Smallc Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 Then you should have no problem with all provinces having only six senators. I would have no problem....but you don't have to convince me. Quote
Wilber Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 The west is getting more seats in the commons very soon, but I suppose they're getting screwed in that too. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 That was why I said we may have to be happy with regional equality. Quote
Wilber Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 I'd prefer 0 senators. That is equal. dobbin, at last we agree on something. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 The west is getting more seats in the commons very soon, but I suppose they're getting screwed in that too. Yes, if you look at the numbers, BC and Alberta have been getting screwed. So has Ontario. That is why if we are going to have two houses, the Commons should be rep by pop and all provinces should be equal in the Senate. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
ThatGuy Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 Who cares. Frank Mahovolich rocks. Quote
Smallc Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 (edited) Yes, if you look at the numbers, BC and Alberta have been getting screwed. So has Ontario. That is why if we are going to have two houses, the Commons should be rep by pop and all provinces should be equal in the Senate. I agree, the commons should be fixed. PEI should have 2 seats, MB 12, SK 10, AB 35, BC 40, ON 125, etc. I also have no problem with the senate being equal, but it would be hard to do..as would be changing the commons. Edited December 2, 2008 by Smallc Quote
Wilber Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 That was why I said we may have to be happy with regional equality. Interesting. If you look at the way the Federal government divides up the country for bureaucratic purposes. BC is a separate region referred to as the Pacific Region as opposed to the Western Region composed of the prairie provinces . Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 Interesting. If you look at the way the Federal government divides up the country for bureaucratic purposes. BC is a separate region referred to as the Pacific Region as opposed to the Western Region composed of the prairie provinces . Look, I would really like it if every province had, say, 5 senators, but I'm not sure it would be doable. Quote
Wilber Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 Look, I would really like it if every province had, say, 5 senators, but I'm not sure it would be doable. Senators they chose according to their own wishes, not the PM's. It's not doable at this time but eventually the country will be forced to deal with this issue whether it likes it or not. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Smallc Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 Senators they chose according to their own wishes, not the PM's. I think that issue should possibly be left up to individual provinces to decide if we end up going down this road. Quote
Wilber Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 I think that issue should possibly be left up to individual provinces to decide if we end up going down this road. They should do so now if we are to continue with this sham of "regional" representation. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wrongwayman Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 OF course every region is different. Te rest is simply your opinion. I don't think we should eliminate a constitutionally mandated transfer program just because you don't like it. CONSTITUTION????? According to your constitution, it is OK to discriminate against fat people and old people. (and white males, but that was unintentional)....so much for your constitution. I happen to fit those stereotypes, and so must defend myself through other means. YOUR constitution does not grant me any unalienable rights. BC, Sask, NFLD and Alberta are now the only net producers of wealth in Canada. I guess it should now be fair to pillage those provinces in order to enable the ROC to keep their various social programs? Perhaps, in some minds, but I for one do not believe in Confederation if a legally voted in government can be toppled through a malicious, treasonous coup, for self-enrichment of the also-ran parties. Quote
Smallc Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 YOUR constitution does not grant me any unalienable rights. Yes, it does. Read it again. Quote
guyser Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 Perhaps, in some minds, but I for one do not believe in Confederation if a legally voted in government can be toppled through a malicious, treasonous coup, for self-enrichment of the also-ran parties. Apt moniker I would suggest. You dont of course have to believe it, but it is legal. Quote
kimmy Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 Apt moniker I would suggest.You dont of course have to believe it, but it is legal. He didn't say he didn't believe it was legal. He said he doesn't believe in a system where this is legal. And I have to tell you I'm pretty much there myself. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
guyser Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 He didn't say he didn't believe it was legal. He said he doesn't believe in a system where this is legal.And I have to tell you I'm pretty much there myself. -k he said... treasonous coup It is not a traitorous unconstitutional overthrow of our govt. If one is PO'd by all this, fine, but it isnt what he was saying. Quote
kimmy Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 he said...It is not a traitorous unconstitutional overthrow of our govt. If one is PO'd by all this, fine, but it isnt what he was saying. I believe what he's saying is basically "if this is legal, then the law sucks". I think everybody at this point recognizes that this is legal, but many people still feel it's a coup in spirit, if not by the letter of the law. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
mjp Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 I believe what he's saying is basically "if this is legal, then the law sucks".I think everybody at this point recognizes that this is legal, but many people still feel it's a coup in spirit, if not by the letter of the law. -k its part of the constitution, not a law. and part of the Westminster system of Gov't. well harper was going to do it with the Bloc and NDP... so... a coup you say....lol Quote
g_bambino Posted December 2, 2008 Report Posted December 2, 2008 I believe what he's saying is basically "if this is legal, then the law sucks".I think everybody at this point recognizes that this is legal, but many people still feel it's a coup in spirit, if not by the letter of the law. -k I find it odd that some people think this particular situation should put three centuries of representative parliamentary democracy into question. Minority parliaments happen. Coalition governments happen. By the way these coup-mongers are going on, you'd think we're on our way to being another Zimbabwe because something's happening that hasn't been seen here before. Quote
wulf42 Posted December 3, 2008 Report Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) That should be great for the economy! http://thechronicleherald.ca/cponline/stories/n68138031.html Title of former thread: "World is wondering about our stability as a country!" merged into this previous thread by moderator. Edited December 3, 2008 by Charles Anthony merged thread Quote
Vancouverite Posted December 3, 2008 Report Posted December 3, 2008 That should be great for the economy!http://thechronicleherald.ca/cponline/stories/n68138031.html Well, this country is forever on the verge of breaking up, but it never quite does that. The Economist had recommended that Canada join the US, but that was a couple of decades ago, if I remember correctly, and it hasn't happened yet. Quote
wulf42 Posted December 3, 2008 Report Posted December 3, 2008 Well, this country is forever on the verge of breaking up, but it never quite does that. The Economist had recommended that Canada join the US, but that was a couple of decades ago, if I remember correctly, and it hasn't happened yet. Yes but this has to be one of the most serious situations i can remember. Quote
M.Dancer Posted December 3, 2008 Report Posted December 3, 2008 Yes but this has to be one of the most serious situations i can remember. Then you must be too young to remember the Quebec referendums, FLQ crisis, the formation of the bloc. NEP..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.