.

[Icebound]

Thanks, icebound. I'll be sure to watch that later. My original position was that the provinces should appoint the Senators. I don't agree with an elected Senate because then it brings it into conflict with the House of Commons. The House should be supreme and the Senate should always recognize its role as a body of oversight, not an elected and competing house. If i can be convinced that they do good work (we'll see from the video), I could be moved back to the reform position though. For now though, abolishing the Senate seems to be the best option.

Well, on the "elected" issue, maybe a good idea would be to have them elected by a free vote of the relevant province's legislature.

If we keep the idea that Senate is "oversight", HOC is "legislative", I don't see a problem in "electing" who I want to be in the oversight role.

I will never agree that abolition is the "best" option. The government of the day is a classic example of why we need an oversight chamber.

The Senate reports are here

http://sen.parl.gc.ca/portal/annual-reports-e.htm

... where they outline what bills they passed, what bills they amended, what bills they INTRODUCED, etc. It is certainly probable that they should do more.... that they should be less partisan about it.... but I have no doubt that there is useful research being done there ... by at least some members.... and I have no appetite for abolition....

A cleanup of current laggards, and a separation from political partisanship, and it is good to go.

[Icebound]

Very true. I've wondered that too.

If you take a look at the "Special Study" reports on their website, their 'longer term view' they do useful work.

Could it be done another way? Likely.

Who does take the long term view ... vision ... of Canada?

I find that question bothersome.

I think that's for citizens, not politicians to determine: We tell them.

.

"Citizens" never take a long-term view. Citizens are short-term, me-first, knee-jerk animals. Okay, maybe not "never", but "rarely".

That is why we elect or appoint knowledgeable people with time on their hands to do the necessary research for us.

Right now, they need a little slap to the side of their head to remind them why they are there. Once that is accomplished, we will be good to go.

...

...

[cybercoma]

Well, on the "elected" issue, maybe a good idea would be to have them elected by a free vote of the relevant province's legislature.

I thought about this idea and I've thought about the idea of premiers or lieutenant governors appointing them. The problem I see is that provincial and federal powers are divided. Who people vote for provincially is not necessarily who they would vote for federally. So it doesn't make much sense to have the distribution of parties that people see fit for provincial governance deciding who gets to make federal legislation. The idea does solve the current problems, but it opens up another one.

[jacee]

Somebody ... Harper? ... told the provinces they could elect Senators. One did. The rest chose not to.

Likely wanted him to fund it. ☺

It's a vague memory but I think it happened.

[Icebound]

I thought about this idea and I've thought about the idea of premiers or lieutenant governors appointing them. The problem I see is that provincial and federal powers are divided. Who people vote for provincially is not necessarily who they would vote for federally. So it doesn't make much sense to have the distribution of parties that people see fit for provincial governance deciding who gets to make federal legislation. The idea does solve the current problems, but it opens up another one.

You forget the KEY POINT.... there is no party affiliation for the Senators in my Scenario.

So you are voting between Joe Blow Renowned Hospital Administrator, and Jack Dow Super Farmers advocate, and Bill Smith One-time Mayor of big city. . based on their accomplishments, their standing in the community... not their politics, they don't have explicit politics

...

[eyeball]

The problem with the Senate stems from the same problem the entire government suffers from - the concentration of power in the PMO. It's like the system is trying to correct itself but can't. Parliament doesn't work properly and the buck gets passed down, the Senate passes the buck onto provinces, the SCC, us the voters, whoever...

Round and found it'll go until the real problem at the top is fixed.

[-1=e^ipi]

However, to simplify at start up, they could even be just APPOINTED by the provincial government of the day, with a view to further reform (elections) in the future.

So you replace federally appointed political cronies with provincially appointed political cronies. How does this help things? Also, I'm pretty sure some provinces like BC and Saskatchewan are likely to refuse to appoint anyone out of protest to the existence of the senate.

I would like to see some outcomes of long-term studies.

Institutions like universities or think-tanks can do this.

The government of the day is a classic example of why we need an oversight chamber.

Or introduce proportional representation.

[-1=e^ipi]

Here is a question for you non-abolitionists:

How do you deal with the issue of distribution of senate seats?

PEI has 4 senate seas, BC has 6 senate seats.

Does it make sense that PEI has over 21 times as much representation in the senate per capita as BC?

Was the choice of 'regions' during the construction of the senate not arbitrary? Why does PEI get 4 seats, but not Vancouver Island for example? Why are the Atlantic provinces considered a 'region' but not BC?

Edited June 12, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

You forget the KEY POINT.... there is no party affiliation for the Senators in my Scenario.

So you are voting between Joe Blow Renowned Hospital Administrator, and Jack Dow Super Farmers advocate, and Bill Smith One-time Mayor of big city. . based on their accomplishments, their standing in the community... not their politics, they don't have explicit politics

...

I don't believe in "no party affiliation." The nominees will be party sponsors and supporters who may not be politicians, but definitely have a particular political leaning and loyalty to a party. A rose by any other name and all that.

[cybercoma]

Institutions like universities or think-tanks can do this.

I agree, but I mean I would like to see what the senate has already done and what concrete things it accomplished.

[On Guard for Thee]

Here is a question for you non-abolitionists:

How do you deal with the issue of distribution of senate seats?

PEI has 4 senate seas, BC has 6 senate seats.

Does it make sense that PEI has over 21 times as much representation in the senate per capita as BC?

Was the choice of 'regions' during the construction of the senate not arbitrary? Why does PEI get 4 seats, but not Vancouver Island for example? Why are the Atlantic provinces considered a 'region' but not BC?

One of the main purposes of the senate in the first place was to provide for some power NOT based solely on a per capita basis.

[cybercoma]

Here is a question for you non-abolitionists:

How do you deal with the issue of distribution of senate seats?

PEI has 4 senate seas, BC has 6 senate seats.

Does it make sense that PEI has over 21 times as much representation in the senate per capita as BC?

Was the choice of 'regions' during the construction of the senate not arbitrary? Why does PEI get 4 seats, but not Vancouver Island for example? Why are the Atlantic provinces considered a 'region' but not BC?

It makes sense because it's not rep by pop. The Maritimes were a region because of their role and position pre-confederation, likewise with The West being its own region. The only thing about the makeup of the Senate that doesn't make sense is Newfoundland. But the problem there is that they joined much later. Ideally the Maritimes should have been re-jigged as The Atlantic provinces and be 24 seats, not 30.

[-1=e^ipi]

One of the main purposes of the senate in the first place was to provide for some power NOT based solely on a per capita basis.

Except the reason the Western provinces have so few seats is because 100+ years ago when the distribution of senate seats were determined, they had relatively small populations. So the position that the distribution of seats is not based on population is nonsense.

It makes sense because it's not rep by pop. The Maritimes were a region because of their role and position pre-confederation, likewise with The West being its own region. The only thing about the makeup of the Senate that doesn't make sense is Newfoundland. But the problem there is that they joined much later. Ideally the Maritimes should have been re-jigged as The Atlantic provinces and be 24 seats, not 30.

Except the choice of 'regions' is purely arbitrary. Why are the Atlantic provinces a 'region' but not BC? Why are Quebec and Ontario 'regions' but not 'Central Canada'.

If Vancouver Island decided to separate from BC and become a new province, does BC + Vancouver Island suddenly deserve more representation in both the Senate and the House of Commons (due to laws like no province can have less seats than senators)?

If you want some more 'objective' way of representation by region, then why not do it by Land Mass? In that case we have:

Nunavut: 20.8% of seats

Quebec: 15.1% of seats

NWT: 13.1% of seats

BC: 10.2% of seats

Ontario: 10.2% of seats

Alberta: 7.1% of seats

Saskatchewan: 6.6% of seats

Manitoba: 6.1% of seats

Yukon: 5.3% of seats

NFLD: 4.1% of seats

New Brunswick: 0.8% of seats

Nova Scotia: 0.6% of seats

PEI: 0.1% of seats

Does that seem fair?

[On Guard for Thee]

Except the reason the Western provinces have so few seats is because 100+ years ago when the distribution of senate seats were determined, they had relatively small populations. So the position that the distribution of seats is not based on population is nonsense.

Except the choice of 'regions' is purely arbitrary. Why are the Atlantic provinces a 'region' but not BC? Why are Quebec and Ontario 'regions' but not 'Central Canada'.

If Vancouver Island decided to separate from BC and become a new province, does BC + Vancouver Island suddenly deserve more representation in both the Senate and the House of Commons (due to laws like no province can have less seats than senators)?

If you want some more 'objective' way of representation by region, then why not do it by Land Mass? In that case we have:

Nunavut: 20.8% of seats

Quebec: 15.1% of seats

NWT: 13.1% of seats

BC: 10.2% of seats

Ontario: 10.2% of seats

Alberta: 7.1% of seats

Saskatchewan: 6.6% of seats

Manitoba: 6.1% of seats

Yukon: 5.3% of seats

NFLD: 4.1% of seats

New Brunswick: 0.8% of seats

Nova Scotia: 0.6% of seats

PEI: 0.1% of seats

Does that seem fair?

Again, the whole idea for the senate was to provide some access to power on a non per capita basis.

[-1=e^ipi]

And my above suggested seat distribution is not on a per capita basis, it's based on land mass.

Please explain to me why PEI should have 4 seats, but not Vancouver Island.

Edited June 12, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[cybercoma]

And my above suggested seat distribution is not on a per capita basis, it's based on land mass.

Please explain to me why PEI should have 4 seats, but not Vancouver Island.

Because PEI is a province and Vancouver Island is not. Because PEI was also one of the original colonies at Confederation and Vancouver Island was not.

What you're asking is like saying "Why does Vancouver city council have 10 members and a mayor, yet there's 57 MLAs in Manitoba?"

[-1=e^ipi]

Because PEI is a province and Vancouver Island is not. Because PEI was also one of the original colonies at Confederation and Vancouver Island was not.

I asked why should, not why does. So if Vanvouver Island became a province, it would suddenly be entitled to 4 seats in the senate?

And PEI was not one of the original colonies at confederation; it joined in 1873. Not that it should matter. If the senate is about representing 'regions' then shouldn't these 'regions' be based on definitions that are independent of some political compromises that occurred nearly 150 years ago?

[On Guard for Thee]

And my above suggested seat distribution is not on a per capita basis, it's based on land mass.

Please explain to me why PEI should have 4 seats, but not Vancouver Island.

Regional interests, nothing to do with land mass.

[Icebound]

I don't believe in "no party affiliation." The nominees will be party sponsors and supporters who may not be politicians, but definitely have a particular political leaning and loyalty to a party. A rose by any other name and all that.

Everybody has a political leaning of some description, ....but the idea is to prevent dependence on a political party, or required allegiance to any particular party, or any activities on behalf of a political party.

[-1=e^ipi]

Regional interests, nothing to do with land mass.

And how are 'regions' being determined/defined?

It's arbitrary.

[On Guard for Thee]

And how are 'regions' being determined/defined?

It's arbitrary.

At the time they WERE defined with consideration to economic activity. But more to the point to balance out the power of the commons. And whats more, without the agreement there would have been no confederation.

[cybercoma]

I asked why should, not why does. So if Vanvouver Island became a province, it would suddenly be entitled to 4 seats in the senate?

And PEI was not one of the original colonies at confederation; it joined in 1873. Not that it should matter. If the senate is about representing 'regions' then shouldn't these 'regions' be based on definitions that are independent of some political compromises that occurred nearly 150 years ago?

Not to be pedantic, but that's why I said original colony AT confederation not IN confederation. But yeah, essentially it's based on what provinces belong to what regions. Vancouver Island is a silly example to make a point about population and disguise it as a land mass issue. Why would land mass have anything to do with it at all?

[eyeball]

And how are 'regions' being determined/defined?

It's arbitrary.

Bio-geographical regions make the most practical sense especially from an environmental perspective and balancing the associated quality of life/livelihood values of the people who call them home. Islands, plains, coastlines, watersheds and basins etc.

To much is lost when decisions affecting these are made hundreds and thousands of miles away.

Edited June 13, 2015 by eyeball

[-1=e^ipi]

At the time they WERE defined with consideration to economic activity. But more to the point to balance out the power of the commons. And whats more, without the agreement there would have been no confederation.

Yes, that was in the distant past.

Today it makes no sense.

Abolish it.

Not to be pedantic, but that's why I said original colony AT confederation not IN confederation. But yeah, essentially it's based on what provinces belong to what regions. Vancouver Island is a silly example to make a point about population and disguise it as a land mass issue. Why would land mass have anything to do with it at all?

BC was it's own separate colony and the railway to the Pacific got it into confederation. If this is about separate colonies, then BC should be it's own 'region'.

[Smallc]

BC was it's own separate colony and the railway to the Pacific got it into confederation. If this is about separate colonies, then BC should be it's own 'region'.

Manitoba too, at that.