ironstone Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 How does that get rid of the issues with partisanship appointments, Canadians being governed by the unelected, and a turkey like Brazeau in there for 40 years? I couldn't imagine who Christy Clark would appoint.... It would be as much a disaster as Harper's appointments. Harper sure did make some awful appointments to be sure.But there are a lot of rotten apples in the Senate.It's just that the Conservative one's get most of the attention from the media.And the fact that the charges were dropped against most of them isn't really saying they're all squeaky clean.It seems pretty clear that a lot of Senators abuse the spirit of (the very few and ambiguous) rules.I am very cynical about this,but the rules are like that for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 Why not just have a proportional house of commons? Then you will have more diverse perspectives represented. If you mean proportional representation ballots, rather than first past the post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 If you mean proportional representation ballots, rather than first past the post? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 No financial pressure from Ottawa will cause it......that will just cause multiple visits to the Supreme Court. The only way you would convince them is to increase their Senate proportion and/or funding formula proportion with long term guarantees. Financial pressures from reality, not Ottawa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archduke al-Qaddafi Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 It is unforgivable that Harper didn't abolish the senate when he had the chance. At the height of expense scandal none of the provincial governments would have dared try to stop him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 It is unforgivable that Harper didn't abolish the senate when he had the chance. At the height of expense scandal none of the provincial governments would have dared try to stop him. Actually, some of the Provinces would object. Also, once you open the constitutional genie, every wing-nut in the country will clamour for their own pet amendment. I hope we learned something from the Meech Lake fiasco. Trudeau should never have patriated the BNA Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 It is unforgivable that Harper didn't abolish the senate when he had the chance. He never had such a mythical chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 Yes. Well, here is the thing about proportional representation. I was told that nowhere in Canada is anything but "first past the post" (single member plurality) used, maybe with some minor exceptions. Like it or not, you're similar to your American cousins in that you like to "keep it simple" when it comes to voting (no PR, no numbering preferences, none of that complicated crap). You'd be introducing something into Canadian politics that hadn't been before. If that's what you all want, go for it: it's not for an American to tell you what to do. But I will tell you that Australia uses something similar in voting for both its houses of federal Parliament. A friend from the Commonwealth of Down Under told me that, in federal elections, the ballot for the House is like a postcard; the Senate is more like a small tablecloth. Take into account that they have COMPULSORY voting in Australia. Maybe there's a reason for that? Like--and I'm just spitballing, here--it's so complicated that, if they were not forced to do so, then nobody would bother to turn out to vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 Financial pressures from reality, not Ottawa. Reality already came knocking.....and nothing. There will not be one dime less in transfer funding, business innovation is the best it could be with limited pop. and immigration, and more gov'ts equals more opportunity for subsidy. The only incentive for amalgamation , like municipalities, is administrative duplication. Since Acadiens prefer administrative duplication......there goes 1/4 of the vote. Again so long as transfer payments exist no dice. In any event amalgamation wouldn't solve their budgetary/production dilemma. Amalgamation is red meat for those who got tired of being shunned for saying "pogey bums". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 Newfoundland is in real trouble. New Brunswick isn't much better. There are financial realities that are going to become a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archduke al-Qaddafi Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 Newfoundland is in real trouble. New Brunswick isn't much better. There are financial realities that are going to become a problem. Since when do Newfoundlanders need to concern themselves with financial reality? Transfer payments will do just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 16, 2016 Report Share Posted July 16, 2016 I don't know enough about the Atlantic provinces to have a good feel for whether it would make sense for them to merge. I don't see why they would want to, politically, though... the present situation gives them extra representation on the federal stage. Considering what happened to the Acadians and the constitutional requirement for NB to run dual systems and be bilingual, it won't happen without a major retooling of how NS, PE, and NL do things. NB francophones will fight tooth and nail to preserve their culture and language. Amalgamating would threaten that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Considering what happened to the Acadians and the constitutional requirement for NB to run dual systems and be bilingual, it won't happen without a major retooling of how NS, PE, and NL do things. NB francophones will fight tooth and nail to preserve their culture and language. Amalgamating would threaten that. I wouldn't be in favour of amalgamation unless it protected the culture and language of the Acadians. That would mean the new province would continue to be bilingual. If Manitoba and Saskatchewan were merged, it would still make Atlantic Canada the smallest province. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 The thing is, representation in the senate is fine the way it is. You're talking about a lot of major constitutional changes to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The senate is fine, as far as how many senators each region gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 (edited) The thing is, representation in the senate is fine the way it is. You're talking about a lot of major constitutional changes to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The senate is fine, as far as how many senators each region gets. Most people from the west - especially BC and Alberta, would disagree with that. I'm pretty sympathetic to that argument. The regions are mostly an artificial construct. BC and Saskatchewan have little in common, and don't belong in the same region. The Atlantic is split into two regions, and is over represented. A quick fix there would involve getting rid of Newfoundland and Maritime as regions, and creating an Atlantic region, with 6 senators for each province, mirroring the west. Most westerners would still feel that Quebec and Ontario have too many Senators in comparison to Alberta and BC with 4 times as many. Personally, to simplify things, I'm fine keeping 10 provinces, and going to having 10 senators per province. The territories wouldn't have any. Each province and territory would get 1 free MP, and after that, would need to meet population metrics to get additional ones. I'm thinking 1 MP per 125K people. Edited July 17, 2016 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 If you don't mind me interjecting yet again, are some Canadians afraid that, if the Senate were elected, as is the US Senate, you'd get the same problem of "obstruction" we do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Lot's of fake talk about 'proportional representation' in the Senate, but what it really boils down to is the west screwing Ontario. Ontario has more population than all four western provinces put together. If considering 'regions' then perhaps Ontario should be 3 regions (GTA, eastern/southwestern Ontario, and Northern Ontario). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Lot's of fake talk about 'proportional representation' in the Senate, but what it really boils down to is the west screwing Ontario. Ontario has more population than all four western provinces put together. If considering 'regions' then perhaps Ontario should be 3 regions (GTA, eastern/southwestern Ontario, and Northern Ontario). Ontario (mostly) gets it's population related power in the form of the House of Commons. The Senate isn't about population, and never was. The Senate is about balancing geography and population. Also, to suggest that all 4 western provinces are the same is misguided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 Also, to suggest that all 4 western provinces are the same is misguided. No, BC is a true province the joined Canada. The rest are just subdivisions of the territories. Perhaps Ontario could subdivide into multiple provinces in order to not get diluted as has been the course for the past century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 No, BC is a true province the joined Canada. The rest are just subdivisions of the territories. Perhaps Ontario could subdivide into multiple provinces in order to not get diluted as has been the course for the past century. Manitoba was partly formed that way, but is originally a result of the Red River Rebellion. It's completely irrelivant though, as each province has equal sovereignty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted July 17, 2016 Report Share Posted July 17, 2016 each province has equal sovereignty. What does that have to do with representation in Confederation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 What does that have to do with representation in Confederation? Most countries have an upper house that is used to balance the regions against the populace. That's fine, except that in Canada's case, the regions are rather artificial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 Most countries have an upper house that is used to balance the regions against the populace. That's fine, except that in Canada's case, the regions are rather artificial. In your mind maybe. To others the regions and their regionalism is very real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 In your mind maybe. To others the regions and their regionalism is very real. That makes no sense. People in BC don't like think of themselves as being lumped in with people from Saskatchewan. There's no reason for Newfoundland, Quebec and Ontario to be their own region, but for the Maritime and Western provinces to be lumped together. There's also no reason for the arbitrary seat allocation in the Maritime region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted July 18, 2016 Report Share Posted July 18, 2016 That makes no sense. People in BC don't like think of themselves as being lumped in with people from Saskatchewan. There's no reason for Newfoundland, Quebec and Ontario to be their own region, but for the Maritime and Western provinces to be lumped together. There's also no reason for the arbitrary seat allocation in the Maritime region. Only in that was as it was written. If you wish to open & revise the "contract" then I agree, I just don't think you'd like what follows. 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.