Harper Uses Unelected Tory Senators to Kill Climate Change Legislation

[nicky10013]

BTW I have never and will never Claim Ontario is the East they are Central Canada. The East is the Atlantic provinces. Again BTW the West got 1 Senator for every 5 people in 1907 that means they didn't get Senate seats but they sure came into Canada for that rail road, oh and grain elevators were part of the promise to. Believe if they wanted Senators they wouldn't have settled on 2 Senators for the same pop as the East coast provinces.

Sorry again talking to you is Like talking to a while. BTW Ontario got that rail road to, NS and NB weren't even connected on the Pacific rail road. Although they sure used their money to pay for it.

Talking to me is like talking to a while?

Is there ANY proof to back any of this up?

[nicky10013]

Someone should ask Nicky

If it had to do with population why does Ontario have the third worst ratio of population to senate representation out of all the provinces. 1 senator to 509 000 in population. In other words they are one of the most under represented jurisdiction only slightly better then Alberta and BC. If it was based on population the ratio would be much closer to that of Quebec.

Why don't you ask why Ontario has one of the worst ratios of people to reps in the HoC as well.

[Alta4ever]

There isn't "2 classes" of provinces. They did it based on population.

Prove it. With cites please.

As it is stated in encyclopedias it was done based on region. 24 24 24 24, with Newfoundland, and the territories left out of the equation and assigned their own seats as was cited by wiki. It is not a house of representation by population.

[Alta4ever]

Yeah but have they ever used it to thwart the will of Parliament immediately after spending most of their life bitterly opposed to using it to thwart the will of Parliament?

Yes the liberals have, if you recall a phone call to the queen by Brian mulrooney for extra temporary senators to get legislation past.

[nicky10013]

Prove it. With cites please.

As it is stated in encyclopedias it was done based on region. 24 24 24 24, with Newfoundland, and the territories left out of the equation and assigned their own seats as was cited by wiki. It is not a house of representation by population.

I ask again. If there was no thought of population at all, why are Ontario and Quebec their own regions? Oh yeah, that's right, because they created regions based on population.

[g_bambino]

Yeah but have they ever used it to thwart the will of Parliament

Last I checked, the Senate is a part of parliament.

[Wilber]

There isn't "2 classes" of provinces. They did it based on population.

Population my backside. Senate representation ranges from one senator for every 33,000 population in PEI to one senator for every 700,000 population in BC. It is a stupid system that lumps BC in with Manitoba among other stupidities. It probably didn't make sense when it was conceived (by Ontario and Quebec of course) and makes much less sense now. Dump it or make it more representative of the realities of the country.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Wilber

[nicky10013]

Population my backside. Senate representation ranges from one senator for every 33,000 population in PEI to one senator for every 700,000 population in BC. It is a stupid system that lumps BC in with Manitoba among other stupidities. It probably didn't make sense when it was conceived (by Ontario and Quebec of course) and makes much less sense now. Dump it or make it more representative of the realities of the country.

Yeah, and I've constantly asked the same question about the distribution in the HoC. Distribution in the house is just as wacky. The distribution just has bigger numbers because there are less seats in the senate than there is in the House.

[Shady]

Last I checked, the Senate is a part of parliament.

As much as I dislike the Senate, it's hard to dispute your assertion. The title of this ridiculous thread should have been "Harper uses completely constitutional parliamentary body to cancel deeply flawed climate legislation."

That being said. I don't like the process of appointing senators either.

[Alta4ever]

Yeah, and I've constantly asked the same question about the distribution in the HoC. Distribution in the house is just as wacky. The distribution just has bigger numbers because there are less seats in the senate than there is in the House.

And yet the population per seat is a lot closer, in the HOC. The numbers are much closer most within a margin of 30,000 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada#Members_and_electoral_districts

Not to mention the redistricting and addition of seats with can happen, but is unavailable to the senate.

What skews the numbers in the house of commons is the minimum number of seats each province must have as set out by the constitution.

[punked]

Prove it. With cites please.

As it is stated in encyclopedias it was done based on region. 24 24 24 24, with Newfoundland, and the territories left out of the equation and assigned their own seats as was cited by wiki. It is not a house of representation by population.

Remember when BC joined they got 3 seats, and when Sk, Man, and Alberta Joined they only got 2 seats each even their pop was the same as NS and NB's at the time. It wasn't until 1915 when their population together was bigger then the East Coast provinces that they got 24 seats or 6 seats each and only because the population to seat count in the East was so much more then the West that they had to change the number.

The Senate has never been about population only someone who can't count would make such a Claim.

Edited November 23, 2010 by punked

[Wilber]

Yeah, and I've constantly asked the same question about the distribution in the HoC. Distribution in the house is just as wacky. The distribution just has bigger numbers because there are less seats in the senate than there is in the House.

Maybe but whether you do it by province or region senate seats have no relation to population. If you do it by provinces, BC and Alberta get the short end of the stick. If you do it by regions, Ontario and the West get it.

Senate seats are alloted by region.

Nfld, Labrador 6 seats. POP 509,000 Pop per seat 85,000

Maritimes (NB, PEI, NS) 24 seats. Total pop 1.8M. Pop per seat. 75,000

Quebec 24 seats. Total pop 7.9M. Pop per seat 329,000

Ontario 24 seats. Total pop 13.7M. Pop per seat 550,000

Western Provinces 24 seats. Total pop 10.4M. Pop per seat 433,000

Territories 3 seats. Pop per seat 37,000

[nicky10013]

Remember when BC joined they got 3 seats, and when Sk, Man, and Alberta Joined they only got 2 seats each even their pop was the same as NS and NB's at the time. It wasn't until 1915 when their population together was bigger then the East Coast provinces that they got 24 seats or 6 seats each and only because the population to seat count in the East was so much more then the West that they had to change the number.

The Senate has never been about population only someone who can't count would make such a Claim.

You realize by saying they didn't get 24 seats until they had as big a population as the east proves my point exactly, right?

[nicky10013]

And yet the population per seat is a lot closer, in the HOC. The numbers are much closer most within a margin of 30,000 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada#Members_and_electoral_districts

Not to mention the redistricting and addition of seats with can happen, but is unavailable to the senate.

What skews the numbers in the house of commons is the minimum number of seats each province must have as set out by the constitution.

Of course the numbers are going to be less skewed because there are number of seats in the houes rather than the senate. I'd like to see the percentages.

[nicky10013]

Maybe but whether you do it by province or region senate seats have no relation to population. If you do it by provinces, BC and Alberta get the short end of the stick. If you do it by regions, Ontario and the West get it.

Senate seats are alloted by region.

Nfld, Labrador 6 seats. POP 509,000 Pop per seat 85,000

Maritimes (NB, PEI, NS) 24 seats. Total pop 1.8M. Pop per seat. 75,000

Quebec 24 seats. Total pop 7.9M. Pop per seat 329,000

Ontario 24 seats. Total pop 13.7M. Pop per seat 550,000

Western Provinces 24 seats. Total pop 10.4M. Pop per seat 433,000

Territories 3 seats. Pop per seat 37,000

Ontario isn't a region. Ontario is a province. Just the fact that they felt they had to define Ontario as entire region speaks to the fact that the division of regions had to do with population. I never said it was a perfect rep by pop system, but a rough one.

[punked]

You realize by saying they didn't get 24 seats until they had as big a population as the east proves my point exactly, right?

No that is not what I said. I said they got 2 seat each when they were as big as the EastCoast which gets 24 seats. So what I said was that they got 8 seats (9 really BC got 3 whole seats to NS's 10) while the East got 24. Once their population was almost triple that of the East then they got their 24 seats and only then did they get their 24 seats.

I get it you aren't very good with numbers I get it.

Edited November 24, 2010 by punked

[Wilber]

Ontario isn't a region. Ontario is a province. Just the fact that they felt they had to define Ontario as entire region speaks to the fact that the division of regions had to do with population. I never said it was a perfect rep by pop system, but a rough one.

They also defined Quebec as a region. The makeup of the Senate has dick all to do with population and is purely political based on a 130 year old formula. It does not represent either the demographic or political reality of the country. With discrepancies of over 1000% it is as far from as a rep by pop system as you can get.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Wilber

[nicky10013]

They also defined Quebec as a region.

A populous one at that. The reason why the senate is so misrepresented is because it hasn't been balanced. That doesn't change the intent of why each region was chosen. Population.

[Alta4ever]

Of course the numbers are going to be less skewed because there are number of seats in the houes rather than the senate. I'd like to see the percentages.

You don't like following links do you.

You have still yet to provide on article of reference the supports you assertion.

[nicky10013]

You don't like following links do you.

You have still yet to provide on article of reference the supports you assertion.

I did follow the link. There are no percentages. It provides the average population desired per seat. I'd like to see the deviation from the average in both the senate and the house as expressed in percentage points.

You can say that the senate wasn't based on population because there is a much larger deviation in terms of population per seat, but that's to be expected since there are fewer seats representing the same amount of people. Naturally, the numbers will be larger. The percentages shouldn't be nearly as skewed.

[Saipan]

Speaking of climate change.

I need this V-8 snowblower around the house.

http://craziestgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/v8-snowblower-450x336.jpg

http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/images/big_block_snowblower.jpg

[ToadBrother]

Speaking of climate change.

I need this V-8 snowblower around the house.

http://craziestgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/v8-snowblower-450x336.jpg

http://www.jalopnik.com/cars/images/big_block_snowblower.jpg

And once again for the simpering morons at home, weather is not climate.

[Saipan]

And once again for the simpering morons at home, weather is not climate.

That's right. Who needs weather when we have climate

[Alta4ever]

I did follow the link. There are no percentages. It provides the average population desired per seat. I'd like to see the deviation from the average in both the senate and the house as expressed in percentage points.

The data is there to come up with the percentage, do you know how to work a calculator?

[Saipan]

Posted 25 November 2010 - 01:48 AM ???

What country is that in? Here it's November 24.