When will Harper add senate seats out west?

[Wilber]

You know as well as I do that a Senate is never divided by population. Also, you can't add N + L to the Maritime region, because they're too different regions....though they probably should be combined. Some of the complaining would disappear.

OK then

N&L pop .5 Million, Senators 6

Maritime pop 1.8 Million, Senators 24

BC pop 4.5 million, Senators 6

I know it isn't done by population but this is pure BS. Basically we have this situation because back in the day, Ontario and Quebec decided what constituted a region in this country. It is not a good situation and it will get worse. If you think it is a hard sell now, just wait until it gets even more lopsided. The Senate should reflect the equality of the provinces, it does anything but.

[Smallc]

You're right, it should, and I'm in favour of that (in principle). I'm still not in favour of elected Senators. I don't want it to turn into the...show...that can be observed in both Australia and the US. I'm in favour of Senators being selected by a committee of some sort so that the Senate can actually be the body that it's supposed to be.

The only reason I'm not in favour of Senate reform is that I think it will cause more trouble than it's worth.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Smallc

[punked]

This is completely false you only have to change the constitution to removeseats. Addition of seats is possible as mulrooney did it in the 80s.

The Queen appointed 8 Senators in the 1989 too pass the GST not Mulrooney. Not only that he had to use Section 26 of the constitution "The Deadlock Clause" which says that you can appoint too end a deadlock in the senate BUT that after that dead lock no other senators can be appointed until you are back down too your 24 Senators per region. SO even if Harper did do that it would only fix the gap for 10 years because they would be reduced again under section 27 of the act. So he could appoint 4 Senators too the west and they would have 28 BUT they get no more Senate appointments until they are back too the 24 Senators per region.

Seriously get with it man. You can not change the make up with a constitutional change.

AGAIN there can only be at maxium 113 Senators so Harper even if he was able too do so would cap out in the next 8 Senators and NEED too change the constitution.

[Smallc]

I'm pretty sure that when you use the special clause, you have to appoint an equal number of Senators to each region.

[punked]

I'm pretty sure that when you use the special clause, you have to appoint an equal number of Senators to each region.

Good question.

[Alta4ever]

The Queen appointed 8 Senators in the 1989 too pass the GST not Mulrooney. Not only that he had to use Section 26 of the constitution "The Deadlock Clause" which says that you can appoint too end a deadlock in the senate BUT that after that dead lock no other senators can be appointed until you are back down too your 24 Senators per region. SO even if Harper did do that it would only fix the gap for 10 years because they would be reduced again under section 27 of the act. So he could appoint 4 Senators too the west and they would have 28 BUT they get no more Senate appointments until they are back too the 24 Senators per region.

Seriously get with it man. You can not change the make up with a constitutional change.

AGAIN there can only be at maxium 113 Senators so Harper even if he was able too do so would cap out in the next 8 Senators and NEED too change the constitution.

Didn`t need to change the constitution to do that did he? Get with it man!

[punked]

Didn`t need to change the constitution to do that did he? Get with it man!

It didn't solve anything, and he didn't do it the queen did. So first Harper would have to prove the Senate was in a Deadlock, then ask the queen to appoint a bunch of Senators whose seats would just be temporary. Real problem solving there.

[Alta4ever]

It didn't solve anything, and he didn't do it the queen did. So first Harper would have to prove the Senate was in a Deadlock, then ask the queen to appoint a bunch of Senators whose seats would just be temporary. Real problem solving there.

The queen did as a request of the prime minister much the way the gg operates. Eight seat would give harper a majority of seats

[punked]

The queen did as a request of the prime minister much the way the gg operates. Eight seat would give harper a majority of seats

Accept the Queen told Alexander Mackenzie that he couldn't do it. So it is under her discretion not as you assert something she does anytime the PM asks. She makes the decision and the appointments.

Harper already has a majority.

Edited March 8, 2010 by punked

[Smallc]

Harper already has a majority.

Actually, no. Harper has a plurality. He'll have a majority by sometime later this year.

[punked]

Actually, no. Harper has a plurality. He'll have a majority by sometime later this year.

53 out of 105 when you count PCs.

[Smallc]

53 out of 105 when you count PCs.

Yes, but they don't toe the Conservative line.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Smallc

[Wilber]

The only reason I'm not in favour of Senate reform is that I think it will cause more trouble than it's worth.

It already is.

[Smallc]

It already is.

I disagree, but even if that were true, there's no way to change that without opening the Constitution, and I doubt Canadians have the appetite for that.

[kimmy]

OK then

N&L pop .5 Million, Senators 6

Maritime pop 1.8 Million, Senators 24

BC pop 4.5 million, Senators 6

I know it isn't done by population but this is pure BS. Basically we have this situation because back in the day, Ontario and Quebec decided what constituted a region in this country. It is not a good situation and it will get worse. If you think it is a hard sell now, just wait until it gets even more lopsided. The Senate should reflect the equality of the provinces, it does anything but.

Indeed. If you weren't there in 1867, you got lumped in with "Other - 24 seats."

However, I oppose doing anything to legitimize the senate. If something (like "Triple E" for example) were implemented, people might expect the senate to start actually doing stuff, which would be a step in the wrong direction.

-k

[Wild Bill]

No one needs too do their job. Figuring out if bills are constitutional? That is the job of the House committee looking at the bill, and then the courts. Representing the people of different provinces that is the job of MPs. No one needs to do their jobs, our MPs and courts need too do their jobs better that is all. We don't need some old political hack (yes man) getting 150 000 a year for showing up too work 15 days a year.

I'll bet a beer you must live in Ontario. If you had your way I'd bet everybody NOT in Quebec or Ontario would be calling to separate!

You can't have a club where some members are less equal than others. The fact that our Senate doesn't protect the smaller provinces is why so many people living there feel screwed by the bigger ones! The longer this goes on the greater the resentment grows. It's only human nature.

"Representing the people of different provinces that is the job of MPs." How the hell can that work? If Nova Scotia has less MPs than Ontario then who cares how they vote? Who stood up for Alberta when Trudeau and his Liberals screwed them over with the National Energy Policy? That has had Albertans pissed off for a couple of generations now!

There are two parts to the argument. Yes, the Senate has deep problems and should be fixed but when you call to abolish it you are basically telling everyone in a smaller province to "Shut up! Lump it! Who cares what you think! By the way, be proud to be Canadian!"

Perhaps you should take a moment and think about what it means to be a Canadian in a smaller province. Have some empathy instead of arrogance, for Pete's Sake!

[Wilber]

Indeed. If you weren't there in 1867, you got lumped in with "Other - 24 seats."

However, I oppose doing anything to legitimize the senate. If something (like "Triple E" for example) were implemented, people might expect the senate to start actually doing stuff, which would be a step in the wrong direction.

-k

The problem is, they do, do stuff. They can be every bit as partisan as the Commons itself when it comes to holding up legislation. Because of that they should reflect the reality of the country. If they didn't do stuff, there would be no cause for complaint except the expense of keeping them.

[fellowtraveller]

ope the only way too add Senate seats is too change the Constitution. Wont happen.

Correct. And the new seats in the Commons will try to fix the wretched imbalances there, but cannot go all the way to correcting it all and ensuring that Candians everywhere have equal representation in their govt.

Just two more examples of why our government does not and cannot work in its present form.

It is broken, and we simply cannot fix it.

[Mr.Canada]

Correct. And the new seats in the Commons will try to fix the wretched imbalances there, but cannot go all the way to correcting it all and ensuring that Candians everywhere have equal representation in their govt.

Just two more examples of why our government does not and cannot work in its present form.

It is broken, and we simply cannot fix it.

Canada needs a good civil war to be honest but there's too many different races here now so it's too late.

[punked]

I'll bet a beer you must live in Ontario. If you had your way I'd bet everybody NOT in Quebec or Ontario would be calling to separate!

You can't have a club where some members are less equal than others. The fact that our Senate doesn't protect the smaller provinces is why so many people living there feel screwed by the bigger ones! The longer this goes on the greater the resentment grows. It's only human nature.

"Representing the people of different provinces that is the job of MPs." How the hell can that work? If Nova Scotia has less MPs than Ontario then who cares how they vote? Who stood up for Alberta when Trudeau and his Liberals screwed them over with the National Energy Policy? That has had Albertans pissed off for a couple of generations now!

There are two parts to the argument. Yes, the Senate has deep problems and should be fixed but when you call to abolish it you are basically telling everyone in a smaller province to "Shut up! Lump it! Who cares what you think! By the way, be proud to be Canadian!"

Perhaps you should take a moment and think about what it means to be a Canadian in a smaller province. Have some empathy instead of arrogance, for Pete's Sake!

I do not live in Ontario I live in a power house province for Senate seats doesn't mean I feel under represented in parliament. People of Canada aren't stupid when a party mistreats a province other then PQ people get angry no matter what part of the country they live in. I am out East and I still hear about the Energy programs of the 70s and how they hurt the west, I don't need a Senator who does nothing for my region acting like they do. The people of Canada are just fine at doing that themselves.

I am a person of a small province and I have seen what the Senate has done for our voice. NOTHING. So lets get rid of it.

[Smallc]

Canada needs a good civil war to be honest but there's too many different races here now so it's too late.

You're a moron.

[Alta4ever]

You're a moron.

ya Mr. Canada go take a sabbatical people like you are poison.

[blueblood]

You're a moron.

x3. why does my side get stuck with Mr. Canada? :angry:

[Mr.Canada]

Why do Red Tories call themselves conservatives at all. They should get a Liberal membership and stop trying to turn the Tories into the Liberals of the 80's.

[Smallc]

Better question. Why would any sane person think a civil war is a good idea? Nevermind, question answered.