On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 And they shouldn't. The Senate should balance the provinces, or at least come far closer. The original regional separations are very arbitrary today. Certain rebalancing could well be done, in the same way we adjust electoral boundaries from time to time. The regions still maintain specificity. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 But it doesn't do that today. Go take a look at how many people a senator from PEI represents compared to one from Ontario, today, and get back to us. Quote
Smallc Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) Go take a look at how many people a senator from PEI represents compared to one from Ontario, today, and get back to us. Population has nothing to do with Senate representation. PEI is 1 province. Ontario is 1 province. Giving each province, say, 6 Senators would guarantee that each had an equal voice. As a compromise, true rep by pop could be brought in. PEI, under this, would have 6 Senators, and, assuming 1 MP per 125K people (rounded to the nearest) 1 MP. Ontario would have 6 Senators and 109 MPs. Edited June 14, 2015 by Smallc Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 So you havent heard Canadians talk about the west, the maritimes, central Canada, the territories...if you have travelled the country much you would realize its not arbitrary at all. I've also heard people refer to the Prairie provinces, as a region distinct from BC. So the West should be 2 regions. Also, according to your above statement 'central Canada' is a region, yet in the senate it is 2 regions (Ontario + Quebec). It's arbitrary. Stop lying to yourself. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 Population has nothing to do with Senate representation. PEI is 1 province. Ontario is 1 province. Giving each province, say, 6 Senators would guarantee that each had an equal voice. As a compromise, true rep by pop could be brought in. PEI, under this, would have 6 Senators, and, assuming 1 MP per 125K people (rounded to the nearest) 1 MP. Ontario would have 6 Senators and 109 MPs. So if Northern Ontario decided to separate and become a new province, now Ontario + Northern Ontario is entitled to twice as many senators? That doesn't make sense. The equal number of senators for every state/province is dumb regardless if it's Canada, Australia, USA, or whatever. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 Population has nothing to do with Senate representation. PEI is 1 province. Ontario is 1 province. Giving each province, say, 6 Senators would guarantee that each had an equal voice. As a compromise, true rep by pop could be brought in. PEI, under this, would have 6 Senators, and, assuming 1 MP per 125K people (rounded to the nearest) 1 MP. Ontario would have 6 Senators and 109 MPs. That is just what I have been trying to point out. Senate representation has nothing to do with population. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 I've also heard people refer to the Prairie provinces, as a region distinct from BC. So the West should be 2 regions. Also, according to your above statement 'central Canada' is a region, yet in the senate it is 2 regions (Ontario + Quebec). It's arbitrary. Stop lying to yourself. What a silly comment. Understanding the point of the senate is hardly lying to myself. But with those type comments I can see I am wasting my time. Quote
Smallc Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 So if Northern Ontario decided to separate and become a new province, now Ontario + Northern Ontario is entitled to twice as many senators? That doesn't make sense. The equal number of senators for every state/province is dumb regardless if it's Canada, Australia, USA, or whatever. It isn't dumb. It's a legitimate compromise in a federal state. Quote
Smallc Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 That is just what I have been trying to point out. Senate representation has nothing to do with population. You've been pointing it out to me when I never said otherwise. I said it's a poor counterbalance as currently structured. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 You've been pointing it out to me when I never said otherwise. I said it's a poor counterbalance as currently structured. No one said, including me, that it couldn't use tweaking, but trying to make it a rep by pop institution defeats the purpose. Prosecute the expense account scammers by all means. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 (edited) but trying to make it a rep by pop institution defeats the purpose. Exactly, so just abolish it. Edited June 14, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 Exactly, so just abolish it. You can if you like. I would still prefer some sort of oversight into what the hill is up to. Harper has tried many times to usurp the constitution and it would be better to have a filter in place other than having to rely solely on the SCC to protect it, and us. Quote
Smallc Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 No one said, including me, that it couldn't use tweaking, but trying to make it a rep by pop institution defeats the purpose. Prosecute the expense account scammers by all means. I don't want it to be one and never suggested it. Quote
Smallc Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 You can if you like. I would still prefer some sort of oversight into what the hill is up to. Harper has tried many times to usurp the constitution and it would be better to have a filter in place other than having to rely solely on the SCC to protect it, and us. The legislation that was shot down in the courts all passed both houses. Quote
Smallc Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 Exactly, so just abolish it. That would be fine in a unitary state. This is a country of 10 provinces with 10 different sets of interests. A properly designed Senate would work to ensure that none of confederations 11 partners is ignored by the masses. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 The legislation that was shot down in the courts all passed both houses. So you can then see why the SCC is so important. Quote
Smallc Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 So you can then see why the SCC is so important. Of course the court is important. We have though, made it far too powerful. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 Of course the court is important. We have though, made it far too powerful. Don't you think it might be a good idea to have highly experienced legal scholars who have no political axe to grind overseeing our constitution... Quote
Smallc Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 Don't you think it might be a good idea to have highly experienced legal scholars who have no political axe to grind overseeing our constitution... Don't you think it might be a good idea to let Parliament legislate the will of Canadians...as was intended from the very foundations of our system of government? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 Don't you think it might be a good idea to let Parliament legislate the will of Canadians...as was intended from the very foundations of our system of government? I suspect the will of Canadians is more expressed in the constitution than it is in the whims of the government of the day. If the constitution requires a change, that is doable, but Harper keeps getting the cart before the horse by tabling bills that fail the current version. Is he just ignorant, or arrogant do you think... Quote
Smallc Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 I suspect the will of Canadians is more expressed in the constitution than it is in the whims of the government of the day. I suspect not. What I do suspect is that Canadians would be happier with an easier way to undo some of the rulings. Take the pot ruling for example - I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but it never should have been their decision. If the constitution requires a change, that is doable, but Harper keeps getting the cart before the horse by tabling bills that fail the current version. Is he just ignorant, or arrogant do you think... There is wide disagreement around legal scholars on some of the decisions against the government. Nadon comes to mind, among others. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 I suspect not. What I do suspect is that Canadians would be happier with an easier way to undo some of the rulings. Take the pot ruling for example - I agree with the Supreme Court decision, but it never should have been their decision. There is wide disagreement around legal scholars on some of the decisions against the government. Nadon comes to mind, among others. It seems such a waste of time to end up with the SC having to rule on such a silly thing as the pot issue. Rona Ambrose was, what, outraged by something a grades school kid could have set right. Nadon was a failed attempt right from the start. Just not qualified. Again, Harper stubbing his toe. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 I would still prefer some sort of oversight into what the hill is up to. How is proportional representation not enough oversight? In the USA, they have too many 'checks and balances' and can't get anything done. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 I suspect the will of Canadians is more expressed in the constitution Let's see. Preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" I'm not sure if I recognize the existence of God, let alone the supremacy. But I guess it expresses my will because On Guard for Thee says so. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted June 14, 2015 Report Posted June 14, 2015 How is proportional representation not enough oversight? In the USA, they have too many 'checks and balances' and can't get anything done. Harper has numerous times shown disrespect for our constitution. Thats why we need checks and balances. Quote
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.