Al, you know, if you set up your senate based on population you're making it a duplicate of the Commons. Of course it is redundant at that point. Duh.

Why would you want it to be not repressentative and beholden to the people?

Because preatorianism isn't only an affliction of the military. Sometimes you need someone beholden to no-one to come up with something bold. For insteance, a senator from Alberta who votes to diversify the Canadian economy even though it hurts his constituency back home in the midterm(10-25 years) or vote for Kyoto because it's the right thing to do(a real only Nixon can go to China moment).

Making them elected, and for short terms, precludes courage. It turns them into campainers instead of leaders. THe Commons should be the people's house, the house ruled by populism. The Senate shouldn't be a rubber stamp for said. It should be the one that attempts new and radical things and you can't get there by having them beholden to a constituency.

The collective can be amazingly brilliant, but also horrifyingly stupid. You want to moderate that. So you create something different. If the Commons becomes the mouthpeice of (X), you stick someone in the Senate to speak the other side, to give it its fair hearing. Otherwise, the whole adversarial aspect built into the system goes kaput.

YOu have to moderate the effects of pure populism. What works and is good for CA would ruin Vermont and Mass. Drive them straight into the ground. Who cares about the viability and sustainability of their economies. We want our fish and crab at low, low prices. We force them, thru the Congress, to cough up---they have the votes. You have to find some way of balancing power to protect the minority. You need some final check on the majority's wishes and power.

Maybe the US gov't isn't the best way. But it does those. There's bound to be ways of doing this without being a clone. But a Senate with real power, beholden to their own sense of honor alone, allowing the opposing view a fair hearing and a hand in composing policy, we have. Or I should say had. The US Senate no longer does those things.

The only reason I am posting here is because my realm on Warcraft is full (go look it up MMORPG you geezerish gaming luddites) and my wife is watching and reading at the same time, Brigette Jones 2 (ugh, slay me)...

I either fully support the aboltion of the senate completely or keeping it as it is, appointed as vacancies arise, by current govts. I have yet to see any horrid decisions by said body and therefore I think it is valid. Sure, parties such as the conservadroids in their short term at the helm get ancy at the idea of a delay in passage of their knee jerk "get it in and through quick like a sailor on a half day shore pass" legislation before the next election, but isn't that the point? Sober, patient second thought?

I am a Liberal with Marxist tendancies (makes it sound like a limp wrist what?) but I would rather put my national interests in the hands of long term, proven thinkers like conservative (true conservative) Hugh Seagal than a bunch of soon to be has beens such as Harper and Baird.

i worked there for six years for arguably the most powerful guy in the place and i remember that when i took the job, i thought, i wonder what i'm going to be doing? coming out of the place i was positively convinced of the merit and value of the institution. corporate memory is everything. being able to take on popular opinion, protect a minority, is huge. are there hacks in the senate? absolutely. but there are terribly smart guys there too (i want romeo dallaire giving us his opinion on what we should do in afghanistan - don't you?) and giving those guys the security and the platform to take a stand against something that is being pushed through because it's politically expedient, to bring that thing to wider attention is everything. i saw that done every week that we were in session.

popular will is everything in a democracy. i dont think the senate should be making laws. but to say that the senate does "essentially nothing" al is simply not true. i wouldn't be against some reform. but i'd certainly be against abolishing the institution and i certainly agree with ry that the adversarial aspect of the system is constantly overlooked in the emotional argument to abolish the senate when, in fact, it's essential to parliament as an institution.

So - at the risk of summarizing - that is one and a half for let 'er go, one and a half for keep it as a strong advisory body and one sorta recommending a move to something more powerful and less representative.

[Edit]

With all due respect to portland, Romeo Dallaire can give us his opinion on Afghanistan, but I would not be so ready to accept the advice of someone who is noteworthy for botching his UNAMIR command.

Yes, the UN is largely culpable because it refused to send him the reinforcements he requested. And yes, the civilian UNAMIR leadership (Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh) was working at cross-purposes and downplaying Dallaire's genocide sitreps. The question I often ask, and which is never answered satisfactorily, is why did Dallaire not show some personal initiative and request logistics and combat support from his own national command in Ottawa once it became clear that the UN would not act? Obviously such a move is stepping outside the lethargic official DPKO command structure, but when you are dealing with genocide, it's not a bad thing to bend the rules a little to force the genocide to stop.

The very first priority for officers is the accomplishment of the mission (second being, naturally, the welfare of his/her men). I have a very low opinion of officers that can't accomplish their mission and display little ingenuity and personal initiative in getting around obstacles to the commission of their duty.

I am checking with the guidelines as the above is a discourse on the merit of a particular Senator. If this, then, can be extrapolated to the Senate as a whole I think you may be non-tangential. Is it fair to say that Dellaire for you (though not for me, to be honest) is indicative? That the sober second thought is not to be trusted?<p>And how does Frank Mahovlich fit in?

I am pro-sober thought, pro-Senate, and pro-Senate reform. Although I would like for it to be elected I would not be heartbroken if it was not. Above all else though I think it should have equal representation (not rep by pop as in the Lower House), whether those representatives are elected or appointed.

I think it's important for the provinces to have equal weighting in one of the Houses in our federal bicameral system so that the most populous places (where I live) do not get to ride roughshod over the less populous places all the time in both houses. Sure it's fun, but it makes for a bad federation.

As for Mahovlich, the Senate should be more than just a warehouse of Canadian celebrities and sportsmen. It should actually contain people capable of and notable for sober second thought*. I will make a five-beer bet right now that, if we retain the current system, there will be a Senator Avril Lavigne (notable for a distinct lack of sobriety or second thought) in 40 years.

* The chances of this occurring under an elected system are not too favourable, either, hence I am willing to entertain the continued appointment of senators.

A five beer bet collectable after I exceed the national mortality rate is hardly an attractive bet. I was hoping you would say someone from <i>Front Page Challenge</i>...if any were left.

I do not support an elected senate for the reasons chris brings up against the appointment of celebs. Partisan popularity with the electorate does NOT mean the person sent to the senate will be useful, knowledgable or non-biased. If we NEVER ever elected anyone except for a single party or if the existing governments for the last 20 years only ever installed partisan persons I would say reform was needed.

chris, i was just trying to make a point with the dallaire example. you can pick somebody else. i dont have an issue with any of your arguements. and yeah al, i wouldnt take that avril lavigne bet either. the senate could be done better. but we need reform, not a revolution.

There are a number of ways that the Senate-appointment process could be changed, but they all boil down to a popularity contest of some kind. Ai agree with Chris that an elected Senate is probably less likely to get intelligent "second thinkers" than a appointment process of some kind. Perhaps some kind of vetting by committee? Giller-prize winners? I don't knwo how to fix it, but the persent system is definitely not functional.

Gordo - it is we who are going to fix it and we have until the end of the weekend to pull it off. <i>Get cracking!</i>

How about this. We let the GG appoint people based on a system of a multi party commmittee submitting a list of 20 people each year from across Canada, 50% women, 50% men. Qualifications being they must be examples of persons who have contributed in some definable way to the nation's wellbeing, prosperity or culture in their lifetime. They must not be currently elected persons and must not have been elected for 5 years prior to appointment. Also, the GG must have been in place for a period of one year to prevent a minority govt from dumping someone into the job just to make the apointments.

Hmm ... I'm not sure that in a world where unions have almost done away with merit raises, having a merit-based system would fly. I like it, though.

Alan: Look at it this way -- if you exceed average national mortality, that's a win in itself. And I only get five lousy beers. That's not much of a win compared to long and fruitful sunset years, is it?

I like Gorthos' suggestion but I do not see the necessity of a one-year time-in-grade requirement for the GG. Even if a minority government gets elected, and installs a new GG, there has to be vacant Senate seats in order for anybody to get appointed to it.

Chris, do you see this as a issue of difference between neo-con libertarians and old school 18th century Tories like yourself?

I'm not sure the terms "neo-con" and "libertarian" can be logically mashed together like that... Somewhere, someone is cranking out a 10,000-word essay (with a few dozen obligatory references to <i>Atlas Shrugged</i>) to refute that inference. =)

Certainly neo-cons and libertarians alike would much prefer elected representatives. Some part of me would too, but then I also don't see the harm in appointed representatives (as long as the Sovereign or vice-regal representative is also not shy about canning appointees if their duties fall into dereliction).

I agree with Gorthos when he said that "I have yet to see any horrid decisions by said body and therefore I think it is valid". That is a highly conservative argument (Sorry Gorthos... I guess this means your lapel pin is in the mail) and one that I find persuasive. If we are going to tinker with the machinery of state it should be to ameliorate a very specific condition with a very specific solution. In the case of provinces being unequally represented, that can be altered without changing the method of ascension to the Upper House. If at some point the Senate begins to consistently thwart the reasonable initiatives of the elected MPs, then we can start thinking about elected Senators, too. Evolutionary change, not revolutionary.

The other thing is that in 18th century Tory fashion I am still partial to the notion of the right of the Sovereign to determine the direction of the state, rather than to act merely in accordance with the wishes of parliament. That is definitely not on the neocon or libertarian agenda. So if Elizabeth II were to revive the old Salic law claims to the throne of France I would say hell yes, sign me up. Invade that sucker -- twice.

Cracks appearing to the right! I love it.

Everyone loves the abstract political concepts, but few want to tackle the math ...

Personally, I've never seen the point or sense in having a "reformed" Canadian Upper Chamber where every province has the same number of representatives. Not when the biggest province has nearly 100 times the population of the smallest. Not when it means the newly minted "nation within us" would be outvoted by more than 9 to 1 (throwing the territories into the mix). Not when the largest province (with about half the country's English speakers) would similarly be outvoted by more than 9 to 1. Heck, an "equal Senate" wouldn't even make sense for Alberta -- it already has 10 per cent of Canada's population, and it's growing fast, so it would be "under-represented" from Day One.

I would suggest updating the Senate numbers along these lines:

-- 24 senators for each province with more than 5 million people.
-- 12 senators for each province with between 2 million and 5 million people.
-- 8 senators for each province with between 500,000 and 2 million people.
-- 4 senators for each province with fewer than 500,000 people.
-- 1 senator for each territory.

This would result in a 119-member chamber with the following province-by-province breakdown:

-- Ontario, 24
-- Quebec, 24
-- B.C., 12
-- Alberta, 12
-- Saskatchewan, 8
-- Manitoba, 8
-- Nova Scotia, 8
-- New Brunswick, 8
-- Newfoundland and Labrador, 8
-- P.E.I., 4
-- The territories, 3

Under this model, five provinces would have equal representation. Ontario, Quebec and PEI would maintain their traditional numbers within a slightly larger Senate. B.C. and Alberta would have more senators to reflect their growth since Confederation, and the prospect of even more somewhere down the road. Only N.S. and N.B. would lose, but not by much.

I'd elect senators to relatively long terms (7 to 10 years) and maintain its "sober second thought" mandate, while perhaps throwing in a few ceremonial duties (choosing the governor-general, perhaps?)

As near as I can recall from my Meech-era readings of the Constitution, this sort of Senate reform would require the approval of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population -- a daunting but not completely impossible goal.

I lean about 55 per cent toward this sort of tinkering with the Senate, and about 45 per cent to scrapping it completely. But since scrapping it would also require amending the Constitution, I say try tinkering first.

My idea:

Senate as a regional elected body.

Five regions: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, BC.

Each region to have same number of senators.

Senators to be elected -- ten year terms, with senatorial elections every five years.

This <i>would</i> require constitutional amendments.

Suspect that this is quite similar to the model Harper has in mind through his incrementalist, amendment-sidestepping methods. (First term limit, then advisory elections, next a BC Senate division (no doubt), then a re-jigging of seats? Then shaming of appointed members, then -- at the end -- a final amendment to ratify all the changes?)

Just as an entry point and not to be argumentative, I really dislike the model suggested by Ben primarily because the regional model has no basis in political-federal reality; Canada has pr. Moreover, the regional model usually makes Ontario and Quebec both regions as well as provinces. My own preference is more American style: If the political units of the federation are provinces, give the provinces representation in the federal legislature via the Senate. Just as Wyoming and California have equal representation in the Senate, PEI and Ontario can be equal in the Senate. Specifically, I think each province should get 10 Senators and each territory get 2 Senators for a grand total of 106. This would allow the Senate to continue to sit on committees and chair Royal Commissions etc. without a diminishment in personnel that could impact their work. I think it is absolutely essential that the Senate becomes elected. We are not a full democracy unless that happens (I also think we should have an electe head of state instead of a Queen but that's another matter) and Senate elections would get rid of the cronyism. You could have Senate elections in conjunction with provincial elections which would still give the House of Commons the primacy in peoples minds as the centre of the federal government. Tying the Senate to the provinces gives provincial interests a stronger (and legitimate) voice in federal affairs and may eliminate provincial premiers grandstanding on the federal stage and forcing them to stick to governing their own locale. All of the foregoing gives Equal and Elected and heads towards effectiveness. How effective is the House of Commons, though? Are we holding a reformed Senate to a higher standard? If so, why?

Oops. That should read: "Canada has provinces, but regions are nebulous and changeable depending on geography, topography, geology, economics and history. And what about the North?"

i like the long terms. how about the regions pick thier own senators, some sort of finagling that you have to have to fill seats at the beginning of your elected mandate so that if you pick your hack buddies, that's going to cost you and your party in your next provincial election. and no, havent given it much more thought than that.

I'm a Torontonian, and about as sympathetic as they come towards the interests of the other provinces.

But let me say this -- over my dead body will there be four times as many senators from Atlantic Canada as from Ontario.

F**k that.

***

I rather suspect that most other Ontarians -- as ready as they are to continue the regional subsidization of decline that we call transfer payments -- are of similar mind.

Which is probably why Premier McGuinty has come out for abolition.

***

Update: see that Taylor is for the provinces having equal seat numbers.

All right, gents, this is where it breaks down.

Which is, again, probably why there's this incrementalist approach in Ottawa right now...

Oh, and God save the Queen.

:-)

"But let me say this -- over my dead body will there be four times as many senators from Atlantic Canada as from Ontario. F**k that. I rather suspect that most other Ontarians -- as ready as they are to continue the regional subsidization of decline that we call transfer payments -- are of similar mind."

Okay, but why? Why lump provinces together as regions? Why is it so unpalatable to have provinces equally represented in the 2nd chamber?

There I go asking leading questions again....

Of course, abolition does get rid of these nasty questions about representation and its purposes. So the first issue is does the Senate serve a useful purpose? Many here seem to think the "sober second thought" thing is good. My own proposal suggests that a second good is injecting provincial representation into federal decision-making rather than creating bizarre parallel playthings for premiers like the Council of the Federation.

I am on record saying that I don't think that anything need be done really to the senate. If so, well, the method I described about would be my suggestion, however, IF a big re-org were to be done, I would support regional representation before I would support equal provincial numbers. There is no way that Bud the Spud should have the same number of Senators as myself representing his teeny tiny province.

"There is no way that Bud the Spud should have the same number of Senators as myself representing his teeny tiny province."

Why not?

The H of C has rep by pop, so Ontario's weight is captured there. Moreover, we are a federation where the contributing units are provinces. There are no size requirements to be a province. The provinces agreed to join together so that presumes some kind of equality of sovereignty (if not full sovereignty). Are provinces more or less sovereign based on size?

If we are talking regional representation, why not remove Northern Ontario from Ontario and have "golden horseshoe" region? What are the "regional" interests held in common in both Kenora and Etobicoke?

Sorry, Hans. New world order. In any situation where the Senate has power, PEI gets one seat.

That may speed up the drafting of the PFLPEI Manifesto, I guess....

<i>Sorry, Hans. New world order. In any situation where the Senate has power, PEI gets one seat.</i>

Depending on the constituents-to-senators ratio settled upon they might get less than one seat. But that's okay, they can always combine their Senatorial duties with an actual whole Senator from one of the more populous provinces. Like some countries house another country's diplomatic mission and equipment in their own embassies and consulates.

The least popular Senator (rated amongst his/her peers) should be selected to represent PEI -- sort of an inversion of Speaker selection in the House. PEI could throw in some graft to make it more attractive, too -- like a lifetime supply of potatoes and DVD compilations of every L.M. Montgomery adaptation ever filmed, conceived of, or idly discussed in the CBC lunch room).

<i>PEI could throw in some graft to make it more attractive, too</i><p>The use of a conditional word like "could" makes that sentence funny.

But in all seriousness some kind of rep by pop scheme in both Houses kind of defeats the purpose, really. You want a <i>different</i> sort of representation in the Senate to act as a check/balance (a.k.a. sober second thought) on the wackier notions of the MPs.

Provinces as regional agglomerates doesn't work for me, those creatures don't exist in the federation. If provincial concerns need to be represented at the federal level, the Senate seems to be the logical place to have it happen, and if so then representational equality amongst provinces in the Upper House is sound. As Hans points out, the demographic weight of the populous provinces is already captured in their Commons representation.

And I am virulently anti-parallel-Premier-plaything, especially when it carries a geek-heavy name like Council of the Federation. I bet they wear Spock ears for the <i>in camera</i> sessions there.

I do not want a "different sort of representation" other than by population. Sure the US and UK have upper houses based on history. We do not. I do not want the invention of a new "Canadian heritage" to foist an unrepresentative body upon us to placate the governing 65% of the 10% of Canada that lives in Alberta. I suspect Mr. Harper and I disagree on this but, unlike him, I have stated my position on the matter.

Interesting position, Alan. I would have thought you would tend to side with the less fortunate/little guy, as you tend to in matters of fiscal policy (or the market in general). What makes the Senate a different proposition? Doesn't denying the less-populous regions a realistic shot at affecting federal legislation merely ensure that they stay perpetually disgruntled?

(and when I say regions I meant <i>provinces</i>, of course. The things with actual representation.)

I do not want a elitist Senate - even if it is the elitism of one province over another - to solve a problem that is really a constitutional division of powers problem. If provinces have powers that are being denied by the Feds, it should be up to them to sue for it in the Supreme Court as Quebec does. PEI has a silly case in the Courts on the particular issue of fishing at the moment. Turn the question around - what does the Senate add to the current process of determining jurisdiction?

Having the Senate represent provincial interests in federal decision-making helps to avoid provinces suing and may help in situations where jurisdictional divisions of power are not 100% clear.

But senators in Canada, unlike in the States, are not provincial government representatives. They are wild cards without accountability to the Premiers or the populace.

But they could. We are talking about Senate reform, so that could be a new role for Senators. And you could make them accountable.

How, man, <i>how???</i> Tell us what we need to do? Do Senators become elected by the provincial population? Appointed by the Provincial legislature? Appointed by the Feds on the recomendation of the provincial caucus in the House of Commons?

Elected. My suggestion is elected at the same time as provincial governments. Just add on an extra ballot in provincial elections. Hell, you could even have Proportional Representation in relation to the 10 senators a province sends. This is similar to what Harper is suggesting now. His approach is just a little more incremental.

My preference is to have equal representation for each province, and to have senators chosen by provincial/territorial governments. I do not care whether a given province chooses to select its senators by popular vote, at the whim of the Premier, or by putting prizes in Crackerjacks boxes. The aim is to have the Senate represent the interests of the provinces, while the House represents the popular interest.

In the short term and without constitutional change, I believe it is possible for the provincial governments to choose and name senators, and for the PM (through the G-G) to formally appoint the chosen senators. If the allocations can not be altered without constitutional change and there is resistance to constitutional change, the federal government can decline to appoint some senators until there is something at least closer to a uniform per province representation.

I would set the number of senators per province at 12, and per territory at 1. The total would be 123: a simple majority would be 62 (not achievable with the full votes of only any 5 provinces) and a two-thirds supermajority would be (exactly) 82, which not coincidently is just a little shy of the full representation of any 7 provinces (totalling 84 votes). Regardless, I would have senators appointed to six-year terms, with half the senators being re-appointed each three years to give the provinces some flexibility with respect changes in the provincial political preferences of the day. Territorial senators could be appointed to 3 year terms or 6 year terms.

"I do not want a "different sort of representation" other than by population."
Then there's no point in discussion then, really. Anything else can be either dismissed as purely redundant. Why even have this discussion then, Al?
Oh, and your conservative slip is showing: "Sure the US and UK have upper houses based on history. We do not." Isn't it conservatives who are supposed to be wedded to tradition for the sake of tradition, and pillaried for it? Fine. I'm being argumentative. Which corner am I supposed to sit in? And where's the dunce cap?

This says it all. "But in all seriousness some kind of rep by pop scheme in both Houses kind of defeats the purpose, really." The two are supposed to be somewhat adversarial. Election by popular vote and apportion by population defeats the whole purpose.

And as to Ian's claim that it isn't right for some tiny bit to be able to block a large bit? How does one protect the rights and needs of all provinces then? How do you stop people from destroying an industry critical to a province simply because people 1000 miles away don't like it if you don't have something like a co-equal senate capable of stopping the majority from shoving the minority around? I've done the math. Just a very different set.

The draw back to the co-equal senate with the populist HoC, as I've pointed out, is the ability to change rapidly. Gridlock occurs. All other complaints seem to me to be based on 'But I live in the big parts of the country and should be able to push the dumb backwoods fuckers around. Has been thus and should ever be thus.' It really does strike this city born and raised guy that some of you are terrified of the backwoods people getting some say in things. Why is that?

"How, man, how??? Tell us what we need to do? Do Senators become elected by the provincial population? Appointed by the Provincial legislature? Appointed by the Feds on the recomendation of the provincial caucus in the House of Commons?"
Provincial legislature decides who is a senator. The head of that province decides---so you are getting some amount of popular input since the popular vote decides who sits atop the provincial legislature. No limits on who the head can call upon. Who serves as senator would change when the leader of the legislature changes.

"what does the Senate add to the current process of determining jurisdiction?"
Well, by making it so that a) the Courts are actually un-hostile to the ideas and rights of the disgruntled provinces, by riding as a check the HoC from 'packing the Court b) saving everyone money, time, effort, etc by fixing the problem without having to be tried.

I do not think there is any problem with two scales of rep by pop. If we have a slate of provincial wide senators as well as local riding members of Parliament, that is expressing two different things. Anything else is weird and anti-democratic. The US is a special case due to history and the expression of the elemental nature of statehood and the coming together through agreement.

<p>Canada is not that. The provinces are sub-sovereignties with partial jurisdiction. I do not understand why we would give give provinces governments power outside of their borders and spheres of jurisdiction and a right to determine Federal law anymore than the Feds or other provinces should have seats in each provincial upper house. If you do alter the balance you are creating a new tradition and no one has explained why that is. If you believe in "local" you should be putting you eggs in the municipal level. Calling Ontario or even Alberta a local homogeneity just does not make sense.