Christmas is for giving, and not just to other Canadians

So apparently I am supposed to care that the Canadian government will not meet its election pledge of relocating 10,000 refugees to Canada by years end. Seeing as the United States is only looking to relocate 10,000 refugees to their country in the next few years, I feel fine if we don’t meet this arbitrary deadline.

And that is exactly what it is, arbitrary. An ambitious number put out by a party trying to demonstrate that it is possible to strive for more. That it is possible to do more for the disadvantaged and dispossessed of the world.

There are the disadvantaged and the dispossessed here at home, I am quite aware. I don’t think any Canadian paying attention to the refugee issue could have avoided those saying we should take care of our poor and homeless first. But this is a false premise.

It doesn’t have to be either or, we can do both. But like with anything in politics, it is a matter of priorities. But that is what some do, they present issues like these as if they are an either or. You either take care of the poor and homeless in our country, or you bring in refugees, take your pick. There are a lot of other sources of money in the federal budget to do both, if there was the political will.

We are all also citizens of this world. I don’t view the dispossessed and downtrodden of my country any differently than those around the world. We must be united in our resolve against war or poverty, no matter where it is. And we also must not let the spectre of nationalism rear its ugly head when it comes to such matters.

Ironically, most of the hand-wringing going on in the press and among naysayers features those who didn’t support the government’s initiative to begin with. So please, spare me the condemnation. What is important is that we are doing something.

What many neglect to mention is, for us to bring refugees, they first have to be willing to relocate to Canada. It is not an insult to Canadians that a Syrian refugee would choose to remain closer to home, in Europe. If I was in their position I would probably want to stay closer to home so I could return home more easily when the conflict is over.

Christmas is supposed to be a time of charity. Where we greet strangers with a smile and a “merry Christmas.” The very person who’s birth many are celebrating was a refugee himself. After being born Jesus had to flee Israel into Egypt to escape persecution.

So at a time of year that is about giving and not receiving, have a little heart for those around the world that are not having that merry a Christmas, no matter their religion.

Don’t be a scrooge, embrace the real meaning of Christmas, not just the materialistic one.

Senate Reform is More Realistic Than Abolition

The 2015 Canadian Federal election is fast approaching and there is a huge issue on the table that will change the very structure of our national politics.

This change involves a branch of government which many Canadians are not even aware of. Stephen Harper is once again on his crusade to do anything about the Senate. A crusade which he has long been on, which was a promise of his 2011 election campaign.

But there is one question that begs answering. Should Canada become a country with a unicameral legislature? Which is a fancy word for a form of government that only uses one legislative body to pass laws. Currently Canada has the House of Commons and the Senate, where bills must pass both houses before they become law.

To abolish the Senate, Harper would have to amend the Constitution of Canada. The Constitution Act of 1982 established the procedure for amending the constitution. For a change as drastic as abolishing the Senate, every provincial legislature in Canada would have to sign off on the idea.

So far we know that this is untenable for the Premier of Quebec Philippe Couillard, who has already expressed his opposition to the abolition of the senate. His position comes from the perspective that he does not want to see the influence of Quebec diminished in Canadian politics.

What also makes it a difficult task is trying to pass a law in through the Senate which will potentially make everyone who votes for it jobless. That seems to be a bit of a conflict of interest and will be difficult to maneuver unless Harper can exercise the power over his caucus which is usually seen.

But do we really want a unicameral legislature in Canada? 

This seems to only make it easier for a party that is in the majority to pursue their agenda unabated. I hear enough complaints about how a majority party in Canada seems to have almost complete control over government. Abolishing the Senate would only make that more so.

The Senate as it currently exists does pose issues for new incoming governments. When the Conservatives first came into power with Stephen Harper, they had a difficult time implementing their laws because of the Liberal majority in the Senate formed by the more-than-decade long Liberal government. This was also a major problem for Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives after decades of Liberal party rule.

I am personally more in favour of Senate reform than I am in getting rid of the Senate all together. I believe we should preserve our bicameral history of government. I would just like to see direct election of Senators. This position has also been tried by Stephen Harper with no success.

There really seems to be no clear answer to our Senate issue. It will probably continue to be a political football for years and years to come. Unless at some point the provinces can come to a concensus on what they would live to see done with the Senate, a concensus that agrees with the current federal government of course.

For now, just know that much of what the leaders say about the Senate is just posturing, with very little chance of becoming reality.