As if this wasn't bad enough, there was the issue of native concerns that ran literally right through the territories of both. It was easy to support the need for a powerful government to maintain peace and stability in such an explosive situation. Indeed, under section 91 of the Constitution Act of 1867, the federal government had the broad power to make laws for what it felt was the "peace, order, and good government,"" of Canada. The same fathers of confederation that came up with section 91 also created our famously irrelevant Senate, or the "chamber of sober thought,"" designed to counterbalance the effects of democracy in Canada (Simpson, 18). Whereas the American and Australian Senates hold real power that the leaders must compromise and cooperate with, the Canadian Senate serves as little more than an appointed rubber stamp for government policy. The only Senate left in the free world that resembles Canada's is Britain's House of Lords, which is itself under serious review. Indeed, it is so blatantly obvious that the Senate is nothing more than a partisan institution; Chrétien has not even bothered to make his appointments seem justifiable. He has repeatedly appointed seniors to the Chamber first, so that they will retire shortly, and then another partisan can enjoy the benefits of the position.
Democracies are based upon the premise of elected, responsible governments, and Canadians have always been strong advocates of such systems. However, there are some glaring hypocrisies with this premise. A parliamentary system (such as in Canada) is assumed to have a strong opposition that is capable of taking over government if given the chance in an election. It seems Canada's opposition parties haven't learned from history that the Liberals can only be ousted from power by coalitions promising the moderation and compromise that Canadians have always preferred.