A Journey out of Religion (part 2)

So since it seems many people have been acquainted with part 1, I feel it right to continue on with the rest.

Some of you may wonder how young I was when I first declared myself an atheist. I was probably 10 or 11. The reasons for this are aforementioned. However, my declaration I can declare hollow. I not only merely said it to one person, but I also said it without conviction. I still believed there was a God then. Maybe I just needed the attention.

Thus, unsatisfied with the Salvation Army, I began to research other religions.

I can recall fragments of it. I became rather impressed by Islam while watching a documentary about the Petronas towers. I enjoyed seeing people washing together, dressed alike, a simply praying. It was as far from the SA as I thought possible. I admired it immediately for an apparently simplicity and equality. However, at the same time, I felt that as a newer religion it was therefore farther from the beginning of all of us, and therefore likely more disconnected with the truth.

I've always had a historical consciousness, and as a youngster very simple forms of this consciousness were taking shape. I held reverence for what is old, rather than what is best - a shortcoming so common... anyway, my attraction to pedigree took me towards Judaism and Zoroastrianism, which I, now roughly 13 or so, began referring to as the father and grandfather of Christianity (as to a simple mind chronology matters more than the details. I unfortunately did not learn how wrong I was on this point until about a decade later.)

To be honest, I did a good deal more research on Zoroastrianism, as someone on a forum I frequented at the time expressed interest in it. I had heard that rather than a hell, their concept of punishment was a week-long bath in some purifying lava. This immediately spoke to my sense of justice, which had been offended by the notion of an eternity in hell, without redemption.

I never really found out if that notion of punishment was true or not, for I discovered a religion (or more like, the books on it) more concerned with ritual than other matters. Indeed, so much detail was given to such extremely lengthly procedures that I immediately was turned off on the whole process of learning about these new religions. Perhaps it is ok to be pure, but my goodness are people ever impure in Zoroastrianism - I thought probably almost their entire lives!

I thought it elitist, and myself kind of snobbish for looking into these things. I suppose if I had known about Unitarian churches I probably would have (ever) given those a look. However, when it came to churches, and days when I was not working, it was at the SA with my mother.

So, I must admit that through my teen years I was a very half-assed seeker of some other "truth." As one could expect, I declared myself spiritual and coasted off of that for a long time.

Boards of Canada: "Tomorrow's Harvest." A Soundtrack without a movie.

Like any other Boards of Canada fan, I've eagerly awaited this album for years, checking the internet regularly for any remours concerning the release of this long-anticipated album. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the album did not come out in my part of Canada until a week later. This afforded me the opportunity to check the reviews of the album, and prepare myself.

All I heard of the album so far was "Reach for the Dead." Though it possessed some beautiful moments, it
certainly was a far-less compelling foretaste of the album than I could have hoped for. It certainly paled in memory of most older BoC tracks. Reading through the reviews online I could find that there were indeed a fair number of people unimpressed with the whole album at large. They were a minority opinion (indeed, a significant minority), but I was more inclined to believe them.

Why? For starters, BoC possesses a fan base among whose members comprise people that in many ways best represent the concept of "Religion of Brand;" they are Religious fanatics in the most modern sense. They dissect every track in a manner befitting a medieval scholastic; they're anticipation of this new album, as alluded to elsewhere, was akin to the second coming of Christ (or third, if you've actually read the New Testament; or fourth, if you're a mormon). Their defence of Tomorrow's Harvest on sites such as amazon.com almost makes a pace of Monty Python, "every song is sacred," more than an apt joke. I must admit I've indulged in some of this behaviour myself.

Accordingly, once I purchased the album, I was more sceptical of it than any album I had bought in recent memory.

Listening to it initially, I could only feel reminded of Vangelis' "L'apocalypse des animeaux," which is unusual, since I can't consciously remember anything of that album. That album was certainly not Vangelis' best work, and all I could feel was that this would not be BoC's best work, either. Indeed, the feeling that dominated me throughout the listening was that "Tomorrow's Harvest" simultaneously sounded more modern than previous albums, and yet more dated.

While "L'apocalypse des animeaux" is an actual movie soundtrack from the early 1970's, Tomorrow's Harvest definitely sounds like the soundtrack to an unreleased movie, completed a range going from the made to the unfinished to the unmade in my record collection (the middle being the Uncle Meat soundtrack). A number of the pieces work, if only taken in the vein of a soundtrack; and indeed mixed with the artwork one does receive a sense of the apocalyptic. Having said that, being a good soundtrack doesn't make it a good album.

As other reviewers have pointed out, many of the tracks do not elicit an emotional response. There are tracks that do, which I have listed below in my standouts. That emotional response, ultimately, is nostalgia, which is not necessarily a good thing. BoC has always succeeded by tapping into nostalgia, but that was nostalgia of popular culture from bygone days. The best offerings from Tomorrow's Harvest are nostalgia for Boards of Canada.

Having said that, it is still not a bad album. The tracks that are good are really good, while the theme of the album is strong, and compensates for the weakness of individual tracks (like a real album should). It may not be the place to start listening to BoC (in my opinion that honour falls to Geogaddi), but it is still respectable.

Now, having written all this, I just want to posit and hypothesis. That hypothesis is this: BoC's fanbase has actually dampered the creativity of Boards of Canada. How so? There is a saying I will now poorly restate, that brilliance is a product of strife. Another is that necessity is the mother of invention. Boards of Canada were able to produce wonderful, innovative albums in a relatively short time when they were young and insecure. Having gained security, they were able to retreat even further out of the limelight. Few bands can say that their fanbase has grown over their years of inactivity (My Bloody Valentine, perhaps?) and it is because of this that they could go on for almost a decade doing relatively little. I believe that were their fans less fanatical, they might have been compelled to do something sooner, and it would have probably been better.

Standouts: Sick Times, Split Your Infinities, Nothing is Real, Sundown, New Seeds

MP Rathgeber's Resignation

Today, formerly Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber resigned from that party's caucus. The stated reason was a protest against the government's “lack of commitment to transparency and open government.” This is an issue he attempted to remedy, by proposing a private member's bill, which unfortunately did not survive unscathed its meeting with the aforementioned caucus.

This makes for a rare week for me - a week where I agree with the Conservatives twice. However, the first, was with the government line (over arming Syrian rebels). The second is my agreement with a conservative man, in opposition to that party. I do not agree with everything that MP Rathgeber believes, but I acknowledge that his resignation is both bold and principled. We sometimes think rather cynically of the motives of our elected representatives. By appearances, his motives and actions are not merely acceptable by worthy of congratulation. Members of all parties claim to be people of principle, and he stood on his principles.

Having said that, the reaction of the party is petty and juvenile, and symbolic of the issues with our democracy. They responded to his resignation by stating “The people of Edmonton-St. Albert elected a Conservative Member of Parliament. Mr. Rathgeber should resign and run in a by-election.” While the first contention is very likely true, it is also irrelevant to the second point. I know many of you are agreeing with the Conservative Party line. You probably think it is democratic - if his riding agrees with him, they will re-elect him. In reality it is the opposite of democracy - it is populism.

For, in our more democratic past (and the democratic presents of many of our cousins internationally), it is not considered a mortal sin to go against the party line. Members can come and go from one side of parliament to the next as it suits them. They are not considered traitors. They are not considered replaceable. Indeed, Winston Churchill did this very thing himself, sitting as the Liberal for many years, before rejoining the Conservative Party. For what would be considered in contemporary Canada an unforgivable travesty, Sir Winston was only Prime Minister twice.

By threatening MP Rathgeber the Conservatives are re-asserting an old line: that you cannot go against our party, and that you are replaceable. It must be said that politically they haven't much to lose: they've already lost an MP, while the opposition has gained (it doesn't matter that he could vote for the Conservatives on every occasion) - but if he agrees to a by-election, he will be removed from Parliament for a matter of months, and once the byelection occurs, then it is very likely the Conservatives will win, as we are talking of Alberta, unless Calgary-Centre was not a fluke. Accordingly, the Conservatives will suffer no further damage, while their apparent opponents will.

However, what this issue is about is control. I believe that we all believe that people should be able to vote with their conscience, even if they are in parliament. I feel, and I'm sure that there are others, who agree with me that the Canadian overuse on the "party whip" is abhorent. If you support the Conservative Party's call for a byelection, and share those convictions with me, you are, hopefully unconsciously, betraying them. For, we are presenting them with an ultimatum: if you stand by your conscience, you should be immediately dismissed from Parliament. Such is the consequence of resigning from parliament. It may only be temporary, but in all likelihood, it is permanent. The Party believes it can replace them with someone less independent.

I must now ask three questions: first, are the Constituents of Edmonton-St. Albert served after MP Rathgeber resigns? Second, who will represent them better? The current MP, or his likely successor? Though it will betray my bias, I have to qualify that likely successor as in all likelihood a subservient party lapdog. Finally, what are Members of Parliament elected to do? Is it a) Represent their constituents or b) Support the Party that funded their campaign?

Rathgeber has stood by his principles in resigning from the caucus. He has followed age old precedent, a practice which has unfortunately been exterminated in this country. There is no law that says that he now must resign from Parliament. He can represent his constituents as ably as an independent as a Conservative, and that is all that matters. Were the Conservatives more principled they would not threaten to destroy his career, but respect his action, respect his principles, and invite him to return to their caucus, as his action was so admirable and worthy of one of their party members. Indeed example should be applauded, and if necessary, repeated. However, I would wish it were not necessary. We Canadians need to put away the whips, and the sooner the better.

P.S. For fun, think about past regimes where loyalty to the party came ahead of loyalty to the people! Multiple points for multiple answers!

A Thought on Insurgency (2)

"Analysts said the death of the two commanders would mark a significant blow to the rebellion in Mali."
But will it affect their morale? Being Islamic extremists, who believe that the hand of God moves all things, will not their underlings not just shrug it off because their deaths were meant to be?

My Initial Fall out of Religion (My journey, part 1)

As a part of a school assignment, I attended a service at the church of my youth for the first time since my mother died, in September. Even in isolation from my experiences at a Catholic Mass the week prior (of which more later), my attendance at the Salvation Army church served to revive memories of why I found myself an atheist (of which more later).

As a child I gradually grew alienated from the church. It wasn't simply that I found the services long and boring. It was that I felt that the church not only worshiped in a manner I found disrespectful of any God, but also seemed to me to be idolatrous. It was because of those two reasons that I did my best to leave the church, though I should be admitted that I maintained an attendance over the years for the sake of my dying mother.

The services of the Salvation Army, for the uninitiated, can be summarized as being a "song and dance" routine. The uniformed band, which is of a high quality, begins things with some traditional numbers. This is followed by the uniformed choir, with their own offerings. Between this and the sermon (which is quite some time), the focus shifts to the non-uniformed band du jour, which as of this past Sunday, was a rock band, in the finest example of modern day evangelical protestantism. They had very nice guitars, and a cute youngster from the choir performed lead vocals. In the past we had folk bands, and through my life I have witnessed the "electrification" of the service.

This electrification did not sit well with many in the congregation. Indeed, many of the elderly would use the opportunity to leave the church, a reaction which occasioned a sermon on how insensitive it was to reject the style of worship others have adopted. I would agree with the Old that electrification is a sappy sell-out to the youth. I go further and declaim the whole service, regardless of the music, for, when you place music above the message, as the SA has always done, you are nothing more than a carnival. If Jesus was the word made flesh, than why not use words?

My other issue with the SA was that, by the time came for the sermon, they seemingly indulged in idolatry. I must confess I did not understand the doctrine of the trinity, but that did not stop me from having significant problems with the name of Jesus being invoked at every opportunity - as opposed to God. They only ever thanked Jesus/God for their sacrifice on the cross, and nothing else, which I thought improper and irreverent.

These feelings would begin my exodus from the church, religion, and God. I did not at the time feel like Atheism was a proper position to take, though I had felt like an atheist already. I felt that I needed some kind of religion, and so I would examine others. I respected Islam for its apparent simplicity and equality. I respected Judaism and Zoroastrianism for their pedigree, and the apparent quality of their people. In the end I would wind up as one of those "spiritual types," at least until I returned from war, many years later.

I must now go through my revelations from Sunday.

My girlfriend, during the service, made two important observations. First, it appeared that we observed the doctrine of predestination, a thing we both found abhorrent. My sister and I had to admit that in the course of our lives we were never instructed in the particular theology of our sect. Our Sunday Schools were spent in discussion of Old Testament stories and history (sometimes with a comic bent, such as whether King David was a homosexual), and we only ever learned anything about this theology through experience.

The experience that stands out in my mind was during the last days of my mother's life. My father had been listening to our relations and the Officers talking (over and over), and realized that whenever they spoke of my mother going to see her mother, they never mentioned her father. Apparently, this was because my grandfather never did the "sinner's prayer" prior to his death. Therefore, they expected him to be in hell. Hell, that idea I thought so obsolescent was here in the fore. It was the first time in years I had heard it mentioned in any seriousness by anyone. I wondered how my mother would have possibly said this prayer prior to her death, given that she thought I was our dead dog and my sister was my unborn brother.

My girlfriend's other observation was that, in spite of the length of the Salvation Army's service (a brutal 1h40m), there was no time given to reflection. She, being a Catholic, found this very unusual. I can imagine she also found it annoying, as I can guess from conversations we've had that this time for reflection is the thing she treasures most from Mass. She concluded that our services were cult-like. Our services were long, loud, and overwhelming. They required no thinking, no response from the audience (barely an amen). One is passive for the entire time. You only ever feel connected to whoever is leading the service at the time. When I remarked that our officers must only ever marry other officers, it seemed like its status as a Cult was confirmed.

A Thought on Insurgency

Should an insurgency conduct itself through the organizational use of small cells, as is so often the case, then that insurgency stands to benefit in one way not often stated: When a cell is successful, every other cell notices. When a cell is destroyed, no other cell notices. Perhaps this helps explain how successful insurgencies can achieve success in spite of horrific casualties.

An Elected Senate (Without the Costs!)

On the Senate

Introduction

Rumours have come that at long last, legislation is finally being tabled to reform the Canadian senate. One of the most widely held opinions, from all of Canada - that the Senate should be elected, so far seems to be the most obvious and reported changed. A Triple-E senate - long a bulwark of the Reform Party and still a popular idea, is yet to be seen in its entirety. A senate that is Equal, Elected, and Effective; the first quality is open to interpretation. The second quality raises issues, such as how they should be elected? How is it funded? etc. The third quality will be entirely up to the senate, despite the best efforts of legislation, and only time will tell.

So what issues do they confront with regard to the Senate?

Equality

As the House of Commons is based around representation by Population, albeit in a nineteenth century form, the Senate was established as a way of giving less populated regions a greater voice. Thus, for more than a hundred years, the "losers" in this arrangement were Ontario and Quebec. Even the Maritimes, at one point, could have derided the Senate for its over-representation from the newly established provinces in the West (it bears remembering that the populations of Atlantic Canada and Western Canada only began to diverge significantly, and in favour of the West, roughly 50 years ago). Now that the situation has changed, demographically, the over-representation of Atlantic Canada, with 30 senators, is the target of the age.

People should be forgiven for forgetting that that was the point entirely. Under the current framework, the basis of equal representation on the basis of region, all the regions of Canada receive 24 Senators, regardless of population. The regions were the West, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes. The territories of Canada each receive a single senator, bringing the total number of senators in this framework to 99 (98 before 1999 and the creation of Nunavut).

This formula was thrown out of whack in 1949 when Canada admitted Newfoundland and Labrador as a province to Confederation. As apart of its negotiations with Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador were to receive six senate seats - which the did. This is the same number of seats given to each province of the Western region. It bears mentioning that Newfoundland and Labrador is not a Maritime province. It is an atlantic one. If they were to keep the region framework intact as it was, perhaps it would have been smarter at the time to have rolled the Maritime region and Newfoundland and Labrador into a new Atlantic region, wherein Newfoundland received its six seats not out of the air, but rather by taking seats from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island.

Therefore, not only would each region of Canada still be represented by 24 senators, but the public would also go the further step and acknowledge that it was in fact, the case. Today each region is represented equally, but the perception of this is distorted, and quite rightly, by the added influence of Newfoundland and Labrador. The region basis of the senate has been compromised.

So with reform the question of equality simply raises three questions, first: is it, the senate, to be equal by region as intended? This question raises another question as to whether Quebec and Ontario, Canada's largest provinces in both area and population, deserve the relatively distorting influence of being considered a region to themselves. Finally, could  the senate  be rendered equal by province, in a manner essentially similar to the Senate of the United States?

The easiest way to solve to the problem of regional equality is to absorb Newfoundland into a greater Atlantic Region, allowing the set number of 24 seats per region to be maintained. Taking the six seats entitled to Newfoundland and Labrador out of the total from the Maritime provinces would render each region again, equal. The question of what composes a proper region could cause heated debate, however. The West has a population equal to the five easternmost provinces. Again, this is about regional equality - there is already a house for representation by population.

Representation by province is another way of going about the problem. However, Ontario and Quebec stand to lose massively by such a proposition, while the relative abundance of senate seats from Atlantic Canada would gain at the expense of Central Canada. For reasons I will outline later, let us say that each province becomes represented by 10 senators. PEI would stand to more than double its presence in the senate from its current 4 Senators. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would gain nothing, while Ontario and Quebec would all lose 14 Senators. All other provinces would each gain four senators from such an establishment.

Opposition from Quebec and Ontario is already showing its head, and the legislation has yet to be tabled, or even leaked. An equal system, one based by provincial status or membership in an arbitrary block called a region does not serve their interests. With an elected body in parliament comes a great power, long denied to the senate - power to use money. In reforming the Senate House, Central Canada, which has been seeing economic and political power fly westward, would now see the newest power in government not dwelling closely by, but rather in the Atlantic Provinces. They will win no matter how this issue is resolved (save the forced amalgamation of the Maritime provinces into a single entity, an idea that has been proposed from time to time).

Part 2: Elections

The immediate problem of holding a senatorial election is the question of when? How often, and with whom? The idea of a 12 year term seems to be presented in the discourse, so now we know of a possibility. To piggy back the Senatorial election onto a general election makes the most sense logistically, while a separate election raises fears in some of an apathetic electorate bothering at any other time. Should this election be first past the post, like the elections to the House of Commons? Should it party based, or independent, as some have suggested? Is an election even effective?

In my eyes, to institute a carbon-copy of our standard electoral process would be redundant, and in the end, self-defeating. We have an opportunity to institute creative and corrective electoral measures with a Senate election, ones that could in some ways alleviate the drawbacks of our present system. What I propose is an election based on proportional representation. There would be no campaigning. There would be no unique senate election. Instead, say every three elections or so, any new federal election for the commons also dissolves the senate. Thus, we have a term of office within the senate of up to twelve years, but of course, potentially much less. When the votes are finalized on election night, the popular vote in the province determines how many senate seats are distributed to each party. As I stated earlier, let us say ten seats per province are available each time the Senate is to be reconstituted. Based on the results of the 2011 Federal Election, the breakdown of 100 such senate seats would be as follows:
    - 45 Conservatives (broken down further to: 5 - BC; 7 - AB; 6 - SK; 5 MB; 4 - ON; 2 - PQ;
                5 - NB; 4 - NS; 4 - PE; and 3 from NL)
    - 29 New Democrats (3 - BC; 2 - AB; 3 - SK; 3 - MB; 3 - ON; 4 - PQ; 3 - NB; 3 - NS; 2 -                 PE; and 3 from NL)
    - 23 Liberals (1 - BC; 1 - AB; 1 - SK; 2 - MB; 3 - ON; 2 - PQ; 2 - NB; 3 - NS; 4 - PE;                 and 4 from NL)
    - 1 Green (from BC)
    - 2 Bloc (from Quebec)

I achieved the above numbers by rounding up and down, for example 45.1% of the vote translating to 5 Senators, while 44.9% brought in four. The exception was for provinces where rounding down reduced the number of filled senate seats to nine. To correct that, the party with popular vote furthest from the base-ten would win the tenth Senate seat - this was the situation in Quebec. There, popular vote was divided 16.5% to the Conservative Party (who receive two Senators), 42.9% for the NDP (at least four Senators), 14.2% for the Liberals (at least one), and 23.4% for the Bloc Quebecois (at least two). For the tenth seat, the Conservatives are eliminated having been rounded up already. The NDP has a remainder of 2.9%, the Liberals 4.2% and the Bloc 3.4%. Thus the tenth Senate seat is awarded to the Liberals.

This system leaves no room for Independents. It also prevents people from chosing their candidates. However, I felt people more generally vote based on party than on the character representing them, as evidenced in Quebec and Alberta most obviously in the last election. Also, it fails to fall into line with national voting lines; however as the system is one based around the province I feel such an objection is missing the point. A fundamental problem regards the status of the territories in this whole system, but I believe they can be reasonably accomodated in this system, perhaps by using the popular vote from all three territories to determine how to distribute the territories' three senate seats. If these three seats are increased to five, then we needn't have to worry about moving chairs in or out of the Senate House.

This system, despite its misgivings I maintain is worthwhile as it gives voice to the unheard voter. Alberta Liberals may not have elected a Member to the House of Commons, but at least they have the solace of having helped send someone to the Senate House. In fact the Liberals, destroyed in the House of Commons, still represent a viable block in a 100 seat Senate. The representation of the three national parties is in fact, under this system, national, barring an actual electoral collapse of one of the parties. The majority the Conservatives achieved in the House of Commons is tempered by the presence of a minority in the senate surrounded by an opposition with vitality. The last Liberal governments would also have faced similar circumstances. A government wishing to dissolve Parliament to take advantage of a positive swing in the polls would quickly see such hopes evaporate against a Senate majority against it.

This application of proportion representation could also be utilized on a regional basis. Calculating the seat values for province-regions such as Ontario and Quebec is rather easy. If the regions keep their valuation 24 senate seats each, then we would see Ontario receive eleven Conservatives, six New Democrats, six Liberals and and even a Green; from Quebec there would be four Conservatives, ten New Democrats, three Liberals, six Bloc, and another Green! From the 48 senators, we would have fifteen Conservatives, sixteen New Democrats, nine Liberals, six Bloc, and two Greens. Combining the popular votes of the four western provinces and calculating regional proportional vote based on that total, rather than individual provinces, will lead us to divide up the 24 Western Senators. Each province would receive six senators from that total. The same process would occur in the Atlantic Region. Voter turnout in each individual province from in the West and Atlantic Canada could however dramatically affect results. Alberta, which voted overwhelmingly voted for the Conservative Party, but suffers from the highest rates of voter apathy, could see some of its influence on the Western popular vote significantly reduced versus the other three provinces in the West. Likewise for Prince Edward Island, which enjoys the highest voter turnout (in excess of 70%) could, even with its small population, make a big difference in the least populated region of the country.

Now, some have called for the Senate to be free of party politics, and I believe that this is also a worthwhile consideration. However, this adds to the problems of logistics, as not only must there now be a direct election, but there must also be a massive promotional campaign to alert the voters to the values of each aspirant to the Senate. I believe this election should too be piggybacked onto a general election, although this could cause problems in the following way - that boundaries for a Senator's riding will not conform to the the electoral bodies for the house of Commons. There will be people, not most, but many, who will find they have to vote in two separate locations for House of Commons and Senate, unless extra steps are taken to predict potential problems. Some would say that this is a reason to separate elections to the Commons and Senate, but I fear, given the indifference Canadians have towards the Senate, the turnout will be embarrassing.

Part 3 - Why do we Need a Senate?

The Senate was established as a place for "Sober, Second thought;" a place where the legislation approved by the popularly elected delegates of the masses could be compared against the interests of an appointed elite. The Senate was not merely a place to represent regions, but also to represent divergent classes in society. Unelected, however, they had no power of issues of money. At best, the give the country a body of experts in government with which to balance the theoretically less experienced members of the House of Commons.

It would seem that opposition to the Senate arises from two, related factors. First, that the Senate just doesn't affect legislation. The statement may be untrue, but it is a commonly accepted view of the Senate. However, if the still unelected Senate begins to block legislation, then the cries of "how dare they!" begin to sound. An elected Senate can and will be more forceful when it comes to legislation. If they are not, then it will be irrelevant and likely bound for disbandment. Those in favour of disbanding it do not want something ineffective, but if it were to become effective, would become seen as being obstructionist. They are figuratively unallowed to perform.

Our neighbours have a system of checks and balances. The Canadian "Check" is the Supreme Court; the balance is the Senate. The Senate has the means of balancing the contradictions of Canadian democracy, representing the unheard and promoting the weak. A reformed Senate, one dedicated to equal representation on the basis of region or provincehood gives the House of Commons the room to be the House of Commons. This is overlooked but important.

Where the Upper House was meant to represent the regions of Canada as they were in 1867, the Lower House was established to represent the population. It has very seldom held to this principle. Instead, the House of Commons has been a compromise between the population of Canada and various special cases, be it relatively unpopulated provinces, or rural districts. A Senate with more power and equal representation can allow the House of Commons to rededicate itself to truly representing all Canadians. If seats in the House of Commons were distributed based by population (with the exception of the special cases of the territories and Labrador), we would see many more seats for British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, with fewer seats for the rest. Prince Edward Island could at best lay claim to a pair of MPs, but given its representation in the Senate, this should not be a problem. There are many American states where there are as many or more Senators than Representatives. This could be the case in Canada, too, under an equal system.

We need the balance of a Senate. We need the expertise of a Senate. We need a Senate that lives up to its purpose. We need a Senate that fulfills its role in Confederation. An empowered and equal Senate can prevent the pseudo-dictatorship of Commons-majorities, without the obstruction feared by those who look south.

Remembrance day, a rough draft

            Canada is a country blessed like few others. Blessed in that the last time a battle was fought on our soil was in the 19^th century. Many countries which share this distinction with us have unfortunately bested us in the field of government repression, and so Canada is historically one of the least bloodied countries in the modern age. Only New Zealand probably has a greater record of non-violent governance. That said, this reality of peace threatens one of our most significant days: Remembrance Day.

            It is already not conceived as significant by our society. Outside of the military, the only public recognition of the day is limited to sporting events. There is one important place where the day is recognized, and that is our school system. They observe the day with assemblies, with poetry and artwork. However, they do not observe the day with understanding. That is because for the average Canadian the meaning of the day is utterly foreign.

            The average Canadian student lacks something very important to the meaning of Remembrance Day. That is, they lack living memory of war itself. There are very few children, born in this country, who have relatives who have served in war. Their grandparents were too young for the Second World War, perhaps even for Korea. Peacekeeping too, though not really a focus of the Day is alien to the students, too, and only a handful of them have relations or acquaintances who served in Afghanistan. As such, our population is, or has already forgotten the horrors of war. The horrors of war are a cliché.

            However, we still have people in this country to whom war is a very personal experience. There are the small numbers of veterans from Afghanistan, it is true. More importantly, we have immigrants. Hundreds of thousands of people arrive from abroad every year, many of them fleeing from countries whose wars have cost them personally. These people, and their children, are the real link our country has nowadays to the meaning of Remembrance Day.

            It is worth remembering at this point that Remembrance Day is not solely about remembrance of our fallen. The real meaning of the Day has a more universal attribute – it is a day meant to emphasize the horror of war. Death is only a small component of the horror of war. Oftentimes survival is far worse, far crueler. My grandmother used to speak of the men who survived the First World War. They were gassed and shell-shocked. Because of the former they could hardly breathe. Because of the latter they had no desire to speak. They were living reminders of the cost of war, brought home from the battlefield. They showed the costs incurred long after the armies were disbanded.

            In our country today there are few people who demonstrate to us so clearly the cost of war. Instead, we have within our population millions of foreign-born Canadians who have witnessed such things. They have lost family to war, and homes and cities and farms. If Remembrance Day truly is about “never again!” then these are the only people who can truly relate it to the majority of us.

            No longer should Remembrance Day be a day solely for the commemoration of our past struggles as a country. Such a view limits its scope, and trivializes war. Truly, so many countries have suffered far greater than our country ever has. By expanding Remembrance Day to encompass the experiences of the entire world, we do ourselves a service. Only in this way will we truly teach the next generations of Canadians what war really costs. Only then will they respect war, and only then will we truly have fulfilled the spirit of the Day.