jdobbin Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) The Tories tried this before. They wanted new seats in Alberta and B.C. while leaving Ontario to take it on the chin. Even the Edmonton Journal said Bill 22 deserved to die based on this self-serving change and called Peter Van Loan graceless for calling Ontario's premier the small man of Confederation for rejecting the bill. Now the new changes will gives seats to the growing three provinces while at the same time putting Quebec in the same box where they have more population than average by a long shot represented in their 75 ridings. Yeesh. I suppose the Tories feel they can lose all the seats in Quebec by gaining them in the west but it seems a risky proposition to not try and be a little better balanced in redistribution. This gerrymandering is gameplaying that the Tories might find bites them if leads to an election based on the old seat distribution. Edited September 30, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) The Tories tried this before. They wanted new seats in Alberta and B.C. while leaving Ontario to take it on the chin. Even the Edmonton Journal said Bill 22 deserved to die based on this self-serving change and called Peter Van Loan graceless for calling Ontario's premier the small man of Confederation for rejecting the bill.Now the new changes will gives seats to the growing three provinces while at the same time putting Quebec in the same box where they have more population than average by a long shot represented in their 75 ridings. Yeesh. I suppose the Tories feel they can lose all the seats in Quebec by gaining them in the west but it seems a risky proposition to not try and be a little better balanced in redistribution. This gerrymandering is gameplaying that the Tories might find bites them if leads to an election based on the old seat distribution. Actually if you look at the chart on this article I think we can agree maybe Quebec should get a few more seats but they aren't as bad as the other three provinces. The Chart is at the bottom of the page. In fact becuase Quebecs population growth is much slower then other provinces even with the redistribution bringing the numbers down in 10 years they will have the same representation. Makes sense to me. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1300709/ http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labr...tscan-2009.html Infact Quebec wont grow much Larger then it is now and then it will shrink to have a smaller population according too Institut de la statistique du Québec which makes it much harder to argue that they should get more seats when the other three will easily catch their number soon. This is forward thinking something the Liberals have trouble with. http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/salle-presse/co...fev0402a_an.htm Edited September 30, 2009 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Quebec doesn't need to have more seats. It meets the ratios fine. Some provinces are simply over represented because they have minimums guaranteed in the Constitution. This will help to fix things I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Quebec doesn't need to have more seats. It meets the ratios fine. Some provinces are simply over represented because they have minimums guaranteed in the Constitution. This will help to fix things I think. It does? They will have the highest ratios in Canada for quite some time under the Tory changes. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Harper+swap...5982/story.html But how then, to explain why Quebec--its seat total frozen at 75 --would now be the odd man out in the nation, as its proposed ratio would become the most disproportionate in the land, with 96,500 Canadians per riding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 It does? They will have the highest ratios in Canada for quite some time under the Tory changes.http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Harper+swap...5982/story.html Maybe you should read what I post dobbin about how in 10 years it wont so becuase Quebec growth has leveled off while Ont and the west keep growing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Quebec has just had one of the fastest quarters of growth since 1991 according to Statscan today. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-b...article1305226/ Quebec's population rose 0.31 per cent, the biggest second-quarter gain since 1991 amid higher birth rates and more immigrant arrivals. Ontario's continues to face pressure although they continue to have immigration growth like all the provinces did. The whole idea that we are going to see Quebec wither and die overlooks this immigration which is the highest since 1972. If any provinces should lose seats it is Manitoba and PEI despite great population growth in the last while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Quebec has just had one of the fastest quarters of growth since 1991 according to Statscan today.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-b...article1305226/ Ontario's continues to face pressure although they continue to have immigration growth like all the provinces did. The whole idea that we are going to see Quebec wither and die overlooks this immigration which is the highest since 1972. If any provinces should lose seats it is Manitoba and PEI despite great population growth in the last while. No one needs to lose seats. Like it or not someone has to have the highest proportion of seats. Right now the three provinces the might get some have more then 100,000 people per seat the bill will bring that down to 89-91000 people per seat. Quebec has 96,000 but isn't growing as fast per person as the other three. Alberta has the largest growth rate in the country at .8 BC's isn't far behind, and Ontario has a growth rate close to Quebec but has double the population so will grow much faster. It is simple math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddSox Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Is there not a condition where Quebec gets a minimum of 75 seats or 25% of the total - whichever is greater? Future population trends can have some huge implications in seat distribution... These changes may benefit one party or another right now, but despite everyone's best efforts - nobody can predict what will happen in 10 years or twenty years. There are so many variables involved (population growth, rural vs urban vs suburban, constitutional rules, etc. that it's almost as hopeless as trying to predict climate change! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) Is there not a condition where Quebec gets a minimum of 75 seats or 25% of the total - whichever is greater? Future population trends can have some huge implications in seat distribution... It is going to be a tough sell in Quebec with 6000 people per riding over the average of some the provinces getting new seats. I can't imagine how it will get approved in a vote if even the Edmonton Journal notices the ratio difference being out of whack. Edited September 30, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Quebec is guaranteed 75 seats just as Manitoba is guaranteed 14. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Quebec is guaranteed 75 seats just as Manitoba is guaranteed 14. I suppose Harper's people could call Charest the small man of Confederation and see how that flies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 And what has Charest said about it? I must have missed that. Ratios go up and down. That's simply the way it is. Not every province can have the same ratio, and a 6000 person difference is pretty small in the grand scheme of things considering that for a long time Quebec has had a better ratio than the three mentioned promises. Tempest in a tea pot I say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 It is going to be a tough sell in Quebec with 6000 people per riding over the average of some the provinces getting new seats.I can't imagine how it will get approved in a vote if even the Edmonton Journal notices the ratio difference being out of whack. I agree they would have to give the NDP something real juicy to have this one go through. Do provinces also have to approve this only the house? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 And what has Charest said about it? I must have missed that. Ratios go up and down. That's simply the way it is. Not every province can have the same ratio, and a 6000 person difference is pretty small in the grand scheme of things considering that for a long time Quebec has had a better ratio than the three mentioned promises. Tempest in a tea pot I say. Actually 6000 is a pretty big ratio. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddSox Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 The point I am thinking of is not that Quebec gets 75 seats, but that they are guaranteed a minimum of 25%. I believe they currently have over 25% of the seats with less than 25% of the population, and will still do so even with the new proposed seats. My understanding is that there are minimum numbers for other provinces, but not minimum percentage clauses? But if the western provinces continue to grow at rates outstripping eastern Canada, there will eventually come a time when Quebec has 25% of the seats, with 20% or less of the population. All subject to change, of course. Is that right, or am I misunderstanding the issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Actually 6000 is a pretty big ratio.It is also meaningless given the time lag between census and implementation of riding changes. Any idea how much this difference is projected to be in 2015? The other point to remember is the 75 seat minimum is really the source of the problem because it makes it impossible to have a 'perfect' redistribution without huge increases in the total number of MPs so somebody has to 'loose out' if one is going to quibble about margins of 6000 votes/riding. Do you really believe that Ontario should always be asked to be the one on the losing end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 The point I am thinking of is not that Quebec gets 75 seats, but that they are guaranteed a minimum of 25%. I believe they currently have over 25% of the seats with less than 25% of the population, and will still do so even with the new proposed seats. My understanding is that there are minimum numbers for other provinces, but not minimum percentage clauses? They have 24.4% of the seats and have 23.4% of the population. The new distribution will push the percentage of seats down. But if the western provinces continue to grow at rates outstripping eastern Canada, there will eventually come a time when Quebec has 25% of the seats, with 20% or less of the population. All subject to change, of course.Is that right, or am I misunderstanding the issue? Given the Statscan report today on population growth, the 24 to 25% of the population is likely to continue for some time. Immigration numbers are taking off. Even with those numbers growing Manitoba and Saskatchewan have an embarrassment of seats compared to other regions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) It is also meaningless given the time lag between census and implementation of riding changes. Any idea how much this difference is projected to be in 2015? All I've said is that this is going to be a tough sell in Quebec given the ratio at the time it does go through. You disagree? The other point to remember is the 75 seat minimum is really the source of the problem because it makes it impossible to have a 'perfect' redistribution without huge increases in the total number of MPs so somebody has to 'loose out' if one is going to quibble about margins of 6000 votes/riding. Do you really believe that Ontario should always be asked to be the one on the losing end? Expanding to 342 seats in the Commons would push Quebec to between 20 and 22% of the seats in the House. As I've said, it is Manitoba and Saskatchewan that have far too many seats given their population. Edited September 30, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) Actually 6000 is a pretty big ratio. Actually, it's quite small considering some of the differences that exist now and those that have in the past. I don't see how their ratio will be much worse than that of Ontario anyway. From the quick calculations I did, it shouldn't be. Edited September 30, 2009 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Actually, it's quite small considering some of the differences that exist now and those that have in the past. I don't see how their ratio will be worse than that of Ontario anyway. From the quick calculations I did, it shouldn't be. I've said Ontario has been treated unfairly. Quebec will slip to a percentage of seats below their population with 342 seats. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have 2.5% more seats than they have in population. Quebec will have 2 to 3% less under the new dynamic. You think this is going to get support in Quebec? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Manitoba and Saskatchewan have 2.5% more seats than they have in population. That's irrelevant since nothing can be done about it and you know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted September 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 (edited) That's irrelevant since nothing can be done about it and you know that. It is relevant if Quebecers get up in arms about how they may slip 2 or 3% of seats below their population when Manitoba and Saskatchewan have eight seats more than their populations warrants? Serously. Do you think Quebec is going to go with this? Edited September 30, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Actually, Manitoba and Saskatchewan together have about 6 more than the warrant, not 8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Serously. Do you think Quebec is going to go with this? Seriously, I don't really care. They have been represented with more seats than the others as a percentage, now they'll have less. Boo hoo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OddSox Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 Wow, a fifteen minute break and a dozen more posts! Oh well, I guess if democracy was easy, everybody would be doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.