Quote:
Originally Posted by J epworth kendal
This is wrong. In Canada, when discussing how the upper and lower house was to be constructed in Canada, Edmund Burke was the only real person of power that argued for the creation of a landed and titled class for the colonies (British North America). Charles Fox convinced Britain that hereditary titles and aristocratic class was ubsurd in the equalitarian conditions that Canada was in, and the argument that it be filled like the House of Lords was completely rejected.
When Confederation talks occured, John A. Macdonald argued and was adopted that "the members of the upper house will be like those of the lower, men of the people and from the people."
The Upper house from day one was to be filled with Senators that did not and should not sit for class, estate, or corporate interests, to let them be free to speak on any issue that comes before Parliament, allowing them to be able to act collectively as a check to the lower house and Cabinet.
|
Why aren't there any garbagemen in the senate?
Landscapers?
Line cooks?
If the senate was 'for the people', why is being a landowner a requirement?