Ontario to get 21 more seats in Commons: McGuinty

[Oleg Bach]

Basically the entire corridor between Calgary and Edmonton has been growing quite abit. I know that my town has ballooned from around 5,000 people a decade ago to approximately 12,000 residents today.

That's like living in a bygone era...5ooo people? When I attended school in Aurora Ontario - the town was 10,000 - now it up past 65,000 ----when I travel though I don't have a clue where I am - untill I see a familar landmark - like the liquior store. Last time I traveled between Calgary and Edmonton - there was nothing...it was an adventure to drive in a straight line for hours...like being in an exotic place...so it's changed in the last 30 years....wish things would stay the same.

[blueblood]

You don't even know where they are going yet. Depends on how these new seats are gerrymandered.

Exactly, that's what I want to know. 32-33 seats is good news for the Tories and Liberals. Quebec will be having a coniption fit.

[Mr.Canada]

Exactly, that's what I want to know. 32-33 seats is good news for the Tories and Liberals. Quebec will be having a coniption fit.

Lol, yeah I hadn't thought about that. Duiceppe probably has that vein going about now.

[Riverwind]

Quebec will be having a conniption fit.

Perhaps they should have thought of that when they voted for a party dedicated to breaking up the country. Quebequers have fooled themselves into believing that voting for a Quebec only opposition party would do nothing but benefit Quebec. They did not consider what might happen if/when the federalist parties give up trying to get votes in Quebec. Quebequers used to always "vote for the winner". This was a much more intelligent strategy. Edited December 18, 2008 by Riverwind

[blueblood]

I would like to see the math on how a majority gov't would play out with this scenario. This would be really good news for the Libs actually. In 10-20 yrs. the libs will love this if the bloc still exists.

[Topaz]

Ok so we get more people into the Commons, were are these people going to seat??? Last year, the Cons were over by the Libs and there were verbal battles going on and the Speaker doesn't need anymore of that going on. Are we to build a new parliament building to keep up with the times, and costing what nearly a billion?

[Canadian Blue]

Have you ever seen the British Parliament? They have far more MP's yet they seem to get by just fine.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Smallc]

Ok so we get more people into the Commons, were are these people going to seat??? Last year, the Cons were over by the Libs and there were verbal battles going on and the Speaker doesn't need anymore of that going on. Are we to build a new parliament building to keep up with the times, and costing what nearly a billion?

Have you ever seen the British House of Commons?....we have lots of room yet.

Oh, and in a few years, the whole place will be shut down for renovation of the entire structure. The House and Senate will have to sit in temporary chambers.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Smallc

[Canadian Blue]

Have you ever seen the British House of Commons?....we have lost of room yet.

Great minds think alike.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Well, I hope that my part of the riding finally gets returned to where it belongs instead of being lumped in with a bunch of rural yokels and neocon bedroom communities.

[jdobbin]

This is just another example of how that rabid and sociopathic Stephen Harper is attempting to take power by destroying the Liberals. 21 seats for Ontario, the death penalty tommorrow. He's alot like Dexter Morgan.... and Adolf Hitler's dog.

It was hard for a rabid dog to say what others was doing was undemocratic when what he was doing was sociopathic.

[jdobbin]

I generally agree with you. But I wish we had a mechanism in place where if a province were to lose a certain percentage of it's population it would also lose the equivalent number of seats. So if Quebec loses 100,000 people and Alberta gains 100,000, then Alberta would gain one seat from Quebec.

Blame Mulroney and the BNA Act. Some of this was entrenched at different times.

[Canadian Blue]

It was hard for a rabid dog to say what others was doing was undemocratic when what he was doing was sociopathic.

Oh Jdobbin, I love how you were once one of the more intelligent posters here, now you just come off as a shrill Liberal Party version of Shavluk.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Topaz]

Have you ever seen the British Parliament? They have far more MP's yet they seem to get by just fine.

Yes I have and I also noticed that they have no desk, just benches and then that way they can get more people seated. I also noticed when question period came only the PM answered the questions.

[gordiecanuk]

CBC

I think it's only fair.

Great...more back bench MPs to pound on desks, that's just what Canada needs. Our house of commons is almost the same size as the US House, and our Senate is bigger. Yeah...this makes sense??? Our neighbour with a population about 10x greater than our own, and we've got the same size government.

We don't need more politicians, we need less.

[Smallc]

Great...more back bench MPs to pound on desks, that's just what Canada needs. Our house of commons is almost the same size as the US House, and our Senate is bigger. Yeah...this makes sense??? Our neighbour with a population about 10x greater than our own, and we've got the same size government.

We don't need more politicians, we need less.

Its about constituency work. That's something that becomes difficult when you have fewer representatives per person.

[gordiecanuk]

Its about constituency work. That's something that becomes difficult when you have fewer representatives per person.

Bull Sheet!!! Increase the staff at the constituency offices then, no more elected officials. Years back without jet travel, cell phones or blackberries...people managed just fine. Now in our modern era of communication and travel we don't need to be adding more backbench MPs. Its not like they have much say in policy making anymore, that's all handled out of the PMO with political consultants doing a lot of the work.

[jdobbin]

Oh Jdobbin, I love how you were once one of the more intelligent posters here, now you just come off as a shrill Liberal Party version of Shavluk.

Obviously, you've missed the humour in my post which has been done to contrast some of the shrill anti-Liberal, pro-Tory stuff we have seen.

My view was that it is hard to argue about democracy when you deliberately try and prevent representation of a fair amount of seats based in population.

[bluegreen]

I think Alberta is getting 5 and BC 7.

Nothing final yet, but based on the math apparently agreed to, Ontario gets an average Electoral District size of 105,000, like AB, and BC , reduced from 115,000 previously.

By the math, Ontario gets 21 seats, BC 7, and AB 5.

I saw in prior post somebody expected more seats for the 416, but given the fact that the population has only grown marginally in the 416 I would be surprised if there were more than 1 seat in Toronto. There is a strong argument for 0 Toronto seats. The 905 will see 5 or 6. The rest will probably go where they can (defensibly) give the CPC the best odds. Do not forget that there were a hell of a lot of close ridings in the 905, and if the Liberals pick up 3-4% in Ontario, as I expect they will, then I see a starting point of 12 extra Liberal seats in Ontario, 5 more CPC in Alberta, and an interesting scene in BC.

Quebec will howl, but tough cookies. That's what you get for voting Bloc.

There are a couple of real whoppers in Canada, Like Nunavut, with over 2,000,000 sq. kilometers, and 17,000 odd electors(Population 29,000). Labrador, and PEI are pretty lopsided too, but why quibble about it? They are anomolies, and I can live with a few warts around the edges.

Does anybody know when the electoral boundary commission will be appointed, and do their thing? Remember it'll take awhile to adjudicate.

Edited December 27, 2008 by bluegreen

[Bryan]

IMO, ridings are already far too heavily weighted towards population, and should take geography into account more than it currently does.

[Smallc]

IMO, ridings are already far too heavily weighted towards population, and should take geography into account more than it currently does.

Well then it wouldn't be rep by pop now would it?

[gordiecanuk]

Ontarians get double screwed with this...not only will we have 21 more "do nothing" MPs in Ottawa, we'll be getting 21 more in Queen's Park as well. Harris' "fewer politicians act"...the best thing Mikie ever did for Ont, or so I thought at the time...it has Queen's Park ridings mirror those in the House of Commons. When it was enacted it meant fewer MPPs for us, now it'll mean more. Great!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Giving more power to Ontario in the Commons is exactly what the west does not want.

[Smallc]

Giving more power to Ontario in the Commons is exactly what the west does not want.

Ontario shouldn't be punished or growing.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Okay, so why should the rest of the nation be punished for the growth of Ontario?