Smallc Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 I don't think PEI should have the same representation as Ontario. It has a population of less than Sudbury alone. That's what the house is for. The Senate is supposed to balance that popular representation. As much as it causes gridlock, the US gets is right in this regard. PEI is a province just as much as Ontario. Sudbury isn't. That's the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 That's what the house is for. The Senate is supposed to balance that popular representation. As much as it causes gridlock, the US gets is right in this regard. PEI is a province just as much as Ontario. Sudbury isn't. That's the difference. I think the gridlock happens because there are elections every two years with only a few senators up for election every time. I think it was designed thay way on purpose so to limit power given to their govt. however it has a side effect of gridlock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 I think the gridlock happens because there are elections every two years with only a few senators up for election every time. I think it was designed thay way on purpose so to limit power given to their govt. however it has a side effect of gridlock I generally like our system of government better, but I think that on the Senate, they got it far more right than us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 If the Canadian Senate were abolished, Ontario and Quebec represent over 50% of the population and could basically ignore the needs of most of the rest of Canada. Here is what you do: Give every province and territory the option to leave Canada. So if the government isn't respecting all the regions, these regions can threaten to leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 That's idiotic. Why? Justify your claim? The federal government does not impose economic sanctions on its own people. Yes, I am aware that the government does not currently do that. I'm advocating that they should threaten to do so in order to abolish the senate so that everyone has equal representation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) And that's nothing like our system, and that's a big problem for us. We have some kind of BS regions that we made up. Agreed. I'd like to see both Ontario and Quebec split into four provinces, southwest, central, east and north. I also don't think PEI should be a separate province. Edited July 26, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 Why? Justify your claim? Justify that it's an idiotic suggestion? Because it's an idiotic suggestion. Yes, I am aware that the government does not currently do that. I'm advocating that they should threaten to do so in order to abolish the senate so that everyone has equal representation. A bluff is pointless. All it would do would alienate the people in that province. And many of those people presumably voted for whatever party was in power in the federal government. You think that party wants to impose economic sanctions on them to get its way, thus guaranteeing they get no further seats there? That doesn't even take into account the anti-democratic aspect of it, basically forcing another level of government to do what they have a perfect constitutional right not to do, by punishing Canadians who live there! It's absurd. You can't use the levers of power to punish people whose political beliefs are different from yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 Yes, I am aware that the government does not currently do that. I'm advocating that they should threaten to do so in order to abolish the senate so that everyone has equal representation. Indeed, threatening one region, in effect playing it against other regions, in ones own country works great, look no further than Yugoslavia in the later 1980s..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) Justify that it's an idiotic suggestion? Because it's an idiotic suggestion. So you are resorting to circular reasoning? You think that party wants to impose economic sanctions on them to get its way, thus guaranteeing they get no further seats there? Do I think that all the current major political parties are too spineless to support equality and do what's right? Yes. Although I suspect the NDP might try a different approach to achieve the same objective (try to bribe rather than punish the non-compliant provinces). That doesn't even take into account the anti-democratic aspect of it PEI having over 50 x the percapita senate reprentation as BC is already anti-democratic. My position, that everyone should be equally represented by the government, is the only democratic position. It's absurd. You can't use the levers of power to punish people whose political beliefs are different from yours. 1. The provinces that are against people having equal representation are abusing their power to prevent political change. 2. There is a different for punishing people for having political beliefs, and punishing provincial governments that think that their people should have 50 x as much per capita representation as another province and are preventing change towards equality. As far as I'm concerned, it should be 1 person, 1 vote, zero compromise. Edited July 26, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 Indeed, threatening one region, in effect playing it against other regions, in ones own country works great, look no further than Yugoslavia in the later 1980s..... The current system already plays region against region by giving some regions insanely higher per capita representation for not good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 Harper is far too partisan for that. You and I both know that. It's his biggest failing.It's called acute socialist derangement syndrome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 The current system already plays region against region by giving some regions insanely higher per capita representation for not good reason. Unless you look at parliament as a whole bicameral entity.....oh wait... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) I think the gridlock happens because there are elections every two years with only a few senators up for election every time. I think it was designed thay way on purpose so to limit power given to their govt. however it has a side effect of gridlock Always the conundrum ... especially in the US two party system. They are elected to do what is best for all of the citizens ... and they will spend their time and people's money locked in politically biased gridlock.And consumed by debt. As long as First Past the Post elections and hyper partisan majority governments exist, we need a place for 'sober second thought' on proposed legislation. The Senate? The provinces? Neither is trustworthy. Or maybe it should be the courts? It would save a lot of money if 'laws' were tested by our courts first. We have three arms of government. We need checks and balances on power. Without gridlocked sloganeering 'brainwashing and dividing the masses' partisanship. What I LOVED about Alberta, is that all working and small business people united, left only a few blue pockets of 'bosses' on the map. They can only divide us if we let them. They try to force us into a few partisan boxes, set us against each other. We need more choices, Proportionate Representation in the HoC, and they need to work together across parties for our benefit. That's what we pay them for. . Edited July 27, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 Neither is trustworthy. Or maybe it should be the courts? What makes them so trustworthy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 What makes them so trustworthy? Probably because they don't have to seek re election and can therefore focus their legal expertise on what is written and expressed in law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 What makes them so trustworthy? They reference law instead of political agenda. And they clean up the messes politicians create. But it's very expensive. Personally I'd rather spend my tax dollars getting their opinion up front. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 Probably because they don't have to seek re election and can therefore focus their legal expertise on what is written and expressed in law. People don't have biases in real life? You do. I do. Lawyers do. Do you think that disappears when they become judges? Judges should not be in the business of writing legislation, or you can kiss democracy goodbye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 They reference law instead of political agenda. Judges never have a political agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 People don't have biases in real life? You do. I do. Lawyers do. Do you think that disappears when they become judges? Judges should not be in the business of writing legislation, or you can kiss democracy goodbye. They are not in the business of writing legislation. Apparently you need a primer on how our government works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 People don't have biases in real life? You do. I do. Lawyers do. Do you think that disappears when they become judges? Judges should not be in the business of writing legislation, or you can kiss democracy goodbye. That's why we have three arms of government, checks and balances. You think I'm gonna trust you? Or Harper? ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 They are not in the business of writing legislation. Apparently you need a primer on how our government works. Perhaps you missed what I was responding to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 That's why we have three arms of government, checks and balances. It actually doesn't work quite that way here, as two of the branches are intertwined (the executive and Parliament). I was simply responding to your ridiculous idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 Perhaps you missed what I was responding to? Maybe. Sounded like you were saying judges write legislation. And I guess I assumed you were probably talkig about SCC judges who have to cotinually correct Mr. Harper's attempts at writing legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) Maybe. Sounded like you were saying judges write legislation. She wanted judges to get directly involved in the legislative process. Edited July 27, 2015 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted July 27, 2015 Report Share Posted July 27, 2015 She wanted to judges to get directly involved in the legislative process. Translation perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.