Jump to content

Why so many MPs based on our population?


Recommended Posts

On 5/14/2024 at 9:21 AM, exPS said:

Reading some of the responses, it looks like we have a few bleeding hearts (so typically Canadian ūüôĄ) and people that look for value in how our taxes are spent. I wonder how many on this forum worked for the government be it Federal down to the City level, because they all seem to feel "entitled" to a higher salary with benefits that your average working person aka "tax payer" does not get. Plus they do not have to produce anything.

But lets not stop there. Lets look at a few of the countless and useless departments we have, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commsission, the CRTC, CBC and the list goes on. I am starting to think why we have so many government offices...to make out unemployment rate loook low.

What about the CBC? No viewership and yet they get $1.4 Billion a year and then they get another $40 million to give themselves a nice raise and bonuses. In the real world they should be self sufficient like any other media outlet.

Want to start on the other two offices. Trust me, it would get funnier than going to Yuk Yuks.

I worked as a Military member and a Public Servant.

I agree with your sentiment but you as an exPS, must know why it is what it is. It is what it is because you, the public demand it.

You can than the unions, the ones you chose, for the high salary and benefits. You are 100% to blame for that and 100% grateful for the compensation they negotiated for you.

As an exPS, you are, or should be, aware of why there are all these "countless and useless departments". The public, (you) demanded them. Governments (all governments, new and old and very old of all political parties) do what you ask.

You demand ethics to be upheld, hence an ethics department....which will be disagreed with if the determination is not in your wheelhouse LOL.

CRTC, implemented by Joe Clark, is there to protect Canada form foreign invasion of our airwaves LOL It has since become a place where people complain about how much louder the commercials are than the actual programs LOL

CBC is and has been a needed effort to ensure all of Canada gets radio/tv. With the advent of internet, the mandate is still there but not as valuable. Is it still needed, well, depends on where you live.

I can assure you that any government will not make new departments for the fun of it. They are born on the basis of public complaint and demand.  Once established, they are near impossible to shut down because the public are used to getting something from them.

Are there useless departments, I think so but the ones dependent on them will argue with you.

As an exPS, you , of all people, should know why public servants are spinning their wheels and often only keeping the process wheels turning...because you, as the public,  demanded it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

I worked as a Military member and a Public Servant.

I agree with your sentiment but you as an exPS, must know why it is what it is. It is what it is because you, the public demand it.

You can than the unions, the ones you chose, for the high salary and benefits. You are 100% to blame for that and 100% grateful for the compensation they negotiated for you.

As an exPS, you are, or should be, aware of why there are all these "countless and useless departments". The public, (you) demanded them. Governments (all governments, new and old and very old of all political parties) do what you ask.

You demand ethics to be upheld, hence an ethics department....which will be disagreed with if the determination is not in your wheelhouse LOL.

CRTC, implemented by Joe Clark, is there to protect Canada form foreign invasion of our airwaves LOL It has since become a place where people complain about how much louder the commercials are than the actual programs LOL

CBC is and has been a needed effort to ensure all of Canada gets radio/tv. With the advent of internet, the mandate is still there but not as valuable. Is it still needed, well, depends on where you live.

I can assure you that any government will not make new departments for the fun of it. They are born on the basis of public complaint and demand.  Once established, they are near impossible to shut down because the public are used to getting something from them.

Are there useless departments, I think so but the ones dependent on them will argue with you.

As an exPS, you , of all people, should know why public servants are spinning their wheels and often only keeping the process wheels turning...because you, as the public,  demanded it.

 

 

That is essentially 100 percent wrong. Pretty much across the board. 

The public doesn't ask for departments. For the most part they don't even have the slightest clue how many there are, or what any of their names are, or why they were formed or what they do. The people demand that the gov't take actions on certain fronts, nobody demands a specific department be formed.

The idea that they're formed on public demand is utterly preposterous. 

They are formed for a few reasons. 1) because they're actually needed to achieve something the gov't wants to do (rare), 2) to reward loyal gov't party members with perks, power and prestige, 3) because the civil service itself wants to grow and get bigger and they've managed to convince someone in the gov't that this department is necessary or cause it to be created to improve their own internal power and weight. 

"The public demands action on housing and we don't know what to do - quick, tell them we're spending 100 billion to fix it!!  The civil service rubs it's hands and says fine, but we'll have to create a ministry of solving housing problems to make that work"

And of course departments that were legitimately needed at one point tend to bloat for those same reasons. 

The problem with the public is that they know how to ask for things they want, and they believe the gov't when it says they've fixed it, but they don't actually MEASURE results. 

But no - the public doesn't ask for departments and ministries and such.  That is NOT how it works. 

Edited by CdnFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, herbie said:

Why so many MPs based on our population

Because it isn't. Never was. Otherwise in order to be 'fair' we'd need like 1600 MPs.

 

sigh. Yes, yes it is. It always has been. The fact that you would like to see more doesn't change the fact that it is in fact based on our population. Always has been

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, herbie said:

Yeah like how all 3 territories share the same MP and PEI only has 1.

 

????????

Northwest territories  is michael mcleod

Yukon territory is brenden hanley

Nunuvit is lori idlout. 

Who the F*ck told you they all share one mp!?!??

Quote

F*cking m*ron.

AHHH  i didn't realize you were referring to yourself :)  Because you'd have to be to think the territories all shared one mp :)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2024 at 2:21 PM, ExFlyer said:

I worked as a Military member and a Public Servant.

I can assure you that any government will not make new departments for the fun of it. They are born on the basis of public complaint and demand.

Sorry bud, as a Military member and a Public Servant, you are delusional. But I can understand you protecting the system that served you.

The government is nothing but a make-work system. I've been there and left early with a hit on my pension. I just could not handle the BS anymore. And do we vote in these offices? Maybe, but then it is run by the Feds to protect the Feds.

Ethics office, LOL. You would have to hand out 15,000 fines at the maximum of $500 to break even based on their operating costs. Who runs things to break even? Nobody! So shut them down.

As for the CBC, lets viewers that want it, pay for it, like Netflix. But to pi$$ away billions and then give them another $41M for bonuses...really? Let them be self sufficient. Sorry I am a Canadian.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2024 at 10:50 PM, herbie said:

Why so many MPs based on our population

Because it isn't. Never was. Otherwise in order to be 'fair' we'd need like 1600 MPs.

 

Show me your calculations to justify that. LOL 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, exPS said:

Sorry bud, as a Military member and a Public Servant, you are delusional. But I can understand you protecting the system that served you.

The government is nothing but a make-work system. I've been there and left early with a hit on my pension. I just could not handle the BS anymore. And do we vote in these offices? Maybe, but then it is run by the Feds to protect the Feds.

Ethics office, LOL. You would have to hand out 15,000 fines at the maximum of $500 to break even based on their operating costs. Who runs things to break even? Nobody! So shut them down.

As for the CBC, lets viewers that want it, pay for it, like Netflix. But to pi$$ away billions and then give them another $41M for bonuses...really? Let them be self sufficient. Sorry I am a Canadian.

 

If you truly were in the PS, then you will know that government departments and programs are there to appease the public. Not delusional, just fact.  Governments are lazy, they only do what they have to. You want pharmacare...well, a new department. You want dental care....oh, another department. You want $10 a day daycare...guess what, another department and on and on. You are getting what you want.

My career in the Military has nothing to do with my PS time and is not even comparable. You are delusional if you think the two are intermixed, let alone alike. PS are lazy, like now, whining because they may have to go into the office 3 days a week.

As for CBC why not include CTV, Global, ABC, NBC etc.....pay for them too, like Netflix. I am not defending the CBC but I think they are inline with other salaries biu their mandate is greater than any other network. You seem quite narrow minded to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2024 at 11:29 AM, CdnFox said:

That is essentially 100 percent wrong. Pretty much across the board. ....

....

The public doesn't ask for departments. For the most part they don't even have the slightest clue how many there are, or what any of their names are, ...

.....

But no - the public doesn't ask for departments and ministries and such.  That is NOT how it works. 

Of course you disagree. You know everything and if it does not fit your imagination, it is wrong. LOL

Fact is, you wanted pharmacare...you get an department and office. You want dental care, you get a new department or office. You want $10 day care, you get a new department or office and on and on. and on. You want, they give and make new positions to administer them.

The public asks for services and if they did not exist before, they get departments or offices to administer them, from policy to distribution to issuing reimbursements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

If you truly were in the PS, then you will know that government departments and programs are there to appease the public.

It is not.  Period. 

Sorry but that's just not how it works. At All. 

having served in the military in no way shape or form gives you even a tiny bit of insight into any of this. And given that you were in procurement according to yourself for a portion of that and looking at the state of our military equipment I'm just going to say that I feel like you still have a lot left to learn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Of course you disagree. You know everything and if it does not fit your imagination, it is wrong. LOL

The difference between you and I is that I always look like I know everything because I only speak when I do know what I'm talking about. Where's your blather off about anything based on your feeling and HOPE you can defend it later :) 

 

Quote

Fact is, you wanted pharmacare...you get an department and office.

So what you're saying is that one of the reasons we get departments is  because they're actually needed to achieve something the gov't wants to do. 

Go read my reply above again ffs.

But  the public didn't ask for a department. That's how the gov't chose to handle it. There were other ways. 

And the public certainly didn't ask for there to now be a department of pill negotiation, a department of dispensary certification and a department of medical inclusion etc etc but we'll probably get those. 

The public just said 'give us pharmacare'. 

Quote

The public asks for services and if they did not exist before, they get departments or offices to administer them, from policy to distribution to issuing reimbursements

pharmacare didn't exist before? Every single province had it. A very easily could have simply created a Canada pharmacare agreement no different than the Canada Health Act that requires governments to provide specific services.

So you're quite wrong. 

The reason the government Likes departments is for the reasons I stated. Occasionally although rarely they're necessary to deliver the specific things that the government has decided it wants to deliver. But more commonly it's a great way to have goodies to hand out to your loyal people And of course the civil service unions push to increase and expand such departments because it gives them money and power and it's the whole point that they exist.

Which I suppose is kind of a fourth reason as well, because Trudeau will gain favor with the public federal unions more by creating new federal jobs to manage this then he would have had he simply left it to the provinces.

 

The public does not ask for departments. Nor does the public asking for other services equal the public asking for more departments. More departments and staff appear when the public doesn't ask for anything. In fact there have been departments expanded or created to deal with reducing the number of services given to the public.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, exPS said:

Show me your calculations to justify that. LOL 

Show me a Grade 4 Math book on how you can make ridings all equal in population without taking some away.
Then tell me how TF you'd pull that off and get elected again...

Yeah they try to adjust to equalize them every so often but you can only add new ones. They have to account for geographical areas too.

And I do enjoy my vote being worth 2 or 3 of you urbanites....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Show me a Grade 4 Math book on how you can make ridings all equal in population without taking some away.

umm ok -  it's in the section called 'addition'.  We do it all the time, every census in fact. 

Quote

Then tell me how TF you'd pull that off and get elected again...

Every... census.. 

 

Quote

And I do enjoy my vote being worth 2 or 3 of you urbanites....

It isn't. 

But then again you thought the territories only had one mp so....   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2024 at 5:22 PM, CdnFox said:

So you still can't actually answer the simple question "how many should we have and why".

I guess you never read the original post. The numbers are there and if others can do it, why can't we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2024 at 4:12 PM, CrazyCanuck89 said:

How will you get into see your MP, if you have 200,000 others in your riding?

They are hardly in their office.

I call or email their office and their staff get back to me after a few days.

So in a year, how often have you met with them to discuss issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, exPS said:

I guess you never read the original post. The numbers are there and if others can do it, why can't we.

I guess you don't read period. The numbers are not there. Other people are doing different things, that does not answer the question of why we should or what number would be appropriate for us. It's not a question of if we could do it, the question is why would we?

I'm sure you're at least old enough to have heard your mother say"If all your friends jumped off a cliff would you?"

 I've explained why we're different, and why the number we have seems to work well. You'll have to make a case for a different number and explain your thinking.

This isn't terribly complicated. Either you can make an argument for your case or you cannot and your case is bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, exPS said:

They are hardly in their office.

 

But they often are and you can meet with them. If you double the number of people that becomes harder

This 2024 election is like most - months before, a critical change.

Quote

I call or email their office and their staff get back to me after a few days.

And if you double or triple the number of people emailing then they are not going to get back that fast are they

Quote

So in a year, how often have you met with them to discuss issues?

Funny story, I've had two MPS offices call me in the last 3 weeks to discuss issues that local constituents needed some help with. They walked into their office and I got a call. That doesn't happen if you triple the number of people. 

Personally i've met with my mps (different mps when i lived in different places) regarding issues of concern and also volunteered for their election campaigns and worked on policy committees.  My mp's knew me and would have been able to pick me out on the street and if i had issues i could talk to them.

Frankly lots and lots of people talk to their mp's and get to know them like that and give input into how they feel on a wide number of issues. 

So once again  you'll have to explain why we should water that down and why it's to our advantage to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I guess you don't read period. The numbers are not there. 

What do you call this or are you blind...

Canada: 338 MPs, 105 Senators, 40M people to fund 443 government officials and their offices.

Australia: 151 MPs, 76 Senators, 27M people to fund 227 government officials and their offices.

USA: 100 Senators, 435 House of Representatives, 335M people to fund 535 government officials and their offices.

Yeah Canada is grossly over-staffed on your tax dollar.

Compared to Australia, we should be at 299 government officials. The other 144 should be fired.

Compared to the USA, we should be at 64 government officials. The other 379 should be fired.

You are exactly one of the reasons why this country is in the shape it is in. Your middle name must be "inefficient" LOL

Fact is, the Public Service is pure BS. I saw it first hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2024 at 7:20 AM, CdnFox said:

Right now we have roughly 1 mp per 100,000 people. Considering we use the Westminster system - that seems like about right.

Well there is your problem, the Westminster system.  If that has anything to do with the Brits, then we really are talking inefficiencies to the extreme. This is Canada, not some inbred Brit nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/26/2024 at 2:55 PM, ExFlyer said:

As for CBC why not include CTV, Global, ABC, NBC etc.....pay for them too, like Netflix. I am not defending the CBC but I think they are inline with other salaries biu their mandate is greater than any other network. You seem quite narrow minded to me.

You are totally missing the point.

CBC is funded by tax payers aka me and countless others. All media should only be supported due to advertizing or member payment. What is their viewership? Less than 5%.

And you seem to get very defensive about the the government and the military. Lets talk about those make-work useless subs we bought. You know the ones the Brits mothballed and finally found a sucker to buy them. I've been to Halifax and Esquimalt. The last thing you want to do is buy anything engineered by Brits.

Calling me narrow minded? It seems you cannot see past your nose.

 

Edited by exPS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exPS said:

What do you call this or are you blind...

 

I call that you're clearly illiterate. 

SHOW ME WHERE YOU ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION "WHY SHOULD WE HAVE LESS".   Anywhere.  The fact other people have less means nothing. 

Australia and the us could easily say they should have MORE. 

Make your argument or admit you're a loser who can't think his way out of a paper bag.  You can't just say "cause austrailia!!!!"  and call that an argument.  Why is ours too many and why isn't theirs too few.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exPS said:

Well there is your problem, the Westminster system.  If that has anything to do with the Brits, then we really are talking inefficiencies to the extreme. This is Canada, not some inbred Brit nation.

Australia, whom you insist we should mimic, uses the westminster system. 

You're not exactly making yourself look knowledgeable at this point. 

So here's what it's looking like to me. You have absolutely no education or understanding of this political systems involved or how they work. But somehow somewhere you read that other places have fewer representatives per person and you got it in your head that means we're paying for too many. And now that someone has questioned why you believe that you're not able to give a good answer because your original thought wasn't founded on anything but repeating something you heard somewhere else.

Look, lots of people make that mistake. But if you're going to be taken seriously by people who actually think you're going to need to be able to defend your positions a little better than that. One MP for every approximately 100,000 people has worked very well for us for a long time. If you can't explain why it would work just as well with one for every 200,000 then there's no reason to change it. And yes, democracy costs money. If you want cheap you have to go with a dictatorship

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, exPS said:

You are totally missing the point.

CBC is funded by tax payers aka me and countless others. All media should only be supported due to advertizing or member payment. What is their viewership? Less than 5%.

And you seem to get very defensive about the the government and the military. Lets talk about those make-work useless subs we bought. You know the ones the Brits mothballed and finally found a sucker to buy them. I've been to Halifax and Esquimalt. The last thing you want to do is buy anything engineered by Brits.

Calling me narrow minded? It seems you cannot see past your nose.

 

I miss no points.

We, and you, are Canadian. CBC is for all Canadians including you. Don't like it,I'm sorry but it does benefit Canadians. All media in Canada is government supported, not just the CBC by advertising dollars and grants and subsidies..

As for defensive about the Military, yes I am. 35 years in Search and Rescue has made me very defensive about my service and what the Military does within Canada and over seas..

The sub buy, as so many others, are not a military purchase but very much a political ploy. The military did not want used battery operated useless subs but, they had to accept them. We also bought used F-18 and unused US 101 helicopters...all  by government actions, not by military wants or desires.

Yes you are narrow minded, you do not see the big picture and benefits outside of your little circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I call that you're clearly illiterate. 

SHOW ME WHERE YOU ANSWER THE SIMPLE QUESTION "WHY SHOULD WE HAVE LESS".   Anywhere.  The fact other people have less means nothing. 

Australia and the us could easily say they should have MORE. 

Make your argument or admit you're a loser who can't think his way out of a paper bag.  You can't just say "cause austrailia!!!!"  and call that an argument.  Why is ours too many and why isn't theirs too few.  

 

Why would you need more, when you do not need more.

And who made you the pope. I can see you have no life since you are on here 24/365.

You must have been your typical useless public servant now or in the past.

And by the way, having worked for a Brit, eff the Westminster system. They seem to have this thing about them where they think their own shit does not stink.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,750
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Betsy Smith
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...