What do they teach people in the East?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If you were to allocate based on province, you'd have:

Atlantic: 40
Quebec: 10
Ontario: 10
Praries: 30
BC: 10

That to me sees a very large and disproportionate amount of power going to the Atlantic Provinces, a region that represents only about 7% of Canada's total population. Why would someone in the West advocate such a change?

Because it would balance the power Ontario and Quebec have in the Commons.

If we go by your regional alignment, then ON and PQ still control about 40% of the Senate. Enough to ensure that their will is the dominating factor in Canada when coupled with their dominance of the Commons

Besides, why would we want BC to have three times as many Senators as Alberta would?

A EEE Senate does give the Maritimes - and the West - disproportionate power relative to population, but that is balanced by the HoC.

With a EEE Senate, all regions get a voice that matters. The Maritimes (and the West) could not dictate policy via the Senate because of the Commons, while Ontario and Quebec could not dictate policy via the Commons because of the Senate. Policy would have to be inclusive of the entire nation to pass.

[MarchHare]

Because it would balance the power Ontario and Quebec have in the Commons.

If we go by your regional alignment, then ON and PQ still control about 50% of the Senate. Enough to ensure that their will is the dominating factor in Canada.

Ontario and Quebec make up about two-thirds of the national population. Under my proposal, they would only have 40% of the power in the senate. Their combined power would be equal to the Atlantic Provinces, which only make up about 7% of the national population.

[duncan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ontario and Quebec make up about two-thirds of the national population. Under my proposal, they would only have 40% of the power in the senate. Their combined power would be equal to the Atlantic Provinces, which only make up about 7% of the national population.

let me get this straight, you don't think PEI should have the same allotment as Alberta, because there is a large difference in population, yet BC should get the same number as Ontario, even though Ontario has 3x their population. Logical......
Maybe we should forget representation by population entirely, 9 from each province, 10 amongst the 3 territories.

[MarchHare]

let me get this straight, you don't think PEI should have the same allotment as Alberta, because there is a large difference in population, yet BC should get the same number as Ontario, even though Ontario has 3x their population. Logical......

There's a much smaller difference between Ontario having 3x the population of BC and Ontario having 90x the population of PEI.

Maybe we should forget representation by population entirely, 9 from each province, 10 amongst the 3 territories.

If you actually took the time to read what I'm proposing, you'd see that I'm actually in favour of keeping some form of representation by population in the senate. It's other posters here (Snakeeye, for example) who think that all provinces should have an equal amount of power, which -- as I pointed out -- I find unworkable because there's so much disparity between provincial populations. It makes no sense at all to give PEI the same amount of power as Alberta or Ontario. It's more workable to divide the senate based on regions, rather than provinces, IMO, even though this too will see some regions over- or under- represented, but not to the same extent as you'd get by giving each province the same number of senators.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Also that being said. I think it's pretty funny that you started a thread about what some dumb person from the east said, then misinterpreted it, and then made statements about the government that are wrong.
I don't know where you're from, but I'd like to know what they're teaching there.

I understood what she said 100 percent she was making it sound like Harper was powerless because the majority of the senators are liberal and that for that reason alone Martin should have been PM. I was pointing out that 9/10 the senate doesn't affect anything and that even so there were ways around it (adding more senators removing ones that skip majority of the meetings).

The only wrong statement I've made about the government was 1/2 misinterpreted and 1/2 mistyped by me, I later re-typed what I meant.

And you know out here in good ol' Alberta they teach me how to count cows and stuff..........

[Resolute 14]

Actually, under your system, Ontario and Quebec's combined power would be twice that of the Maritimes.

The problem I have with such a system is that when coupled with the HoC, the ruling party can still ram almost anything through with the support of just two provinces. Ontario and Quebec have the ability to dominate the Commons, and would need just a few extra votes to dominate the Senate. A EEE format would force the governing party to achieve a much broader level of support to have it's legislation succeed.

[calculoso]

Regions? How about:
- Atlantic Canada
- "Central" Canada
- Western Canada
- Territories

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm actually in favour of keeping some form of representation by population in the senate.

I don't see what the point of the Senate is then. They already have the HoC. If the Senate is just a duplication, the same Ontario/Quebec centric ideas will always get through. There has to be a balance.

[MarchHare]

I understood what she said 100 percent she was making it sound like Harper was powerless because the majority of the senators are liberal and that for that reason alone Martin should have been PM.

In that woman's defense, Harper himself said that his power would be limited by the Liberal-dominated senate (I'm actually not sure what he was trying to accomplish by saying that -- was he implying that his party would try to pass legislation that voters wouldn't like only to have it stonewalled in the upper chamber?). I don't agree that that is a sufficient reason why Martin should have won the election, but she's only repeating a Conservative talking point.

[MarchHare]

Actually, under your system, Ontario and Quebec's combined power would be twice that of the Maritimes.

Yes, sorry, that's what I meant.

But is that so wrong? Ontario and Quebec combined have about 10x the population of the four Atlantic Provinces. To give them "only" 2x the power in the senate is limiting the amount of influence they have, while still giving disproportionate power to the smaller provinces. To give the Atlantic Provinces twice the power of Ontario and Quebec (which is what would happen if all provinces had an equal number of senators) seems patently silly.

And yes, I recognize this is your solution to "balancing" the fact that Ontario and Quebec dominate the HoC, but it's utterly ridiculous to suggest that PEI should have anywhere near the amount of influence that either of those two provinces has.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If you actually took the time to read what I'm proposing, you'd see that I'm actually in favour of keeping some form of representation by population in the senate. It's other posters here (Snakeeye, for example) who think that all provinces should have an equal amount of power, which -- as I pointed out -- I find unworkable because there's so much disparity between provincial populations. It makes no sense at all to give PEI the same amount of power as Alberta or Ontario. It's more workable to divide the senate based on regions, rather than provinces, IMO, even though this too will see some regions over- or under- represented, but not to the same extent as you'd get by giving each province the same number of senators.

Except that PEI wouldnt have the same power as Alberta and Ontario.

PEI would have ten Senators and four MPs. 14 representatives.
Alberta would have ten Senators and 28 MPs. 38 representatives
Ontario would have ten Senators and 100 odd MPs (whatever the number is now). ~110 representatives.

Also, I'd rather see a correction in the HoC to fix some of the population disparities - ie PEI should only have one or two MPs. Alberta about 33, and Ontario considerably more than it currently has.

Overall, Ontario still has more power than Alberta, which has more power than PEI. But a balanced Senate would help balance that somewhat. A EEE Senate does not make PEI = Alberta = Ontario in the overall scheme of things.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

In that woman's defense, Harper himself said that his power would be limited by the Liberal-dominated senate (I'm actually not sure what he was trying to accomplish by saying that -- was he implying that his party would try to pass legislation that voters wouldn't like only to have it stonewalled in the upper chamber?). I don't agree that that is a sufficient reason why Martin should have won the election, but she's only repeating a Conservative talking point.

I agree fully a minority Liberal government is stronger than a Conservative minority government because of the Liberal infested senate but it's not like he's got his hands behind his back there are ways to make it easier by giving the boot to Senators who dont show for meetings and increasing the seats by adding Conservative Senators.



I'm not arguing with what your saying I'm agreeing, I'm just still arguing against her viewpoint.