Do Canadian want MORE politicians?

[Topaz]

Right now in the House the Tories are pushing to get C-20 past before the end of the year so by the next election, more members will be seating in the House, do Canadian want this? The main problem the Tories say is three provinces are under represented, B.C, On. and Alberta. Harper himself, wanted this capped when he was in the opposition but now he changed his mind. So now, when this is passed by the Tories, Canadians will be spending out Billions of $$$ on pensions, benefits, and everything that goes will being a MP. In the past, the Tories don't do anything that would hurt them, so one has to think, how many of those seats are they going after and getting. Are they going after Northern Ontario, especially Charlie Angus riding where it will be downsized?

[Moonbox]

For the love of god Topaz. What the hell are you even talking about? It's going to cost us billions in pensions and benefits? REALLY!?!? Do you even know what a billion is???

1000 million....or 1,000,000,000. They're proposing to add 26 new seats to the legislature. Even for this to cost us ONE billion, that's going to mean around $35 million PER new MP in costs. If we're talking BILLIONS, then you're saying that it's going to cost $70+ million per new seat.

From what I've read, this is going to add $15-20 million per year in extra legislature costs.

Topaz is this another case of you just wetting your pants over anything the Cons do, and then making all sorts of shit up to get other people on your side?

Also, for the record, yes, I think the majority of Canadians support making representation more fair. Maybe not Manitoba. Sorry.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Moonbox

[cybercoma]

They could make representation more equal without adding seats. It's just much more difficult.

[Moonbox]

They could make representation more equal without adding seats. It's just much more difficult.

Like changing the constitution difficult.

[cybercoma]

Like changing the constitution difficult.

As it should be. I don't like the idea that they can just mess around with the seats by act of Parliament, especially when you can have majorities with less than 40% support. It's just asking for gerrymandering.

[Moonbox]

As it should be. I don't like the idea that they can just mess around with the seats by act of Parliament, especially when you can have majorities with less than 40% support. It's just asking for gerrymandering.

Certain provinces, particularly in the West, have been vastly under-represented for a long time. I don't think anyone could make a reasonable argument for NOT allowing a more fair distribution of seats. Realistically, I don't see why the number 308 should be sacrosanct. The population has grown significantly over the years and I see the additional seats as merely keeping up with the changing demographics of the country.

It's not as if Harper is trying to skew the distribution unfairly. He's merely amending the currently lopsided arrangement. There's a reason why western voters, particularly in Alberta, feel so disenfranchized. They were something like 30-40% under-represented.

[olp1fan]

This is just more humiliation for when the Cons lose next election ... not even picking up the seats that they put in there in the first place

love it

[Moonbox]

This is just more humiliation for when the Cons lose next election ... not even picking up the seats that they put in there in the first place

There are really only two outcomes for the next election. Either the Conservatives self-destruct and the Liberals redeem themselves, or the NDP maintains it's second-place status and previously small-c Liberals flee at the prospect of a completely incompetent NDP government and bolster the cons to a sweeping majority.

You can dream though bud.

[olp1fan]

There are really only two outcomes for the next election. Either the Conservatives self-destruct and the Liberals redeem themselves, or the NDP maintains it's second-place status and previously small-c Liberals flee at the prospect of a completely incompetent NDP government and bolster the cons to a sweeping majority.

You can dream though bud.

Canadians will be sick of Harper and his party by the end of the mandate...Liberals will have redeemed themselves and Canadians will agree they've been punished enough ... NDP don't have a snowballs chance in hell of being the government ...the reason NDP are the opposition is because Jack Layton and only because of Jack Layton

The man was special ... the next NDP leader won't come near to the level of likability Layton had

Edited December 9, 2011 by olp1fan

[Wilber]

Realistically, I don't see why the number 308 should be sacrosanct. The population has grown significantly over the years and I see the additional seats as merely keeping up with the changing demographics of the country.

Redistribution, fine. More MP's, no thanks. The US has 535 Congress members and Senators for a population of 311 million. Canada has 413 MP's and Senators for a population of 34 million. We have too many already.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Wilber

[eyeball]

Do Canadian want MORE politicians?

God help us all....

NO!

[olp1fan]

Just doing some research

Britain has 650 MPs

Australia has 150 MPs

New Zealand has 120 MPs

South Africa has 490 MPs

India has 790 MPs

Canada clearly has too many still

[wyly]

As it should be. I don't like the idea that they can just mess around with the seats by act of Parliament, especially when you can have majorities with less than 40% support. It's just asking for gerrymandering.

which is the entire point, this isn't about better representation it's about retaining power...if better and fairer representation were the objective we'd be moving to a PR system... Edited December 9, 2011 by wyly

[Topaz]

For the love of god Topaz. What the hell are you even talking about? It's going to cost us billions in pensions and benefits? REALLY!?!? Do you even know what a billion is???

1000 million....or 1,000,000,000. They're proposing to add 26 new seats to the legislature. Even for this to cost us ONE billion, that's going to mean around $35 million PER new MP in costs. If we're talking BILLIONS, then you're saying that it's going to cost $70+ million per new seat.

From what I've read, this is going to add $15-20 million per year in extra legislature costs.

Topaz is this another case of you just wetting your pants over anything the Cons do, and then making all sorts of shit up to get other people on your side?

Also, for the record, yes, I think the majority of Canadians support making representation more fair. Maybe not Manitoba. Sorry.

Yes, it will cost billions because the House can't fit the MP's we have now and I think there plans of expanding or update the House. There WILL be an increase in expenses from the addition MP's. Just look at what HArper has to do now, cut 5-10% of Department cost so they are letting Fed. workers go, whose going to do the work? Please don't worry over my wet pants, worry more about what the Tory party is doing. I don't make things up, that 's being done by guys like MacKay and his basket ride. One thing you haven't thought of is the income revenue are going down because of boomers retiring and the high unemployed, so where is the money going to come from?

[Topaz]

Here's a report of what taxpayers are paying now for MP's who retired or were defeated in the last election. MP's also get more pension, the longer they stay. http://taxpayer.com/federal/mps-cash-116-million-pension-severance-bonanza

[William Ashley]

Right now in the House the Tories are pushing to get C-20 past before the end of the year so by the next election, more members will be seating in the House, do Canadian want this? The main problem the Tories say is three provinces are under represented, B.C, On. and Alberta. Harper himself, wanted this capped when he was in the opposition but now he changed his mind. So now, when this is passed by the Tories, Canadians will be spending out Billions of $$$ on pensions, benefits, and everything that goes will being a MP. In the past, the Tories don't do anything that would hurt them, so one has to think, how many of those seats are they going after and getting. Are they going after Northern Ontario, especially Charlie Angus riding where it will be downsized?

It'd make more sense to wait a few years to see where things are at a year or so before the next election, this bill is way too soon.

Edited December 9, 2011 by William Ashley

[Trial-and-Error]

For the love of god Topaz. What the hell are you even talking about? It's going to cost us billions in pensions and benefits? REALLY!?!? Do you even know what a billion is???

1000 million....or 1,000,000,000. They're proposing to add 26 new seats to the legislature. Even for this to cost us ONE billion, that's going to mean around $35 million PER new MP in costs. If we're talking BILLIONS, then you're saying that it's going to cost $70+ million per new seat.

From what I've read, this is going to add $15-20 million per year in extra legislature costs.

Topaz is this another case of you just wetting your pants over anything the Cons do, and then making all sorts of shit up to get other people on your side?

Also, for the record, yes, I think the majority of Canadians support making representation more fair. Maybe not Manitoba. Sorry.

Oh, for the love of gawd, Moonbox, get a life. Topaz is absolutely correct, we need fewer representatives. Not more. For the population of our size, we are over-governed by a bunch of money grabbing thieves. I don't trust any of them. They will do anything to get elected. They will humiliate themselves, they will lie, cheat, do anything at all to achieve power. And we need more to join their ranks. Are you kidding me? Anybody who thinks politicians are there for our benefit, give your heads a shake. They are the dregs of society and while occasionally one comes along that shows some promise, they are cowed by those already there. If government were run on the up and up, I doubt you'd get many who'd want to step up to the plate to get elected. After all what would be in it for them? And then, we have the senate--a joke at best; at worst, sheer theft of the taxpayer. And we don't have the collective good sense to demand change. Anti-regressive conservatives? You bet! But do I think the Liberals are any better? If they are, not by much. The NDPers? Not bloody likely but so long as they are in the opposition, they can talk the talk. The entire system stinks. Canada the true north strong and free. Gag me with a spoon!! and to the south, "...with liberty and justice for all.: Does anyone actually sing or recite this tripe any more? But I digress. Moonbox, we do NOT--I repeat--we do NOT need even one more politician--not one. As for your criticism of Topaz' figures, who cares. He made his point. Not another red cent for more reprobates.

[cybercoma]

Hey remember when Mulroney added more seats to the Senate to get his GST bill passed. Conservatives seem to love gerrymandering.

[CPCFTW]

Meh 26 more politicians to help Harper secure 4 more years to shed thousands of bureaucrat jobs... I'll take it.

Edited December 11, 2011 by CPCFTW

[cybercoma]

Meh 26 more politicians to help Harper secure 4 more years to shed thousands of bureaucrat jobs... I'll take it.

He has the largest cabinet in history and wants to add more politicians to the house.

Shed bureaucrat jobs? Give your head a shake.

[CPCFTW]

He has the largest cabinet in history and wants to add more politicians to the house.

Shed bureaucrat jobs? Give your head a shake.

He's cutting thousands of federal govt jobs already. Give your head a shake.

[cybercoma]

He's running huge deficits and spending the money on the most useless things any government has ever spent money on. Meanwhile, he's gutting the programs and services that are needed for the welfare of society. He's cutting with one hand and pocketing more money than he cuts with the other.

[Shwa]

He's running huge deficits and spending the money on the most useless things any government has ever spent money on. Meanwhile, he's gutting the programs and services that are needed for the welfare of society. He's cutting with one hand and pocketing more money than he cuts with the other.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, cybercoma, you are ignoring what you had said in another thread about that poster being a troll. Don't feed the trolls!

Public service growth far outstrips population rise, notes show

The federal bureaucracy was slashed during the former Liberal government's sweeping program review in the mid- to late 1990s, which also instituted a hiring and wage freeze on government. Total federal public service employees dropped to around 204,000 in 1998 from more than 250,000 in the early 1990s, say the documents.

However, the number of public servants has soared over the past decade or so, especially during the nearly six years the Harper government has been in office.

The Harper Government ballooned the public service so they could slash it and look heroic. The sort of cartoon politics that appeals to the low-grade intellect of the Canadian fringe right who only have the capacity to understand politics in terms of slogans.

[Trial-and-Error]

Tsk, tsk, tsk, cybercoma, you are ignoring what you had said in another thread about that poster being a troll. Don't feed the trolls!

Public service growth far outstrips population rise, notes show

The Harper Government ballooned the public service so they could slash it and look heroic. The sort of cartoon politics that appeals to the low-grade intellect of the Canadian fringe right who only have the capacity to understand politics in terms of slogans.

You're gooooooood! "...in terms of slogans." HEHEHEHEHE

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Not really.

I find the individual MP's rather useless.

Party ideology trumps local issues all the time.

Cut it to 100 + speaker and nothing would change.