Raging on the Red Chamber

The Senate of Canada was created in 1867 following the confederation of our nation. It was meant to represent powerful people who compose our society, while the House of Commons was for the rest of us. It was intended to compare with the British House of Lords, and be appointed. The opinion of the day was that this house would not block or slow down bills passed by the Lower Chamber, it would simply give a "sober second thought" according to John A. Macdonald of the laws being proposed.

Under the British North America Act of 1867, the provinces currently in Canada were guaranteed a certain of number of seats regardless of their population. Ontario and Quebec had 24 each, while the Maritimes of the time then only consisting of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had 24 together as well. Since then, our nation has clearly grown from sea to sea (or some might argue from sea to sea to sea), and as a result there are now over a hundred seats in the chamber. Even from the get go, there were problems with this chamber, they were appointed by the Governor General upon the advice of the Prime Minister, and representation by population wasn't a vocabulary term anyone grasped yet.

Today, the Senate is composed of 51 Conservatives, 49 Liberals, 2 Progressive Conservatives, 2 independent members and an unaffiliated member. The Conservatives (at least before) stood for reforming the Senate into a triple-E system (equal, effective & elected), but as of now Mr. Harper is handing out seats to anyone who's currently unemployed. The Liberals are for the provinces electing Senators during their elections, while the NDP and the Bloc are for the abolition of the House.

I side with the NDP and the Bloc on this issue. We cannot continue this example of political patronage any longer; it is a waste of time, a waste of money, and a waste of energy. Together, the Senators take up $15 million per year, that's money that should be flowing through the pockets of our consumers to help stimulate the economy. They are great investigators I will give you that; but should an appointed individual really be telling the Prime Minister what he thinks the people want? Besides, in the few cases where they have blocked the House of Commons (such as the GST), all it took was a little provision to be found by the Prime Minister of the time, to solve it. There is no reason why the work the Senators currently do cannot be solely completed by the elected MPs.

Also, if Mr. Harper is reading this, I'm willing to sit in the Senate and take $130,000 per year just for arguing with the Liberals.

Abortion

It remains one of the most controversial issues of the 21st century, and yet nearly every country on the planet is deeply divided on this issue. With that note, I am going to inform you of my two cents on the issue. If you are a conservative reading this, I advise you to leave before your ears begin to bleed, and you start bashing me and my opinions.

I feel that should a woman decide she cannot properly care for her child whether it is due to financial, environmental, cultural, or social factors, she has the right to have an abortion. Clearly, a woman should attempt to avoid getting pregnant in the first, but putting the child up for adoption is always an option as well.

Regardless of the woman's decision, I am completely opposed to government intervention on the issue. The decision should be made solely between the mother and father. Laws established by governments that ban abortions entirely lead to an increase in illegal activity, and often increased support for abstinence education on sex (but that's a different issue). Anti-abortion laws are a sign of a totalitarian state attempting to control its citizens, and will encourage abortions to be held in dangerous ways which could lead to even larger problems.

If a leader is opposed to abortion, the best way to stop this is to solve the problem at its source. If we educate men and women about the consequences of their actions they are probably going to be less likely to jump in the bed so quickly. No one wants to have to suffer through an abortion, so let's put a cap on this issue and move on. Bringing religion to this debate is like lighting a match over a pool of gasoline. Politics divides people; religion divides us further; let's keep the two separate.

Abortion should and shall remain legal, but the option should only be made until all other alternatives have been thoroughly discussed between the parents.

The Collapse of the Greens

Since the 2000's the Greens (whether it's federal or provincial), have been gaining support, and could win a seat within the next year or two. As a New Democrat, I must combat this, the last thing we need is a three way vote split on the left (Liberals, New Democrats, and Greens), but luckily there are signs that Green Party on the provincial scale is either falling apart of losing support.

Ever since the 2001 election, where the NDP had an epic failure, the Greens got 12% of the vote, by 2005 they had dropped to 9%, which was expected. What wasn't expected however was that by the 2009 election, they would drop further to 8% due in part to the NDP's environmental policies. Maybe some people don't like Jane Sterk, I don't know but, but I do know that if this trend continue, the Greens in a few elections will be nothing more than a fringe party.

In Alberta, it's going a lot worse for them. After capturing about 5% in the latest provincial election (2008), the party failed to return mandatory financial returns, and as a result was dissolved. Thus, the Green Party of Alberta doesn't exist anymore. Since they are barred from running in the 2012 provincial election (they could run in the 2016 election), there are going to be numerous independent candidates. But, since independents have trouble associating themselves with regular voters (and getting donations for that fact), I don't expect many of them to do any better than they did in the 2008 election. The same thing occurred to the Newfoundland wing back in 2000, known as the Terra Novas.

Saskatchewan is more of the rebellious party of all the provincial wings, and as a result has been doing poorly in the provincial elections (2%). If they were to run candidates in all ridings they could get 5%. Manitoba and Quebec's wings are up to 2% as well, but the Quebec wing was dissolved before (2001), I would love it if they were dissolved again. Over in Atlantic Canada, the New Brunswick Greens have just been formed and they like the two parties before this will probably get 2%, and no seats. Ontario is one of the strongest areas provincially for Green support with 8% in the polls. If anyone is going to be any seats in a Legislative Assembly, it's going to be Ontario. Don't expect it in the next election, but perhaps in the 2015 election. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have the potential for their Green parties to get more than 2%, but they are both not in a position to be pulling the strings (the Nova Scotia wing only went up .01% in the latest election).

Beyond all of this negative news though from the provincial wings, the federal party could win their first seat in the next election with their leader running in Saanich - Gulf Islands against Conservative Minister, Gary Lunn. Then again, they thought they could do that against Peter MacKay back in 2008, I guess we'll have to wait to find out.