MightyAC

They get paid 150 grand on average...they get 24 grand in rental allowance...they get a stellar pension...they get a free lunches...flights...private healthcare...etc. How much is enough? The fact that a committee of MPs made a secret decision to allow themselves to use food money to buy personal property is just plain wrong. We do not have to buy our politicians houses in order to attract bright people to the public sector.

I agree that his winning a majority with less than half the popular vote is not the worst distortion ever, but it is still a distortion. Sadly, there are still people who defend our current flawed voting system that so drastically distorts the way Canadians vote. I'd say Bernhard Lord's move to allow a democratic simple majority vote is much gutsier. I applaud politicians that make decisions that can potentially hurt their own political careers simply because it is the right thing to do. I give Gordon Campbell credit in that he at least got the electoral reform ball rolling. However, I am angry that he setup a Minority Rule situation by allowing 42% of voters to defeat 58%.

Check out this story in the Vancouver Sun. An all party committee has now allowed MPs to use their meal allowances to pay for mortgages on private residences. So our MPs make 3 times the salary of the average Canadian and we should pay their mortgages too?!?!?! I have no problem paying for their rental accommodations in Ottawa as it is a work related expense, but in no way should we pay for their real estate portfolio. Conservative MP Garth Turner is outraged by this and is urging the committee to reverse its decision. I love this guy. He sticks up for his constituents 100%. He has blasted his own government for their own mistakes as well as the opposition for theirs. I wish he was the MP of my riding. Liberal whip Karen Redman of Kitchener, Ontario is singled out in this article but I’d like to know who else is on the all-party committee that made this decision. The story: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...a4-577b3c087993 Garth Turner Media Release:

I have to applaud Premier Lord from New Brunswick for allowing a democratic simple majority. I just hope Dalton follows his lead and not that of Premier Campbell form BC.

Who is loosing representation? If an electoral system gives each party the same percentage of seats as the popular vote they received everyone gets the representation they deserve. I think it's fair to have a government that reflects the views of Canadians in the same proportions as Canadians actually vote. Yes I deny it. In the last election the Conservatives still received the largest share of the vote (36%) and still would have formed the government....assuming Canadians would have still voted the same under a different system. The Liberals, NDP and the Greens do not agree on all issues, just as the Bloc and Conservatives do not agree on all issues. Each party would form different alliances on each issue. Thus all Canadians are represented in the house.

What? Do you understand how any PR system works? They are almost completely fair. They simply give each party the same percentage of the available seats as they received in votes. If the Conservatives receive 30% of the votes they will receive 30% of the seats. If the Liberals receive 30% of the vote they would receive 30% of the seats. The same goes for the NDP, Greens, Bloc, Family Coalition, Communits, etc. That's fair. In our current system there is no direct relation to the popular vote. A great example is the 1993 federal election. Kim Campbel's Conservatives only won two seats despite receiving over 2 million votes. That's 1 million votes per seat. Jean Chretien's Liberals received 1 seat for every 32,000 votes. That's unfair. I don't think that it is. Canadians vote, generally, centre left and that's generally what rules. They vote Conservative about 30% of the time, and they spend about 30% of the time in office. It's better to give each side a 'turn' at running the whole show than to have us perpetually in minority governments. Look at Italy and Israel to see how that works. Let's just give one of the two largest parties a turn? Why should we even vote then? The Liberals can just run the country for 7 years and the Cons can rule for 3. To your comment about Italy and Israel... there are many different systems of PR. Look at New Zealand, Germany or Scotland for great exampels of how the Mixed Member Proportional system works. Your comments seem very surprising to me. I'm not sure if you're just yanking my chain for your own fun or if you really believe that our government should not reflect the way Canadians vote.

Mike, it sounds to me like you are defending a system you know to be flawed simply because it could help your party of choice. With our current system our elected government does not reflect the way Canadians vote. That's a problem. PR systems do not favour left wing parties. Considering current poll numbers and the fact that a PR systems produce governments in the same proportion as the votes received the federal Conservatives should do very well. PR systems do not favour fringe parties. In fact they punish localized parties. The Bloc would actually receive fewer seats under a PR system.

We have a Winner Take All system which means that only one political viewpoint or party can be represented in each riding. All other voters, supposedly equal, get no parliamentary representation whatsoever. In the last federal election the winning MP in my riding received 40% of the total votes cast, which means that 60% of my riding has no representation for their views. 60% of the votes cast in my riding were wasted. On average our system wastes 50% of all votes cast. Proportional systems waste far fewer votes. New Zealand and Germany both use Mixed Member Proportional systems which basically use our first past the post system and then adjust parliamentary levels for the popular vote. Both nations had election in 2005, in Germany 4% of the votes were wasted and in New Zealand only 1% were wasted. I'd say that's a big improvement. If a party has more than 50% of the seats in parliament they in effect have 100% of the power. Provided MPs vote along party lines any bill they present cannot be defeated. Why do you agree with a system that gives a party 100% of the power with far less than 50% of the vote. Chrétien won 3 consecutive majority governments without ever receiving more than 42% of the vote. Shouldn’t a party only receive 42% of the available seats if the win 42% of the vote? In the 2004 federal election the Bloc received 1 seat for every 32,000 Bloc votes cast. The Liberals received 1 seat for every 37,000 Liberal votes cast. The Conservatives received 1 seat for every 40,000 Conservative votes cast. It took 111,000 NDP votes for each seat won by the NDP and nearly 500,000 Green votes elected nobody. That's what I mean by not equal. This process has not been almost immediate or appeared out of the blue. Plus PR systems are not being touted as the only solution. A citizens committee is currently dealing with the issue. First they will decide if we need change. If so they will research various systems and recommend one for Ontario and that choice will appear on the ballot in October 2007. In the year ahead the public will be educated about the potential new system. Then hopefully a simple 50% + 1 majority will be allowed to decide if it passes or not. I recommend reading about proportional systems; my favourite is the Mixed Member Proportional system. It basically combines our current First Past the Post system with a correction for the popular vote. Considering your love for the current system you may actually like. Here is the wikipedia page for MMR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional

I agree. Now, taking it a step further.... ...what makes human rights issues different? so special?Where I am going with this should be obvious but that belongs to a different thread...... It's a popular topic these days and since it shows up in the majority of threads eventually, let's do our best to keep it out of this one.

Should our current system be irreversible? Should we be stuck with an old, flawed, electoral system that wastes nearly half the votes cast, creates false majorities and ensures that every citizen’s vote is not equal simply because that's what we've always had? A 60% or higher threshold is basically making it irreversible. Anything above 50% is also minority rule instead of the majority. Also, you seem to be saying that Canadians cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. Considering we allow the public to choose the people that will run the country on our behalf shouldn't we be able to choose the way our votes will be counted? Canada became a country on a simple majority vote; Newfoundland joined Canada on a simple majority vote. We give our governments 100%, almost dictatorial, majority power on less than majority votes but you believe we need two thirds support to choose how our votes are counted?!?! Unbelievable

I"m guessing that Gordon Campbell in BC did not want to change the system as his government benefitted from a false majority created by our current flawed electoral system. Part of his campaign pledge was to allow a referendum on electoral reform, but when in power changing the system is no longer a benefit to him so he added the undemocract threshold of 60%. It must have scared the crap out of him when it still almost passed. Not necessarily. However, if a referendum is issued and we, the people get to vote, right or wrong our decision must stand. The only exception I have are human rights issues as they should never be part of a popularity contest. However, human rights issues should never be part of a referendum in the first place so it should not be an issue.

Here is a question for you to ponder: What do you want if the results are even split? exactly 50% for and 50% against I realize that it is a ridiculous statistical improbability but please ponder the question. It forces you to go straight to the heart of understanding the validity and righteousness of democracy. Exactly 50 - 50 would mean the status quo would stand. Like all government votes 50% + 1 is required to pass. A question to those that seem to agree with a 60% or higher threshold. Democracy is about majority rule. Why then would you give more power to a no vote than a yes vote? In the BC example 58% voted in favour of change and 42% voted against it. Why should the no vote have so much more power, shouldn't every single vote be equal? In this example every no vote was worth 1.4 times that of a yes… Also why is it ok for House of Commons votes to be majority rule but actual peon Canadians like us, need a massive majority?

Here are federal spending numbers by department. These numbers were taken from Conservative MP Garth Turner's blog (www.garth.ca/weblog/) If anyone is not familiar with Mr. Turner I recommend checking out his site. This guy converses with his constituents on a regular basis through every possible medium. He also produces a web cast from parliament hill where he interviews various MPs and civil servants in an attempt to show us little people what it's like in government. He also criticizes his own government if he feels they made a mistake. What a great MP. I wish we could clone him and spread him around the country...but I digress. Here are the spending numbers. I find them surprising. Note how many departments receive less money than the CBC. Also note how much we spend on Indian Affairs... We give money to the CMHC??? With the fees they collect shouldn't they be self sustaining? Also note how little departments like Parks and Environment Canada receive. Between the military and veterans affairs 18 billion is spent..whoa. I really don't know exactly what each department does but the numbers are interesting anyway.. Note the numbers do not include any debt servicing charges. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 2,191,678,000 Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency 381,748,000 Canada Border Services Agency 1,293,533,000 Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 2,268,048,000 Canada Revenue Agency 3,228,253,000 Canadian Air Transport Security 381,366,000 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 1,112,039,000 Canadian Food Inspection Agency 571,529,000 Canadian Heritage 1,384,621,000 Canadian Institutes of Health Research 832,665,000 Canadian International Development Agency 2,935,587,000 Canadian Security Intelligence Service 346,148,000 Canadian Space Agency 341,614,000 Citizenship and Immigration Canada 1,226,775,000 Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs 359,632,000 Correctional Service Canada 1,709,353,000 Economic Development for Quebec 381,595,000 Environment Canada 803,869,000 Finance Department 220,737,000 Fisheries and Oceans Canada 1,513,368,000 Foreign Affairs Canada 1,941,133,000 Health Canada 2,975,397,000 House of Commons 400,324,000 Human Resources and Skills Development 2,475,121,000 Indian Affairs and Northern Development 6,189,701,000 Industry Canada 1,197,582,000 International Trade Canada 203,895,000 Justice Department 915,752,000 National Defence 14,789,222,000 National Research Council of Canada 692,421,000 Natural Resources Canada 1,426,054,000 Natural Sciences and Engineering 885,258,000 Office of Indian Residential Schools 208,611,000 Office of Infrastructure of Canada 1,844,624,000 Parks Canada 578,054,000 Public Health Agency of Canada 506,589,000 Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness 458,092,000 Public Works and Government Services 2,573,295,000 Royal Canadian Mounted Police 2,077,658,000 Social Development Canada 1,327,116,000 Social Sciences and Humanities Research 581,321,000 Statistics Canada 601,243,000 Treasury Board Secretariat 2,598,226,000 Transport Canada 755,357,000 Veterans Affairs 3,202,761,000 Western Economic Diversification 315,531,000

That's politics in general. The opposition bashes the government on every issue. The Cons did the same thing a short time ago.

Harper is not the average person and the tickets he bought would never be sold to the general public anyway. If I had any clout or fame whatsoever I would have used it to get a ticket to that game as well. There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Harper, MP Mark Holland and others should stick to those instead inventing mini-scandals. I knew this would be used against him, even though he is required to travel with security etc. and was going out there anyway, as were the MP's. etc. Harper paid for his own tickets, and somehow that's a bad thing ! The CPC are obviously held to a higher standard than other parties. What is noticeable is that there is little for the opposition to rant about, therefore they have to really nitpick, not to mention that the liberals in opposition seem to be floundering. They've lost their 'entitlements' and are no longer ruling with some 'divine right' ..... Scriblett, I'm guessing you just quoted the wrong message because I agree that this is a non-issue.

One degree of temperature change is one degree of temperature change whether a refrigerator is full or empty. EnerGuide labels list the actual electricity used by each appliance and rates that usage against other comparable appliances. Whether a fridge has a compressor that runs at a high or low level of RPM is of no consequence as the actual electricity used is what is tracked and rated. The problem is that the difference between the most efficient and least efficient appliances is massive. California has a law in place that sets a mandatory minimum level of efficiency. The law forces appliances to be more efficient and reduces energy usage. In Canada we HAD EnerGuide so that consumers could at least directly compare the energy usage of appliances but the least efficient appliances are still available....and now the Conservatives have cancelled EnerGuide so soon we won't even have an easy direct comparison. This idea has already been proven to work in California and should be used here as well. Based on the site you listed the average flex fuel vehicle is cheaper to run on E85 and produces 2 tons fewer greenhouse gasses than the same vehicle burning gasoline. I really don’t understand your objection. I quoted numbers from a Wikipedia article and provided the link. Here is the link again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85 Yeah gasoline exhaust smells great… Bio-diesel exhaust has a slight french-fry fragrance, which smells much better in my opinion. E100 bio-diesel will solidify at 4 degrees Celsius, however E100 isn’t used. E20 is typically the max used and it has no solidification problems. I recommend that you also check out the Wikipedia bio-diesel article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel The battery constantly recharges when the gasoline engine runs and when hybrids brake. It is rare that the battery ever completely runs out of juice but even if it does the gas engine is much smaller than a standard gas engine so it uses much less gas. Both E85 ethanol and bio-diesel cost less and produce far less pollution than gas. Standard diesel engines burn E5 to E20 bio-diesel and hundreds of thousands of flex fuel vehicles that burn gas or E85 ethanol already exist, so the cost of implementing these technologies is minimal. Ethanol, bio-diesel, hybrids and increased transit usage can drastically reduce fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas emissions. You’re obviously out of touch with reality.

Pre 2002 flex fuel vehicles (FFV) are on average 30% less efficient than gasoline vehicles. Post 2003 vehicles are on average 15% - 17% less efficient. Some new concept vehicles are getting better fuel economy on ethanol than gasoline due to higher compression ratio engines. But you are mostly right in that FFVs running on E85 use more fuel when they burn E85 than they do when burning gasoline. However on a per mile basis vehicles burning E85 still cost less than gasoline, produce fewer greenhouse gasses and reduce petroleum usage. The numbers below are taken from the Wikipedia article on E85 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85) Cellulose ethanol is an exciting technology as it does not require actual corn to produce ethanol. The waste cellulose from any crop is used instead. So farmers may be able to sell their corn as a food crop and the waste stalks, husks, etc. to ethanol producers. In general 8.75 US gallons per acre of gas are required to produce a crop some argue that it takes as much energy to produce ethanol as is gained in the fuel. Cellulose ethanol negates that since the food crop has to be grown anyway and the waste becomes the basis of the fuel. The Canadian company Iogen is a leader in this field. Also there are hundreds of thousands of flex fuel vehicles that can use gas or ethanol already on the streets right now. Most people don't know even know they are driving a FFV. From what I understand most domestic trucks are already FFVs as a way for the big 3 to meet emissions standards without actually meeting them. I am also in favour of bio-diesel the only drawbacks I see right now is that it is generally only available in E5 to E20 form which means the fuel is still primarily petro-diesel. From what I understand they still haven't solved the fact that bio-diesel concentrations above 20% solidify at cooler temperatures....and in Canada we experience cooler temps. However, I'm sure they'll continue to improve bio-diesel and the more we reduce the petro portion of any fuel the better.

I would much rather that all donors be made public than have a limit placed on my personal donation.

That is one hell of stretch. People will still buy vehicles and the government will still collect plenty of tax revenue. Increased gas guzzler taxes and rising fuel prices will just help to encourage people to buy more eco friendly vehicles. Ethanol is currently expensive to produce relative to gasoline because of the low volumes produced. It will become cheaper relative to gas as oil prices rise. Providing financial incentives to produce and sell it will just make it available sooner. Since ethanol produces fewer greenhouse gas and particulate emissions than gasoline and hundreds of thousands of flex fuel vehicles already exist it makes sense to speed the process along. Also the vegetation grown to produce ethanol is a greenhouse gas sink, using up tonnes of CO2 while also producing oxygen. That is just plain BS. The difference between the most efficient and least efficient major appliances of all types is astounding. Legislation providing minimum standards for appliances already exists in California and has lead to signigicant power savings. Also EnerGuide labels make it very easy for consumers to compare appliances based on their energy usage. The Conservatives have unfortunately cancelled this program in order to pay for the "5 priorities". This program should be reinstated immediately. Really? So we should wait until we hit rock bottom before we tackle the problem. Do you wait until you completely run out of gas before you fill up? All vehicle manufacturers already have to meet California's rigorous emission standards to sell them in that state. Since the standards exist and are being met in a massive market it would be simple to institute them here. The Canadian oil sector is immensely profitable and self sustaining, which makes it one of the worst possible industries to hand cash to. They simply don't need the money. It was a much different case in the 80's when it was too expensive to extract oil from the sand but the times have changed. That money should be used in other areas. Conservation and reduction is the answer. That's why most of my ideas are designed to reduce fuel, energy and water use. Countries can "establish a line of practi[cal] defense" against pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. There are loads of existing ideas and strategies that will make a difference they just have to be implemented. Our current federal government is not only doing nothing about the environment they are actually going backwards.

Oddman, in your opinion what should be done about the current situation in Iraq? Do you think the US should pull out immediately? Do you think the US should continue in Iraq but Dubya should stand trial as a war criminal?

Politics is such dirty game. Our country is run by people who are in a perpetual popularity contest...sad. In general, I'm not a fan of Harper but in this case there is no story. He was flying out West anyway and all the MPs purchased their own tickets. The fact that other MPs came with Harper is irrelevant because the plane was flying anyway. Harper is not the average person and the tickets he bought would never be sold to the general public anyway. If I had any clout or fame whatsoever I would have used it to get a ticket to that game as well. There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Harper, MP Mark Holland and others should stick to those instead inventing mini-scandals.

Making mountains out of mole hills. Paul Steckle has always been opposed to abortion. He was the co-chair of the all-party Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus and he has attended pro-life rallies. Obviously, his personal views differ from the majority of his party. Saying the Liberals are trying to limit a woman's right to choose because of Steckle's personal crusade is like saying the Conservatives are in favour of same-sex marriage because MP Jim Prentice supports it. It may be possible that he is tabling the private member's bill now because with the Conservatives in power he feels it is his best chance to advance his personal pro-life cause.

I'm a big supporter of using the tax system to shape ecological behaviour however I think the idea of a fat tax is drastically different. Destroying the environment affects all life on the planet eating too many burgers only affects the individual...yes I am aware we all pay for the health system. Plus, there are so many additional variables with food. Should fit people pay the tax when they buy a burger? Should there only be tax on a grilled chicken sandwhich if the customer opts for cheese and condiments? Should a cashier at the grocery store ask the client if they plan to deep fry the chicken in their cart before they decide on the final price? I've got it we should use the transportation industry model and put weigh scales at the enterances of all buildings that sell food. As people walk in it could calculate their body mass index and the appropriate tax would be applied to their purchases. Fat taxes are a bad idea. Education and some time will shape our attitudes towards activity. PhysEd is already being returned to the school system which seems like a positive step to me. Maybe we should add monthly nutritional information sessions into the school system. We can encourage the kids to put pressure on their parents. The same tactic was used when I was a kid to change our parents attitudes towards recycling back when the blue box program was a brand new thing.

Like Bob once said ‘the times they are a changing’. BC and PEI have had referendums, Ontario will have one in October 2007 and now Bernhard Lord in New Brunswick has announced there will be one in 2008. The ball is rolling it should be just a matter of time until every vote counts in Canada. I can't wait for real democracy. I wonder if the federal Conservatives will consider the same thing. My guess is not before they have at least attempted to win a false majority. The chair of the committee in charge of electoral reform is Cambridge, Ontario MP Gary Goodyear. I have sent him a couple emails on the subject but he will not give a direct answer. Typical politician I guess. Link to the New Brunswick announcement http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...eg-changes.html

Here are some ideas. Tax penalties on gas guzzlling vehicles and tax breaks on fuel efficient and ULEV vehicles. Financial incentives for fuel companies to offer E85 ethanol at their stations. Reinstate EnerGuide and rejoin Kyoto. Create legislation forcing all appliances to meet minimum efficiency standards, like what has been done in California. Adopt California emmisions standards in Canada. Provide low interest loans to people who will buy efficient furnances, appliances, windows, geo-thermal heating and cooling systems, etc. Increased transit funding. Stop subsidizing old industry and rich industry like the oil sector. For example the two billion we give to the Canadian oil sector could be spent on any number of environmental projects. We can add strings to auto sector subsidies like the vehicles produced must be flex fuel vehicles, ULEV vehicles, hybrids, etc. Hybrids don't actually idle, they shut off. The economy is always in transition. Those damn automobiles drastically decreased the number of black smiths and wagon makers. Also, vehicles aren't going anywhere. They are slowly evolving towards zero emission vehicles but they will still be made and sold. Also, as we increase the number of trains and busses in use more workers are required to build them, drive them and maintain them.