Tories: Biggest provinces to get more MPs as 330-seat House proposed

[RedHot25]

So much for Conservatives wanting small government (I kid, I kid!). Apparently the goal is to get to the same proportion as Quebec; to do so, it looks like they may even end up giving Ontario even potentially more at some point in the future (at the end of the quote)....

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/sto...on-reform.html

Canada's three fastest-growing provinces would get more seats in the House of Commons by 2014 under legislation proposed by the Conservative government on Friday.

Under the bill, Ontario would get 10 more members of Parliament, British Columbia would get seven and Alberta would get five.
All other provinces, whose populations are not growing as quickly, would be guaranteed to keep the number of seats they have.

The 22 new seats mean the House of Commons would have 330 seats, up from the current 308.

......
Van Loan said the government is using Quebec as its benchmark, with the aim of having other provinces achieve close to the same level of proportional representation enjoyed by Quebec.

Alberta and B.C. will come close to Quebec's mark under the new bill, Van Loan said, although Ontario will still be below.

[Azure]

Oh great, more politicians to argue with in parliament.

[Resolute 14]

Proper representation in the House is as important as proper representation in the Senate is. I would just as soon the EEE Senate came first, however.

[Kjesse]

I'm scared to think what the Quebec politicians are going to do about this.

You know full well that their representation being eroded will serve as a rallying cry for the separatists.

It seems that the separatist sentiment is on the wane in la belle provence. Maybe this isn't the best time to introduce legislation like this.

Its also a pretty ballsy move in a minority government situation.

It makes good democratic sense to do this, but I'm not so sure the potential fallout is worth it.

[Sample00]

why does a country with a third of the population of California need three times as many politicians as said State.
Cut back the amount of MP's to balance things out, not increase them.
We are way too over governed.
Syl?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Sample00

why does a country with a third of the population of California need three times as many politicians as said State.
Cut back the amount of MP's to balance things out, not increase them.
We are way too over governed.
Syl?

We really don't... but unfortunately, small provinces like PEI are constitutionally guaranteed a minimum amount of seats and senators... in order to masquerade some sort of idea of parity, you end up with a bloated parliament.

[Slava]

I think that a large parliament is great. Its important; afterall its to run the country!

I think that some of the comments so far are confusing large bureaucracy with a large parliament, and the two are not necessarily one and the same.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Sample00

why does a country with a third of the population of California need three times as many politicians as said State.
Cut back the amount of MP's to balance things out, not increase them.
We are way too over governed.
Syl?

Er...Canada has about the same population as Cali, not 1/3. Regardless, you can't draw equivalency simply based on population.

-Regional differences have to be considered, not just the number of people who are entitled to complain to a particular representative
-Cali runs on a 2-party system; Canada does not...in a multi-party system, un-representative results are more likely with larger ridings

Besides which, the number of MPs makes little difference, except in terms of the expenses incurred to employ them. For purposes of decision-making, 400 MPs is no less effective than 100, or even 30. When you increase the size of a group above (perhaps) a dozen, it gets too large for people to have rational discussions anyhow. At least with a larger number, the noise starts to get cancelled out.

I would personally advocate reforming the division of powers so that the bulk of decisions are made at the lowest level possible. Government should be close to the people, not thousands of kilometers away. Leave defense and foreign policy to the feds and bring everything else down to the provincial level, or even municipal.

[Cowboy89]

One of the things that many people overlook is the fact that in order to trim down Parliament and even out representation you have to change the constitution.


The constitution enshrines some Maritime provinces with a clause that seats cannot be taken away. Eg. PEI having 4 seats when their population only calls for them to have 1. Since in order to change this it would require two thirds of the provinces approval, Senate approval, and parliamentary approval this would be a difficult task. Especially considering that Quebec, PEI, NS, NB, and NFLD would automatically strike this down because it dilutes their unjust overrepresentation.


The only way to achieve a proper rep by pop number of seats in the house is to increase the number of seats in places that have over 100,000 people per seat such as the GTA region, Calgary-Edmonton Corridor, and the Lower Mainland. For those anti-cons out there remember that this isn't necessarily partisan because the GTA region and the lower mainland actually are more likely to vote Liberal or NDP. Evening things out just makes sense and is more fair as my opinion at the ballot box should mean just as much as someone in PEI, the North or Quebec etc.

[Sample00]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Er...Canada has about the same population as Cali, not 1/3. Regardless, you can't draw equivalency simply based on population.

-Regional differences have to be considered, not just the number of people who are entitled to complain to a particular representative
-Cali runs on a 2-party system; Canada does not...in a multi-party system, un-representative results are more likely with larger ridings

Besides which, the number of MPs makes little difference, except in terms of the expenses incurred to employ them. For purposes of decision-making, 400 MPs is no less effective than 100, or even 30. When you increase the size of a group above (perhaps) a dozen, it gets too large for people to have rational discussions anyhow. At least with a larger number, the noise starts to get cancelled out.

I would personally advocate reforming the division of powers so that the bulk of decisions are made at the lowest level possible. Government should be close to the people, not thousands of kilometers away. Leave defense and foreign policy to the feds and bring everything else down to the provincial level, or even municipal.

My point being we have too many cooks in the kitchen as it is.
We have too many people in Ottawa not doing anything of usefulness.
government at lower levels is key. a comment was made earlier in the thread about having the government close to the people, and in my opinion thats correct.
I understand bureaucracy and I understand our need for it, but this idea of more MP's and a Senate thats more or less useless, really makes no sense in my mind.