Well it is past Canada's 147th birthday and I thought it would be time to move on my ideas for fixing - or at least changing - the Senate.

I sent out a message to all the email addresses I could find for the Senators, the Provincial and Territorial Premiers, and the leaders of the Federal Parties.  I expressed in a few points how the Senate could be made more effective as a sober SECOND thought for our federal legislation. 
There is so much that can be debated about the details of how to convert to a new system, and just exactly how the system would take shape.  It is my hope that there will be some posting to this blog so that I can hear what others think.

I was surprised and pleased to hear so quickly from Senator Nancy Ruth who actually read my note.  She is my first responder.  I had thought that these messages would go through channels and it would take at least a week to get any replies. 

If this is your first visit to this blog, please be sure to read my proposals in the post from May 1, 2014.

Because of the great diversity of our great land, we will never have a complete consensus on any issue - especially one as contentious as the Canadian Senate.  I don't have a perfect solution, but I am sure that it would be better than the current one.

But even if we could get most of Canadians to believe and support this initiative, it would take a brave, courageous, federal political statesman to accomplish it.  I am not sure if we have one at this time.  But there is always hope.

Although I don't have all the details covered for this plan, I am going to lay it out, and invite my friends and contacts to comment.  I hope some comments will result in spirited debate, for that is something truly lacking in our government.  Real debate should allow for some members to be convinced of the arguments put forward by others.  This can't happen in our House of Commons, because it is too tightly controlled by the political parties.

There are many aspects of the Senate make-up and rules that will need to be ironed out.  And there is room here for lots of input.

The senate is set up to provide a process of sober second thought to our legislation.  And, I believe, that is a good idea.  In fact, that is the strongest reason I have heard from all the senate supporters being quoted in the media.  

To attain the lofty goal of sober second thought we need three components:  thinking, open-mindedness, and sobriety.  I submit that we currently have none of these.

Our current system calls for the senate to be set up according to political party.  As such, senators are guided by their party leaders from the House of Commons.  The expectation is that the senate will follow the policies, goals and aspirations of their party.  If senators cannot think outside the box then there is not going to be any second thought.  It will be the same thought that went into the legislation as presented in the House of Commons.  There is no room here for independent thinking.

When senators absorb the party rhetoric and fill themselves with the hype and unbridled enthusiasm for party goals, they leave their sobriety behind and become inebriated with the next set of electoral ambitions.    

In fact, if we carry this further, so long as the senators are directed (as they are today) to accomplish the goals of their party, there is no need for them to think at all, except to develop creative ways to file for living expenses.  (Ah!  But I digress.)

The senate is made up of 105 members to represent regions of the country.  With over 100 members from all across the country, there is ample resource for this sober second thought.  The representation was based on what might have been sound thinking at the time, but is today way out of the realm of any common sense.  The current numbers give Quebec 23% of the seats and they have 24% of the population.  That sounds pretty fair.  But BC has 6% of the senate seats with 13% of Canada’s population.  So I suggest that some work needs to be done on the distribution method.

If we want sober second thought to our legislation and we want representation from all corners of the country, we need a different system for setting up the senate and its procedures.

Here is what I propose:

• Make-up of the Senate:  The senate should remain at 105 members.  The distribution of those members should be based on the following chart.  I allotted one senator from each province and territory.  Then I divided the remaining senators according to some rounded figures of the country’s population taken from the 2011 census.  This distribution needs to be reviewed and modified by a senate committee every 20 years.  The number of citizens per seat is not the issue as it might be in the House of Commons, as the senators are not looking to individual ridings to represent the people.  

Province	Current Senators	Population (2011 est.)	Population as % of Canada	Proposed # of Senators	Proposed Pop per Senator
British Columbia	6	4,400,000	13%	12	367,000
Alberta	6	3,650,000	11%	10	365,000
Saskatchewan	6	1,000,000	3%	5	200,000
Manitoba	6	1,200,000	4%	6	200,000
Ontario	24	12,850,000	38%	33	389,000
Quebec	24	7,900,000	24%	21	376,000
New Brunswick	10	750,000	2%	4	187,000
Prince Edward Island	4	140,000	0.5%	3	47,000
Nova Scotia	10	920,000	3%	4	92,000
Newfoundland & Labrador	6	510,000	2%	3	170,000
The 3 Northern Territories	3	107,000	0.3%	5	21,000

 This distribution should do a better job of representing the regions of the country.   

•  Senate Appointments:  AND if we really want the senate to represent the regions of the country, that is how they should be appointed.  I propose that the senators should be appointed by the premiers of the provinces and territories.  In this way, appointments over the years will be made by politicians surely, but they will come from a variety of political stripes.  And they will be somewhat beholden to the territory they represent.  With that type of appointment, the senator will give second thought to a bill not on the basis of a party, but on the basis of what is best for the people of the province (s)he represents.
•  Senate Terms:  I would like to see ten-year terms.  The ten-year idea stems from the fact that it is twice the length of the current House of Commons mandate.  It provides a long enough time to actually accomplish something.  There will be much debate over whether these terms will be renewable.  I prefer not.  Being a senator is not to be a life-long thing, but rather an opportunity to serve your country for 10 years.  The pension provision will have to be reasonable, and not considered by the population as outlandish.
• Senate Caucuses:  Instead of having a Liberal and a Conservative Caucus, I envisage 6 caucuses:  East Coast, Quebec, Ontario, Western, BC, and, The North.  This issue can have a number of possible scenarios, so long as it is not one based on political parties.
• Debate procedures:  The Senate would choose its own speaker, and along with a steering committee of one member from each caucus (regions) would set the rules for debate, and the schedule for sittings.

 So far, this is still pretty vague as to details.  If any of this plan were to come to pass, there would have to be a transition period with its own set of rules and procedures.  The senate needs to have a budget that is reasonable and followed by all members.  Expenses should be overseen by someone (Auditor General comes to mind).  Procedures for appointments need to be clarified.  And I haven't even thought of half of the stumbling block to this proposal.  But I would like some feedback.

And it is past my bedtime, so I'll say "Good Night."

Introduction

I don't know about you.  But I am getting tired of hearing that the senate needs to be fixed and that no one can seem to fix it. 

I have a few ideas that would make the senate viable, useful and representative.  And I'd love to hear what other people think about it.

Let's start with a little background on me.  I am a retired Canadian, born in Quebec, worked in Ontario and retired to BC.  I have travelled to every province and territory (except Nunavut - but that's on the bucket list) in Canada.  I love my country.  I fly our flag.  And I watch both women's and men's hockey during the Olympics.

When I lived in Ontario I never really understood Western Alienation.  But now I live in the west and I understand it perfectly.  I have lived in Quebec (21 years) and appreciate the unique qualities of the French language and culture (although I am ashamed to admit I am not bilingual.)  But when it comes to a distinct society, my mind immediately jumps to the wonderful isolated fishing villages of Newfoundland and Labrador.  Or the red sands of PEI.  Or the farms of Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia.  Or the Bay of Fundy tides in New Brunswick.  Or the Magdalen Islands of Quebec.  Or the Mennonite/Amish country in Ontario.  Or the winds of Portage and Main in Winnipeg, Manitoba.  Or the wheat fields of Saskatchewan.  Or the cattle ranches near Pincher Creek, Alberta.  Or the wild back country of British Columbia.  Or the wide open tundra of The Yukon.  Or the long winter nights and long summer days of Inuvik in the North-West Territories.  All parts of this great land are distinct.  

How, then, can we have a senate that will meet the needs of all Canadians?  We will never satisfy everyone, but I have a plan that I think can work well for most.  I will lay out this simple plan in the coming days.  But it's bed-time now.