# Liberals look to shorten MP's workweek to 4 days



## SupersonicMax (27 Feb 2016)

So, the Libs are looking to make the parliament more family friendly by cutting the work week to 4 days.  Really?!

 http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/mps-family-friendly-1.3464459


----------



## RedcapCrusader (27 Feb 2016)

I hope they'll do the same for everyone else that has a family.... Oh wait.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2016)

When I see video of Members of Parliament addressing a nearly empty House, I have to ask, where are all the other Members?  If they can not attend the House for five days a week, where are they and why do they have the NERVE to ask to work only four days?  For the amount of time that they are absent from the floor of the House, they should be "FINED".  It is ridiculous for this initiative of a four day work week in the House to be even brought up.  The amount of absentees is disgraceful and we the tax payers are paying for them.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Feb 2016)

There's roughly 830 people in Kuwait/Iraq, and another Coy(+) in Ukraine that would love to work 4 day weeks, and not miss family events. Very few of them are also making $150K a year.


----------



## Loachman (27 Feb 2016)

On the positive side, if it means that they do one-fifth less "work", then that's a benefit to this Country that I'll gladly support.

Heck, take seven days off a week, every week, MPs. The Country will run a lot better.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Feb 2016)

I am actually ok with this.

It (hopefully) gets MPs out of the Ottawa bubble more often and back in their ridings, speaking to real folks.

Plus, most of what happens in the HoC is an unmitigated waste of time.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Feb 2016)




----------



## cavalryman (27 Feb 2016)

Parliament should sit a few weeks a year... just enough to pass a budget, pass some major legislation that the country actually needs and to have the government account for itself for the time between parliamentary sessions.  Full time politicians is why we end up with an entitled political class that does nothing but mire the economy in utter sewage (see Ontario, Alberta et al).  Let them earn a living outside Parliament and a stipend for the work they do as MPs.  We might get a better political class.

He who governs least, governs best.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Feb 2016)

It is easy to take shots at MPs, especially about their workload and the CPAC broadcasts of a nearly empty house do not help. However, most of a MP's work is not in the house, playing a trained seal. If your MP is any good, and mine is, he or she is busy researching issues, working on committees and, most important, sorting out constituents' issues with the bureaucracy. On the weekends much of the time is attending everything from the opening of an envelope on up. 

The average MP works a heck of a lot more than the standard 37.5 hour week, and is always on call. Still, politicians are not conscripted. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody would go into a line of work with few rewards and a permanent posting to the butt party of the political grenade range. My grandfather was the reeve of a Southern Ontario rural township (with a term as the county warden) with perks like ensuring the snow ploughs always did our road last. If not, there were lots of people to complain loud and long about how poorly they were treated compared to him, who was getting preferential treatment. I'm sure the other people who lived on our road appreciated being snowed in just as much as we did.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am actually ok with this.
> 
> It (hopefully) gets MPs out of the Ottawa bubble more often and back in their ridings, speaking to real folks.
> 
> Plus, most of what happens in the HoC is an unmitigated waste of time.



Do they not have enough BREAKS in Parliament to do just that?

It is not like they are sitting for 365 days of the year in Ottawa, doing their week day time on the Hill.


----------



## ballz (28 Feb 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Parliament should sit a few weeks a year... just enough to pass a budget, pass some major legislation that the country actually needs and to have the government account for itself for the time between parliamentary sessions.  Full time politicians is why we end up with an entitled political class that does nothing but mire the economy in utter sewage (see Ontario, Alberta et al).  Let them earn a living outside Parliament and a stipend for the work they do as MPs.  We might get a better political class.
> 
> He who governs least, governs best.



Works for Switzerland and that is exactly the reason that their legislators are part-time. When your day job is a real job, it keeps you honest, grounded, and connected to the real world.


----------



## Altair (28 Feb 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Works for Switzerland and that is exactly the reason that their legislators are part-time. When your day job is a real job, it keeps you honest, grounded, and connected to the real world.


That would be nice.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Feb 2016)

ballz said:
			
		

> Works for Switzerland and that is exactly the reason that their legislators are part-time. When your day job is a real job, it keeps you honest, grounded, and connected to the real world.



I had no idea. Interesting.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> On the positive side, if it means that they do one-fifth less "work", then that's a benefit to this Country that I'll gladly support.
> 
> Heck, take seven days off a week, every week, MPs. The Country will run a lot better.



He thinks the budget will balance itself. Why wouldn't he think the House will run itself? Oh wait, the House has a referee Speaker.


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's roughly 830 people in Kuwait/Iraq, and another Coy(+) in Ukraine that would love to work 4 day weeks, and not miss family events. Very few of them are also making $150K a year.



You forgot the HMCS Fredericton and her 300 +/- pers.


----------



## Altair (28 Feb 2016)

I pray the CPC gets better attack ads for the 2019 election if I'm stuck hearing for months, maybe years, after the election.

Lame and ineffective as they were.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2016)

Old Sweat, Sea King TACCO and cavalryman are right: Most MPs work very hard _*for*_ their constituents; less time "sitting" means the MP can be more effective; reducing the parliamentary "season" (maybe two or three short "seasons") would be worth, at least, a try ~ Switzerland and Texas do it. It would make life a bit harder for the civil service but they (except for the senior ranks (DMs and ADMs) are well enough paid to manage.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 Feb 2016)

Just to be sure, they are talking about shortening their work week so they can spend more time with their families, not working for their constituents...


----------



## observor 69 (28 Feb 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> reducing the parliamentary "season" (maybe two or three short "seasons") would be worth, at least, a try ~ Switzerland and Texas do it.



Spent a few years living in Texas. Using Texas as a model for Canada of any political inspiration makes my hair stand on end.

Can we not agree that being a MP is very stressful on families and modern means of communication makes PM Trudeau's idea more feasible.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Feb 2016)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Can we not agree that being a MP is very stressful on families and modern means of communication makes PM Trudeau's idea more feasible.



So are hundreds of other jobs, and none of them are able to change the rules whenever they want to get more time off, and still make the same money. The fact that we have so many modern means of communication makes it exactly the reason why this is a stupid idea in the first place.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 Feb 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Just to be sure, they are talking about shortening their work week so they can spend more time with their families, not working for their constituents...



I guess some people didn't bother to read the article.  I did and am still waiting for "you've GOT to be &(@*#@#@ kidding me!" blood pressure to return to safe numbers.

 :facepalm:


MPs looking for work-family balance may say goodbye to Friday sittings

Commons committee looking into more family-friendly work structure

A House of Commons committee is exploring the idea of making Parliament a more family-friendly workplace. MPs are looking at everything from voting over Skype, to breastfeeding in the House of Commons, to ending Friday sittings in Parliament altogether.

NDP Member of Parliament Guy Caron does everything he can to spend time with his family. He limits late-night meetings and early morning events, and his wife and two children live with him in the Ottawa area. 

But still, Caron says he's missed out on some important events. 

"I missed his first day in kindergarten," said Caron of his son, Dominic. "My daughter, who was born after the election — I missed her first steps."  

Lately it's been hard, he said. His daughter, Edith, 4, keeps asking: "Do you have to work today?"

"It's heart-wrenching, heartbreaking, of course, because I would like to spend time with them," said Caron.

For MP Navdeep Bains, the toughest part of his job is balancing work and family.

When the minister of innovation, science and economy goes home to his riding in Mississauga, Ont., he schedules an entire day with his two daughters — no interruptions allowed.

"We might go for breakfast together, might watch a movie together, but I don't bring work," said Bains.

Health Minister Jane Philpott only sees her husband and children on weekends when she travels home to her riding, Markham-Stouffville. She relies on the phone.

"I talk to my husband and my kids pretty much every day and make sure that they are a top priority," said Philpott

*When Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan is overseas, he turns to technology to keep in touch with his children.

"I have troops spread out all over the world that are away from their families and so my heart also goes out to them," said Sajjan. "At least I can get out to see them more often than they can."
*
Making Parliament family-friendly 

Environment Minister and Ottawa Centre MP Catherine McKenna was the most high-profile minister to talk openly about putting her family first when she took office in October. For 2½ hours a day, six days a week, she turns off her phone and spends time with her kids.

The House committee's move to make Parliament more family-friendly is one that Liberal House leader Dominic LeBlanc said has broad support.

"We haven't changed some of these rules for decades," said LeBlanc. "All parties say they want to encourage parents of young children to consider running for the House of Commons." 

*Spouses and families suffer* 

]There are few jobs with longer hours and greater stress than that of a Member of Parliament, according to a new study by Canada's Library of Parliament.  

The report was prepared for the House of Commons standing committee on procedure and House affairs. It states that  the roles of MPs on Parliament Hill and in their constituencies compete for their time.

"MPs face high expectations on the part of the public to be constantly working on [their] behalf, and as such, MPs also deal with increasing public scrutiny. Such circumstances can have adverse effects on an MP's work-life balance, especially those with spouses and families."

Ending Friday sittings

All political parties have been asked to consider ending Friday sittings at Parliament and moving the workload to earlier in the week. It would make it easier for MPs to fly home to their constituencies on weekends. 

Some Parliamentarians travel several time zones to see their families on Friday nights, then race back to the capital to work Monday morning. Committee chair Larry Bagnell flies more than 20 hours every weekend to be with his family in Yukon. But he said getting rid of Friday sittings could affect legislation. 

"If you compress the work week you need to somehow figure out how to get those 4.5 hours in. If you add them to other days, you still have another problem, that technically you need so many sittings in the standing order for so many things," said Bagnell.

2nd debating chamber

MPs are now turning to other Commonwealth countries for inspiration. The United Kingdom only sits one third of its Fridays. In Australia, they don't have to sit on Fridays at all, according to the study. To move business along, both countries opened a second debating chamber.

Voting cannot take place, but motions can be passed. It allows second reading and consideration of details of bills, committee or delegation business to move through.

"If it can lead to an improvement in the structure of Parliament, then it's something we may want to take a look at," said NDP MP David Christopherson.

With Centre Block closing for renovations soon and a new House of Commons opening in West Block, there's talk of keeping both open after construction is done.

'Be wary' of 4-day week, Raitt says

Conservative MP Lisa Raitt has said in the past that it would have been nice to have Fridays off, especially when her two sons were younger. But Raitt said she heard loud and clear from constituents and talk radio shows that a four-day work week was unacceptable.

"Canadians just don't like it," said Raitt. "I heard very clearly that they didn't feel that the job is that onerous, that we should be in Ottawa doing our work — that the expectation was that we fulfil all the hours of duty that we said we were going to do."

Raitt is encouraging MPs to be wary of supporting a four-day work week.

"Be very careful what you're going to be changing on them. I heard it loud and clear …we are servants of the public, we're not above them," said Raitt. 



Fuckin' right I expect MPs who are paid the money they are, with their expense accounts and all the other crap in tow, to work a 5 or more day work week.

Don't like the hours?  RESIGN.  That is about my only choice if I don't like my work hours, why should they be so fuckin' special?

Missing family events eh?  Of the last 6 months, there has been only one of them I have not been away from Canada.  ONE.  So to all the whiny 'whoa is me' politicians out there... :violin:

I have no sympathy for them.  They are becoming to 'special' in their own minds.  If they don't sit Friday, I am sure the majority of them won't spend that extra day doing actual work.  Sorry, I'm not a kid and I've watched politics and politicians for over 3 decades.

In other news regarding our wonderful political system...

MPs give themselves and House officers a $25M boost to office budgets

Liberal fiscal plans less transparent than under Harper, Kevin Page says

 :


----------



## Halifax Tar (28 Feb 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Just to be sure, they are talking about shortening their work week so they can spend more time with their families, not working for their constituents...



:goodpost:

That is the point people are missing... 

When Ottawa Centre MP Catherine McKenna openly talks about putting her family first, I take that as a slap in the face to every man and woman who has served in the CAF.  They chose to enter politics no more or less than we chose to be in uniform.  Their devotion to this country should be on par with any member of CAF, family sacrifices be damned. 

Sometimes I think the book Starship Troopers actually has come validity.


----------



## blacktriangle (28 Feb 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Old Sweat, Sea King TACCO and cavalryman are right: Most MPs work very hard _*for*_ their constituents; less time "sitting" means the MP can be more effective; reducing the parliamentary "season" (maybe two or three short "seasons") would be worth, at least, a try ~ Switzerland and Texas do it. It would make life a bit harder for the civil service but they (except for the senior ranks (DMs and ADMs) are well enough paid to manage.



I highly respect your opinion, but in this case I feel the optics are poor. MPs and Mandarins alike chose their path in life. It is not by chance that they have come to occupy their lofty positions. Both are compensated with pay and benefits that exceed those enjoyed by all but the wealthiest members of society. I have no doubt that many work very hard. However, if they don't feel properly compensated for their roles, they should use their impressive resumes and connections to seek higher pay in the private sector. Likewise, for those that need to spend more time with family, perhaps they should step aside and give others a chance to serve the public.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Feb 2016)

"Committee chair Larry Bagnell flies more than 20 hours *every* weekend to be with his family in Yukon."

I wonder if he pays for that himself or is that a perk of the job?


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> NDP Member of Parliament Guy Caron does everything he can to spend time with his family. He limits late-night meetings and early morning events, and his wife and two children live with him in the Ottawa area.
> 
> But still, Caron says he's missed out on some important events.


    :'(   Boo-fucking-hoo, muffin.

Ya, I've missed family events too -- lots.  But now we're divorced; not because of any fighting or anything, but because "she didn't sign up to be a single mom."  We're still friends and she got remarried to a civie.  It never occurred to me to tell the CO or RSM, "no thanks, I'll pass on that tasking/deployment/Ex.... I've got some quality family time I'd rather be doing."    


Sorry MPs, if you don't like the conditions of employment, don't sign up.  

Don't stick your snout in the trough then decide you _deserve_  a shorter work week than those who voted you into office.   !!


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Feb 2016)

This is the party, remember, that along with the NDP complained that there isn't enough time spent on debate in Parliament.  Unless they, too, plan to conduct most of their business in omnibus bills, they are going to need a lot of legislative floor time.


----------



## my72jeep (28 Feb 2016)

Boo hoo Until MPs start doing 6+ month tours away from loved ones, they can nut up and show up like the rest of us. I'm so sick of hearing how hard Government works for me. He'll every time they tell me what they've done to make my life better I get a higher tax bill.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Feb 2016)

Or they can do a 8 month tour and have their boss send them home the day before they would be entitled to more leave to save money, which happens all the time to troops deployed.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2016)

Don't get me wrong, I _do_  understand that individual Members put in hours of work away from the Commons floor on behalf of their constituents.

I just see this as typical "natural governing Party" BS, getting back to the cash cow that they "deserve."  Absolutely no conscience throwing this out there at the same time as their forecast budget deficit -- spending money 'like a drunken sailor on shore leave'.... at least the sailor earned it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Feb 2016)

JM,

I must correct you. If you would have read the recently released RCN code of conduct, you would know that sailors are no longer permitted to be drunken on shore leave.

That is all...


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> JM,
> 
> I must correct you. If you would have read the recently released RCN code of conduct, you would know that sailors are no longer permitted to be drunken on shore leave.
> 
> That is all...



 I stand corrected.     :bowdown:

To be fair, I have enough difficulty keeping up with Army regulations, what with all the new badges and staff officer positions.... and you know, critical stuff.   :nod:


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Feb 2016)

I do wonder if it is more than a coincidence that the move to less time in Ottawa for MPs come at the same time as the closing of Hy's Steak House?  >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2016)

Well, it didn't take long for the fat to rise to the top of the stock. :


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Feb 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I do wonder if it is more than a coincidence that the move to less time in Ottawa for MPs come at the same time as the closing of Hy's Steak House?  >



   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Unless they, too, plan to conduct most of their business in omnibus bills, they are going to need a lot of legislative floor time.


Count on it.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Feb 2016)

If they shorten the work week, while increasing the number of weeks that they sit in total, I'm definitely in favour of it.  That's basically how my work week works.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> ..... increasing the number of weeks that they sit in total....


Are you the betting sort?   op:


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Feb 2016)

I read the article, I'm just not dismayed when people who _can_ change their work system to make it better for themselves choose to do so.

In the particular case of parliamentary politics and procedures I believe that efficiencies and economies are very possible ... I would, just for example, like to see prime minister's questions only once a week and questions for ministers tabled in advance (just by subject, not in detail) to facilitate having the right minister present and to elicit more useful responses. The purpose of Question Period may not be to provide answers, I accept that, but it certainly isn't there to provide televised _*zingers*_ and 10 second '"sound bites," either.

My interest in having shorter parliamentary "seasons" is to encourage more productive work. I think two eight weeks sessions: a fall sitting (Early September through to mid November) and a spring sitting (mid April to mid June) ought to be more than enough time to consider, in committee, several bills, mainly the budget and legislation arising from the Throne Speech, and pass them. Committees ought to be able to meet, as they wish, in or out of session, but I think that members would be encouraged to be more efficient and productive if they could be away from Ottawa (and the whips) more.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ..... I think that members would be encouraged to be more efficient and productive if they could be away from Ottawa (and the whips) more.


But the point was not to encourage efficiency, productivity, or even additional time with their constituents; the Liberals were quite clear that this is so that the MPs can spend more time with their families.  I personally don't believe that MPs families are that much more precious than the families of people obligated to work more than 4-day weeks (ie - pretty much everyone else).

Now if the response is negative (negative enough that they're obligated to care), I suspect that they would respond by legislating some form of 3-day weekends for _everyone_.  If nothing else, this would show that they have no concept of how tenuous profit margins are in many (most?) Canadian businesses, and the knock-on costs to these businesses of addressing such mandated change.


----------



## brihard (28 Feb 2016)

OK, let's stop pretending for an instant that a Parliamentarian 'work week corresponds with just the days of the week in which they're sitting in Parliament. Realistically their work week is seven days a week, and guaranteed their hours suck.

I'm as quick to slag politicans as anyone, but stepping back and looking at it objectively, you're talking about people who have very important and immediate responsibilities in two distinctly different locations, often very far from each other, much of which necessitates physical travel. And quality of life DOES matter- if we ant to be concerned about it, so can they. Comparing this to our deployments overseas is disingenuous unless we also compare it with the greater bulk of the time where members are at home, working a pretty relaxed Monday to Friday, and typically having no work expectations upon them on the weekend, with pretty good leave entitlements to boot.

As long as the work that needs to get done gets done I have no problem with them looking to adust the scheduling thereof. Society shift, and we're seeing more focus across the board on people fighting for better quality of life and access to family time. A lot of employers offer 'compressed work week' schedules where you work your fourty hours Mon-Turs in ten hour days instead of Mon-Fri. But at least when they go home, work isnt demanding more of them.

I will stick to looking at whether this is objectively reasonable, and that in turn wil depend on what the specifics look like if this ends up going anywhere. But I'm certainly not nor will I ever be concerned that our MPs aren't putting the hours in.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But the point was not to encourage efficiency, productivity, or even additional time with their constituents; the Liberals were quite clear that this is so that the MPs can spend more time with their families.


Now that presumes they're _not_ working or spending time with their constituents when they're in the constituency with their families, no?

I agree with those wondering how much legislative work will be done with a shorter "time in the House" week, especially in light of the ambitious agenda ahead of "new management."  But an MP's "workplace" is as much the constituency, where they're supposed to keep in touch with their constituents, as the Hill.  And as much as I whine about politicians, I, too, wouldn't want to trade places with them, at ANY level of government.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Feb 2016)

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.


----------



## jmt18325 (28 Feb 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Are you the betting sort?   op:



I wouldn't be surprised by an extra week or two.  Like a few people so far have said though, their job doesn't begin or end in Ottawa.  That's just part of who they are as MPs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Feb 2016)

I have a fair bit of sympathy for the rural MP’s and the ones from the North, coming to Parliament and back to deal with their constituents concerns is hard on them, I noted the faded look my MP took on after 1 term. The house is mostly theatre and the real work is grindingly boring committee meetings that go on and on. (for the army folks imagine a never ending O group). One wonders if there is another way using electronic sittings part of the time or allowing x – number of electronic votes per session.


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Feb 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.



Pardon? I work at a college, not very dangerous except for the slender students with knee high boots and leggings.

I would like to see Parliament sit less for voting, question period etc. Questions should be intelligent questions, attacks are for the lobby gallery and not for CPAC. I would like to see the return of the MP educational sessions of the St. Laurent era, with the public having access to the very same materials, in real time, that the MP's have. I really do not care how many hours per week an MP works, as long as they are effective and have the best interests of their constituency and the country in mind. I also do not believe a person should be able to sit more than 3 terms as an MP, 2 terms as a PM.  The qualifications to run as an MP should include an aptitude test and a performance measurement that allows for recall by petition.

As for the comment about MP's keeping their 'real world' employment while sitting- no. I do not want Michael O'Leary to keep his day job and sit as an MP or perhaps lead a political party. In any event, Justin Trudeau never worked in the real world, so how would that even work out?

About Hy's- if it's closed, good. Too many fat lobbyists and journalists in Ottawa. I hope they put a Movati there, and all "off the record" discussions and leaks can occur on the treadmill, "run with this....."


----------



## Remius (29 Feb 2016)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> About Hy's- if it's closed, good.



Small businesses closing is never good.


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Feb 2016)

Yeah true, but I meant that in a more anti-establishment way. I think I am turning into an "occupy democracy" kind of guy.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Feb 2016)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ... Questions should be intelligent questions, attacks are for the lobby gallery and not for CPAC ...


And answers, really answers?


			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ... The qualifications to run as an MP should include an aptitude test and a performance measurement that allows for recall by petition ...


Like, maybe, the citizenship test as a start?


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Feb 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And answers, really answers?Like, maybe, the citizenship test as a start?



Advanced level thinking- economic realism, healthy human behaviours, responsibility to secure and defend, critical thinking and analysis, real Canadian history, actuarial accounting, law, ethics, most of the everyday principles of social science. You know, mature stuff, and all without an advisor to write the test for them.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Feb 2016)

I oppose such tests only because Gov'ts would game the system to their own advantage.  Do not want politicians to decide who can be a politician.


----------



## Journeyman (29 Feb 2016)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Advanced level thinking- economic realism, healthy human behaviours, responsibility to secure and defend, critical thinking and analysis, real Canadian history, actuarial accounting, law, ethics, most of the everyday principles of social science. You know, mature stuff, and all without an advisor to write the test for them.


Getting agreement on the DS solution to that would be an adventure in itself, given how modern academe 'defines' most of those topics today

....with 'define' in quotes, because even describing the parameters of such issues is likely oppressive and offensive.   :nod:


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Feb 2016)

Game it. It's just a thought experiment anyway. As if pragmatism would ever have a chance...


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I oppose such tests only because Gov'ts would game the system to their own advantage.  Do not want politicians to decide who can be a politician.



Would require, likely, a Constitutional and Charter effort (how dare they demand that an MP have some critical skills!!!! :threat, and even then oversight by a non-aligned third party. 

All of my students seem to oppose tests for one reason or another. In a past career, all of my employees seem to oppose PER's. Never saw anybody turn down a degree, promotion or a bonus for making the effort.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Feb 2016)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Advanced level thinking- economic realism, healthy human behaviours, responsibility to secure and defend, critical thinking and analysis, real Canadian history, actuarial accounting, law, ethics, most of the everyday principles of social science.


I know several people I'd prefer as an MP representing my interests than a lot of folks who may be able to BS their way through this stuff.


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Feb 2016)

At least they would be BS'ing through something....right now, one gets nominated, meets very low criteria, raises some cash and they are off to the races. You can't tell me that it's working well for us .....


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Feb 2016)

If we elect incompentent MPs, we only have one group of people to blame: Canadian Citizen.  In a democracy, election is the ultimate test in one's ability to represent his people.


----------



## McG (29 Feb 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If we elect incompentent MPs, we only have one group of people to blame: Canadian Citizen.


Does the Canadian citizen need a "reject all" option on the ballot before we lay blame there?


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Feb 2016)

Vote, but spoil your ballot.  This is in effect rejecting the candidates you are offered.


----------



## McG (29 Feb 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Vote, but spoil your ballot.  This is in effect rejecting the candidates you are offered.


Spoiled ballots are not a rejection.  There is no differentiation between ballots spoiled in protest or ballots spoiled because the operator lacked the faculties to complete it properly.  No amount of spoiled ballots will prevent the plurality winner of accepted ballots from being elected.  So, you want to blame voters if incompetent MPs are elected.  I ask again, can you do that if voters don't have a mechanism to reject all when the choices are dumb and dumber?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Feb 2016)

Guy Fawkes  rancing:


----------

