Klein warns Ottawa of separation threat

[Wezil]

Quebec separation started as a minority movement that grew to within 1/2 of a percentage point of the majority at its peak.....

We ignore reqional alienation at our own peril.

[KrazyHorse]

If it were reformed so that it resembled the American senate, with equal representation from all provinces, then it could act as a counterbalance to the current House of Commons "tyranny of the majority".

The US senate is precisely what I hate about the American system of government. All you're doing by asking for equal senatorial representation from all provinces is handing an inordinate amount of power to PEI, NS, NB, Nfld, Sask and Man.

BC and Alberta are equally well represented (or so) and Quebec and Ontario get the shaft. More than half the people of Canada but only 20% of the representation?

Screw that. There's no reason I can see that the 140 000 people of PEI should have more say than the 140 000 (well, closer to 100 000, but kick in a couple surrounding streets and you're there) people of my old parliamentary district (Lac Saint Louis). It's bad enough that we've grandfathered the distribution of seats, giving PEI 4 instead of the 1 or 2 it deserves.

The US at least has a historical reason for a Senate that's like that; it formed as a union of independent territories. Canada did not. It formed as a single nation and extended its sovereignty wholesale, not piecemeal.

[KrazyHorse]

Personally, I'd just dump the Senate entirely. It's a rubber stamp and everybod knows it. We already have one rubber stamp (G-G); we don't need another that's 200 times as big (and therefore 200 times as expensive).

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Frogger
The US at least has a historical reason for a Senate that's like that; it formed as a union of independent territories. Canada did not. It formed as a single nation and extended its sovereignty wholesale, not piecemeal.

Huh?

Please explain since my history seems to differ from yours. I'm hoping the problem is in the wording you chose......

[KrazyHorse]

Easy enough. Look at the difference between the BNA act, say, and the Constitutional Convention/Declaration of Independence.

The only case in Canada's history that looks like the US' is the adding of Nfld in 1949. Canada was formed as a much more centralised entity than the US was, and moved gradually to a more federalist system. The US did the opposite. It was originally quite decentralised with States being looked at almost as sovereign countries bound loosely together, and their federal government has slowly but surely gotten more and more power over the states as time has gone on.

[KrazyHorse]

In Canada, power devolved downards from the monarch and was delegated to the provinces in certain specific cases. In the US the states were the original building blocks and joined the US of their own free will.

[Wezil]

Hmm. Still not sure I understand your point as it relates to the Senate. Canada did not form as ten provinces all as once, we evolved province at a time as well with Nfld being the last to join as you mentioned. Alberta was a 'late' joiner as well and this is one of the reasons it got screwed.

I do agree with you however regarding the Senate. The Senate requires either reform or abolishment. Sadly, we will get neither.

[KrazyHorse]

When having this discussion a while ago, I suggested a reform I could deal with that didn't just act to blatantly screw over any Canadian who chooses to live in one of the 2 big provinces:

Divide the country up into regions: the West, Ontario, Quebec, Maritimes

Give each region a proportional number of Senators. Say 10% from the Maritimes, 25% from Quebec, 35% from Ontario, 30% from the West.

Use proportional representation in each region to determine its Senators (normally I hate proportional representation, but I'd be willing to live with it for the Senate I'm proposing).

Give this Senate a simple accept/reject power over all legislation passed by the Commons. I'm under the impression that the Senate in the US has much more power, and as far as I'm concerned that's not good; it slows things down too much. They don't propose amendments etc. either; individual Senators or groups of them could make their views known on what changes would be required to change their vote from reject to accept, but the body as a whole wouldn't adopt resolutions like that. If the act of Commons is accepted by the Senate then it goes on to the G-G like normal and gets rubber-stamped. If it's rejected then either the Commons can modify it so that it will pass the Senate or it can get a supermajority in the Commons and pass it over the head of the Senate (2/3 vote sounds good to me) and on to the G-G.

[DinoDoc]

it slows things down too much.

How is that a bad thing?

[KrazyHorse]

I should add that the Senate gets a timeframe in which to discuss and vote on acts of the Commons. No filibusters allowed in the Senate. Acts go to a vote within 2 weeks or something of adoption by the Commons.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

it slows things down too much.

How is that a bad thing?

Silly American. Our government actually does stuff, and does it via the legislative branch instead of by executive orders...

[Wezil]

There are many models for reform. Yours looks like a reasonable starting point. I could debate the percentages (the West is growing, Quebec is shrinking), which is why a PR model would be better (but why not by province instead of region?). The calculations to determine each province's Senators must be redone with every national census to remain honest....

Yeah, I too like the idea of no 'new' legislation from the Senate. Let's keep it a chamber of '2nd thought'.

[KrazyHorse]

I'd be happy to write in a clause like the current parliamentary seat distribution laws that reallocate seats every election based on changing population.

The only difference would be that there wouldn't be a frigging grandfather clause.

[Wezil]

lol, no argument here. You'd have to take that up with the Atlantic provinces. As a resident of Ontario I'm prepared to sacrifice some of our Senators for the interest of fairness and national unity. Unlike PEI, we have plenty to spare.

[Tingkai]

What we should do with these stupid separatist is give them a swift kick in the butt and make them look at reality.

Look around. Canadians live in one of the best countries in the world where they have access to an incredible quality of life, and all these spoiled brats do is complain.

The Albertan separatists are the worst. They have everything they need. They're not oppressed. They can voice their opinions just like anyone else and be heard, if they're smart about it.

But instead they (and I'm only talking about the separatists) whine and groan about how daddy doesn't listen to them.

It makes me want to puke.

If you want to see real undemocratic government, come to Asia. If you want to hear about oppression, talk to the millions of people who live in real fear where their lives are at stake.

Christ, even the Quebecers once had a valid gripe, 40 years ago when they were treated like second class citizens (although they have no right to complain now). But not these brats.

Look at Asher. He lives in a country where his daddy can become incredibly wealthy. He gets a great education. He has a nice home. He can get a great job. And what does he do. He complains, and complains, and complains.

And what has he done for his country. Nothing I bet.

Even worse, he's constantly complaining and demanding changes, even though he's planning to leave in a few years.

These brats should just shut the **** up. Either that or leave Canada. No one is going to stop them.