Talk:Party standings in the Senate of Canada

message: I've ordered this by number of senators appointed. It's a question weather to do it by that, or by cronological order, but I think this way is best as the number of senators is more important to the senate's party standing which is the objective of this page. Pellaken 12:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: appointment breakdown

message: I seem to be the one who's mostly updating this, if I want to make any major changes to it, I'll run it by everyone here first. Pellaken 12:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: seat "picture" graph

message: I know the senate uses different rules, but there is a generally accepted practice in the house of commons on how to assign seats to parties. The government goes first, and fills up as many seats as possible, starting at the speaker, on the government's site. You can see this federally where the Liberals, in minority, dont reach the end. The official opposition starts in the center of thier benches, across from the PM, and then they get one or two rows to the left of the opposition leader, then they fill up as many seats as they can, towards the speaker. If all are filled, then they continue to fill seats, away from the speaker. the 3rd largest party goes beside the official opposition, so on and so forth. If the government has more seats then its row can hold, it starts, at the speaker on the opposition benches, and goes down. prior to the 04 election this was how everyone sat, I'm sure we can all remember Joe Clark sitting in the corner of the opposition benches, surronded by Liberals. After the 1997 election the Reform Party was actually not able to hold seats in the middle and extend towards the speaker, so the rule was modified and the PC Party actually sat between Reform and the Liberals for most of that session. I beleive that the senate's graphic here can be edited to that effect. This is what it would look like:
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
****
****
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
*
****
****
is there general approval to do this? If I dont hear any protests within a few days I will update it like so. The drawback is that it gets farther and farther from the actual seating plan, but I would contend that since there is a link directly below this little graphic leading to both the wiki-page seating plan, AND the official Parliament PDF seating plan, that this should negate the effect, and therefore, this (which IS titled as a graphical representation of the seating plan) should be more used to represent and show standings, then actual seating placements.
 Pellaken 13:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: suggested edit, sept 28th 2005

message: Are we starting to source all deaths and retirements? I'd like to know beforehand as quite often other pages get edited first, namley the canadian senate page, and its hours before this one does. excuse me for feeing a little singled out when those edits are not reverted and mine are when I cannot ever recall being asked on wikipedia to prove that a canadian senator has died. Since I've come back here, both logged in and logged out, I've had both my edits reverted in entirity. Really I dont have to update this page at all, even though I A - make edits more often then anyone else, B - conciously try to have this page updated, visiting it four or more times a day, and C - seem to be the only one who know's how / wants to update the seat chart and seating plan. Anyways, I'm done ranting. I'm a 4th year Poli Sci student, and of the 20 or so projects I've written to this point, half of them have been about the senate. Dare I say that I know more about the senate then anyone who is reading this? I wont, but I could... Pellaken 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Senator Nancy Ruth today joined the Conservative caucus.  Could someone with far more wiki skill than I update this page? PoliSciMaster 19:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nancy Ruth 

message: These numbers no longer match the numbers provided by the senate.
For one it looks like one of Harpers appointments has failed
But to ensure the list is all proper, I will be doing a total recount in the next little while 74.15.172.89 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  total recount 

message: Should we continue to include the PC Party here? They have Two senators, one of whom will retire within 2 years, this will leave a single Senator. Normally, no difference is made between Independent and "Non Affiliated" members either. It seems reasonable, IMO, to consolidate all 5 senators into a Independent column, and explain below that two designate themselves as PC (you need 5 to be an official Senate Caucus, and there is no PC "Party" to back them either) though are recognized by the Senate to be Independent, and that the Non-Aligned Senator is in effect Independent from any party or caucus.
If I don't hear any objections I will change the table Nickjbor (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Pitfield and Jean-Claude Rivest. Also, I'd put Cools as "non-affiliated". Lower case because it is not an official designation, and hyphenated either because "non" is prefix, not a word, or because "non-affiliated" is a prepositive phrasal adjective. -Rrius (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC "Party" 

message: BC 
AB 
SK 
MB 
ON 
QC 
NB 
NS 
PE 
NL 
YT 
NT 
NU 
Conservative Party
*
4
1
3
3
12
11
5
6
1
3
1
0
1
51
Liberal Party
*
2
4
3
3
9
12
5
4
3
3
0
1
0
49
Independent1
*
0
1(PC)
0
0
1 (IND)1 (NA)1 (PC)
1 (IND)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 (PC)  2 (IND)  1 (NA)
Vacant
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
 
 
6
6
6
6
24
24
10
10
4
6
1
1
1
105
Notes:
# Two Senators, (FIND NAME) and (FIND NAME) are officially Independent, while Anne Cools sits as a "Non Affiliated" member after leaving the Conservative Party in protest. The remaining Senators are Progressive Conservatives. The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada ceased to exist in 2003, but Senators Lowell Murray, Norman K. Atkins and (the late) William Doody refused to join the new Conservative Party of Canada and continued to sit as a Progressive Conservative caucus. The appointment of two new PC members to the Senate in March 2005 on the advice of Prime Minister Paul Martin gave the caucus 5 seats. Senate rules state a party must continue to hold 5 seats in order to retain status, or, obtain 5 seats and be registered in the last election. Since the PC Party not did meet these requirements, their senators sit as effective independents.
Nickjbor (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Pitfield and Jean-Claude Rivest. Also, I'd put Cools as "non-affiliated". Lower case because it is not an official designation, and hyphenated either because "non" is prefix, not a word, or because "non-affiliated" is a prepositive phrasal adjective. -Rrius (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Change 

message: Much of the information included on this page seems redundant, or could be combined with the "List of current Senators of Canada" page, to put all the data in one place. If anyone else concurs, can we recommend this page to be combined with that one?
198.103.211.131 (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combine with "List of current Senators of Canada"?