Knightman

1. Pro Choice Yes, 2. Pro increased personal and small business freedoms 3. Pro Same Sex Marriage Yes. 4. Open to new (even Private) Solutions to make our health care system accessible by all and sustainable for the long term. Yes. Private clinics should be allowed to operate but they are exactly that. private business, no taxation dollars involved. 5. Pro Lower Taxes Lower taxes are good but expenses have to be reduced or other sources of income have to be developed. 6. Anti Kyoto Yes. 7. Pro Free Trade Not really. NAFTA has to be scraped and a new deal negotiated. Canada must maintain its sovereignty and protect its own interests and develop its own secondary industries. 8. Anti Iraq War Yes. 9. Pro war on terrorism Only as it concerns issues within our borders, security issues. 10. Pro more power to provinces YES. did I mention YES. 11. Pro free votes in Parliament Yes. 12. Pro senate reform YES. 13. Pro Fixed election terms YES. 14. Pro smaller government Yes. 15. Increased spending on our military 16. increased support for research and development 17. Scrap the Gun Registry? items (2) (15) and (16) (17) added.

1. Pro Choice Yes, 2. Pro increased personal and small business freedoms 3. Pro Same Sex Marriage Yes. 4. Open to new (even Private) Solutions to make our health care system accessible by all and sustainable for the long term. Yes. Private clinics should be allowed to operate but they are exactly that. private business, no taxation dollars involved. 5. Pro Lower Taxes Lower taxes are good but expenses have to be reduced or other sources of income have to be developed. 6. Anti Kyoto Yes. 7. Pro Free Trade Not really. NAFTA has to be scraped and a new deal negotiated. Canada must maintain its sovereignty and protect its own interests and develop its own secondary industries. 8. Anti Iraq War Yes. 9. Pro war on terrorism Only as it concerns issues within our borders, security issues. 10. Pro more power to provinces YES. did I mention YES. 11. Pro free votes in Parliament Yes. 12. Pro senate reform YES. 13. Pro Fixed election terms YES. 14. Pro smaller government Yes. 15. Increased spending on our military 16. increased support for research and development items (2) (15) and (16) added.

It would more meaningful to use the current seat allocations since there is zero chance of changing the current formula in this generation: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Senate is seated in this manner at the current time but it is little more that a support and study group for the House of Commons and does little for actually representing the provinces and territories, the structure it was set up to serve. To restructure the Senate would indeed require reorganizing its focus and that would in turn require reorganizing the focus of the House of Commons as well. If any restructuring were to take place the idea would be to maintain the correct basic structure to make the changeover as non-intrusive and understandable as possible. The Senate, if it is to be a equal representation body instead of the current federally "Prime Minister" appointed body could be seated by the provinces and territories in several ways. They could be provincially elected in an open vote. They could be elected by the governments of the provinces They could be appointed by the governments of the provinces. Which ever way that would be determined would or should be up to the individual provinces to decide to best seat those to represent the province. There is no need for a "standard" method for deciding on the members for the senate. The term of office should stay within the five year limit and the senate should be seated in a cyclic manner to maintain consistency instead of an "all at one time" method which places an entire new set of members who would require time to get up to speed and get the legislative process rolling again. The actual expense of directly paying the salaries of our 105 Senators is not that high. It is the pensions after their terms that can add up for all elected representatives. ((Canadian Senate. From Wikipedia,. The Senate was established in 1867, when the British North America Act 1867 created the Dominion of Canada. ... of 2005, is $119,100; members may receive additional salaries in right of other offices they hold. If we do some simple math say multiply 105 times $119,100 we get $12,505,500.00 to pay our senators per year. That is twelve million five hundred and five thousand, five hundred dollars to pay for our Senators per year.)) District Population *(Population Square Senate House of Commons total percentage of Percentage) KM Seats Seats seats total seats Qu&eacutebec 7,237,479 %24.12 1,542,056 24 75 99 23.97% Ontario 11,410,046 %38.03 1,076,395 24 106 130 31.47% British Columbia 3,907,738 %13.02 944,735 6 36 42 10.16% Alberta 2,974,807 %9.91 661,848 6 28 34 8.23% Saskatchewan 978,933 %3.26 651,036 6 14 20 4.84% Manitoba 1,119,583 %3.73 647,797 6 14 20 4.84% Nova Scotia 908,007 %3.03 55,284 10 11 21 5.08% New Brunswick 729,498 %2.43 72,908 10 10 Newfoundland & Labrador 512,930 %1.71 405,212 6 7 13 3.14% Prince Edward Island 135,294 %0.45 5,660 4 4 8 1.93% Northwest Territories 37,360 %0.12 1,346,106 1 1 2 0.48% Yukon Territory 28,674 %0.10 482,443 1 1 2 0.48% Nunavut 26,745 %0.09 2,093,190 1 1 2 0.48% Canada (totals) 30,007,094 %100.00 9,984,670 105 308 413 Federal house seating chart (images seem to be disabled, refer to above url for proper viewing) As one can see from the above chart, the spread of representation as based on population is not unfair, not perfectly balanced but within acceptabe limits at this time. What this chart does not show is the is the reality of representation and what actually occurs in the operation (flow of legislation) of our country. To reorganize the Senate to a representation by province/territory system could have the effect of better addresing regional concerns without jeapordizing the representation by population structure we have now in the House of Commons. That restructuring may bring about more effective balancing than the current system allows. If one looks at the entire structure we see a (rep by pop) system in the House of Commons, a (rep by pop) system in the Senate and again a (rep by pop) system operating within each province or territory. To seat the Senate as a represtation by region system could be a better option in the overall structure. This is the point. When we have basiclly a unicameral federal structure in that our Senate is appointed not elected. The proposed restructuring would give us a true bicameral structure.With that the focus of the House of Commons and the Senate should be altered. The House of Commons should be concerned with international affairs, truly national issues and foriegn affairs the details of which can easly be worked out. The restructured Senate should focus on internal issues, provincial concerns and provincial interaction. The provincial governments should be left free to plot their own coarse unhidered. To break down the boundries further would be similiar to the ridings now used to elect the House of Commons members and probably an unreasonable expectation. More provinces has to the worst possible solution. You need to have a critical mass of population before having a provincial gov't becomes cost effective. That is why the territories will likely always be territories. Your correct that any restructuring should end with the provinces, to go further is to add a lot more conflict to the mix. We do not need that. Quebec nationalists insist that Canada has only two partners: English Canada and Quebec. I don't agree with this attitude (it is extremely arrogant and self-serving on the part of Quebequers), however, this attitude means that Quebec's representation in the senate can never go down. That why talking about senate reform is a big waste of time unless Quebec seperates or some miracle occurs and Quebec politcians discover that acting like a team player instead of a prima donna would better serve the interests of Quebec in the long run. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is actually a well balanced representation at this time very close to the population percentages of the country........

Dates that the provinces entered into confederation. Province/Territory Date Alberta September 1, 1905 British Columbia July 20, 1871 Manitoba July 15, 1870 New Brunswick July 1, 1867 Newfoundland March 31, 1949 Northwest Territories July 15, 1870 Nova Scotia July 1, 1867 Nunavut April 1, 1999 Ontario July 1, 1867 Prince Edward Island July 1, 1873 Quebec July 1, 1867 Saskatchewan September 1, 1905 Yukon June 13, 1898 Canadian Confederation Canadian Confederation, the birth of Canada as a nation, took place on July 1, 1867, and originally included the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. There are now 10 provinces and three territories in Canada. Definition: In Canada, the term Confederation refers to the union of the three British North American colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Canada to become the Dominion of Canada on July 1, 1867. The three colonies were made into the four provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. The other provinces and territories entered Confederation later. Source: http://canadaonline.about.com/library/bl/blconfed.htm The original areas came together in 1867 to create Canada and to create a federal government structure modeled after the British parliamentary system under the the Queen of England. Canada is based on its provincial and territorial structure. The Governments of the Provinces are the true Representation by population system in this country and the federal government is supposed to exist for the purpose of supporting the provinces giving them a supposedly open forum, an arena for discussing topics and concerns of mutual interest. The federal government "House of Commons" and the "Senate" are there to be a platform available for Canada as a country to have a single voice to the other countries in the world. The federal government was never intended to become the "everything" of the Canadian political fabric. especally since Trudeau's time thirty seven years ago we have allowed the federal government to grow and gain ever increasing power over the provinces. Quebec is the only province that has attempted to remain closer to what was originaly intended..........

Reconstructing the Senate is only one part of what should be a redesigned federal government structure to better reflect and represent Canada as a whole. The concept of equal representation in the Senate is an important one as it would give each province a solid voice in government. As it is at this point the Senate has is nothing more than a sober but ineffective second thought, it has very rarely opposed or questioned legislation from the House of Commons. It conducts studies and research into proposed legislation, takes part in committes but in the very bottom line does little as an effective house in our government. This has been discussed on many other forum boards and some good concepts for restructuring have come out of those discussions. -Independent, non-partisan, elected Prime Minister. -Equal representation elected Senate to replace the existing appointed Senate. -The House of Commons would be seated in the same way we do now, same riding system, same number of seats but all members would be Non-partisan, or independents. They are elected on their personal merits and skill-sets not political party lines. -Clear division of Responsibilities between the House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons would be only responsible for international issues, foreign affairs, and truly national issues and concerns. The Senate would be responsible for the days to day operation of the country under the direction of the provinces. -All Taxation is taken in the provinces it is earned, similar to what Quebec does now and under this restructuring the House of Commons would be required to submit a budget for its realm of responsibility to the Senate. There would no longer be any federal income tax which is the only taxes that the provinces do not all collect now with only a couple of exceptions that go directly to the House of Commons. That is a very brief overview of some of the changes proposed to restructuring to eliminate a great deal of the problems we have had with our federal government over the last forty years. It is important to see the entire picture and understand the concepts behind the changeover and the implications to Canada as a whole. These points are only part of the concept..............

What Quebec is doing is the right thing and all the provinces should follow the example but there is no need for any of the provinces to seperate we need to restructure the federal government to accomodate provincial independence. What would Quebec, Alberta, the west or any province or area be seperating from? Not Canada, they are seperating from a federal government structure that has allowed our the governments seated in the House of Commons to ignore the provinces for close to the last forty years, at least thirty seven years since Trudeau's time. Why do we have functiong representation by population or council style governments already operating in the provinces and yet again elect a partisan government at the federal level that can be nothing more than a weak compromise of the provincial agendas and usually conflicts with those agendas, desires and needs. Rebuilding the Senate into somthing more useful than a rubber stamp house and a place for political parties of the day to position their " good ole' boys" would go a long way to giving us a more effective federal government structure. Use the Senate as a regional representation house that reflects the agendas of the provinces and give that House some real power. There is a way do accomplish this.

Fortunately, that is not happening. In fact, even though the Supreme Court has already said churches can't be forced to marry anyone, the present legislation is going even further to ensure protection of this right. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, that is a good thing however it is disturbing that some group may even consider it has the right to demand such a thing in the first place. That type of attitude seems a bit arrogant...........

Hello everyone from Knightman out here in Saskatoon, Sask. (I did not see an introductions thread) You folks are into one of the hot topic areas that pop up around the forum boards quite often and an interesting converation it is. After reading the posts so far it looks like it comes down to basic freedoms and the attempts by some to impose their beliefs on others. Regardless of what the realities are at the current time we should be all free to persue any lifestyle choice we wish without fear of retaliation so long as our activities do not affect others that do not wish to be involved. Freedoms work in two directons. For instance if some in the gay community wish be married and some religious groups do not believe in such a thing then we have a conflict. What is happening now is our federal government is attempting to regulate this through the use of legislation and the possibility of the churches loosing thier tax exempt status is at risk over this human rights issue. In actual fact if the gay community wish to have their rights respected they should also respect the rights of the churches and its members and not expect that they can be married in any church of their choosing thus attempting to force some to go against their beliefs and the chruches should not rail against gays becasue of their lifestyle choice. This two way thinking works in many cases freedoms are just that freedoms. To attempt to impose our paticular version is wrong. If some wish to extend the various religions throughout Canada that is fine but do not expect that it is the only way. There are an infinate number of lifestyle choices and many do not include any gods or religious activity...................