Harpers Conservative Senate Appointment

[Molly]

Basically you guys are saying strip Ontario and PQ of half their their senate positions, and give them to the west and the territories.

Figures.

[Alta4ever]

Basically you guys are saying strip Ontario and PQ of half their their senate positions, and give them to the west and the territories.

Figures.

It figures that you don't see yourself on a equal basis with the rest of Canada, its not enough for you votes to dominate one house but you must dominate both at the expense of the rest of Canada.

[Alta4ever]

If you scroll down you will find a list of the numbers of senators for each province based on population. It's not based on urban areas.

"The Bloc Québécois (BQ) is a federal political party in Canada that defines itself as devoted to both the protection of Quebec's interests on a federal level as well as the promotion of its sovereignty.[1] As such, it campaigns only within the province during elections."

The NDP are allowed to campaign in the entire country, including Quebec. The Bloc are not.

But they (NDP) don't they focus on urban ridings, they may have had a canidate here but his name wasn't even on the signs al they said were vote for jack laytons team.

Btw if the bloc changed its party consitution it could run candiates out side of Quebec, but they are just not interestd in doing it.

[Smallc]

Not exactly.

Lillian Dyck is a Liberal now.

[Wilber]

Basically you guys are saying strip Ontario and PQ of half their their senate positions, and give them to the west and the territories.

Figures.

No, we are not. We are saying that the Senate should be different than the commons other than just being made up of appointed members instead of elected ones. BC has less than half the senate positions its population should entitle it to. Ontario and Quebec evidently have no problem with maintaining or even increasing that imbalance as BC's population grows in proportion to the rest of Canada. Why do you think Ontario and Quebec have some god given right to a certain percentage of senate positions regardless of changes to the countries make up? Make all provinces equal in our Senate as the US has with theirs and be done with it for good. California and New York have the same number of senators as Alaska and Hawaii. No more bitching about provinces or regions being short changed. Everyone is equal. Why should Ontario have a problem with being equal to BC if BC has no problem being equal to PEI?

[Molly]

I don't have a problem with the idea of regional representation, or the belief that the senate should balance those interests... but all provinces and territories having an equal number of seats doesn't result in a balance of regional interests. Not even close.

It IS fair to consider the maritimes, PQ, Ontario, the west, and the north as regions unto themselves, and quite likely BC should be added to the list to make it 6... but it's even more asinine to propose that (Sask/Manitoba) should have twice the representation of the province of Quebec than it is to leave BC with barely more representation than PEI, and lessw than Nova Scotia..

If you are going to propose balance, then propose BALANCE.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Molly

[Wilber]

I don't have a problem with the idea of regional representation, or the belief that the senate should balance those interests... but all provinces and territories having an equal number of seats doesn't result in a balance of regional interests. Not even close.

It IS fair to consider the maritimes, PQ, Ontario, the west, and the north as regions unto themselves, and quite likely BC should be added to the list to make it 6... but it's even more asinine to propose that (Sask/Manitoba) should have twice the representation of the province of Quebec than it is to leave BC with barely more representation than PEI, and lessw than Nova Scotia..

If you are going to propose balance, then propose BALANCE.

We are proposing balance. Balance between provinces. You are in favour of maintaining an imbalance base on what you believe a region to be. Making BC a region unto itself will not change that, if anything it would make it worse. If BC becomes a region on its own it should have the same number of seats as the other regions including Ontario. Bye the way, as far as the federal beurocracy is concerned, BC is already a region unto its own, with the west divided into Western and Pacific Regions. The US gives equal representation to all States in its Senate, why don't you hear the same kind of bitching about misrepresentation there with California having 60 times the population of Alaska?

Edited February 3, 2009 by Wilber

[madmax]

The NDP is a very regionized party as well they are Urban ridings only

The NDP didn't win alot of seats, but they cover alot of Rural territory. Far More in Northern Ontario then the CPC. By about a 5 to 1 ratio. The CPC leads in ROC for Rural vote, and the NDP has strong Rural Bases in BC and Manitoba. I also believe that there New Brunswick Seat has a rural element to it, but I could be wrong.

I have no idea how this argument affects the Senate, but I think Rural populations do not have enough representation in the HOC.

Scroll down to the Map and look at the coverage an NDP or CPC MP has to work.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/

Oh yes, and the largest Liberal Rural element is in NFLD, where things are crazy. A Conservative Premier expresses to Liberal MPs how to vote against both the CPC and LPC supported budget. Things don't get much stranger.

Alta4ever has said all the NDP talking points regarding the Senate. I believe these policy positions are about 70years old, and the stubborn little party isn't going to change its mind anytime soon.

I do not support the Senate. I see no point to waste more money to elect people who barely manage to show up for their 72day year.

This latest Senate Appointment is likely to be the next Max Bernier, as far as media attention is concerned. As these revelations were known prior to his appointment, I don't know why he would have been chosen as a Senate Appointment. There have to be better candidates then this.

A fridge full of Alchol and Drunk on the job?

Whats the Bar fridge like in the Senate ???

[Molly]

"If BC becomes a region on it's own it should have the same number of seats as the other regions including Ontario."

That's what 'regional balance' means... 4, 5 or 6 equally represented regions.

It makes more sense to me than 48 for the west, 48 for the Maritimes, 36 for the North and 12 for Ontario.... which is what you'd be proposing with all provinces recieveing equal senate representation. Somehow I think the only takers on your proposal would be Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the territories. Alberta and BC would have more ambition than that, and everyone else would consider it a joke.

[Wilber]

"If BC becomes a region on it's own it should have the same number of seats as the other regions including Ontario."

That's what 'regional balance' means... 4, 5 or 6 equally represented regions.

It makes more sense to me than 48 for the west, 48 for the Maritimes, 36 for the North and 12 for Ontario.... which is what you'd be proposing with all provinces recieveing equal senate representation. Somehow I think the only takers on your proposal would be Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the territories. Alberta and BC would have more ambition than that, and everyone else would consider it a joke.

There you go again maintaining that dividing the country up into regions with of course Ontario and Quebec the only provinces having regional status on their own, while maintaining that BC should be lumped in with Newfoundland as being the same, part of a region composed of other provinces that may be separated by a thousand miles. Don't you think that is somewhat arrogant? I can assure you that those who you are putting in their place do, while you consider yourselves entitled to a special status that only applies to your and one other province.

The Americans don't consider their senate a joke yet many if not most Canadians consider their senate to be one and would like to get rid of it entirely. The whole point of the US senate is that it puts a check on the more populous states running roughshod over the others. Like the House of Representatives, our Commons is largely rep by pop so shouldn't that be a function of our senate as well, or must you have control over everything?

[Smallc]

Look. Canada works. The Senate works as designed. It tweaks bills, it considers things fully, just as it is supposed to. It may not have the exact provincial numbers that you want, but the fact is, it works as is. Sometimes, we can't have things exactly as we want, but that doesn't mean that they're bad.

[blueblood]

Look. Canada works. The Senate works as designed. It tweaks bills, it considers things fully, just as it is supposed to. It may not have the exact provincial numbers that you want, but the fact is, it works as is. Sometimes, we can't have things exactly as we want, but that doesn't mean that they're bad.

Wrong, if enough people want the senate gone, then gone it is!!!

[Progressive Tory]

But they (NDP) don't they focus on urban ridings, they may have had a canidate here but his name wasn't even on the signs al they said were vote for jack laytons team.

Btw if the bloc changed its party consitution it could run candiates out side of Quebec, but they are just not interestd in doing it.

That I don't know. I thought they ran candidates in all 308 ridings; but I could be wrong.

[Progressive Tory]

It figures that you don't see yourself on a equal basis with the rest of Canada, its not enough for you votes to dominate one house but you must dominate both at the expense of the rest of Canada.

Again if you look at the list, it's based on the population of the entire province. There is no division between urban and rural areas.

There is one senator for every so many Canadians.

[Smallc]

Wrong, if enough people want the senate gone, then gone it is!!!

Obviously, enough people don't, because it isn't really a big issue. On top of that, many people have no idea about the Senate's purpose or what it actually does. Many of the people who don't like it would probably feel less strongly if they actually knew what the Senate did.

[Wilber]

Look. Canada works. The Senate works as designed. It tweaks bills, it considers things fully, just as it is supposed to. It may not have the exact provincial numbers that you want, but the fact is, it works as is. Sometimes, we can't have things exactly as we want, but that doesn't mean that they're bad.

Why can't we have what we want? Why do I have to have what you want just because it suites you? Why can't my province or anyone else's have the same representation in that house as others. You tell BC that they must be lumped in with Manitoba as part of a region. Who the hell are you to tell that to either BC or Manitoba? Frankly I would much rather see no senate at all rather than the totally undemocratic one we have. In its present form it is an insult to the very word. I never said senators are bad people but it is reasonable to expect representatives to represent those who put them where they are. That is what we expect from our MP's. Who puts senators where they are?

[Smallc]

I never said senators are bad people but it is reasonable to expect representatives to represent those who put them where they are.

That's not the job of the senate. That's really the issue, you want to fundamentally change what the senate is. Obviously, not many people are as concerned as you are, or something would have been done. As it stands right now, the senate functions as designed.

[Progressive Tory]

California and New York have the same number of senators as Alaska and Hawaii. No more bitching about provinces or regions being short changed. Everyone is equal. Why should Ontario have a problem with being equal to BC if BC has no problem being equal to PEI?

I see what you're saying. The same number of senators for each province, regardless of population. However, isn't there some complaining in the U.S., because they don't feel that Alaska should have the same number of senators as New York or California? I think Bill Mahr was discussing it on his show one time.

[Smallc]

However, isn't there some complaining in the U.S.,

Of course there is. He'd like us to pretend that everyone in the US feels the same way about their government system as I do about ours. That is to say, its just fine...almost perfect. Of course there are people that feel like me on both sides...and there are those that don't.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

The Senate was intended to mirror the British House of Lords, in that it was meant to represent the social and economic élite.[citation needed] Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, described it as a body of "sober second thought" that would curb the "democratic excesses" of the elected House of Commons and provide regional representation. As an upper house on the British parliamentary model, it was not meant to be more than a revising body, or a brake on the House of Commons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate

That's almost exactly what our Senate is now (though not all of the people are elites). It functions as designed....and Canada does just fine with it.

Edited February 3, 2009 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Again if you look at the list, it's based on the population of the entire province. There is no division between urban and rural areas.

There is one senator for every so many Canadians.

Bull. If that is so why is each province allocated a certain number of senators. It certainly isn't because of population.

Population per senator.

BC 730,000

Alberta 597,000

Ontario 538,000

Quebec 372,000

Manitoba 201,000

Sask 169,000

NS 93,800

NF 84,600

NB 74,700

PEI 46,000

NT 43,300

YT 33,100

Nunavut 31,400

[Wilber]

I see what you're saying. The same number of senators for each province, regardless of population. However, isn't there some complaining in the U.S., because they don't feel that Alaska should have the same number of senators as New York or California? I think Bill Mahr was discussing it on his show one time.

There is always someone bitching about something but I've never heard of senate reform being part of an election platform in the US. The whole idea of the US senate was to avoid concentrating too much power in one region of the country. That has been a source of dissent in many countries and caused the break up of not a few.

[Wilber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate

That's almost exactly what our Senate is now (though not all of the people are elites). It functions as designed....and Canada does just fine with it.

I'm sure you do just fine with it, you have 3 1/2 times the number of senators for your population than I do. I don't want 3 1/2 times as many as you, just equality between provinces.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Wilber

[Smallc]

The whole idea of the US senate was to avoid concentrating too much power in one region of the country.

Yes, and that's the exact opposite idea of the Canadian Federal government. It was supposed to have as much power as possible in order to avoid a situation like the US Civil War. The irony is, over time, the US Federal Government has become stronger and the Canadian Federal Government weaker. Provinces already have a lot of power. They don't even use all of the power that they have. The senate isn't meant to represent provinces, but rather, geographic and language regions. West, central, Quebec, maritime. Because N & L came on board later, it was simply tacked on. That is really the only part I don't like, but its not really a deal breaker for me.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Smallc

[Smallc]

I'm sure you do just fine with it, you have 3 1/2 times the number of senators for your population than I do.

I'm fine with it because I like the role of the senate as designed. What I would like to see, is a less partisan way for senators to be selected. Not elections....perhaps some kind of committee. That way, the Senate would be even better equipped to do its job as designed.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Smallc