Federal Government & Politics

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The original Senate in 1867 had 72 seats (ON & QC - 24 Senators each, and NB & NS - 12 Senators each). Each region had 24 seats.

When PE joined in 1873, it was given 4 Senators. Both NS & NB were grudgingly convinced to give 2 Senators each to the new province to maintain regional balance.

The reason why Atlantic Canada now has 30 Senators is because when NL joined confederation in 1949, neither NB or NS were willing to give up any more Senators to maintain regional representation at 24.

No one suggested not giving any Senators to the Newfies? (That would have been the most elegant scenario, maintaning the balance of 24 per region.)

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The reason why Atlantic Canada now has 30 Senators is because when NL joined confederation in 1949, neither NB or NS were willing to give up any more Senators to maintain regional representation at 24.

To be fair, NFLD really should just be part of the Atlantic Canada allocation/conference. That would go a long way to restoring balance and making the regional system justifiable.

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The original Senate in 1867 had 72 seats (ON & QC - 24 Senators each, and NB & NS - 12 Senators each). Each region had 24 seats.

When PE joined in 1873, it was given 4 Senators. Both NS & NB were grudgingly convinced to give 2 Senators each to the new province to maintain regional balance.

The reason why Atlantic Canada now has 30 Senators is because when NL joined confederation in 1949, neither NB or NS were willing to give up any more Senators to maintain regional representation at 24.

that's why it makes more sense to just abolish the senate they are useless money wasting debating sessions on cpac that no one watches and creates no meaningful policy changes and only makes news when senators are caught playing hookey, wasting money or insulting racial groups. can anyone name what Don Plett or other useless senators have accomplished this year at all? that's because they never have accomplished anything in the senate people just like saying the chamber of sober second thought but that never corelates to anything of substance ever been done other than constant navel gazing.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

No one suggested not giving any Senators to the Newfies? (That would have been the most elegant scenario, maintaning the balance of 24 per region.)

And now they'll never agree to less so we should just bump up the other three regions to 30 senators each.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

I don't disagree with your general point but I don't think what you described would be problematic. Prairies would have 30% of the Senators. BC would have 10%. Eastern Canada would have 60%.

The real risk would be to Quebec (who would have only 10% of the Senators). That would certainly be unacceptable...

And the winners would be Atlantic Canada - they'd have 40% of the Senate.

Ontario would be fine - you'd need the Prairies + Quebec + BC to override it, or else a combination involving some of Atlantic Canada. I don't see such a coalition ever forming with common interests clashing with some interest of Ontario. Ontario's interests are generally aligned with Canada's.

This is a good discussion being discussed in an adult way. I like it.

I don't have much to add but I think your point IRT Quebec is succinct. The ROC may get annoyed at Quebec, but a situation where the most "different" province in the nation has 20% of the population and only 10% of the vote is not going to generate a unified country. And yeah as much as Albertans might think it would be great that we get the same votes as Quebec, we'd get outvoted by the Atlantic provinces whose collective population is less than ours as well as their GDP contribution also being even lower.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by lio45

No one suggested not giving any Senators to the Newfies? (That would have been the most elegant scenario, maintaning the balance of 24 per region.)

I personally think that in any discussion regarding serious senate reform, that it would make sense to decrease the Atlantic allotment to 24 senators to maintain regional balance. If the senate became more independent, or more relevant (elected, accountable), I think this would be a reasonable compromise.

As I mentioned previously upthread, I think an elegant solution would be 7 senators each for NL, NS & NB and 3 senators for PE. This would give a total of 24 senators (a loss of 6 for the region), with some sacrifice in representation from the Maritime provinces, but a slight promotion for NL (7 senators rather than 6).

[Truenorth00]

For all the bluster how often do Ontario and Quebec actually disagree on most things? Especially given how much they are economically connected these days?

Quebec may worry about getting outvoted by the rest of Canada. But Ontario worries about getting ganged up on economically. The Prairies and Atlantic Canada ganging up to change equalization when Ontario was in trouble comes to mind. I'd say Ontario and Quebec increasingly have each other's backs because of their aligned interests as highly populated, highly urban, heavily industrialized and non-fossil resource provinces.

[Truenorth00]

I'll throw another controversial point out there. I dislike the concept of Senators having at-large" appointments for the whole province. I think this really hurts the idea of regional representation. I would love to see senators have large districts to represent. This would give them an actual region to champion in Parliament. It would force the appointments to be someone with deep ties to the region (no more Mike Duffy's).

The districts would be large enough and the terms long enough that they would have different concerns and act differently from MPs. And there's appointment by the Premier to also make sure of this.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

In an ideal world, they'd eliminate the PMO. It's an entirely partisan, political office. And it has a bureaucratic equivalent that actually runs government: the Privy Council Office.

But having public servants tell the PM he's a dumbass or what he proposes is unethical is apparently a bridge too far for most federal political parties.

Instead we have a group of sycophants who tell the PM he/she's the greatest thing since sliced bread.