.

[Smallc]

This all makes no sense anyway - the regional thing is indefensible. Each of the 10 provincial Crowns is of equal power. Why should they not have equal representation in Ottawa.

[On Guard for Thee]

This all makes no sense anyway - the regional thing is indefensible. Each of the 10 provincial Crowns is of equal power. Why should they not have equal representation in Ottawa.

To start with, Ottawa is where the federal power sits. After that if we are talking the senate, as has been explained, the power distribution there was to allow regions to have a say, even if they had less population that others.

[Smallc]

To start with, Ottawa is where the federal power sits. After that if we are talking the senate, as has been explained, the power distribution there was to allow regions to have a say, even if they had less population that others.

Manitoba and Ontario are equal partners in Confederation. Somehow, one is a region and one is a sub region. They're concerns are not balanced in the House or the Senate. The Senate isn't serving it's purpose if we're trying to balance population agains the interests of actual regions rather than arbitrary ones that people made up and you seem to want to defend.

[On Guard for Thee]

Manitoba and Ontario are equal partners in Confederation. Somehow, one is a region and one is a sub region. They're concerns are not balanced in the House or the Senate. The Senate isn't serving it's purpose if we're trying to balance population agains the interests of actual regions rather than arbitrary ones that people made up and you seem to want to defend.

First of all you have tried to conflate the house and the senate. The house is a rep by pop situation and if a region is not properly represented then possibly the electoral boundaries require adjustment. Voters send MPs to the house to enact legislation, the senate is there to have a sober second thought, not based on a per capita criteria. If you want to abolish it, by all means go ahead. I just see a lot of comments flying around that indicate a lack of understanding of what the thing is actually all about.

[Smallc]

First of all you have tried to conflate the house and the senate. The house is a rep by pop situation and if a region is not properly represented then possibly the electoral boundaries require adjustment. Voters send MPs to the house to enact legislation, the senate is there to have a sober second thought, not based on a per capita criteria. If you want to abolish it, by all means go ahead. I just see a lot of comments flying around that indicate a lack of understanding of what the thing is actually all about.

I'm not sure what you're going on about. What I've said is this - we have the house which (generally) reflects population realities in each province. Then, we have the Senate, formed of made up regions. Some regions have one province and some have more than one. That makes no sense at all as all provinces are equal partners in Confederation. If you're going to balanance the representation it should be at the provincial level. The Senate, with made up regions, fails to do that. The two provinces with the largest number of seats in the house enjoy large numbers in the Senate as well. There's nothing fair about the outdated regional concept.

[On Guard for Thee]

I'm not sure what you're going on about. What I've said is this - we have the house which (generally) reflects population realities in each province. Then, we have the Senate, formed of made up regions. Some regions have one province and some have more than one. That makes no sense at all as all provinces are equal partners in Confederation. If you're going to balanance the representation it should be at the provincial level. The Senate, with made up regions, fails to do that. The two provinces with the largest number of seats in the house enjoy large numbers in the Senate as well. There's nothing fair about the outdated regional concept.

Well you can then abolish it if you want. However I think it is worthwhile to have legislation reviewed and sent back for amendments when the likes of Harper tend to ignore the constitution. Luckily we will still have the SCC to protect us fro that, but it could bog that court down.

[Smallc]

Well you can then abolish it if you want. However I think it is worthwhile to have legislation reviewed and sent back for amendments when the likes of Harper tend to ignore the constitution. Luckily we will still have the SCC to protect us fro that, but it could bog that court down.

Unless it's equal by province and some better way of selection is determined (I'm not in favour of elections), then getting rid of it is better than what we have.

[On Guard for Thee]

Unless it's equal by province and some better way of selection is determined (I'm not in favour of elections), then getting rid of it is better than what we have.

Well thats fine. The workload will simply transfer to the courts.

[cybercoma]

Yes, that was in the distant past.

Today it makes no sense.

Abolish it.

BC was it's own separate colony and the railway to the Pacific got it into confederation. If this is about separate colonies, then BC should be it's own 'region'.

What part of what I said makes you think it's about separate colonies? NB, NS, and PEI were all separate colonies at confederation. The colonies didn't get equal representation in the senate. The regions did because of their shared economies and culture.

So anyway, what point are you trying to make? That we should reform the senate so that provinces get equal representation? Is that where this argument is going? Because right now it's a pedantic discussion of "why doesn't vancouver island have senators?" It does. They're the BC senators, which is more Senators than PEI has.

Edited June 13, 2015 by cybercoma

[Scott Mayers]

I agree to your assessment, cybercoma.

I think we should first address ridding of the Queen (no offence to her personally) and take a more republican style form as the U.S.. Let the sovereignty remain with the people, not god-heads.

As to the Senate, the Americans elect and represent land (regional) interests. The only major problem with it there is that since it does relate to land, capital ownership interests often supersedes with greater force over the popular interests. Yet it is still a better system than ours.

I don't know whether we should abandon or reform the Senate. It would be nice if we could discover a better way to achieve regional interests. And I don't believe in the traditional concept of a 'wise' or 'elder' house except if it is voluntary. Our wiser people don't need a formal political place but can have effect (and affect) on their own volition external to formal government.

[cybercoma]

I'm not sure what you're going on about. What I've said is this - we have the house which (generally) reflects population realities in each province. Then, we have the Senate, formed of made up regions. Some regions have one province and some have more than one. That makes no sense at all as all provinces are equal partners in Confederation. If you're going to balanance the representation it should be at the provincial level. The Senate, with made up regions, fails to do that. The two provinces with the largest number of seats in the house enjoy large numbers in the Senate as well. There's nothing fair about the outdated regional concept.

PEI wanted provincial representation in the Senate, that's one of the reasons they held out of Confederation. More importantly, however, the number of seats that the Western provinces asked for before being combined into a region in 1915 was less than they got individually as a combined region. Ontario and Quebec are their own regions for what should be obvious reasons, but namely because they originally were the Canadian colonies, each distinct from the other in both culture and economy.

You want to talk about arbitrary political divisions, then why aren't Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta one province? Why aren't New Brunswick, PEI, and Nova Scotia one province? Why isn't Northern Ontario a separate province from the rest of Ontario?

If you want to divide the provinces up to have equal representation, then that means PEI has as much power to veto legislation as Ontario. But like I said in an earlier it gets worse than that. Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia would make up 40% of the Senate under your proposed terms. They would only need one other province for 50% of the vote. Do you think that's appropriate? Currently, they have less than 29%. Under your provincial proposal, you will actually increase the disproportionate representation of PEI, which seems to be the crux of Euler and your argument against the current arrangement.

The current regional representation is a good balance between populations, histories/cultures, and economies. It also gives the Western provinces the same number or more senators than they originally requested before the Constitution Act of 1915. The bigger problem is, why does NB and NS have more senators than every other province except Ontario and Quebec. But it comes down to regional identities. The maritimes are very similar in culture and economies. Their issues are shared issues. Likewise for Manitoba, Saskatchewean, and Alberta. Their economies and cultures were very similar. We don't have the same kinds of farming communities out here and you guys don't have the same kind of fisheries and logging as we do. Your provinces have shared regional concerns. The problem with the Western division is that British Columbia doesn't make sense in that arrangement. I could see an improved regional breakdown looking like this:

BC 6 Senators

AB, SK, MB 24 Senators (6 each)

ON 30 Senators

QC 30 Senators

NL 6 Senators

NB, PE, NS 24 Senators (6 each)

Ultimately, we're arguing about arbitrary political boundaries. The borders between provinces are arbitrary. The borders between countries are arbitrary. All political divisions are arbitrary. Is France France because it's population is French? Then what about Belgium? Why isn't New Brunswick's or Northern Ontario's French communities part of Quebec? It's arbitrary. The Senatorial regions are just as arbitrary as the provincial divisions, but they make sense given the populations, histories, cultures, and economies of the regions. The provinces themselves identify as having regional affiliations whether your recognize them or not. That's why they're divided this way and that's why they agreed to them with PEI being the notable exception. They wanted provincial divisions and why wouldn't they? "We'll join Confederation if we have equal say to Ontario in the Senate." But should they? Most people who aren't islanders would say no.

[cybercoma]

I agree to your assessment, cybercoma.

I think we should first address ridding of the Queen (no offence to her personally) and take a more republican style form as the U.S.. Let the sovereignty remain with the people, not god-heads.

An argument for a different thread, but I absolutely disagree with this and would further note that the monarchy is the sovereignty of the people as we're a Constitutional Monarchy headed by an apolitical Crown that acts on the advice of democratically determined counsel.

[Scott Mayers]

An argument for a different thread, but I absolutely disagree with this and would further note that the monarchy is the sovereignty of the people as we're a Constitutional Monarchy headed by an apolitical Crown that acts on the advice of democratically determined counsel.

I think the way you defend the Queen here is counter to actual democracy. Our system is a type of 'friendly' dictatorship in which our dictators (the Queen, her representatives, and our Senate) simply have NOT exercised their powers yet. But the moment that any such actions of these resist the population in a derogatory and significant way, we would recognize this truth for what it is. This IS the reason for the formation of the U.S..

If you have a sense of loyalty to superior beings, let that be your own personal prerogative. But I don't like being imposed to respect gods or other Imperial beings.

[eyeball]

We don't have the same kinds of farming communities out here and you guys don't have the same kind of fisheries and logging as we do.

We do have the same fisheries management, which has been a disaster for most fishermen.

The Senate was as useless as tits on a bull on both coasts when it came to representing regional interests.

[Smallc]

PEI wanted provincial representation in the Senate, that's one of the reasons they held out of Confederation. More importantly, however, the number of seats that the Western provinces asked for before being combined into a region in 1915 was less than they got individually as a combined region.

So what? It makes no sense today in the context of 10 equal partners.

Ontario and Quebec are their own regions for what should be obvious reasons, but namely because they originally were the Canadian colonies, each distinct from the other in both culture and economy.

You're always for continuing historical injustices, it seems. With the workings of Confederation, Ontario is no more valuable as a partner than PEI. They should have the same Senate representation.

You want to talk about arbitrary political divisions, then why aren't Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta one province?

Why am I not wearing a pink hat? I can't change history, so I can only work with what exists. Also, Manitoba is quite unique and the same historical facts you point to in the formation of the unbalanced Senate created Manitoba as a distinct entity.

If you want to divide the provinces up to have equal representation, then that means PEI has as much power to veto legislation as Ontario. But like I said in an earlier it gets worse than that. Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia would make up 40% of the Senate under your proposed terms.

And that's the way it should be. They're all equal under the law and they should be in the Senate.

The current regional representation is a good balance between populations, histories/cultures, and economies.

The current representation model gives the same two provinces most of the power in the House and the Senate. That's nonsense.

Ultimately, we're arguing about arbitrary political boundaries.

We're arguing about the representation of equal legal entities as opposed to manufactured regions which make little sense. It's not arbitrary at all. Obviously we're all going to disagree. That's why I've come to the conclusion that we should just dump it.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Smallc

[cybercoma]

I think the way you defend the Queen here is counter to actual democracy. Our system is a type of 'friendly' dictatorship in which our dictators (the Queen, her representatives, and our Senate) simply have NOT exercised their powers yet. But the moment that any such actions of these resist the population in a derogatory and significant way, we would recognize this truth for what it is. This IS the reason for the formation of the U.S..

If you have a sense of loyalty to superior beings, let that be your own personal prerogative. But I don't like being imposed to respect gods or other Imperial beings.

The Queen does exercise her powers. All the time in fact. Her viceroy has prorogued parliament several times, called elections, and even gives laws royal assent.

[cybercoma]

So what? It makes no sense today in the context of 10 equal partners.

Are they equal?

The current representation model gives the same two provinces most of the power in the House and the Senate. That's nonsense.

Except those "two provinces" were Canada before Confederation and everyone else joining them.

That's why I've come to the conclusion that we should just dump it.

Anyway, we agree on this point and here's the perfect example why:

We do have the same fisheries management, which has been a disaster for most fishermen.

The Senate was as useless as tits on a bull on both coasts when it came to representing regional interests.

This is exactly the problem.

A bigger problem is what kind of "sober second thought" are they providing? The House is supposed to be supreme, so the Senate is really not supposed to do much be review legislation and make amendments. So they rarely stop anything. It would be undemocratic if they did.

It's just unnecessary overview that costs a crapload of money and accomplishes very little, as far as I can tell. I'm still waiting for some senators or even posters here to show me what good the Senate has done for legislation in this country.

[Scott Mayers]

The Queen does exercise her powers. All the time in fact. Her viceroy has prorogued parliament several times, called elections, and even gives laws royal assent.

You missed the words, "in a derogatory and significant way". I'm saying we may appear democratic but this appearance is only because our HOLY SOVEREIGNTY that we are constitutionally bound to has not exercised their powers as they actually could technically. Coloring our feudal aristocratic system as 'democratic' is superficial and only coincidentally not causing us trouble until such dictators act in a way the demonstrates their power.

But regardless, even our "House of Commons" is not sufficiently representative of us as they MUST follow party lines. (I cannot count on using my local politician to represent my concerns unless it fits within the favor of their party ideals.) But before we tackle the Senate, we'd have to appropriately attack the sovereignty (remove it) if we are to be fair to argue that our Senate serves no function. This is because the philosophical underpinnings of the Senate as an elder and wise function still serves a better function than one simply inheriting their position (Royalty) with even less integrity or accountability than those we place in our Senate.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[GostHacked]

The senate may not serve the purpose it was intended anymore but that doesn't mean the purpose has gone away. I'd like to see the importance of vetting the legislation politicians propose restored to it's former prominence and I'd like to see that function performed by a citizen's assembly.

I keep saying the rules are fine as long as the government follow the rules, but that looks less and less the case. The rules need to be enforced to be effective. More transparency would be good, but when the optics are inwards on them, the 'well if you are not doing anything wrong, there is no problem' is opposite of what they end up doing. Sorry they cannot comment on a continuing investigation, ect.

[overthere]

That would certainly obviate any idea of sober second thought, so might as well just say get rid of the senate, Full stop.

Yes, that is the intention, to get rid of the effect of the Senate without the constitutional cluster**** that would doom any effort to do it via national federal/provincial consensus. There is zero chance that Quebec or the Maritime provinces would agree to any diminishment of the imbalance of power in the current Senate setup.

Any govt- Harper or otherwise- is going to have to do an end run to end this fiasco at the heart of our governance.

The 'sober second thought' idea supposedly behind the Senate has never been the reality. What we see now is what we get, and will get. An elected Senate means more of what we get in the Commons. An unelected Senate is more of what we have now in the Senate.

Time to bury the stinking corpse, one way or another.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes, that is the intention, to get rid of the effect of the Senate without the constitutional cluster**** that would doom any effort to do it via national federal/provincial consensus. There is zero chance that Quebec or the Maritime provinces would agree to any diminishment of the imbalance of power in the current Senate setup.

Any govt- Harper or otherwise- is going to have to do an end run to end this fiasco at the heart of our governance.

The 'sober second thought' idea supposedly behind the Senate has never been the reality. What we see now is what we get, and will get. An elected Senate means more of what we get in the Commons. An unelected Senate is more of what we have now in the Senate.

Time to bury the stinking corpse, one way or another.

I would entertain the idea of delivering the power the senate now wields to the provinces. They are obviously more regionally aware, and you could still have oversight as to what is happening on the hill.

[overthere]

I would entertain the idea of delivering the power the senate now wields to the provinces. They are obviously more regionally aware, and you could still have oversight as to what is happening on the hill.

??? And how- in the real world- would you allocate that power from the imbalance that now exists between the province? You know, PEI having four Senators while by population they should have about 1/10 of one Senator?

In fact, reallocating Senators is pretty much impossible to do since there will be winners and losers, and the losers are not interested at all in change. You cannot change the duty of the PM to appoint Senators without constitutional amendment, which I hope we can agree is essentially impossible.

Provincial elections and nominations? How does this eliminate the partisan hackery that is at least part fo the problem, and somehow is also part of a solution?

[On Guard for Thee]

??? And how- in the real world- would you allocate that power from the imbalance that now exists between the province? You know, PEI having four Senators while by population they should have about 1/10 of one Senator?

In fact, reallocating Senators is pretty much impossible to do since there will be winners and losers, and the losers are not interested at all in change. You cannot change the duty of the PM to appoint Senators without constitutional amendment, which I hope we can agree is essentially impossible.

Provincial elections and nominations? How does this eliminate the partisan hackery that is at least part fo the problem, and somehow is also part of a solution?

I said nothing about reallocation senators. The idea would be get rid of it and then strengthen ad increase federal-provincial executive consultations between the PM ad the premiers. Of course Harper would be out, he never meets with the provinces. Too busy flying around Europe to avoid another scandal.

[jacee]

I said nothing about reallocation senators. The idea would be get rid of it and then strengthen ad increase federal-provincial executive consultations between the PM ad the premiers. Of course Harper would be out, he never meets with the provinces. Too busy flying around Europe to avoid another scandal.

I don't really see that as working to carry out Senate duties, but high 5 on the absent Harper comment!

I hope he's scoped himself out a cushy international job somewhere.

.

[cybercoma]

You missed the words, "in a derogatory and significant way".

Give me a concrete example of the Crown using their power in a significant way. Right now it sounds like you're upset at the monarchy because it doesn't overturn democratic decisions enough.