30 new seats for Ontario, B.C., Alberta, and Quebec

[Rod1960]

The federal government intends to add 30 seats to the House of Commons, a change it says is necessary to account for growth in Canada's most populous provinces.

Half of the new seats will go to Ontario, while Alberta and British Columbia will each receive six seats each.

Quebec will be allocated three more seats, to prevent the province from being underrepresented in a newly swollen Parliament.

The government believes the "Fair Representation Act" will help ensure that Canadians in provinces with fast-growing populations get better representation.

Tim Uppal, the minister of state for democratic reform, said the government wanted to maintain the existing seats in Parliament, while addressing the seat imbalances that have resulted from population growth.

"It delivers on our commitment to maintain the seat counts of smaller provinces and to ensure that no province that is currently overrepresented will experience representation less than what is proportionate to the population," Uppal said Thursday in Brampton, Ont.

Should the changes come into effect, the number of MPs in the House of Commons would jump to 338, an increase of almost 10 per cent from the current 308 elected members.

But the changes amount to more than what might be described as a mere "numbers game," as they will permanently influence the distribution of power in Ottawa, CTV's Chief Political Correspondent Craig Oliver said Thursday.

"It's about power. It's about what areas of the country, what people get to influence the kind of decisions we make in our national Parliament," Oliver told CTV News Channel from Ottawa.

Prior attempts at reform

The government had tried to pass through a similar measure in the previous Parliament that would have given 18 new seats to Ontario, five to Alberta and seven to British Columbia.

But that bill died in the last Parliament.

This time around, the Conservative government has majority control in the House of Commons, which suggests that the changes are likely to be passed into law.

Liberal critic Stephane Dion suggested Thursday that while the government believes it has found "a balance" on how to distribute the forthcoming seats, its caucus should be prepared to have parliamentarians take a hard look at the details of the plan.

"Democratic reform is not a game and must be done in co-ordination with the provinces," Dion said in a statement.

"Now that a proposal is before Parliament, the Conservatives must commit to allowing Members of Parliament and Senators the time to fully study the impacts of the bill."

The increased representation for Quebec has ruffled some feathers within the Conservative caucus, CTV's Power Play host Don Martin said Thursday.

"There's some pushback in the caucus from this," Martin told CTV News Channel from Ottawa.

"Some Conservative MPs say: ‘We shouldn't be capitulating necessarily to Quebec on this.'"

Oliver said that from the point of view of some Quebecers, there may be a feeling that their influence is waning in Ottawa.

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111027/democratic-reform-house-of-commons-seats-tim-uppal-announcement-federal-government-111027/20111027/?hub=EdmontonHome

....interesting.

[Okotokian]

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111027/democratic-reform-house-of-commons-seats-tim-uppal-announcement-federal-government-111027/20111027/?hub=EdmontonHome

....interesting.

Quebec's "influence" in Parliament should be exactly what it's population warrants... no more, no less.

[Scott N]

I think they should just re-distribute the existing seats to adjust for population changes instead of adding new ones. Too bad the constitution won't allow for taking away seats in certain circumstances. Hurray! Just what we need.... more mouths at the trough, I mean, more politicians.

[Sooner]

I would have liked to see from Manitoba west get more, the rest stay as is just to make it a more even playing field. But I guess you got to apply the grease where needed.

[Okotokian]

I would have liked to see from Manitoba west get more, the rest stay as is just to make it a more even playing field. But I guess you got to apply the grease where needed.

MP's represent people, not dirt, so if Ontario gets more people I don't have a problem with saying they should get more MP's. It's not greasing a wheel.

I DO agree with an earlier poster that they can't just go on adding MP's forever. Some redistribution will be necessary.

Wonder when they are going to do some redistribution provincially so Calgary and Edmonton are properly represented... not as long as the Conservatives are in power... or Wild Rose for that matter.

[Nester]

The NDP is pleased the bill includes additional seats for Quebec but thinks the Tory formula is off.

The official Opposition says it would have granted more ridings to Quebec, B.C., Alberta and Quebec to strike a balance between representation by population and recognizing the role of the Quebecois as a nation within Canada.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2011/10/27/18886106.html



:sad0020:

[pesky672]

I think seats should be distriubuted based upon area more than population.

That would eliminate regional alienation and give rural folks more voice.

Yes... those living in large urban centers would argue that they had less say per capita but as it is right now.... anyone living outside of Quebec and southern Ontario has little to no chance of being heard at all.

[TBD]

x2 scott

These guys, work only 4 months out of the year as it is ...

That's all we need more MP salaries and expense accounts to support. At what point does gov't get to BIG to be supported with out more tax increases.

Unbelievable, look at ON, BC, and the other provinces that just hoisted 8% plus worth of tax increases on their populations !

TBD

.... glad i'm in AB

[Grizzly Adams]

Quebec's "influence" in Parliament should be exactly what it's population warrants... no more, no less.

How about PEI ? :D Confederation was designed so Quebec and Ontario could dominate the country and it ain't gonna change. Imagine how quickly Quebec would leave, if your statement came true.

Grizz

[greylynx]

How about PEI ? :D Confederation was designed so Quebec and Ontario could dominate the country and it ain't gonna change. Imagine how quickly Quebec would leave, if your statement came true.

Grizz


And then came the charter of rights to sign, seal, and deliver the package.

[bushwackin]

Quebec's "influence" in Parliament should be exactly what it's population warrants... no more, no less.

Quebec should suck the big one!

[bushwackin]

Quebec should suck the big one!

That's right, separatwaaaaaaa!!!!

[eastcoast]

I think seats should be distriubuted based upon area more than population.

That would eliminate regional alienation and give rural folks more voice.

Yes... those living in large urban centers would argue that they had less say per capita but as it is right now.... anyone living outside of Quebec and southern Ontario has little to no chance of being heard at all.

so the nwt should have more seats than ontario?

representation by population is the best way,I just wish they had taken some away and given them where the people are,no way pei should have 4 they only have 125000 people,newfoundland samething 7 for a population of 500000? it's a bit clower than pei though,i say 1 mp for every 110000 people is a good number,if they live in 5 city blocks or are spread out over 1000 sq miles everybody should have the same say.

[TriggerFinger]

so the nwt should have more seats than ontario?

representation by population is the best way,I just wish they had taken some away and given them where the people are,no way pei should have 4 they only have 125000 people,newfoundland samething 7 for a population of 500000? it's a bit clower than pei though,i say 1 mp for every 110000 people is a good number,if they live in 5 city blocks or are spread out over 1000 sq miles everybody should have the same say.

Best post yet ^ ! :happy0034:


TF

[Tundra Monkey]

so the nwt should have more seats than ontario?

:happy0034:

tm

[pesky672]

so the nwt should have more seats than ontario?

representation by population is the best way,I just wish they had taken some away and given them where the people are,no way pei should have 4 they only have 125000 people,newfoundland samething 7 for a population of 500000? it's a bit clower than pei though,i say 1 mp for every 110000 people is a good number,if they live in 5 city blocks or are spread out over 1000 sq miles everybody should have the same say.

Why not?
Do you think they'd bully the rest of us all by themselves?

At least my way...would ensure that regions with unique differences or difficulties would have an fair shake and representation at the big table.

Your way we don't have the same say...
The greater TO area has more people in Parliament than most provinces.
I'm pretty sure that the people in that area have fairly common concerns.

Can't say the same for BC or Alberta etc...we have different landscapes... different difficulties and a mix of urban and rural.

The current system is the reason why we had the much villified Bill C-68 rammed down our necks...and the reason it still isn't gone...yet.
That wouldn't have happened if we had representation by area rather than population.

Just a thought but here are some other things that probably wouldn't have happened or might be different.

The long battle to get rid of the Wheat Board... the flooding of a whole valley in BC so the US could build a dam (for which we receive no money by the way)... disproportionate transfer payments... bilingualism... Meech Lake...a certain referendum... almost every large government contract going to Quebec...the Parti Quebecois in federal politics... the removal of capital punishment for capital crimes... the failure to secure an elected senate... patronage positions going to primarily Ont/Que liberals...a military hierarchy that is almost entirely made up of Quebecois although that province has proportionately fewer service members than almost any other.... the list goes on...

Face it...my way might not seem fair but how fair is the current system for rural Canadians in every province...the east coast, northern and western Canadians?

My feeling is the provinces should be set up the same way.
As it is... my vote may be equal but carries more weight (because I live in Edmonton) than some guy that lives on a farm or in a small town.

But...are my concerns any more important than his?
I think not....

[Tundra Monkey]

i say 1 mp for every 110000 people is a good number

I like this ratio....we have around 50K population and a NDP MP. Cuttin' him in half would be OK with me (although he did vote against the party line on the gun registry).

tm

[eastcoast]

Why not?
Do you think they'd bully the rest of us all by themselves?

At least my way...would ensure that regions with unique differences or difficulties would have an fair shake and representation at the big table.

Your way we don't have the same say...
The greater TO area has more people in Parliament than most provinces.
I'm pretty sure that the people in that area have fairly common concerns.

Can't say the same for BC or Alberta etc...we have different landscapes... different difficulties and a mix of urban and rural.

The current system is the reason why we had the much villified Bill C-68 rammed down our necks...and the reason it still isn't gone...yet.
That wouldn't have happened if we had representation by area rather than population.

Just a thought but here are some other things that probably wouldn't have happened or might be different.

The long battle to get rid of the Wheat Board... the flooding of a whole valley in BC so the US could build a dam (for which we receive no money by the way)... disproportionate transfer payments... bilingualism... Meech Lake...a certain referendum... almost every large government contract going to Quebec...the Parti Quebecois in federal politics... the removal of capital punishment for capital crimes... the failure to secure an elected senate... patronage positions going to primarily Ont/Que liberals...a military hierarchy that is almost entirely made up of Quebecois although that province has proportionately fewer service members than almost any other.... the list goes on...

Face it...my way might not seem fair but how fair is the current system for rural Canadians in every province...the east coast, northern and western Canadians?

My feeling is the provinces should be set up the same way.
As it is... my vote may be equal but carries more weight (because I live in Edmonton) than some guy that lives on a farm or in a small town.

But...are my concerns any more important than his?
I think not....

so instead of representation by the people, you are for representation by geographic land mass?

what you are essentially saying is that small towns should have more say than big cities,that people in small towns and rural areas should control the country when they are clearly outnumbered?this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever,please give me an example of where less people having a say is better for the collective good,I don't always agree with everything government does(sarcastic comment of the year) but if it's the will of the people it doesn't hurt so much.

[LongDraw]

Notice that the only part of the "economy" (tongue in cheek) that continues to grow, taking a bigger piece of the GDP pie, even during recession and slower economic times is the government? Shameful!

[pesky672]

so instead of representation for the people, you are for representation by geographic land mass?

My thought is that is the only way for people across Canada to be heard.

Representation by population works well in places where the population is fairly evenly spread out like in Europe or the southern 48 in the US. (although many in Alaska and Hawaii would disagree)

The problem with it here is that when Parliament votes... the overwhelming majority are deciding for all based upon the interests of people concentrated along a thin strip along the border and around the Great Lakes.

What do they care that their decisions might have a serious impact upon the lives of the folks that occupy the other 90% of the nation?
Are they even aware of those peoples concerns?

The places that are feeding...providing raw materials...ecconomic growth etc to feed the south and central Canada (notice I said central not eastern...just for you...lol) deserve to have more to say about decisions that may have a direct and harmful or helpful impact upon their lives although they may be inconsequential to someone living in TO.
The same way farmers, ranchers and ag town folks in Alberta should have better representation when people in cities like Edmonton and Calgary start discussing policies that will only really effect those rural people.

What do I know about growing, harvesting, marketing farm products?
What do I know about fertilizer, livestock breeding, predator problems, the cost of fuel to run a tractor?
What do I know about the state of schools, medical care, joblessness, utilities, water and services in rural Alberta?

Almost nothing.

And worse still even if folks in large cities do understand these concerns...why should they care when they have their own interests to consider?

At least if rural, western etc Canadians could get a few more voices to the table... they'd have a chance to influence or stop the rest... from making bad decisions on their behalf.

[eastcoast]

My thought is that is the only way for people across Canada to be heard.

Representation by population works well in places where the population is fairly evenly spread out like in Europe or the southern 48 in the US. (although many in Alaska and Hawaii would disagree)

The problem with it here is that when Parliament votes... the overwhelming majority are deciding for all based upon the interests of people concentrated along a thin strip along the boarder and around the Great Lakes.

What do they care that their decisions might have a serious impact upon the lives of the folks that occupy the other 90% of the nation?
Are they even aware of those peoples concerns?

The places that are feeding...provideing raw materials...ecconomic growth etc to feed the south and central Canada (notice I said central not eastern...just for you...lol) deserve to have more to say about decisions that have an impast upon their lives although they may be inconsequential to someone living in TO.
The same way farmers, ranchers and ag town folks in Alberta should have better representation when people in cities like Edmonton and Calgary start discussing policies that will only really effect those rural people.

What do I know about growing, harvesting, marketing farm products.
What do I know about fertilizer, livestock breeding, predator problems, the cost of fuel to run a tractor?

Almost nothing.

At least if they could get a few more voices to the table... they'd have a chance to influence or stop the rest of us from making bad decisions on their behalf.

not quite sure if you noticed but our prime minister if from alberta(actually ontario) but he represents calgary,he got elected with a good share of western seats and alot from ontario aswell,he didn't get many in quebec or atlantic canada but he still managed to get a majority government,that doesn't bode well for your argument really.


most of the issues you raised are provincial responsibilities not federal.

[pesky672]

not quite sure if you noticed but our prime minister if from alberta(actually ontario) but he represents calgary,he got elected with a good share of western seats and alot from ontario aswell,he didn't get many in quebec or atlantic canada but he still managed to get a majority government,that doesn't bode well for your argument really.


most of the issues you raised are provincial responsibilities not federal.

Really?

Take another look at that.

He was elected in a strong Conservative riding.

His party got a majority because the choices were the Conservatives...a party run by a blithering idiot communist and one led by an freaking turn coat Harvard Yankee that nobody in his right mind trusted to not sell us all down the river.

Against that competition the Conservatives could have run with a Great Dane for a leader and still done well.

The Alberta vote was only significant in that his riding was here and because he is an Anglo.

Had Harper been Quebecois... it would have been a landslide for them even if everyone in Alberta had voted... God forbid...NDP.

All I know is....the current system does nothing to address western and northern alienation.
The east coast will continue to be pushed around like a pawn by whoever holds the purse strings because they don't hold enough seats or ecconomic wealth to stop it and we are a huge country being run by a bunch of college boys, grateful immigrants and slicks living in big cities...most of whom couldn't change a freaking tire or grow a potato if their lives depended upon it...and that hasn't been working very well for quite some time.

We are the ONLY country that is still practicing the English parliamentary system without significant reform....including England and the other countries that make up the UK.

It's time to start thinking outside of the box and start making some changes to the way we share power in this country.

And... most of the issues I raised are federal responsibility... the rest were imposed upon the provinces by the feds..
Or... were brought up in the context of the provinces adopting a similar..... representation by area vice population to.

[TreeGuy]

Pesky, while I'm not yet 100% sold on the concept, a 'Triple-E' Senate would potentially provide a nice balance to a purely rep-by-pop Parliment. I like the concept in principal, but there would be alot of growing pains to overcome.

[pesky672]

Pesky, while I'm not yet 100% sold on the concept, a 'Triple-E' Senate would potentially provide a nice balance to a purely rep-by-pop Parliment. I like the concept in principal, but there would be alot of growing pains to overcome.

THAT would be one H-E -Double Hockey Sticks of a start.
Course...it went over like a lead balloon last time we tried...lol

As for the growing pains...you bet...central Canada would NEVER go for it unless we pulled a HUGE Quebec-esk tantrum.

But then again maybe it is time we share that pain with the folks down east.

[pesky672]

By the side...where is Sundancefisher?
He'll be sorry he missed this one.

That guy loves banter....lol

[HunterDave]

He was elected in a strong Conservative riding.

His party got a majority because the choices were the Conservatives...a party run by a blithering idiot communist and one led by an freaking turn coat Harvard Yankee that nobody in his right mind trusted to not sell us all down the river.

NEWSFLASH!!!!

NDP's Layton becomes Official Opposition leader

Apparently you forgot about another choice.

[pesky672]

NEWSFLASH!!!!

NDP's Layton becomes Official Opposition leader

Apparently you forgot about another choice.

I think you mis-understood Dave.

He was blithering idiot number one....the communist.
The one right behind the Conservatives...the only party whose candidate didn't present himself like a post lobotomy turnip? So I didn't bother to elaborate on him...

But thanks for legitimizing my point about the American candidate the liberals chose for a leader.
Who would have thought that the NDP would EVER be the opposition 3-4 years ago?

I remember the announcement regarding the Liberal leader....

My thoughts were (in this order)...

Huh?

Are they joking?

Is the Liberal Party so out of touch that they think an American by choice will be PM just because he was accidentally born in Canada?

No freakin way...uh uh..never...

Were they drunk when they voted?

Was the CIA involved?

Nope...they really are that out of touch....lol

Looks like a Conservative majority...cool...

Guess that means the Official OPP could be Taliban Jack and company.... nuts... not cool...

The Conservatives better play it close...we don't want everyone jumping to the oppositions side a few years down the road....like Canadians tend to do...

If that happens....I'll have to get another job just to pay for all the handouts... nuts... the Liberals must have been drunk AND stupid.

:)

[rugatika]

REp by pop is pretty much the gold standard for a democratic nation. I agree with Tree that having a Senate as a "sober second thought" that is geographically representing the country would be a good way to ensure regional representation of sparsely populated provinces and their concerns. (USA for example has 2 senators per state, who I believe were originally supposed to be appointed by the states governor, but are now elected).

[walking buffalo]

REp by pop is pretty much the gold standard for a democratic nation. I agree with Tree that having a Senate as a "sober second thought" that is geographically representing the country would be a good way to ensure regional representation of sparsely populated provinces and their concerns. (USA for example has 2 senators per state, who I believe were originally supposed to be appointed by the states governor, but are now elected).

"Sober second thought"... :lol:

Like this wonderful thought.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/10/27/make-polar-bear-canadas-national-animal-senator

OTTAWA - A Conservative senator wants to retire the beaver as Canada's official animal and bring in the polar bear as its replacement.

"The beaver is a has-been," Nicole Eaton says. "It's a rat ... a big rat, that doesn't reflect our new values."

She also seems to hold a personal grudge against the animal.

"We have a cottage on Georgian Bay (in Ontario), and beavers eat away our dock every year. There are thousands of trees around, but no, they choose our dock," Eaton said.

[Samhael]

The Cons are sucking up to Quebec, as usual, any party in power gives $$$ to buy Quebec votes. That's why Quebec receives $ from Alberta and has $5/day daycare, etc. :argue2: :angry3:

BC/ONT/AB are getting screwed, if Quebec gets seats based on it's pop why don't the rest of us?

Any Province/Territory with less than 500,000 population should have 3 representatives, those with pop above the 500,000 should have 1 rep per 125,000. Number of seats is rounded up.

Ontario Pop 13.2MM = 106
Quebec Pop 7.9MM = 64
B. C. 4.5MM = 37
Alberta 3.7MM = 30
Manitoba 1.2MM = 10
SK 1.0MM = 9
Nova S .942 = 8
New B. .751 = 6
NFLD .509 = 5
PEI/NWT/Y/Nun = 12 (3 each)


Total 287 Seats, a decrease of 21 seats! Less cost, easier to manage/track/etc

[Okotokian]

Why not?
The current system is the reason why we had the much villified Bill C-68 rammed down our necks...and the reason it still isn't gone...yet.
That wouldn't have happened if we had representation by area rather than population. .

Representation by area? so the 3 people in a square mile of Northern Alberta get the sme say as the 10,000 people in a square mile of downtown Toronto on all national issues? And if by area you mean province, I'm sorry, I'm NOT prepared to have voters in PEI or NFLD have as much power as all the voters in Alberta. It cuts both ways.



Face it...my way might not seem fair but how fair is the current system for rural Canadians in every province...the east coast, northern and western Canadians? The current situation is VERY fair to rural voters and those in the north and east coast, given their actual numbers versus the power they hold by number of MP's. You need to research a bit more about riding sizes, etc.



My feeling is the provinces should be set up the same way.
As it is... my vote may be equal but carries more weight (because I live in Edmonton) than some guy that lives on a farm or in a small town.

You have it exactly backwards and wrong. Because you live in Edmonton your vote counts LESS than a farmer. Urban ridings have MORE people in them (hence less representation per person). My exact numbers are wrong but for illustrative purposes it means that 500,000 city dwellers get 10 MLA's and 500,000 rural folks get 15 MLA's.

A federal government should represent ALL Canadians equally. It has to be based (at least the Commons) on population. If you want to mix in more regional representation in the Senate, fine. Ideally, if you think different areas have different and distinct needs, the teh thing to do is shift more power and authority to the Provinces. I'd be in favour of some of that.

[grunger]

"The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one" - Spock

[walking buffalo]

Nothing to do with this thread....

And then came the charter of rights to sign, seal, and deliver the package.

Greylynx, couldn't send you a pm.

Did you see these posts 86-89?
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=108709&page=3

[MAC]

Pesky 672
"At least my way...would ensure that regions with unique differences or difficulties would have an fair shake and representation at the big table."

Isnt this what Quebec is demanding 24% of seats regardless of population because they want control of what they think we dont understand.

Pesky 672
"The current system is the reason why we had the much villified Bill C-68 rammed down our necks...and the reason it still isn't gone...yet.
That wouldn't have happened if we had representation by area rather than population."

Yes a large portion of our nation thru their MP voted this in. Due to how fresh the shootings of the time the east were easily convinced this was the way to go.
However our system worked when the people were unhappy with the fools running the country and sent them packing and our system is about to push out a crappy law.Bill C-68 would have been gone last year had the Mps been allowed to vote as per their constituents wishes instead of a whipped party vote. This party is now hanging on by a thread. I think it works just fine.

Okotokian
"Quebec's "influence" in Parliament should be exactly what it's population warrants... no more, no less."

Exactly as it should be for all in this country.

Living in a democracy I may not like everything that the majority vote for but its my right to speak up and rally others to my cause and if theres enough we will be heard and possibly effect some change.

Its not perfect but its the best we have. Representation by population is the next step to make it better for everyone. No one deserves more of a voice because they are afraid of what the rest of the country may choose.


MAC

[pesky672]

.

Representation by area? so the 3 people in a square mile of Northern Alberta get the sme say as the 10,000 people in a square mile of downtown Toronto on all national issues? And if by area you mean province, I'm sorry, I'm NOT prepared to have voters in PEI or NFLD have as much power as all the voters in Alberta. It cuts both ways.


The current situation is VERY fair to rural voters and those in the north and east coast, given their actual numbers versus the power they hold by number of MP's. You need to research a bit more about riding sizes, etc.



o a federal government tnhat gives 170 seats to central Canada and 117 to the other 8 provinces and 3 territories combined is representing us all equally...You have it exactly backwards and wrong. Because you live in Edmonton your vote counts LESS than a farmer. Urban ridings have MORE people in them (hence less representation per person). My exact numbers are wrong but for illustrative purposes it means that 500,000 city dwellers get 10 MLA's and 500,000 rural folks get 15 MLA's.

A federal government should represent ALL Canadians equally. It has to be based (at least the Commons) on population. If you want to mix in more regional representation in the Senate, fine. Ideally, if you think different areas have different and distinct needs, the teh thing to do is shift more power and authority to the Provinces. I'd be in favour of some of that.

So a federal government that gives 170 seats to Ontario and Quebec ...and 117 to the other 8 provinces and 3 territories is representing all Canadians equally?

Well the next time they decide to send your tax dollars to Ontario and Quebec to bolster their economies even though there are other regions that deserve the same consideration.
The next time you are in Ontario and paying the same or less for fuel than you would here...or less for Alberta beef... and bread... and just about everything else to be honest.... than you would here... forget that your transfer payments make that possible.

The next time we cave to demands from our friends in la Belle Province... or spend another 100 million in ads and bribes to convince them to say no to separation... The next time you lose your job in the softwood lumber industry because free trade works out pretty good for Southern Ontario... but not you... remind yourself that the current system works and is a well balanced federal decision making body that respects the needs and wants of all Canadians.... and... don't complain... because the 170 are more united in their thinking because of regional sameness than the 117 can ever be and they will no doubt kill anything that doesn't serve their interests above all others.

No wonder they all seem to think we're a bunch of redneck bumpkins...

[Don K]

x2 scott

These guys, work only 4 months out of the year as it is ...

That's all we need more MP salaries and expense accounts to support. At what point does gov't get to BIG to be supported with out more tax increases.

Unbelievable, look at ON, BC, and the other provinces that just hoisted 8% plus worth of tax increases on their populations !

TBD

.... glad i'm in AB
X2

[Okotokian]

So a federal government that gives 170 seats to Ontario and Quebec ...and 117 to the other 8 provinces and 3 territories is representing all Canadians equally?


Yup. PROVINCES are not represented equally, PEOPLE are.The House of Commons represents citizens, not provinces. What you are proposing is that the 3 million people in Nunavut, NWT, Yukon, PEI, NFLD, NS and New Brunswick should be able to dictate to the other 30 million people in the country, because, after all, they are 7 out of 13 provinces/territories. Makes no sense at all.

In a democracy the majority rules. The majority of people in this country happen to live in Ontario and Quebec. It's just a fact. You'll have to get over it. Now if the regions and provinces have distinct needs then give power over those areas to the Provinces. I have no problem with that, but don't propose a national government system that would have the minority of people dictate to the majority just because they happen to live in sparsely populated provinces.