CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

How many MPs?
Current: 338  0%  [ 0 ]
Repeal C-20: 305  0%  [ 0 ]
Repeal C-20 & 1985 floor: 286  20%  [ 1 ]
Repeal C-20, 1985 floor, & "no fewer than senators": 282  0%  [ 0 ]
Leave it alone & abolish Senate  40%  [ 2 ]
Other  40%  [ 2 ]
Total votes : 5

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1804
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:53 pm
 


The trial is about to start for Senator Mike Duffy. This raises the issue of the senate. Conservatives appear to have put political spin on senate scandals, an excuse to abolish the senate all together. I would like to propose shrinking the number of MPs instead of abolishing the senate.

We have a need for a second chamber. One example: in 2006 the Harper Conservatives passed a bill to restrict political donations. They tried to limit it to $1,000 per year, and make it retroactive to January 2006. Harper knew the Liberals were in the midst of a leadership campaign, and the delegate fee was $995. That means anyone who donated more than $5 during the 2006 election could not be a delegate. Furthermore, a Liberal party membership was between $10 and $25 per year, depending on province. Since then they made it standard across the country, but that's what it was then. This means even if an individual didn't donate anything during the election, just the party membership plus delegate fee would put him/her over the limit. The senate intervened, made it $1,100 per year, and made it effective January 1, 2007, instead of retroactive. Harper had a fit, but what the senate did was just sane. This is what a senate is for.

I have also pointed out MPs get paid more than senators. And MPs maintain an office in their riding in addition to an office in Ottawa. Senators just get one office: Ottawa. Every MP or senator is given a budget for 2 staff members per office, so MPs have twice as many staffers. So MPs cost more. Many voters pointed out the problem is expenses, such as those Duffy claimed, not the ones I listed. But I have pointed out that MPs are allowed all the same expenses. I could point out which MPs have posted their expenses online, and which haven't, but lets keep this non-partisan. My point is reducing the number of MPs in the house would save more money. And the number of MPs have become so large that the House of Commons is having difficulty getting anything done.

We could also argue for a triple-E senate: Equal, Elected, and Effective. That would be an equal number of senators per province, and all elected senators. Our constitution has a clause that lets the Prime Minister appoint either 4 or 8 senators to pass a bill that he wants. That's either 1 per region, or 2 per region. This was done by Brian Mulroney to pass the GST. For the senate to be effective, this would have to be repealed. But changing either the number of senators per province, or repealing that clause, requires a constitutional amendment. We've seen how difficult it is to pass any amendment. It would be easier to stick with the number of senators we have now, and just make them all elected. Don't know what to do about the "stuff the senate" clause.

But my main point is to reduce the number of MPs. Wikipedia has a good article on how this is calculated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Canada#Members_and_electoral_districts
Our constitution now has a formula based on 279 MPs for the 10 provinces, plus one for each territory. Number of MPs is based on population: take the population of a province, divide by total population of Canada, multiply by 279. The result is how many MPs per province. That is then adjusted. There's a clause that states no fewer than the number of senators for the province. Another clause states no fewer than the number that province had in 1985. Then "The Fair Representation Act" (Bill C-20) was passed in 2011, it added MPs for Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta.

Prince Edward Island calculates as 1, but has 4 senators.
Newfoundland and Labrador calculates as 5, but has 6 senators, and had 7 MPs in 1985.
Manitoba calculates as 10, but had 14 in 1985.
Saskatchewan calculates as 9, but had 14 in 1985.
Nova Scotia calculates as 8, but had 11 in 1985.
New Brunswick calculates as 7, but had 10 in 1985.
Quebec calculates as 68, but had 75 in 1985.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Los Angeles Kings
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:09 pm
 


I voted "other" as a vote for an elected Senate.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35242
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:15 pm
 


I voted "other" too as I don't f**king care.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19986
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:38 pm
 


raydan raydan:
I voted "other" too as I don't f**king care.


DanSC DanSC:
I voted "other" as a vote for an elected Senate.


That's really strange as the poll only shows one vote as being submitted... 8)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11907
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:43 pm
 


Get rid of both and I'll be Dictator for Life. 8)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35242
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:01 pm
 


Hyack Hyack:
raydan raydan:
I voted "other" too as I don't f**king care.


DanSC DanSC:
I voted "other" as a vote for an elected Senate.


That's really strange as the poll only shows one vote as being submitted... 8)

I didn't actually vote... because I don't f**king care.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19986
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:09 pm
 


2Cdo 2Cdo:
Get rid of both and I'll be Dictator for Life. 8)


Of course you realize that historically, those who manage to become "Dictator for Life" usually have a somewhat shortened life span, usually very much shortened!!.....


Of course I'll nominate you if that is your wish! :)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35242
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:22 pm
 


I could take care of that "shortened life span"... but I still don't f**king care.




Good night! :lol:


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 9:05 pm
 


My thought is that the staffers help with enquiries. I mail my MP all the time, I'm not sure how many others do. But there would come a point where the 2 staffers in Vegreville aren't enough to handle all the people trying to talk to the MPs.

That said, I'd like to see 1 MP for every 250 000 individuals, minimum of 1 per province/territory. Each can have up to 5 staffers in a home office/offices, and 2 on the hill (works out to 7 staffers for every 250 000 people instead of 10). Keep first past the post for the electoral districts. While elections Canada assigns a number of MPs to each province, it's up to the province to determine how they divvy up the electoral districts.

As for Senators, I like 50. No provincial representation. Each recognised political party is assigned a number of seats based on the proportion of votes for them that year. They assign persons to fill these seats, whether they are unelected MPs or other party members. In the event you have 2 parties that fall on a odd percentage of the vote, the seat goes to the party with lesser seats. In the event that two parties have the same odd percentage of the vote, the seat goes unfilled. in the event that two parties have only 1% of the vote, they must decide amongst themselves who will sit to represent both. In the event there are two parties with 1%, and 2 parties who share an odd percentage higher than 1%, the seat that would be forfeit by the 2 parties with the higher vote proportion would be granted to the 1% parties so that both 1% parties may hold a seat.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Boston Bruins


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11907
PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:10 pm
 


Hyack Hyack:
2Cdo 2Cdo:
Get rid of both and I'll be Dictator for Life. 8)


Of course you realize that historically, those who manage to become "Dictator for Life" usually have a somewhat shortened life span, usually very much shortened!!.....


Of course I'll nominate you if that is your wish! :)


The only ones who would want me dead are hardcore lefties and they don't own guns so I'm not too concerned. :lol:


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.