How are the Libs and NDP Selling out the West?

[TimG]

All the parties are sacrificing western interests in order to pander to quebec votes.

The big issues are the requirement for bilingual SCC justices and the redistribution of ridings. The Libs and NDP have both sold out the west in pursuit of Quebec votes.

Then you have the cap and trade. Iggy at least promised to keep the revenue in the province where it is collected but Jack plans on setting up NEP II to funnel money from Alberta to Quebec.

Are there other examples?

Edited April 25, 2011 by TimG

[Moonbox]

The whole country has been selling out to Quebec for the last 40 years.

[jbg]

All the parties are sacrificing western interests in order to pander to quebec votes.

Given Quebec's riding-richness and overrepresentation, not surprising. Also, not surprising given the polical correctness in pandering to unproductive, undemocratic elements.

[Evening Star]

Actually, Quebec is the province whose representation in the Commons is most proportional to its population:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population

(based on these figures: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100929/t100929b3-eng.htm )

I also don't agree that Quebec is unproductive per se, although I might agree that it can receive abundant and perhaps excessive federal subsidies and patronage. (Mulroney was probably the worst offender here btw.)

Edited April 25, 2011 by Evening Star

[nittanylionstorm07]

Given Quebec's riding-richness and overrepresentation, not surprising. Also, not surprising given the polical correctness in pandering to unproductive, undemocratic elements.

Avg population per riding from most underrepresented province to most overrepresented province:

Alberta 133,030

British Columbia 125,302

Ontario 124,225

Quebec 105,148

Manitoba 88,047

Nova Scotia 85,498

New Brunswick 75,127

Saskatchewan 74,409

Newfoundland and Labrador 72,985

Northwest Territories 43,429

Prince Edward Island 35,388

Yukon 34,246

Nunavut 32,900

To me, it doesn't seem like Quebec is your problem... although it's typical for Tories/Westerners to bash on Quebec if they breathe wrong.

[TimG]

The whole country has been selling out to Quebec for the last 40 years.

Yes - but the are ways of doing it that don't screw another part of the country - Unfortunately, that is not something which the Libs and NDP are keen to do.

[kimmy]

Actually, Quebec is the province whose representation in the Commons is most proportional to its population:

Since the number of seats in the House of Commons is determined by the constitutional requirement that Quebec have 75 MPs, that's not exactly surprising. It's by definition.

-k

[Evening Star]

I was just pointing out that Quebec is not over-represented in the Commons. (Ontario's number of seats, for example, is a little greater, proportionally, than its population.)

I was responding to this:

Given Quebec's riding-richness and overrepresentation, not surprising

Edited April 25, 2011 by Evening Star

[RNG]

Since the number of seats in the House of Commons is determined by the constitutional requirement that Quebec have 75 MPs, that's not exactly surprising. It's by definition.

-k

So we could split all non-Quebec ridings into 4 ridings and make the Bloc insignificant?

[kimmy]

I was just pointing out that Quebec is not over-represented in the Commons. (Ontario's number of seats, for example, is a little greater, proportionally, than its population.)

No, it's not. (see this table, which I think is more current than the list earlier in the thread.) Ontario, Alberta, and BC are all underrepresented and remain underrepresented even after the adjustment of a few years ago... which was, by the way, shrilly opposed by Quebec politicians as an attempt to "reduce Quebec's influence in the House". In fact all 3 provinces were owed more seats than they actually received, as the adjustment was toned down in order to mollify complaints from "certain quarters".

-k

[Bonam]

No, it's not. (see this table, which I think is more current than the list earlier in the thread.) Ontario, Alberta, and BC are all underrepresented and remain underrepresented even after the adjustment of a few years ago... which was, by the way, shrilly opposed by Quebec politicians as an attempt to "reduce Quebec's influence in the House". In fact all 3 provinces were owed more seats than they actually received, as the adjustment was toned down in order to mollify complaints from "certain quarters".

-k

It's also worth pointing out that Ontario, BC, Alberta, and Quebec together make up almost 90% of Canada's population. Of these populous provinces, Quebec has the least people per riding (is most represented on a per person basis), and Alberta is the least represented per person.

[WIP]

All the parties are sacrificing western interests in order to pander to quebec votes.

The big issues are the requirement for bilingual SCC justices and the redistribution of ridings. The Libs and NDP have both sold out the west in pursuit of Quebec votes.

A couple of comments have already shined the light of common sense on your complaint re: riding populations, but I'll add that inequality and unfairness in our parliamentary system is inevitable, since our Senate is patronage warehouse...currently occupied by Harper, instead of what it should be -- a governing body that represents regional interests, rather than the population distribution...which is what the House of Commons is supposed to be!

That's why I was a Reform Party supporter when Preston Manning first hit the scene -- I didn't agree with his concept of using provinces as the equivalent of states in the U.S. system, but something similar, to represent the regions equally could have freed the Commons to become a representative body where every vote is truly equal! Under the present system, whether you like it or not, the House has to protect smaller regions, especially those that are in economic decline and losing population.

But, as we are all aware, the media in central Canada -- including your rightwing media like the Toronto and Ottawa Sun papers and the National Post -- flat-out opposed any sort of triple-E Senate strategy and forced Manning and later Reform...Canadian Alliance leaders to drop what had been the reason for forming the Party in the first place.

Then you have the cap and trade. Iggy at least promised to keep the revenue in the province where it is collected but Jack plans on setting up NEP II to funnel money from Alberta to Quebec.

Are there other examples?

If this part is selling out the West, I'm pitching in to help the sale! How about if we start shutting down the tar sands projects, instead of expanding them? Right now, too many people are motivated by short term economic gain, instead of taking a forward-thinking approach promoting energy conservation and alternative renewable energy, instead of making this toxic, carbon-intensive bile that's so acidic, it even burns holes through most oil pipelines? I'll agree that the East should stop collecting dirty profits from this poison, so that Canada can once again take a leading role in reducing carbon emissions, and Northern Alberta doesn't turn into the world's largest toxic waste dump.

[Evening Star]

Actually, the figures in that table are less recent than in the one I linked. However, I read my own link hastily, it seems. You're right that ON, AB, and BC are underrepresented, especially ON.

No, it's not. (see this table, which I think is more current than the list earlier in the thread.) Ontario, Alberta, and BC are all underrepresented and remain underrepresented even after the adjustment of a few years ago... which was, by the way, shrilly opposed by Quebec politicians as an attempt to "reduce Quebec's influence in the House". In fact all 3 provinces were owed more seats than they actually received, as the adjustment was toned down in order to mollify complaints from "certain quarters".

-k

[kimmy]

I'm guilty of not doing my homework as well. The plan that would have added seats for the 3 underrepresented provinces was in fact scrapped altogether, not "toned down".

-k

[jbg]

Given Quebec's riding-richness and overrepresentation, not surprising. Also, not surprising given the polical correctness in pandering to unproductive, undemocratic elements.

Avg population per riding from most underrepresented province to most overrepresented province:

Alberta 133,030

British Columbia 125,302

Ontario 124,225

Quebec 105,148

Manitoba 88,047

Nova Scotia 85,498

New Brunswick 75,127

Saskatchewan 74,409

Newfoundland and Labrador 72,985

Northwest Territories 43,429

Prince Edward Island 35,388

Yukon 34,246

Nunavut 32,900

To me, it doesn't seem like Quebec is your problem... although it's typical for Tories/Westerners to bash on Quebec if they breathe wrong.

Points well taken. Perhaps I should have confined my remarks to "riding-richness" and not overrepresentation.

However, I am not a Tory or a Westerner. I am a member of the Democratic Party residing about 40 kms. from New York City.

[TimG]

I'm guilty of not doing my homework as well. The plan that would have added seats for the 3 underrepresented provinces was in fact scrapped altogether, not "toned down".

Scrapped because Quebec was whining and the Libs and NDP sold the west out.

[Evening Star]

Not just the West though. Ontario seems to suffer the most.

[TimG]

Not just the West though. Ontario seems to suffer the most.

True

[RNG]

Not just the West though. Ontario seems to suffer the most.

Hey, no good westerner would ever think that Ontario suffers in any way.

[Smallc]

The whole country has been selling out to Quebec for the last 40 years.

Thats such a line that everyone uses, but what is it based on? Quebec doesn't get anything that they aren't constitutionally entitled to. What have they got in the last 20 years that other provinces haven't?

Edited April 25, 2011 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Since the number of seats in the House of Commons is determined by the constitutional requirement that Quebec have 75 MPs, that's not exactly surprising. It's by definition.

-k

No. There are guaranteed numbers for all provinces.

[Smallc]

I'm guilty of not doing my homework as well. The plan that would have added seats for the 3 underrepresented provinces was in fact scrapped altogether, not "toned down".

The automatically will get more seats. The bill was meant to increase what they will get, AFAIK.

[bloodyminded]

Thats such a line that everyone uses, but what is it based on? Quebec doesn't get anything that they aren't constitutionally entitled to.

I agree. And like, I suspect, most Canadians, I too have certain issues with Quebec...focused around the separatist issue only, as Quebec is a fantastic place. Overall, it's being disproportionally demonized.

So is Toronto, incidentally.

[TimG]

Quebec doesn't get anything that they aren't constitutionally entitled to.

They are entitled to representation by population but the Libs and NDP have blocked the seat redistribution because Quebec will lose influence. They are not entitled to that influence in the constitution. Edited April 25, 2011 by TimG

[Evening Star]

The automatically will get more seats. The bill was meant to increase what they will get, AFAIK.

Is there an amendment to the Consitution or act of Parliament with a formula somewhere that indicates that the numbers will adjust themselves according to population? Only absolute numbers are spelled out in the 1867 Constitution (BNA) Act afaict, right?

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html