2007. The latter, bill C-20 on February 13, 2008 was voted in the House of Commons to be referred to committee before it reaches the second reading. Regardless, it’s important to discuss the two proposals, and assess whether or not they are apt to provide a significant and beneficial reform to the Canadian Senate, simply because they are being considered.
I will summarize both of them briefly. Bill C-19.
Under Section 23 of the Constitution Act 1867, Senators much bet the age of at least thirty, and under Section 29 (subsection 2), may hold their seat until the required retirement age of seventy five. It is then possible for a Senator to hold their seat for a total of forty five years. Section 29 (subsection 2) is to be amended so that “… a person summoned to the Senate shall hold a place in that House for one term of eight years.”[3]. With fixed non-renewable terms, the age limit on Senators of 75 doesn’t seem as applicable anymore, and that section, 29 (sub. 3) of the constitution act 1867 will be amended. It will still apply but only to the senators already serving. Subsequent appointments of Senators will allow them to serve beyond the age of 75 as long as they are serving for only 8 years.
The 2007 Throne Speech indicated that the government would introduce the idea of recommendations to the senate by the electorate. Bill C-20 is interesting in this regard. It is an act that essentially adds a democratic aspect to the appointment of Senators by consulting electors with respect to their preferences on who is to be appointed[4]. Citizens would vote for their preferred Senator in either provincial or federal elections. “Prospective nominees would register with the Chief Electoral Officer. They would need to submit nomination papers, including 100 signatures of electors resident in the province for which the person is submitting a nomination, a deposit of $1000, and the endorsement of their party, if they wish to participate as a party-endorsed nominee”[5]. Electing a senator would not necessarily secure a seat in the senate, it would though increase the chances, this is at least the objective.
These two bills deal with many issues facing the senate. Namely Senate appointment/elections, and Senate tenure. I’ve decided to focus on these two issues and investigate the pros/cons to both.
C-19 deals with the issue of legitimacy in the sense that senators are allowed to sit for up to 45 years after appointment as legislation is at present. The reason for these long appointment terms is undoubtedly the fact that the Senate is supposed to provide that aforementioned ‘sober second thought’, an aspect of which is an outlook with a more long term oriented eye, as the popularly elected House of commons cannot do this, due to being victims of sometimes very frequent elections, and therefore election platforms. It’d noted in my paper that this is an important role for the senate, but the maximum of 45 years is not needed to achieve this, Robert A. Mackay and David Smith both provide cases that propose the same argument. I do believe though that in line with this principle of long term perspective, the shorter terms should be renewable at least once (8-16 yrs), and not more than twice (24 yrs, which is still significantly shorter than the maximum at present), after a sort of evaluation. This evaluation would hopefully be done through an independent body taking into consideration things such as attendance, participation, and quality of work, which would need a stricter legal definition.
Eight years seems to be the best number of years as well. I will argue this for two reasons: first, if the tenure is shorter than this, we may run into a problem of a senate stacked with members of only one party. It is not often although, not unheard of either, that a given party governs for eight years consecutively. I also will argue for provisions to be put in the legislation, in case of this instance, where the Prime Minister must appoint members of the opposition in order to create balance. This said, if Bill C-19 and Bill C-20 are BOTH passed, it is likely that the consultation process will facilitate this problem, and a formal solution to that problem will not be needed. The second reason is that a high turnover rate keeps the minds in the senate fresh, and new, a new perspective is often a good thing. David Smith also says that it will “help to dispel the retirement-home myth, thus advancing public confidence in the chamber”[6], something I laid out earlier that needs attention. Also, historically, the length of a senator’s term is not much longer than twelve years, it will thus help with public perception, and will not disrupt the current flow of the senate, and its functioning.
Bill C-20 is fairly analogous to a mini-Canada Elections Act. It does indeed provide many amendments to the act, as well as the tax act, in order to create an electoral system for senators. This system is interested in the sense that it is in effect a direct means of election, although not appointment. It is intended to create a list of senators recommended to the Prime Minister. In addition, elections are not forced to take place, if a province does not want to do it, it doesn’t have to. These small differences from a complete direct election system possibly create profound differences in the outcome. This again is quite obviously going to strengthen the legitimacy of the senate to the public, because the Prime Minister appointed a senator they supported. In addition, many of the downfalls of a ‘direct election’ system that academics identify can be side-stepped, although there are still chances that it would not be. The responsibility to appoint senators is still in the hands of the Prime Minister, yet he is now provided with a list of recommended candidates. He/she is not obligated to appoint any, or all of these senators. This is definitely a virtue, as it increases legitimacy of the senate, but does not necessarily create a wholly elected senate. The Senators would be elected from provinces, not specific constituencies, and would therefore not be any more likely to feel as though they must represent a specific group of citizens than unelected senators, who were appointed by the Prime Minister most likely because they encompass a specific regional representation. I think that this point is furthered by the fact that the votes themselves did not appoint the senator, it was the recommendation by the people that brought the capabilities of the candidate to light.
What is liable to happen though is the creation of a precedent, or a constitutional convention, wherein the prime minister must appoint the recommended senators, over time. This would then transform the unique system into something of an informal direct election system for senators. I will argue against this type of system. It will, as Mackay (pg. 182) argues it jeopardizes the ability for the senate to carry out its foremost functions. If the senate becomes increasingly partisan due to the partisan nature of elections, reviewing public policy issues, and legislations is less likely to be through the vantage point of ‘sober second thought’, and more likely to be done through the partisan light. In Joyal’s Protecting Canadian Democracy book (pg. 98)[7], he gives a convincing case as to why direct elections do not serve to reinforce the important role of the senate. In addition to the party voting, he states that without changing the powers of the senate, ie: allowing them to keep the veto, and creating a direct election system, with strong partisan ties has the ability to put the government in a deadlock. This is simply not what the senate was created to do. Nor should it be doing this.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
PQ WANTS TO BE PART OF CANADA?????
Either that, or they're just trying to soften their image?
Does this make sense to you? I thought that was central to the identity and purpose of the party itself. please, please, inform me of my misunderstanding....if it in fact exists.
Now, the removal of the 'must hold a referendum as part of first mandate' thing does not necessarily mean that the opportunity for referendum will not still be there...it's just not a necessity.
This aside, it sort of puts a little bit of joy in my cold political heart. Quebec wants to be part of us. they want to be with us! ...REALLY! ...I think?
that's what I'd deduce from what their new plan seeks to achieve:
Instead, the party is proposing to undertake a series of "actions of national governance" after being elected. These would include a Quebec constitution, Quebec citizenship, strengthening the status of French and repatriating from Ottawa powers over language, culture, immigration, communications and employment insurance. ( National Post article)
They just want to have their own constitution, legal powers, be considered as LEGALLY different and uhm, therefore entitled to differential treatment? Does sarcasm translate?
I do though, find it very interesting that the PQ is taking a more 'conservative' stance on their objectives and mandate. I wonder to myself it it might be (at least in a very small part) due to the notion by Stephen Harper a year or so ago declaring them a nation within a united Canada. ♥
politics is so touching lately.
BY-ELECTION-YAWN
I'm pretty sure this will be a good distraction from my current personal misfortune.
By-Elections!
Some say the 3/4 result in favour of Mr. Dion's Liberals is a SURE SIGN that they are back....and evidently stacked with 'strong members'. Alright, I will NOT deny the strong member comment. A strong politician is a strong politician regardless of stripe.
In any case, this does mean that the Conservatives hold 127 seats, the Liberals hold 97. Neither party can win a majority in the next election (which sucks, because I really wanted to witness a majority Conservative government, in the near future.....)
Is this, as some may argue, an indication of Mr. Dion gaining popularity with his 'strong members'? Perhaps...but I would beg to differ. Toronto is not necessarily the most Conservative of cities. Would i consider it typical to elect a PC MP? Not in the least.
Montreal and Vancouver....well I wouldn't say they're overly predictable either way...but considering the candidates....could have been in this by-election.
The Conservative Party is still polling in relatively healthy numbers. I wouldn't put too much meaning overall on either the health of the Dion Liberals or the Harper Conservatives. I'd leave it as understanding the Candidates running were strong and the constituencies were leaning a certain way to begin with.
at least...in my humble opinion.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
I Love This Man
I came on here planning to write about something different, but got an urge to share my love for Ron Paul.
I'm not American, I love Canada, and Canadian politics. Writing about an American, or American politics (as you've seen on here) is rare. But, when there's someone so different, so conservative, and so much worth a mention I feel it's warranted to discuss...
He has not supported the mess of the Iraq war (which may, or may not have been a good idea at the beginning....), and believes in civil liberties. He's a fiscal conservative who believes in a balanced budget, smaller government and lower taxes. He's experienced, and knows how to use the internet and new technologies to campaign.
The people of the United States would be foolish not to have thrown their vote in for this man. He's everything a conservative should be! ...He's everything the country needs
So, I say.....first of all...VOTE...and second...VOTE FOR RON PAUL
Ron Paul's Website
Friday, January 4, 2008
An old issue?
Something that really got to me was the notions of Senate reform this winter. The media barely picked up on it, although there was mention of it. There was even mention of Harper while in Australia uttering the words ABOLITION (in the case of non consensus on reform)...
I've had many acquaintances and friends ask my opinion on senate reform, and the senate in general. So...here I go (feel free to intercept your comments, I really am posting this because I want to know about people's opinions on this issue as well)
I think the senate has (HAD?) a purpose, an intellectual purpose. There is no doubt in my mind that policy wonks, politically inclined, intellectual people have a place in Canadian politics and in at least one of the houses. It's not necessarily always the case but it can be the case that many elected officials simply do NOT have these characteristics. So then we're left with the senate, offering a thoughtful aspect to Canadian politics.
The problem here lies within the unelected characteristic. I do not see a reason for abolishing the second house because ABOVE ALL we need a thoughtful house. What we do not need is unelected officials voicing their partisan opinions and stalling bills....screwing with democracy!
Is a referendum the solution? Should we spend large amounts of money in order to take a glorified opinion poll? I don't think that could work...the majority of Canadians ( I realize many people will not agree with me here) DO NOT CARE, the majority like many who I've met have no idea why the senate exists or what it does. In addition, it's legally impermissible to reform the senate through referendum...... a plebiscite may be more feasible though(FYI- someone commented so... "Arguably, a plebiscite approves or legitimizes an actual government initiative, whereas a consultative referendum is purely advisory. In fact, given the moral and political weight of a referendum of any sort, plebiscites and consultative referendums tend to merge" (http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/bp271-e.htm#4.%20Plebiscitestxt).
Referendums held to consult
....then what?
WHAT SHOULD CANADA DO?????
