Make up of an elected senate

[stubblejumper]

10 provinces and 3 territories

Each province gets 5 senators. Each terrotory gets 2. Total 56

BC- 2 CON, 2 LIB , 1 NDP

AB- 4 CON, 1 LIB

SK- 3 CON, 1 LIB, 1 NDP

MB- 2 LIB, 2 NDP, 1 CON

ON- 3 LIB, 1 CON , 1 NDP

PQ- 4 BQ, 1 LIB

NB- 3 LIB, 2 CON

NS- 3 LIB, 2 CON

PEI- 4 LIB, 1 CON

NF- 3 LIB, 2 CON

YT- 1 LIB, 1 NDP

NWT- 2 LIB

NT- 2 LIB

Totals- LIB-28 ; CON-17 ; NDP-6; BQ- 4

Looks like a Liberal majority in an elected senate.

Could make it easier on them.

Would like to hear others ideas and outcomes.

[Riverwind]

10 provinces and 3 territories

Each province gets 5 senators. Each terrotory gets 2. Total 56

It would more meaningful to use the current seat allocations since there is zero chance of changing the current formula in this generation:

Under the constitution, each province or territory is entitled to a specific number of seats. A senator must reside in the province or territory for which he or she is appointed. The constitution divides Canada into four "divisions," each with an equal number of senators: twenty-four for Ontario; twenty-four for Quebec; twenty-four for the Maritime provinces (ten for Nova Scotia, ten for New Brunswick, and four for Prince Edward Island); and twenty-four for the Western provinces (six each for Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta). Newfoundland and Labrador, which became a province only in 1949, is not assigned to any division, and is represented by six senators. Furthermore, the three territories (the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and Nunavut) are allocated one senator each.

[stubblejumper]

BC- (6) 3 CON, 2 LIB , 2 NDP

AB- (6) 5 CON, 1 LIB

SK- (6) 4 CON, 1 LIB, 2 NDP

MB- (6) 2 LIB, 2 NDP, 2 CON

ON- (24) 15 LIB, 4 CON ,5 NDP

PQ-(24) 20 BQ, 4 LIB

NB- (10) 6 LIB, 4 CON

NS-(10) 6 LIB, 3 CON, 1 NDP

PEI-(4) 3 LIB, 1 CON

NF-(16) 10 LIB, 6 CON

YT- (1) 1 NDP

NWT- (1) 1 LIB

NT- (1) 1 LIB

Totals(115)- LIB-53 ; CON-32 ; NDP-13; BQ- 20

Would that be a decent guess?

[Riverwind]

BC- (6) 3 CON, 2 LIB , 2 NDP

AB- (6)  5 CON, 1 LIB

SK- (6)  4 CON, 1 LIB, 2 NDP

MB- (6)  2 LIB, 2 NDP, 2 CON

ON- (24) 15 LIB, 4 CON ,5 NDP

PQ-(24)  20 BQ, 4 LIB

NB- (10) 6 LIB, 4 CON

NS-(10) 6 LIB, 3 CON, 1 NDP

PEI-(4)  3 LIB, 1 CON

NF-(16) 10 LIB, 6 CON

YT- (1)  1 NDP

NWT- (1)  1 LIB

NT-  (1) 1 LIB

Totals(115)- LIB-53 ; CON-32 ; NDP-13; BQ- 20

Would that be a decent guess?

Are you assuming proportational representation or first past the post with large ridings (like the US senate)? The conservatives would get more seats with FPP (i.e. they would sweep Alberta and have more seats in BC and Sask).

[Guest eureka]

Part of the weakness of the argument for an elected Senate lies in your figures. To focus on just one, the Bloc in your calculation, would have about 19% of the Senate seats while having the support (currently the highest ever and certainly temporarily) of only about 11% of the population of Canada. With its single minded focus it would not be representative of the interests of the region.

Then, and most importantly, the Senate would be just another partisan body and would always represent only a part of the wishes of the region the members represent.. At present, the Senate is non-partisan on most issues. Further, your Senate would be another minority government and more likely to be permanently deadlocked than even a minority in the Commons.

Also, in a Parliamentary system, what powers would an elected Senate be given. Inevitably, it would be at loggerheads with the Commons on many issues, but what would prevail.

In the discussions on the Senate, I have gone into this at much greater depth. An elected Senate in a Parliamentary system is a retrogade step in representative democracy. It simply would give us an American style tier of government that is antipathetic to the national interest.

[Sir Chauncy]

Each province gets 5 senators. Each terrotory gets 2. Total 56

_______________________

Why only two for territories???

Equal voice is what everyone screams for, for fairness, yet while screaming that they try limiting certain areas to little or no voice.

To be fair and equal every area needs equal voice.

Why should tiny PEI have five while other areas have three.

Equal voice is what a new senate is supposed to represent, supposedly.

We have too many politicians now in my view. There should be ten MPs from each area of Canada to make a smaller, equal voiced Government. The Senate should have three to five from each area.

Smaller, equal, far fewer feeding from the trough, yet equal.

All most in Ottawa do now is sit and do nothing, or waste time discussing trivial garbage. With a smaller, streamlined Government their would be fewer time wasters, and more time to discuss reall issues to accomplish more of what they are actually elected to do.

Sir Chauncy

[Chungwawema]

If we're dicusses changing the structuring of the senate then, as someone else mentioned, we must also discuss changes in what the senate does.

In its present state adding or subtracting senators doesn't make much sense unless we also change the purpose of our senate.

Should we be changing the senate's purpose? Is our senate broken?

[mcqueen625]

Those who suggest that ON and PQ have large numbers of Senators while the rest of the Canadian Provinces have far less representation are basically suggesting the status quo, and the status quo is not working, elected or appointed. The outcome is the same, with Canada being controlled totally by only 2 of the partners that makes up this country, and all decision are made based on what is best for ONtario and Quebec, the rest of us do not seem to matter. It almost seems that in the minds of the federal goverment, Canada stops at the Ontario/Manitoba border in the West, and the Quebec/New Brunswick border in the East.

Since it has become obvious that neither the Parliament of Canada, nor the Senate seems to be running the show in this country, it may well be time to abolish both Houses, and the appointed position of Governor General, and instead have an Elected Judiciary. According to our own PM, the Supreme Court has the final say in this country anyway, and they are accountable to no one for their decisions. In order to make these appointed political cronnies accountable and sensitive to the wishes of the electorate in this country, maybe it is time that we elected them to specific terms of office, instead of appointing them to serve until age 75.

Think of the $ billions we could save in salaries, pensions and other benefits if we eliminated all of MP's, Senators, the Governor General, along with all of their Provincial counterparts and instead just elect those who are making the decisions anyway. This would have the added bonus of making these political hacks conscious of the decisions they make and the impact some of these decisions have on our society, by the prospect of having to face the electorate.

[mcqueen625]

We have too many politicians now in my view. There should be ten MPs from each area of Canada to make a smaller, equal voiced Government. The Senate should have three to five from each area.

Smaller, equal, far fewer feeding from the trough, yet equal

Right on! We have far too many politicians in all areas of Canada, not just federally. THe Senate on the other hand serves no useful purpose as far as I'm concerned, It has simply become a political reward for Party loyalty.

I thought of another aspect that nobody has mentioned yet. In the Province of New Brunswick the trend has been for government to hire many of our public servants to Term Positions, and not filling those jobs with full-time employees. These Term Employees are not entitled to benefits of any kind. This leaves those that work these positions unable to make neither long-term career plans, nor lifestyle plans.

When I spoke to my local MLA about this situation and asked him why MLA's are entitled to not only a Gold Plated Pension Plan, but above average healthcare coverage, transportation allowances, etc, etc. His answer was rather predictable, "Because that's the system that has been put in place to compensate MLA's.

I asked him if Term Employee's of the government are not entitled to benefits, then why are MLA's, since in my view politician's of all stripes are nothing but Term Employees as well. They are there only until the next election call, and they then have to reapply for those Term Position's by running in an election. There is no guarantee beyond the term of office for them to retain their jobs. If politicians want to use the option of Terming out public service jobs without benefits, then the same conditions should apply to MLA's, MP's, etc. Other than for to admit to me that I ws right and politician's are in fact only serving Term Positions, I did not get an adequate answer, in fact he really didn't have an answer for me at all.

I think we need to demand more accounability from our politicians of all stripes, and demand that if they are going to treat one group of employees in a specifc manner, than all employees need to be treated equally, including themselves.

[Guest eureka]

No wonder your MLA had "no answer" for you. Probably the only answers for insanity are a straitjacket or medication. Your MLA is not really in a position to prescribe either.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The problem with reforming the Senate comes from the problem of out disporportionately sized and unwiledy provinces. We should have more and smaller provinces which more precisely match sensible local georaphies. Then the Senate could be adjusted to represent these rationalized regional interests. As things are now, the provncial governments are always standing in the way of the national interest.

[Riverwind]

The problem with reforming the  Senate comes from the problem of out disporportionately sized and unwiledy provinces.  We should have more and smaller provinces which more precisely match sensible local georaphies.  Then the Senate could be adjusted to represent these rationalized regional interests.  As things are now, the provncial governments are always standing in the way of the national interest.

More provinces has to the worst possible solution. You need to have a critical mass of population before having a provincial gov't becomes cost effective. That is why the territories will likely always be territories.

Those who suggest that ON and PQ have large numbers of Senators while the rest of the Canadian Provinces have far less representation are basically suggesting the status quo, and the status quo is not working, elected or appointed. The outcome is the same, with Canada being controlled totally by only 2 of the partners that makes up this country.

Quebec nationalists insist that Canada has only two partners: English Canada and Quebec. I don't agree with this attitude (it is extremely arrogant and self-serving on the part of Quebequers), however, this attitude means that Quebec's representation in the senate can never go down. That why talking about senate reform is a big waste of time unless Quebec seperates or some miracle occurs and Quebec politcians discover that acting like a team player instead of a prima donna would better serve the interests of Quebec in the long run.

[Guest eureka]

The suggestion that Quebec and Canada, in terms of Senate representation, run the country is preposterous. The two combined do not have a majority even though they have the majority of the population.

Further, since Confederation (and before), the two largest provinces have been competitors in virtually every way. Their interests have rarely been coincident. In regional concerns, they would almost never vote in the same way except that Ontario, and at one time Quebec. also considered the other role of the Senate. That role is to further the national interest.

If Alberta - it is always Alberta in the last couple of decades - wants to get its way in the Senate, then it should get on side with the rest of the West and the Maritimes. It could then outvote Quebec and Ontario. Of course, there might be some difficulty in persuading those you sneer at and vilify to support the desire for preeminence in all things.

[August1991]

The suggestion that Quebec and Canada, in terms of Senate representation, run the country is preposterous. The two combined do not have a majority even though they have the majority of the population.

The Senate is largely irrelevant, in particular since most of its members for a century have been appointed by Liberal governments. The last time I recall the Senate doing anything of import was to block Mulroney's free trade legislation.

The real game is in the House and with over 100 seats out of 300 some odd, it would be hard to ignore Ontario. In fact though, the governing Liberals under Trudeau and Chretien formed a coalition of Ontario and Quebec. Trudeau always got all of Quebec, and lots in Ontario. Chretien always got all of Ontario, and lots in Quebec. The combination is unbeatable.

And that ultimately is PM PM's problem. The Liberals have lost Quebec, except for a rump of about 10 or so non-French ridings, and for that reason, they'll lose a few too many in Ontario.

[The 1988 election and Clarks' 1979 election victory are the only examples going back to 1962 when the governing party has not essentially won power by seats in Ontario and Quebec. IOW, the West isn't necessary.]

-----

As to Senate reform, forget it, unless you were imagining the kind of political structure that the nine provinces without Quebec will give themselves.

[stubblejumper]

Let's start by saying that I never asked for a debate on the possibilty or probability of senate reform. It was meant to get constructive discussion on the make up, politically, of an elected senate.

The way I imagine it would be most likely the current make up which is a good starting place. The US doesn't give the senators ridings the whole state votes for the candidate of there choice. That is how I got the numbers.

I would guess that they would all be elected at the same time so 1st 1-24 (depending on province)past the post. I would make some 2 years intial so that the general pop can vote for 1/3 every 2 years. Others 4 and 6 year terms. One could make the top 1/3-6 year-then middle 1/3-4 year and bottom 3rd -2 year then 6 year from then on.

As far as the territories, most elected upper houses do not grant voting reps to the senate for territories . But that seemed un-Canadian.

I am not advocating senate reform. Just trying to get some discussion on what it may look like .

[August1991]

The way I imagine it would be most likely the current make up which is a good starting place. The US doesn't give the senators ridings the whole state votes for the candidate of there choice. That is how I got the numbers.

Stubble, there's your problem. You are taking the US Senate and transferring it to Canada, with adjustments. Won't work. As a minimum, I suggest you look at upper houses in other countries and then think very seriously about Canada again. Judging by history, we most certainly don't do things the way Americans do.

Stubble, you state that "The US doesn't give the senators ridings... " I suggest you do a search on the term "riding". You may be surprised.

Edited June 25, 2005 by August1991

[Guest eureka]

I agree with your response to Stubble, August. His speculation makes no sense without considering the Canadian political context.

However, I think you know better than your reply to me suggested. The Senate is very relevant and does a great deal of work that cannot be done in the House. Further, the Senate does not on most issues divide purely on party lines.

The Senate is intended to represent both the regional and national interest: it does so, and frequently goes against federal party affiliation in doing so. It is a check on the Commons and is the Chamber of Second Thoughts it was intended to be.

The only problem with the Senate is that its powers have been reduced and manipulated for crass party expedience. It needs to have its independence restored in full.

But, I have gone into all that before in the discussions on the Senate where I also tried to get across the lunacy of the idea of an elected Senate in our Parliamentary system.

As for the rest of your post, you are exaggerating and oversimplifying. It is not relevant to the Senate, though.

[stubblejumper]

This may be why nothing ever gets done because people are more interested in being critical of someone's ideas instead of coming up with there own alternatives.

Yes there are difficulties , with any system. Sure I may have made mistakes in my research into it. BUT at least i have the nerve and ability to put my ideas forward.

Why don't you guys , instead of constantly regurgatating stats and quoteing others , come up with an IDEA.

If you know what that is ?

[mcqueen625]

We should have more and smaller provinces which more precisely match sensible local georaphies.

Just what we need a buch more bureaucracies for support with our tax dollars. We need less government, not more, much less!

Right on Stubblejumper. Everyone seems to satisfied with a government that lies and steals from the taxpayers, and wastes what money is left on initiatives that benefit's only small segments of the population instead of society in general.

We need new ideas to fix our broken democracy, and the status quo won't cut it!

[Knightman]

Reconstructing the Senate is only one part of what should be a redesigned

federal government structure to better reflect and represent Canada as a

whole.

The concept of equal representation in the Senate is an important

one as it would give each province a solid voice in government.

As it is at this point the Senate has is nothing more than a sober but ineffective

second thought, it has very rarely opposed or questioned legislation from

the House of Commons. It conducts studies and research into proposed

legislation, takes part in committes but in the very bottom line does

little as an effective house in our government.

This has been discussed on many other forum boards and some good concepts for restructuring have come out of those discussions.

-Independent, non-partisan, elected Prime Minister.

-Equal representation elected Senate to replace the existing appointed Senate.

-The House of Commons would be seated in the same way

we do now, same riding system, same number of seats but all members would

be Non-partisan, or independents. They are elected on their personal

merits and skill-sets not political party lines.

-Clear division of

Responsibilities between the House of Commons and the Senate.

The House of Commons would be only responsible for international issues, foreign

affairs, and truly national issues and concerns. The Senate would be responsible for the days to day operation of the country under the direction of the provinces.

-All Taxation is taken in the provinces it is earned, similar to what Quebec does now and under this restructuring the House of Commons would be required to submit a budget for its realm of responsibility to the Senate. There would no longer be any federal income tax which is the only taxes that the provinces do not all collect now with only a couple of exceptions that go directly to the House of

Commons.

That is a very brief overview of some of the changes proposed to restructuring to eliminate a great deal of the problems we have had with our federal government over the last forty years.

It is important to see the entire picture and understand the concepts behind the

changeover and the implications to Canada as a whole. These points are only part of the concept..............

[Riverwind]

The concept of equal representation in the Senate is an important

one as it would give each province a solid voice in government.

The concept of each province be given equal representation ia a not particularily the existing provincial boundries are artificial constructs that have no connection to shared interest. Not to mentions the unequal distributions of populations between provinces woudl really distort the concept of one person one vote.

-Independent, non-partisan, elected Prime Minister.

Better off havig a directly elected govern general and leave the PM as is.

-The House of Commons would be seated in the same way

we do now, same riding system, same number of seats but all members would

be Non-partisan, or independents. They are elected on their personal

merits and skill-sets not political party lines.

Very wishful thinking. The party systems exist in every democratic country because there are a necessary marketing tool. You could start with 'independents' but the parties will come back in an election or two.

Responsibilities between the House of Commons and the Senate.

The House of Commons would be only responsible for international issues, foreign

affairs, and truly national issues and concerns. The Senate would be responsible for the days to day operation of the country under the direction of the provinces.

Democracy is one person one vote. Not one province one vote. Even with the an 'equal' senate the commons should still have most of the power. That is the way every major democratic country I know about works.

-All Taxation is taken in the provinces it is earned, similar to what Quebec does now and under this restructuring the House of Commons would be required to submit a budget for its realm of responsibility to the Senate. There would no longer be any federal income tax which is the only taxes that the provinces do not all collect now with only a couple of exceptions that go directly to the House of

Commons.

This is rediculous. No gov't can function unless it has powers to raise taxes directly. The US tried this model in 1776 - it was an unmitigated failure. They has to rewrite their constitution in 1784 to give the federal gov't taxation powers.

That is a very brief overview of some of the changes proposed to restructuring to eliminate a great deal of the problems we have had with our federal government over the last forty years.

And they would create a whole bunch of new problems that would likely be worse than the current ones.

[Knightman]

Dates that the provinces entered into confederation.

Province/Territory Date

Alberta September 1, 1905

British Columbia July 20, 1871

Manitoba July 15, 1870

New Brunswick July 1, 1867

Newfoundland March 31, 1949

Northwest Territories July 15, 1870

Nova Scotia July 1, 1867

Nunavut April 1, 1999

Ontario July 1, 1867

Prince Edward Island July 1, 1873

Quebec July 1, 1867

Saskatchewan September 1, 1905

Yukon June 13, 1898

Canadian Confederation

Canadian Confederation, the birth of Canada as a nation, took place on July 1, 1867, and originally included the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. There are now 10 provinces and three territories in Canada.

Definition: In Canada, the term Confederation refers to the union of the three British North American colonies of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Canada to become the Dominion of Canada on July 1, 1867. The three colonies were made into the four provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec. The other provinces and territories entered Confederation later.

Source:

http://canadaonline.about.com/library/bl/blconfed.htm

The original areas came together in 1867 to create Canada and to create a federal government structure modeled after the British parliamentary system under the the Queen of England.

Canada is based on its provincial and territorial structure. The Governments of the Provinces are the true Representation by population system in this country and the federal government is supposed to exist for the purpose of supporting the provinces giving them a supposedly open forum, an arena for discussing topics and concerns of mutual interest. The federal government "House of Commons" and the "Senate" are there to be a platform available for Canada as a country to have a single voice to the other countries in the world.

The federal government was never intended to become the "everything" of the Canadian political fabric. especally since Trudeau's time thirty seven years ago we have allowed the federal government to grow and gain ever increasing power over the provinces. Quebec is the only province that has attempted to remain closer to what was originaly intended..........

[Guest eureka]

Knightman, I would have responded to you with some accurate information about government in Canada. Your conclusions are so utterly ridiculous, though, that I cannot be bothered. You will have to read something other than what sounds like a schoolboy's essay.

Just take the "modeled on the UK statement" as a starting point and see how absurd the rest is.

[Riverwind]

The federal government was never intended to become the "everything" of the Canadian political fabric. especally since Trudeau's time thirty seven years ago we have allowed the federal government to grow and gain ever increasing power over the provinces. Quebec is the only province that has attempted to remain closer to what was originaly intended

Your knowledge of Canadian history is weak. When Canada was created the BNA act granted all residuals powers to the federal gov't. In other words, if the a power was not explicitly stated in the constitution to belong to the provinces then it became a federal gov't power. This is the reverse of the US model and it is not an accident since the fathers of confederation wished to create a nation that had a stronger central gov't than the US. Futhermore, the current boundaries of the provinces (with the exception of the martimes) include territories that did not originally belong to the provinces but were given to the provinces by the federal gov't for adminstrative convenience.

[Knightman]

10 provinces and 3 territories

Each province gets 5 senators. Each terrotory gets 2. Total 56

It would more meaningful to use the current seat allocations since there is zero chance of changing the current formula in this generation:

Under the constitution, each province or territory is entitled to a specific number of seats. A senator must reside in the province or territory for which he or she is appointed. The constitution divides Canada into four "divisions," each with an equal number of senators: twenty-four for Ontario; twenty-four for Quebec; twenty-four for the Maritime provinces (ten for Nova Scotia, ten for New Brunswick, and four for Prince Edward Island); and twenty-four for the Western provinces (six each for Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Alberta). Newfoundland and Labrador, which became a province only in 1949, is not assigned to any division, and is represented by six senators. Furthermore, the three territories (the Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and Nunavut) are allocated one senator each.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Senate is seated in this manner at the current time but it is little more that a support and study group for the House of Commons and does little for actually representing the provinces and territories, the structure it was set up to serve.

If we're discuss changing the structuring of the senate then, as someone else mentioned, we must also discuss changes in what the senate does.

In its present state adding or subtracting senators doesn't make much sense unless we also change the purpose of our senate.

Should we be changing the senate's purpose? Is our senate broken?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To restructure the Senate would indeed require reorganizing its focus and that would in turn require reorganizing the focus of the House of Commons as well.

Those who suggest that ON and PQ have large numbers of Senators while the rest of the Canadian Provinces have far less representation are basically suggesting the status quo, and the status quo is not working, elected or appointed. The outcome is the same, with Canada being controlled totally by only 2 of the partners that makes up this country, and all decision are made based on what is best for ONtario and Quebec, the rest of us do not seem to matter. It almost seems that in the minds of the federal goverment, Canada stops at the Ontario/Manitoba border in the West, and the Quebec/New Brunswick border in the East.

Since it has become obvious that neither the Parliament of Canada, nor the Senate seems to be running the show in this country, it may well be time to abolish both Houses, and the appointed position of Governor General, and instead have an Elected Judiciary. According to our own PM, the Supreme Court has the final say in this country anyway, and they are accountable to no one for their decisions. In order to make these appointed political cronnies accountable and sensitive to the wishes of the electorate in this country, maybe it is time that we elected them to specific terms of office, instead of appointing them to serve until age 75.

Think of the $ billions we could save in salaries, pensions and other benefits if we eliminated all of MP's, Senators, the Governor General, along with all of their Provincial counterparts and instead just elect those who are making the decisions anyway. This would have the added bonus of making these political hacks conscious of the decisions they make and the impact some of these decisions have on our society, by the prospect of having to face the electorate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If any restructuring were to take place the idea would be to maintain the correct basic structure to make the changeover as non-intrusive and understandable as possible.

The Senate, if it is to be a equal representation body instead of the current federally "Prime Minister" appointed body could be seated by the provinces and territories in several ways. They could be provincially elected in an open vote. They could be elected by the governments of the provinces They could be appointed by the governments of the provinces. Which ever way that would be determined would or should be up to the individual provinces to decide to best seat those to represent the province. There is no need for a "standard" method for deciding on the members for the senate. The term of office should stay within the five year limit and the senate should be seated in a cyclic manner to maintain consistency instead of an "all at one time" method which places an entire new set of members who would require time to get up to speed and get the legislative process rolling again.

The actual expense of directly paying the salaries of our 105 Senators is not that high. It is the pensions after their terms that can add up for all elected representatives.

((Canadian Senate. From Wikipedia,. The Senate was established in 1867, when the British North America Act 1867 created the Dominion of Canada. ... of 2005, is $119,100; members may receive additional salaries in right of other offices they hold.

If we do some simple math say multiply 105 times $119,100 we get $12,505,500.00 to pay our senators per year.

That is twelve million five hundred and five thousand, five hundred dollars to pay for our Senators per year.))

District Population *(Population Square Senate House of Commons total percentage of

Percentage) KM Seats Seats seats total seats

Qu&eacutebec 7,237,479 %24.12 1,542,056 24 75 99 23.97%

Ontario 11,410,046 %38.03 1,076,395 24 106 130 31.47%

British Columbia 3,907,738 %13.02 944,735 6 36 42 10.16%

Alberta 2,974,807 %9.91 661,848 6 28 34 8.23%

Saskatchewan 978,933 %3.26 651,036 6 14 20 4.84%

Manitoba 1,119,583 %3.73 647,797 6 14 20 4.84%

Nova Scotia 908,007 %3.03 55,284 10 11 21 5.08%

New Brunswick 729,498 %2.43 72,908 10 10

Newfoundland & Labrador 512,930 %1.71 405,212 6 7 13 3.14%

Prince Edward Island 135,294 %0.45 5,660 4 4 8 1.93%

Northwest Territories 37,360 %0.12 1,346,106 1 1 2 0.48%

Yukon Territory 28,674 %0.10 482,443 1 1 2 0.48%

Nunavut 26,745 %0.09 2,093,190 1 1 2 0.48%

Canada (totals) 30,007,094 %100.00 9,984,670 105 308 413

Federal house seating chart

(images seem to be disabled, refer to above url for proper viewing)

As one can see from the above chart, the spread of representation as based on population is not unfair, not perfectly balanced but within acceptabe limits at this time.

What this chart does not show is the is the reality of representation and what actually occurs in the operation (flow of legislation) of our country.

To reorganize the Senate to a representation by province/territory system could have the effect of better addresing regional concerns without jeapordizing the representation by population structure we have now in the House of Commons. That restructuring may bring about more effective balancing than the current system allows.

If one looks at the entire structure we see a (rep by pop) system in the House of Commons, a (rep by pop) system in the Senate and again a (rep by pop) system operating within each province or territory. To seat the Senate as a represtation by region system could be a better option in the overall structure.

The problem with reforming the  Senate comes from the problem of out disproportionately sized and unwiledy provinces.  We should have more and smaller provinces which more precisely match sensible local georaphies.  Then the Senate could be adjusted to represent these rationalized regional interests.  As things are now, the provncial governments are always standing in the way of the national interest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is the point. When we have basiclly a unicameral federal structure in that our Senate is appointed not elected. The proposed restructuring would give us a true bicameral structure.With that the focus of the House of Commons and the Senate should be altered. The House of Commons should be concerned with international affairs, truly national issues and foriegn affairs the details of which can easly be worked out. The restructured Senate should focus on internal issues, provincial concerns and provincial interaction. The provincial governments should be left free to plot their own coarse unhidered. To break down the boundries further would be similiar to the ridings now used to elect the House of Commons members and probably an unreasonable expectation.

The problem with reforming the  Senate comes from the problem of out disporportionately sized and unwiledy provinces.  We should have more and smaller provinces which more precisely match sensible local georaphies.  Then the Senate could be adjusted to represent these rationalized regional interests.  As things are now, the provncial governments are always standing in the way of the national interest.

More provinces has to the worst possible solution. You need to have a critical mass of population before having a provincial gov't becomes cost effective. That is why the territories will likely always be territories.

Your correct that any restructuring should end with the provinces, to go further is to add a lot more conflict to the mix. We do not need that.

Those who suggest that ON and PQ have large numbers of Senators while the rest of the Canadian Provinces have far less representation are basically suggesting the status quo, and the status quo is not working, elected or appointed. The outcome is the same, with Canada being controlled totally by only 2 of the partners that makes up this country.

Quebec nationalists insist that Canada has only two partners: English Canada and Quebec. I don't agree with this attitude (it is extremely arrogant and self-serving on the part of Quebequers), however, this attitude means that Quebec's representation in the senate can never go down. That why talking about senate reform is a big waste of time unless Quebec seperates or some miracle occurs and Quebec politcians discover that acting like a team player instead of a prima donna would better serve the interests of Quebec in the long run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is actually a well balanced representation at this time very close to the population percentages of the country........