I imagine the Canadian Senate must be modeled on House of Lords, since they are appointed for life.

To simply turn it into an elected model like the American Senate is, in MHO a non-starter for a number of reasons. Beyond both being called a Senate, they share nothing in common in terms of the intent and evolution of the respective institutions.

The House of Lords evolved over centuries within the parliamentery system as a means of protecting the status-quo, that being the hegonomy of the aristocracy. It was supposed to be a check on the powers of the commons, and reflected a fear of the rule of the common classes. That was transported to Canada and called a Senate.

At the time of the founding of your fine nation, (other comments you may read here notwithstanding) the USA was a number of states which regarde themselves as more or less sovereign. Senators were more ambassadors from their states than what they are today. The constitutional role was a check against a central federal power. Americans created their constitution durind the height of the enlightenment, and during a neo-classical revival. Thus the use of the Roman term "senate" which was seen as a bulwark against tyrrany. The House of Lords slowly evolved, and it's purpose was almost the opposite.

quote:

---

making senate better = good

---

The Senate in the US was created as a means to give each state equal representation in one of the legislative houses and also checking the lower house of representation (whose makeup is determined by state populations).

While the lower house was determined proportionally by population, the smaller states were worried they would have little say in 1787.

By creating a senate in which each state gets two votes (by electing two senators), the US makes Wyoming (with lowest population)as equal a state as California (with highest).

Does each province in Canada get a certain number of senators, and who exactly appoints them?

quote:

---

Just read the posts on the lower house of Canada and how it's modeled on Britain's house of Commons.

I imagine the Canadian Senate must be modeled on House of Lords, since they are appointed for life.

---

Just to add a little more data here, Canadian Senators are not appointed for life. They have to retire from the Senate at age 75. Which of course means that some die in harness -- some harness, though. The attendance requirements are, to say the least, not onerous.

quote:

---

Does each province in Canada get a certain number of senators, and who exactly appoints them?

---

The Senate is supposed to feature equal "regional representation," meaning different provinces and territories have different numbers of Senators, depending on which region they're in. The figures are on this page.

Senators are appointed by the government of the day, which in practice means the Prime Minister.

quote:

---

making senate better = good

---

now, I wont go into super-ultra detail, but my plan is simple:

400 seat HoC, partially, and infact mostly PR
100 seat senate, totally PR, representing the provinces.

quote:

---

while I like PR, I think that it does cause instability. and I'm not talking about Israel or Italy, I'm talking about naitons like Germany and Holland. minority governments take time to get laws done.

---

quote:

---

The regional distribution on the face of it makes no sense, but it's based on the deal struck at Confederation in 1867: 24 seats each for the orginal three regions (Ontario, Quebec, and the two -- later three -- Maritime provinces). The West was also given 24 seats to share out later on, and some extra seats added on more recently for Newfoundland and the North.

---

The joke is that some people think that this setup is actually an "equitable" Senate, and trash the Triple-E notion on the grounds that it would be "unfair".

What I still don't understand is the almost allergic response people have to having a setup where each province would have precisely 10 seats and each territory, three seats. That gives us 109 seats, up from the 104 or 105 we got now.

I don't buy the tired old recycled bilge that it weights too much power to smaller, rural, regions as opposed to urban ones, because the reasoning behind THAT comment is usually an unstated assumption that rural people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, which, it has been pointed out on babble, is not necessarily the case.

I could make the case that the sheer concentration of people in urban areas means that there's more people per unit area in a city who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground than in rural areas.

So... barring the reasoning used above, why the allergic reaction to changing the distribution of the seats in the Senate?

Furthermore, jeff house has (if memory serves) outlined that constitutionally, the Senate does indeed have powers equivalent to that of the Commons except for the power to originate "money bills". It always gravels me when I see people who should know better claim that the Senate is "toothless". It's only toothless because nobody in the Senate wants to rock the boat to avoid getting cushy memberships in country clubs when they finally have to retire at 75.

quote:

---

now, I wont go into super-ultra detail, but my plan is simple:

400 seat HoC, partially, and infact mostly PR
100 seat senate, totally PR, representing the provinces.

we are a federation, and we sometimes need to remember that. the provinces should be represented... you'll see when I write my article

---

Unless the Senate can enact laws at provincial level, they will not, in practice, represent the Provinces, because they won't have power at provincial level, only a Federal level.

I hope I can make this clear...

All MP's are ultimately answerable to their ridings at election time, yet we rarely see a Member break ranks, or do more than lobby for a few dollars for a local cause. The fact that Senators would be elected would in no way obligate them to reflect provincial views as opposed to national ones.

Provincial parliaments act and think "provincially" not just because of who elects them, but because their powers are limited to the Provinces they reside in. They are therefore held responsible by the electorate for provincial conditions. As such, provincial governments rarely act or speak out for the best interests of the country as a whole, but rather for local interests.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, and often enough provincial interests coincide with national ones. But please realize that elected Senators without local provincial powers or influence would never feel accountable for provincial conditions in the same way as a provincial government. The tendancy in Ottawa is see, and bicker over, the larger picture.

So in what way do you ensure that your elected Senate represents provincial, as opposed to federal, party positions? I suppose in theory, candidates would be nominated by provincial parties, and be subject to provincial government whips. But frankly I can't see such a set up ever working properly. And certainly it would never work in way you may envision it, any more than our current parliamentary system is working the way it was envisioned in 1867.

My vote would go to abolishing the Senate altogether, with all powers and responsibilities being transfered to all-party back-bench committees to act as a balance of power vs Cabinet.

quote:

---

Unless the Senate can enact laws at provincial level, they will not, in practice, represent the Provinces, because they won't have power at provincial level, only a Federal level.

I hope I can make this clear...

All MP's are ultimately answerable to their ridings at election time, yet we rarely see a Member break ranks, or do more than lobby for a few dollars for a local cause. The fact that Senators would be elected would in no way obligate them to reflect provincial views as opposed to national ones.

Provincial parliaments act and think "provincially" not just because of who elects them, but because their powers are limited to the Provinces they reside in. They are therefore held responsible by the electorate for provincial conditions. As such, provincial governments rarely act or speak out for the best interests of the country as a whole, but rather for local interests.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, and often enough provincial interests coincide with national ones. But please realize that elected Senators without local provincial powers or influence would never feel accountable for provincial conditions in the same way as a provincial government. The tendancy in Ottawa is see, and bicker over, the larger picture.

So in what way do you ensure that your elected Senate represents provincial, as opposed to federal, party positions? I suppose in theory, candidates would be nominated by provincial parties, and be subject to provincial government whips. But frankly I can't see such a set up ever working properly. And certainly it would never work in way you may envision it, any more than our current parliamentary system is working the way it was envisioned in 1867.

My vote would go to abolishing the Senate altogether, with all powers and responsibilities being transfered to all-party back-bench committees to act as a balance of power vs Cabinet.

Provincial interests should be looked after at a provincial level, as recognized and protected by the Constitution. Putting pure provincial representation at a federal level is, frankly, a provincial intrusion into federal jurisdiction, and I can't see it doing anything to improve our lives. Effectively it may end up giving provinces a veto over any federal initiative.

---

if you've read my article, atleast say so. and if not, then I'm mad at you presenting ideas that I'm about to present in my article

"So in what way do you ensure that your elected Senate represents provincial, as opposed to federal, party positions? I suppose in theory, candidates would be nominated by provincial parties, and be subject to provincial government whips. But frankly I can't see such a set up ever working properly. And certainly it would never work in way you may envision it, any more than our current parliamentary system is working the way it was envisioned in 1867."

I disagree with you on the issue of the senate being abolished. the only reason I'm in the NDP is because I belive that I can make them see reason, and support senate reform. when my membership expires, I strongly doubt I'll go back into the NDP. honestly? I'd probably join the alliance. not because I'm a right wing nut head, but because I belive SO strongly in senate reform, I'm willing to go to any leangth to get my ideas heard by those in power.

as for my senate, I may as well give you a basic summary of what my idea is
simpally, each province would go to the polls as they regularly do. but instead of casting 1 ballot, they could cast 2. one for their party, like a PR system. these 2nd votes can be used if the province decides to go PR, but it will certainly be used to pick all of the provinces senators. these senators would be nominated by the provincial parties. they would begin sitting the moment the new government is sworn in. 4 years later, these senators remain sitting untill the next government is sworn in. this will unfortunatly leave a "lame duck" peroid, after new senators are elected, but before they take their seats, but it will make the senate totally continueous, there will never be "not" a senate, or will there be a large number of lame ducks, since provinces usually space out their elections.
I do all this because of how canadian politics works, not how we want it to work. parties tend to vote in a block, so this makes block voting easier.
now what would the current senate look like?
lets find out
lets go province by province

Newfoundland
Lib-3
PC-2
NDP-1

PEI
PC-3
Lib-2

Nova Scotia
PC-2
NDP-2
Lib-2

New Brunswick
PC-3
Lib-2
NDP-1

Quebec
Liberal-8
Bloc/Parti Q.-7
ADQ-2

(if we went with the most recent polls of 40-40-20, we'd have:
Liberal-7
PQ-7
ADQ-3)

Ontario
PC-11
Lib-10
NDP-3

Manitoba
NDP-3
PC-3
Lib-1

Saskatchewan
Sask P-3
NDP-3
Lib-1

Alebrta
PC-6
Lib-3
NDP-1

BC
Lib-7
NDP-3
Green-2

Yukon
Yukon Party-1

NWT and Nun
Independant-2

now, I'd try to make it so large caucas (AKA those with seats from more then one province) would get certain benifts
therefore, I belive these parties would sit togehtor
all the NDP's
liberals from:
NL, PE, NS, NB, ON, MB, SK, and AB
conservatives from:
NL, PE, NS, NB, ON, MB
leaving the senate looking like so:
PC-24 (government of the senate)
Lib-24
NDP-17
PLQ-8
Bloc-7
BC Lib-7
AB PC-6
Sask P-3
ADQ-2
Green-2
Yukon P-1
Ind-2

now, this is before any and all senatorial coalations. I belive this is what it would look like after such a deal
LIB-NDP-PLQ-GREEN-INDEPENDANTS = United Left
PC-BClib-ABpc-SASKp-ADQ-YUKONp = United right

quote:

---

I don't buy the tired old recycled bilge that it weights too much power to smaller, rural, regions as opposed to urban ones, because the reasoning behind THAT comment is usually an unstated assumption that rural people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, which, it has been pointed out on babble, is not necessarily the case.

---

No, the reasoning behind it is that great public goods, supported by a great majority of the population and involving no infringement on the rights of the minority, can be blocked by legislators or cabals of legislators representing the tiniest of minorities.

[ 29 March 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]

quote:

---

if you've read my article, atleast say so. and if not, then I'm mad at you presenting ideas that I'm about to present in my article

---

No, I haven't read your article, but the concept of the Senate acting as representatives of the Premiers (say it any way you like, that's what it amounts to) is one I considered 25 years ago, and I've thought it out already. It's not hard to recognize where you're going with this.

A couple more odds and ends...

The appointed Senate we have now is not so entirely undemocratic as people make out. A huge part of government is appointed, from Cabinet to Deputy ministers to the Privy Council, etc. We accept this because of course they appointed by democraticly elected representatives.

The Senate tends to represent a democracy of several generations. That is, while our current parliament represents the "flavour of the day", our Senate represents the views of the previous generation. This is a layer of government that stretches back in time, so to speak, and is no less democratic than our current PMO or collection of Premiers.

Senetors often do very good work, but is at it's worst simply when they don't show up, or fall asleep. I see major complaints about the Senate only when some columnist, usually right-wing, disagrees with the government on some current issue and is convinced a "reformed" Senate will set things right.

I've yet to see any compelling arguement that a reformed Senate would give us a "better" country or "better" government. If the majority of elected Senators happen to share your personal views, then I'm sure you would be happy with the results. In general though, we get the same laws and regulations, the same programs, and the same mistakes and short-sightedness.

I tend to end up wanting simple abolishion because I'm VERY disturbed by the idea of any further shifts in balance of Federal/Provincial powers. The Federal government has a RESPONSIBILITY to act in the greater and broader national interest, and there is no advantage in hamstringing it. Reforms should be designed to advance this national interest and ensure it, and there are better suggestions for doing so, than handing vetos to provincial premiers.

" Why not have a look at all the countries in the world and see which government make's the most sense. Surely to God there must be some country in this crazy world that has a government that makes sense. "

my idea of provincial appointed/elected senators works in germany

" No, I haven't read your article, but the concept of the Senate acting as representatives of the Premiers (say it any way you like, that's what it amounts to) is one I considered 25 years ago, and I've thought it out already. It's not hard to recognize where you're going with this.

A couple more odds and ends...

The appointed Senate we have now is not so entirely undemocratic as people make out. A huge part of government is appointed, from Cabinet to Deputy ministers to the Privy Council, etc. We accept this because of course they appointed by democraticly elected representatives.

The Senate tends to represent a democracy of several generations. That is, while our current parliament represents the "flavour of the day", our Senate represents the views of the previous generation. This is a layer of government that stretches back in time, so to speak, and is no less democratic than our current PMO or collection of Premiers.

Senetors often do very good work, but is at it's worst simply when they don't show up, or fall asleep. I see major complaints about the Senate only when some columnist, usually right-wing, disagrees with the government on some current issue and is convinced a "reformed" Senate will set things right.

I've yet to see any compelling arguement that a reformed Senate would give us a "better" country or "better" government. If the majority of elected Senators happen to share your personal views, then I'm sure you would be happy with the results. In general though, we get the same laws and regulations, the same programs, and the same mistakes and short-sightedness.

I tend to end up wanting simple abolishion because I'm VERY disturbed by the idea of any further shifts in balance of Federal/Provincial powers. The Federal government has a RESPONSIBILITY to act in the greater and broader national interest, and there is no advantage in hamstringing it. Reforms should be designed to advance this national interest and ensure it, and there are better suggestions for doing so, than handing vetos to provincial premiers.

Earlier you said we are a federation and need to remember that. All too often I read articles by people who ASSUME that a loose federation of strong provinces linked by a weak federal government would be so much "better" and yet I've never seen any justification for WHY it's so much better. "

I like a strong federal government.

This appointed body of people who's expertise lies in synchophantry, regularly interferes with legislation from a responsible body.

The Senate is a body standing agaisnt responsible, democratic government.

Discussions on what to do with it, if anything can just as well take place without it's presence as with it.

The only discussion Canadians of all political stripes should be having right now is how to abolish it as quickly as possible.

...any good tory or liberal should be able to detail a hundred without thinking..... unless I am missunderestimating them.

[ 30 March 2003: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

quote:

---

Edmonton ... Alberta and Quebec both support the proposal being considered by the Council of the Federation to appoint Senators and federal judges from lists of nominees submitted by the provinces.

Benoît Pelletier, Quebec Minister for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs expressed his government's support for this position during a meeting with Halvar Jonson, Alberta Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations, in Edmonton on March 23.

"Alberta has always had a good working relationship with Quebec," said Jonson. "Quebec is a strong ally for Alberta on federal-provincial issues. Quebec's support for Senators and Supreme Court Justices being appointed from provincial lists of nominees adds more weight to the Council of the Federation proposal."

Through the Council of the Federation, Premiers have identified strengthening the federation as a priority area. Alberta is co-lead, along with New Brunswick, on a special council committee of ministers to develop and consider new models for selecting individuals to serve in key national institutions, such as the Senate and Supreme Court of Canada. This would ensure that provincial and territorial interests are adequately reflected and accommodated. Alberta will work with other provinces to achieve the committee's goals.

---

1. The way Senate seats are distributed is unfair but there is no way you are going to get NB or PEI to give up seats. Get over it.

2. Senate elections would be horrendously expensive to run in, totally separating it from the grassroots.

3. Why not select Senators by lot of people who voted in the last Federal election, half the Senate chosen every 3 years for a six year term. People would have one year to get their affairs in order and then would become a Senator. (Athens chose their governing council this way). A medical certificate vouching for the physical and mental health of the individual would be necessary.

4. The lottery Senate would select the Supreme Court justices, the GG, lieutenant governors. Naturally as lay people they would consult some people in the legal industry on the judges but this would be much more independent than the current system.

[ 21 April 2004: Message edited by: BleedingHeart ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 'lance:

We could use that kind of instability. .

---

Yes we could! Democracy should not be stable. Instability keeps democracy alive, look at China and Cuba they have a pretty strong and stable force ruling upon them.

On to the Senate, this body must be changed. Canada should move to a triple e Senate. This is advocated by lefties such a Senator Sharon Carstairs and well Big Willy on the right, amongst others.

[ 21 April 2004: Message edited by: Big Willy ]