Harper Uses Unelected Tory Senators to Kill Climate Change Legislation

[Evening Star]

Maybe you were replying to someone else though.

[Saipan]

Harper Uses Unelected Tory Senators to Kill Climate Change Legislation

The question still remains; WHAT "Climate Change".

[ToadBrother]

As we are in fantasy land, I'll throw this one out there for an elected Senate.

No change in the Senate's functions or powers.

Do an in depth study of the what the place actually does and figure out how many people are required for it to function properly. Add 20% for changes in workload, illness etc.

Divide that number by 10 giving the number of senators each province will have regardless of size plus one or two for each territory.

Elections to the Senate to be held on fixed dates every four years. Ideally as mid terms between general elections.

Why would you give Senators the same term lengths (or even less) than MPs? How could it be a house of sober second thought if it's forced into a electoral regime even more strenuous than that of the House of Commons.

If we are to have an elected Senate (and while I lean that way, I'm not yet fully convinced), then I suggest an eight year term, stretching across the normal length of time of two terms of the House of Commons. In fact, I think a good compromise is to not have the Senators directly elected, but rather chosen by the Lieutenant Governors of the Provinces in council (in other words by the Provincial governments), with strict residency requirements. I would retain current powers, I see no reason to tinker with the legislative rolls, the Commons, as is the long tradition in our system of government, having control of taxation and supply.

The reason for this is that the Senate should be made much more explicitly the Provincial voice in Ottawa, and should still retain some protection from the electoral winds of change that the House of Commons must face. The whole idea behind an upper house with much longer terms is to promote that very notion that a house of sober second thought needs to be somewhat partitioned from the normal electoral cycle. Hence, in the States, you have Senators sitting for six years, though with another neat idea that it should be a continuous house, so you have only a third of the senator seats up for grabs every two years. Maybe we could borrow that innovation, and have half the Senators seats expire every four years.

If an individual province wants to have its senators elected by general election, they can write that into their own constitutions.

[ToadBrother]

Harper Uses Unelected Tory Senators to Kill Climate Change Legislation

The question still remains; WHAT "Climate Change".

The kind that the vast majority of climate scientists says is happening.

[bush_cheney2004]

The kind that the vast majority of climate scientists says is happening.

"climate scientist" = political scientist

[Saipan]

The kind that the vast majority of climate scientists says is happening.

What kind do the vast majority of climate scientists says is happening?

[Wilber]

Why would you give Senators the same term lengths (or even less) than MPs? How could it be a house of sober second thought if it's forced into a electoral regime even more strenuous than that of the House of Commons.

If we are to have an elected Senate (and while I lean that way, I'm not yet fully convinced), then I suggest an eight year term, stretching across the normal length of time of two terms of the House of Commons. In fact, I think a good compromise is to not have the Senators directly elected, but rather chosen by the Lieutenant Governors of the Provinces in council (in other words by the Provincial governments), with strict residency requirements. I would retain current powers, I see no reason to tinker with the legislative rolls, the Commons, as is the long tradition in our system of government, having control of taxation and supply.

The reason for this is that the Senate should be made much more explicitly the Provincial voice in Ottawa, and should still retain some protection from the electoral winds of change that the House of Commons must face. The whole idea behind an upper house with much longer terms is to promote that very notion that a house of sober second thought needs to be somewhat partitioned from the normal electoral cycle. Hence, in the States, you have Senators sitting for six years, though with another neat idea that it should be a continuous house, so you have only a third of the senator seats up for grabs every two years. Maybe we could borrow that innovation, and have half the Senators seats expire every four years.

If an individual province wants to have its senators elected by general election, they can write that into their own constitutions.

I don't really like the idea of appointed Senators, they should represent the people of a province not the government of a province. You will end up with senators appointed by provincial governments which the people of those provinces have since chucked out of office.

As far as term lengths go, I wasn't suggesting less than four years, longer would be OK as long as Senate elections didn't take place at the same time as general elections. The US model would be fine with me.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Wilber

[g_bambino]

I don't really like the idea of appointed Senators, they should represent the people of a province not the government of a province. You will end up with senators appointed by provincial governments which the people of those provinces have since chucked out of office.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the Senate; those who sit in it are supposed to do so for longer than the lives of govenments and are not supposed to be caught up in appealing to whatever are the electorate's main fickle whims of the day. That's what the Commons is for.

[nicky10013]

I don't really like the idea of appointed Senators, they should represent the people of a province not the government of a province. You will end up with senators appointed by provincial governments which the people of those provinces have since chucked out of office.

As far as term lengths go, I wasn't suggesting less than four years, longer would be OK as long as Senate elections didn't take place at the same time as general elections. The US model would be fine with me.

They don't represent the people of any province, they represent the people of Canada. The notion that the senate should somehow give equal representation to all provinces is somewhat absurd since the senate was set up roughly on a rep by pop basis just like the house.

Edited November 21, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

They don't represent the people of any province, they represent the people of Canada. The notion that the senate should somehow give equal representation to all provinces is somewhat absurd since the senate was set up roughly on a rep by pop basis just like the house.

Incorrect

Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each of the four major regions receiving 24 seats, and the remainder of the available seats being assigned to smaller regions. The four major regions are: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces.

The Senate was intended to mirror the British House of Lords, in that it was meant to represent the social and economic élite

Only Quebec currently has a share of senators approximately proportional to its share of the total population.

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

[nicky10013]

Incorrect

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

Yeah, and why do certain regions have more seats than others?

Edited November 22, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

Yeah, and why do certain regions have more seats than others?

The four major regions are: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions.

Your Argument isn't with me its with the encyclopedia and those who constructed the BNA act and amended it as they set out how the Sentae seats were to be divided. But I do wonder what they taught you in U of T since this highschool social studies in Alberta.

Province or Territory____Number of Senators_____Population per Senator (2006 census)

British Columbia_______6________685,581

Alberta_______6________ 548,391

Ontario_______24________506,678

Quebec_______24________314,422

Manitoba_______6________191,400

Saskatchewan_______6________161,359

Nova Scotia_______10________91,346

Newfoundland and Labrador_______6________84,244

New Brunswick_______10________72,999

Northwest Territories_______1________41,464

Prince Edward Island_______4________33,962

Yukon_______1________30,372

Nunavut_______1________29,474

Total/Average 105 301,075

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

Your Liberal hero was such a genius (sarcasm). He didn't create a mechanism of redistricting to re balance the Senate when he fixed (cough cough) the constitution.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Shady]

The kind that the vast majority of climate scientists says is happening.

Another one of the many alarmist myths.

[nicky10013]

Your Argument isn't with me its with the encyclopedia and those who constructed the BNA act and amended it as they set out how the Sentae seats were to be divided. But I do wonder what they taught you in U of T since this highschool social studies in Alberta.

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

Your Liberal hero was such a genius (sarcasm). He didn't create a mechanism of redistricting to re balance the Senate when he fixed (cough cough) the constitution.

Who said he was my hero? Many people could've rebalanced the senate of course, but the point here is always that it would be rebalanced on the basis of population. Reformers want the senate rebalanced so every province was equal, which is funny since it was never intended to be equal for every province. You call into question my education, however, the fact that you can't understand that point speaks more to your education than mine.

Edited November 22, 2010 by nicky10013

[Alta4ever]

Who said he was my hero? Many people could've rebalanced the senate of course, but the point here is always that it would be rebalanced on the basis of population. Reformers want the senate rebalanced so every province was equal, which is funny since it was never intended to be equal for every province. You call into question my education, however, the fact that you can't understand that point speaks more to your education than mine.

This coming from some who said "The senate was set up roughly on a rep by pop basis just like the house." - Nicky

Which was proved to be wrong.

You had no idea how the seats were distributed.

[nicky10013]

This coming from some who said "The senate was set up roughly on a rep by pop basis just like the house." - Nicky

Which was proved to be wrong.

You had no idea how the seats were distributed.

It was set up on a rough rep by pop system. If the seats were distributed on a purely regional basis and not based on population why is the "west" region a culimination of 4 provinces while Ontario is it's own region? Oh yeah, population.

Furthermore, bringing up senate seats by population is just as ridiculous. In the House of Commons where it's literally done by rep by pop and the citizens per representative is just as volatile in terms of the ration. What you've posted proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that again, you've no idea what you're talking about.

Transit stimulus only creates bus driver jobs :lol: :lol:

[punked]

It was set up on a rough rep by pop system. If the seats were distributed on a purely regional basis and not based on population why is the "west" region a culimination of 4 provinces while Ontario is it's own region? Oh yeah, population.

Nope they needed to promise the East a say because they had nothing to bribe them with because they were Rich. The West they promised a Rail Road and didn't need to bribe them with a say to bring them into confederation. That is why you see a West to East difference in the Senate nothing to population at the time it had to do with power and how to convince to join the country.

[nicky10013]

Nope they needed to promise the East a say because they had nothing to bribe them with because they were Rich. The West they promised a Rail Road and didn't need to bribe them with a say to bring them into confederation. That is why you see a West to East difference in the Senate nothing to population at the time it had to do with power and how to convince to join the country.

They? Who is they? Might want to lay off the pipe, dude. There was no puppet master controlling who got what. The east didn't get more senate seats in exchange for a railway in the ewst. It was due to population.

For the record, the people from the east built the railway in the west. They bought all the land that the railway was planned for at penny prices and sold it back to the government at 1000x the price. Macdonald lost an election due to that corruption. It had nothing to do with senate seats.

[punked]

They? Who is they? Might want to lay off the pipe, dude. There was no puppet master controlling who got what. The east didn't get more senate seats in exchange for a railway in the ewst. It was due to population.

For the record, the people from the east built the railway in the west. They bought all the land that the railway was planned for at penny prices and sold it back to the government at 1000x the price. Macdonald lost an election due to that corruption. It had nothing to do with senate seats.

You might want to read a book maybe. The population of NS in 1861 (this is not the year of confederation it is the Census year BTW) was 330,000 and NB was 250,000 yet they both got 10 Senators. The population of Ontario 1.4 million or 4.5 times that of NS and 5.5 times that of NB but they only got twice as many Senators. It might interest you to know when Alberta and Sask joined Canada in 1907 they had roughly the same population as NS and NB but only got two Senate seats. You seriously know nothing about anything and really need to stop putting your foot in your mouth.

I feel like I am talking to a wall when I talk to you. Seriously you have no facts and you think you can make crazy claims because you don't actually know the stats.

Edited November 23, 2010 by punked

[nicky10013]

You might want to read a book maybe. The population of NS in 1861 (this is not the year of confederation it is the Census year BTW) was 330,000 and NB was 250,000 yet they both got 10 Senators. The population of Ontario 1.4 million or 4.5 times that of NS and 5.5 times that of NB but they only got twice as many Senators. It might interest you to know when Alberta and Sask joined Canada in 1907 they had roughly the same population as NS and NB but only got two Senate seats. You seriously know nothing about anything and really need to stop putting your foot in your mouth.

I feel like I am talking to a wall when I talk to you. Seriously you have no facts and you think you can make crazy claims because you don't actually know the stats.

I said roughly, didn't I? The very fact that they gave Ontario more seats speaks to the fact that their regional split was based on population. You just can't get around that.

Before you call me a wall with no facts, which is bullshit considering I completely destroyed your little lesson with, you know...accurate history, perhaps you should provide some facts of your own. Me saying the senate is roughly based on population isn't crazy. You claiming that Ontario got senate seats while the west got a railroad, well, that's a crazy claim. Back it up, or have a nice day.

[punked]

I said roughly, didn't I? The very fact that they gave Ontario more seats speaks to the fact that their regional split was based on population. You just can't get around that.

Before you call me a wall with no facts, which is bullshit considering I completely destroyed your little lesson with, you know...accurate history, perhaps you should provide some facts of your own. Me saying the senate is roughly based on population isn't crazy. You claiming that Ontario got senate seats while the west got a railroad, well, that's a crazy claim. Back it up, or have a nice day.

I just provided you facts. If you think getting 1 Senator for every 1 person in NS is roughly the same as getting 1 Senator for every 4.5 in Ontario is roughly based on population it shows why you are a Liberal. That is to say you have no idea how math works. That isn't roughly the same a 1 to 1.5 ratio or even a 1 to ratio 2 but a 1 to 4.5 ratio isn't even close. Sorry your wrong.

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.

Edited November 23, 2010 by punked

[Alta4ever]

I just provided you facts. If you think getting 1 Senator for every 1 person in NS is roughly the same as getting 1 Senator for every 4.5 in Ontario is roughly based on population it shows why you are a Liberal. That is to say you have no idea how math works. That isn't roughly the same a 1 to 1.5 ratio or even a 1 to ratio 2 but a 1 to 4.5 ratio isn't even close. Sorry your wrong.

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.

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.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Alta4ever

[Wilber]

They don't represent the people of any province, they represent the people of Canada. The notion that the senate should somehow give equal representation to all provinces is somewhat absurd since the senate was set up roughly on a rep by pop basis just like the house.

Not really, they are appointed according to region according to Ontario and Quebec's concept of what a region is. Unfortunately Quebec and Ontario get to be regions on their own while other provinces are lumped together. BC is a region on its own every bit as much as Quebec or Ontario, it is separated from the rest of the country by the largest mountain range on the continent. The concept of dividing the country according to regions has past its best before date. The fact is there are two classes of provinces represented in the Senate. Not good enough.

[eyeball]

Because, of course, the Liberals have never used the Senate to their advantage.

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?

[nicky10013]

Not really, they are appointed according to region according to Ontario and Quebec's concept of what a region is. Unfortunately Quebec and Ontario get to be regions on their own while other provinces are lumped together. BC is a region on its own every bit as much as Quebec or Ontario, it is separated from the rest of the country by the largest mountain range on the continent. The concept of dividing the country according to regions has past its best before date. The fact is there are two classes of provinces represented in the Senate. Not good enough.

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