Canadian Government and Weed Legalisation.
Apparently, today, a bill is going through the senate for a final reading. If the bill gets shut down here, it will postpone things for quite a while. In the midst of it all, I read that the PM has made an announcement to the senate to consider their votes carefully, as this move is related to core campaign promise of the Trudeau government.
Before I dive in, I'll admit, I don't know on what grounds the senate might decide to defeat this bill. It may very well be that there are valid grounds upon which to do so.
That being said, broadly speaking, I have to agree with the PM. And it makes me wonder why Senators, who are unelected officials are allowed to be affiliated directly with a particular political party. The key problem here revolves around them not being elected.
They are not supposed to be in the Senate to enforce a particular parties stance on an issue or pose as shift in political power in a partisan fashion. The senate exists to serve as the voice of reason for the people.
This IS NOT like the US where there are multiple ELECTED levels of governance.
I didn't vote for a particular senator. I had no say in the matter, regardless of their affiliation or lack thereof.
As a natural extension of that fact, a party which doesn't control the house of commons should not be able to leverage party affiliation of senators to overthrow the bills passed by elected officials for partisan reasons.
So, while there are legitimate reasons why the senate might defeat this bill, what troubles me is that this was indeed a very vocal pillar of the Liberal party platform during their campaign. The senate should not be interfering in ANY bill for partisan reasons. But, unless there is a very real problem, it seems very unethical to leverage the power of the senate to defeat a bill, based on a platform promise made by what went on to become a majority government and which has been approved by those actually elected to enact those promises.
This is all just my opinion. And my stance would be the same regardless of whether the bill in question was on a topic I agreed with or disagreed with and whether the ruling party was one I agreed with or not. For the moment, I accept that our government is allowed to work this way. And I'm interested to see what the outcome is. And, if the bill is defeated, what justification, if any, is provided. Whatever the rules are, someone will find a way to game them. I just wish it was a tad less obvious so I didn't need to feel infuriated by my own government.
A minority party should not be able to leverage unelected officials to overturn bills created and passed by elected officials by forcing those unelected member to vote along party lines.
If there was one primary reason I voted Liberal, it was because I agreed with Trudeau's stance that all senators should be independent and they should disclose all expenditures from public funds.
I don't really care if marijuana is legalized or not. I don't smoke it. But, I do tend to agree that it should be legalized and regulated. We've already seen from states where it has been legalized that it can generate a lot of revenue to offset spending elsewhere, while reducing costs associated with enforcement. And, as many have pointed out, the health detriment is generally considered less than tobacco and impairment is generally seen as less than that of alcohol. Both of which are legal and regulated. It seems like a fairly easy equation to deal with. Even if I disagree with the approach the government is planning.
At the end of the day, I would just love it if I could find a government which actually functioned as intended (and which isn't fascist or a tyranny).
Before I dive in, I'll admit, I don't know on what grounds the senate might decide to defeat this bill. It may very well be that there are valid grounds upon which to do so.
That being said, broadly speaking, I have to agree with the PM. And it makes me wonder why Senators, who are unelected officials are allowed to be affiliated directly with a particular political party. The key problem here revolves around them not being elected.
They are not supposed to be in the Senate to enforce a particular parties stance on an issue or pose as shift in political power in a partisan fashion. The senate exists to serve as the voice of reason for the people.
This IS NOT like the US where there are multiple ELECTED levels of governance.
I didn't vote for a particular senator. I had no say in the matter, regardless of their affiliation or lack thereof.
As a natural extension of that fact, a party which doesn't control the house of commons should not be able to leverage party affiliation of senators to overthrow the bills passed by elected officials for partisan reasons.
So, while there are legitimate reasons why the senate might defeat this bill, what troubles me is that this was indeed a very vocal pillar of the Liberal party platform during their campaign. The senate should not be interfering in ANY bill for partisan reasons. But, unless there is a very real problem, it seems very unethical to leverage the power of the senate to defeat a bill, based on a platform promise made by what went on to become a majority government and which has been approved by those actually elected to enact those promises.
This is all just my opinion. And my stance would be the same regardless of whether the bill in question was on a topic I agreed with or disagreed with and whether the ruling party was one I agreed with or not. For the moment, I accept that our government is allowed to work this way. And I'm interested to see what the outcome is. And, if the bill is defeated, what justification, if any, is provided. Whatever the rules are, someone will find a way to game them. I just wish it was a tad less obvious so I didn't need to feel infuriated by my own government.
A minority party should not be able to leverage unelected officials to overturn bills created and passed by elected officials by forcing those unelected member to vote along party lines.
If there was one primary reason I voted Liberal, it was because I agreed with Trudeau's stance that all senators should be independent and they should disclose all expenditures from public funds.
I don't really care if marijuana is legalized or not. I don't smoke it. But, I do tend to agree that it should be legalized and regulated. We've already seen from states where it has been legalized that it can generate a lot of revenue to offset spending elsewhere, while reducing costs associated with enforcement. And, as many have pointed out, the health detriment is generally considered less than tobacco and impairment is generally seen as less than that of alcohol. Both of which are legal and regulated. It seems like a fairly easy equation to deal with. Even if I disagree with the approach the government is planning.
At the end of the day, I would just love it if I could find a government which actually functioned as intended (and which isn't fascist or a tyranny).
Comments
Post a Comment