Here's another policy that may or may not be left-wing, but how about if MPs -- all of whom have been elected to represent their constitutents in the HoC -- have to vote EVERY TIME?
Unless they're outside the country, or laying in the ICU with tubes down their nose or whatever.
But how on earth can any MP justify abstaining from a vote that they could reasonably attend? What do they think their job is, if not to represent?
I don't know if it's a left wing policy but maybe they could take up the cause of sitting more than 130 days a year. maybe they could increase it to at least 200 or maybe to 230.
The reason they don't is they also are supposed to work in their constituencies.
They can still do that in 200 or 230 days of work. They also have constituency offices with staffs that can do that work for them.
I also believe most Canadians believe that voting and being in the house is more important than being in their constituencies.
Is there a huge backlog of bills waiting to be voted on?
It seems to me that that -- bills that need to be voted on -- should decide how many days MPs spend in the HoC.
I don't know if it's a left wing policy but maybe they could take up the cause of sitting more than 130 days a year. maybe they could increase it to at least 200 or maybe to 230.
The reason they don't is they also are supposed to work in their constituencies.
They can still do that in 200 or 230 days of work. They also have constituency offices with staffs that can do that work for them.
I also believe most Canadians believe that voting and being in the house is more important than being in their constituencies.
If we consider 365 days a year - 104 for weekends - 10 for holidays = 251.
MPs attend a number of functions and being in their ridings a substantial amount of time is important. If the House sits 130 days that leaves only 121 for everything else including travel time and for some a one way trip is a day.
I am not saying you could not increase the sitting days slightly but I am not convinced that the number of available days is anywhere near enough to go to 230. Then we would not have time for one day plus travel a month in constituencies. I think there should be more opportunities locally for people to meet and talk to their MPs than this.
I am not saying you could not increase the sitting days slightly but I am not convinced that the number of available days is anywhere near enough to go to 230.
Let me ask again -- and not of you, because I think we basically agree here -- are there outstanding legislative bills waiting in line for a vote?
Or, if not, what shall MPs do in the HoC when there are no bills to be voted upon? Play some Tetris? Be glad they're not back in their riding having to listen to some cranky codger's complaint about potholes?
I expect MPs to work every day -- they're surely paid enough to -- but voting in the HoC is only part of that, and it seems a bit silly to me to mandate that they have to spend more days voting on things than there are things to be voted on.
If you make them stay the full 200 days or whatever in the House the constituents will whine about them not being in the riding.
