From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Reform Party 
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:11:27 GMT

cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:

>In article <schuck.722548753@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The Reform Party, in seeking ways of "balancing" the Central Canada
>>>majority, is trying to sell reforms which are NOT democratic when
>>>considered at the Federal level, but which seem "pretty good" in that
>>>they would (at least in theory) give power to people that have been
>>>traditionally under-represented.
>>
>>>Unfortunately, the proposals are neither democratic nor "federal," EEE
>>>being a good case in point.
>>
>>A Triple E Senate is the very *essence* of federal democracy.
>>
>>In the US the Senate is equal [ actually more equal in some instances]
>>with the House of Representatives.
>>
>>In Australia, the Senate is equal with the House of Commons.

>What do the two examples of countries with Senates that you've
>mentioned have in common?  Hmmm...  They wouldn't have any British
>traditions in effect, would they?

The US is a Republic, with almost no British traditions left.
It was based more on the French system, than the British.

>The Senate is a vestige of the Parliamentary system invented by the
>Brits.  

Nonsense. A Senate is the 2nd chamber in a bicameral legislature and
has nothing to do explicitly with a British Parliamentry democracy.

The term Senate dates back to Roman times.

>>In a *federal* democracy, their are two *equal* houses, one based on
>>equality of the people, and one based on equality of the
>>Provinces/States.

>In a *Parliamentary* democracy, there are two houses that over the
>centuries have vied for ultimate authority.  The House of Commons won,
>as it is designed to represent the people, whereas the House of Lords
>is not.

You are out of touch with reality. In Britain the battle between the
House of Lords and the House of Commans was a battle between the
people and the aristocracy. The House of Lords had nothing to do with
federalism because Britain is not a federation. It is a unitary state
comprised of England and three conquered territories [although the
Scots, Welsh and Irish would not like to hear that]

The House of Lords had *nothing* to do with representing the regions
of the state.

Canada is *not* a unitary state. It is a parliamentry democracy
masquerading as a federation. However, the institution that
traditionally represents the regions in federal government has become
a national joke in Canada because it is not elected, it is not
effective and it is not elected.

A federation exist because of states/provinces coming together,
and giving up exclusive power over their regions to a federal
government. If that federal government does not have 2 houses, then it
is no longer a federal system.

>>When Central Canadians say the Triple E Senate is *not* democratic and
>>*not* federal, what they really mean is they are greedy assholes who
>>have no intention of ever giving any real power to the other provinces.

>As I said some time ago, I suggest that you read your dictionary
>again.  You won't find the word "Senate" ANYWHERE under the definition
>of the term "Federal."

>Federal = "System in which powers are shared between provincial
>governments and a central government."

A dictionary does not contain all the knowledge of politics.

A true federation has two houses [it doesn't matter whether one is
called the Senate]

>That is the distinguishing characteristic of a "federal" system.
>That's how you tell the difference between a system that is federal,
>and one which is NOT.

>Great Britain has an equivalent to the Senate, that they call the
>House of Lords.  It does not make them a federal system - they do NOT
>use a federal system.

The House of Lords is nothing like a Senate at all.

The longest functioning Federal Democracy is the US.
Their model is the true model for federal democracy.

>Check out the entry on federalism in Hurtig's Canadian Encyclopaedia.
>He's no "Eastern Jerk", yet I defy you to find reference to the
>purported "fact" that "True Federalism really means EEE."  

>Based on the history and the definition of federalism, EEE has NOTHING
>to do with federalism.  That's not just a "bigoted Easterner" stating
>a greedy opinion - that's a simple fact.

Its not "a simple fact".

You can not have a federal democracy without two houses, where one
house represents the region.

Canada has two Houses but is not democracy because one of those houses
is appointed for life like some 3rd world dictatorship.

>If you'd read the rest of the posting, you might have noticed that I
>said that the East DOES have a disproportionately high level of power
>over affairs outside the East, and that the West has a correspondingly
>LOW level of influence on affairs relating to them.  

>This fact is a problem.  Westerners are unhappy about it.  There's a
>lot of hatred towards the East because of it.  You wouldn't be calling
>me names if there wasn't some dislike involved.

>Unfortunately, EEE isn't the solution, because it's trying to change
>the Federal government in ways that are by nature antidemocratic.
>Since democracy is (at some level) the rule of the majority, changing
>the system so that the "majority don't rule" would be anti-democratic.
>The fact that it might seemingly fix some problems (while it probably
>creates new ones) doesn't change the fact that it's anti-democratic.

Are you crazy? The US is a democracy. Nobody whines that the US isn't
a democracy because Rhode Island has 2 Senators, the same as
California. For legislation to be passed in the US, both houses must
pass it.

Without equality of the provinces in a Triple E Senate Canada is not a
federal democracy.

The US and Australia are.

Name a federal democracy that doesn't have a Triple E Senate.

And don't say Canada, because we are not a real democracy.





-- 
......

Xref: sparky can.politics:9881 soc.culture.canada:8735