How Do NDP supporters in BC, AB and ON justify pandering to Quebec?

Thorn · August 21, 2011

It's a done deal thanks to the Tory majority, but the NDP have to continue to make their case, stridently, in fact, that the people of BC, Alberta and Ontario should continue to be underrepresented in the House of Commons so as to not offend Quebec.

I can see this playing well in Quebec, of course, were selfishness is the 'national' sport, but I can't help wondering what NDP supporters in BC, Alberta and Ontario think of this. How do you explain to your neighbors that they don't deserve extra seats just because their population has grown so much? How do you tell local voters, when the seats are in place, that they ought to vote for you when the position of your party is that those seats should not exist because Quebec won't like them? I mean, the NDP are making it patently clear that they'll put the interests of Quebec's naval gazing whiners ahead of the interests of Albertans, British Columbians and Ontarions, so why would anyone in those provinces vote for them?

The reality today is that 61% of Canadians are underrepresented in the House of Commons." And all 61% live in the country's three richest provinces. In fact, according to Mowat Centre research, Alberta, B.C. and Ontario are so underrepresented that they are among the five worst-represented states or provinces in the industrialized world.

National Post

msj · August 21, 2011

:rolleyes:

Good for "them" (whoever "they" are) for looking after their interests and gaming the system.

Stupid of "us" (whoever "we" are) for not looking after "our" interests so that "we" don't let "them" tilt the system in "their" favour.

IOW - you could have stated the question without making any assumptions about "them" and implicitly about "us:"

How do NDP supporters justify allowing over-representation from Quebec at the expense of other parts of Canada?

Now there's a question worthy of being answered without feeble generalities of this group being that and that group being this.....

CANADIEN · August 21, 2011

Good for "them" (whoever "they" are) for looking after their interests and gaming the system.

Stupid of "us" (whoever "we" are) for not looking after "our" interests so that "we" don't let "them" tilt the system in "their" favour.

IOW - you could have stated the question without making any assumptions about "them" and implicitly about "us:"

How do NDP supporters justify allowing over-representation from Quebec at the expense of other parts of Canada?

Now there's a question worthy of being answered without feeble generalities of this group being that and that group being this.....

Well, Thorn is unable to avoid showing his prejudices. That being said, repsentation in the House of Commons should be proportional to population. Period, end of story.

punked · August 21, 2011

I think you are creating a policy stance the NDP does not have.

kimmy · August 21, 2011

I think you are creating a policy stance the NDP does not have.

Do you dispute that the NDP is calling for the new seats in Ontario, BC, and Alberta to be scrapped?

Nycole Turmel calls it "divisive".

-k

punked · August 21, 2011

Do you dispute that the NDP is calling for the new seats in Ontario, BC, and Alberta to be scrapped?

Nycole Turmel calls it "divisive".

-k

I believe what they said was adding seats with out independent study is divisive. Would you disagree?

Again you guys are making up policy that does not exist then claiming it does.

Edited August 21, 2011 by punked

kimmy · August 21, 2011

I believe what they said was adding seats with out independent study is divisive. Would you disagree?

Again you guys are making up policy that does not exist then claiming it does.

"More study". <_<

Here's Jack Layton's stance on the issue:

r. Geiger: We have a couple of questions from readers. I just received a Tweet from Caroline Hayward. She’s asking, Do you support additional seats for Ontario and Western Canada? You favour abolition of the Senate, which is one way in our parliamentary system that regional voices can be aired. If you are going to do that don’t you need to have better representation in the rep by pop chamber, which required reform of the house?
Mr. Layton: Yes we do support more seats for Ontario and Alberta and British Columbia. We also support retaining the current weight of Quebec in the seat calculation and we think it is possible to find our way to both of those objectives. ...

Mr. Geiger: If you have more seats to western Canada and Ontario, how do you maintain that historic balance with Quebec? They either get proportionally more seats or they don’t. Are you suggesting that all regions get more seats?

Mr. Layton: There would be additional seats allocated in Quebec as well.

Mr. Geiger: Even though it is not justified by population?

Mr. Layton: Well it justified by the historic political weight of Quebec in the federation. There is a solution that can be found here. It’s not an easy thing to do but it is one that we need to work for.

But we absolutely support additional seats for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. They are under represented at the moment and that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Stackhouse: And more seats for Quebec?

Mr. Layton: There would be an adjustment vis a vis Quebec.

Mr. Geiger: So in other words, they wouldn’t have proportionally more seats.

Mr. Layton: Yes they would. Well, they would have more seats. Significantly more.

Mr. Geiger: But not proportionately more?

Mr. Layton: Well, it would begin to redress the very significant dis-proportionality we see.

In other words, if ON/BC/AB get more seats, QC has to get more seats to maintain its current over-representation, so the only increase in proportional representation for ON/BC/AB is a slight increase that comes at the expense of the North, SK, MB, and the Maritimes.

-k

punked · August 21, 2011

"More study".

Here's Jack Layton's stance on the issue:

In other words, if ON/BC/AB get more seats, QC has to get more seats to maintain its current over-representation, so the only increase in proportional representation for ON/BC/AB is a slight increase that comes at the expense of the North, SK, MB, and the Maritimes.

-k

Oh you mean he has the same argument that Canada's former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley has I am shocked that the NDP would listen to the opinion of experts. That is why they suggest that an independent board of experts look at the seat count and population numbers and actually make suggestions not have a majority government add seats to where they won the most in an election. It just looks bad on the house of commons.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/legislation-06-20-2011

TimG · August 21, 2011

Oh you mean he has the same argument that Canada's former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley has I am shocked that the NDP would listen to the opinion of experts.

Being the chief electoral officer does not make him an expert on such things. He is expressing a personal opinion. With a name like "jean-pierre" it is safe to assume his personal opinion is coloured by by personal background.

punked · August 21, 2011

Being the chief electoral officer does not make him an expert on such things. He is expressing a personal opinion. With a name like "jean-pierre" it is safe to assume his personal opinion is coloured by by personal background.

Wow stereotype much there buddy? Jean-Pierre Kingsley is quite the expert not only that but he was Born and lived in Ottawa much his life. As well as moving around this country (Living almost solely in English Canada) and heading up some of the largest Hospitals. Know what he has done for the last 4 years or so? He was the CEO of International Foundation for Electoral Systems guess what they do? They run, and monitor elections around the world they were founded because of Ronald Reagans insistence on promoting democracy.

Just because you don't like his opinion does not mean you can belittle what the man has done in his life.

kimmy · August 21, 2011

Their whole argument boils down to "Quebec will be angry if their share of seats in parliament decreases!" so the description of "pandering to Quebec" is pretty reasonable.

-k

TimG · August 21, 2011

---

Edited August 21, 2011 by TimG

punked · August 21, 2011

Their whole argument boils down to "Quebec will be angry if their share of seats in parliament decreases!" so the description of "pandering to Quebec" is pretty reasonable.

-k

No it isn't. There are plenty arguments. Like even though Canada has a roughly 25% French speaking population the actually population only gets representation from Quebec because even though On has 400,000 French speakers their population is not concentrated enough to elect someone who represents their mother tongue. It is a bi-product of the first past the post system. So those outside of Quebec who have a French mother tongue get to be under represented if we add more seats because on the way our system works.

That is just one of the many arguments people are saying our government should look at and study before changing our electoral distribution. Which happens to be the NDPs stance not the one which was created in this thread which is a lie.

Edited August 21, 2011 by punked

Vineon · August 21, 2011

Québec with 24% of the seats for 23% of the population is probably the province closest to be rightfully represented. It is probably not the greatest of reaction to clamour left and right that it is overrepresented when the proposed idea to add 30 seats without handing Québec any will reverse the situation and give it 22% of the seats for 23% of the population.

It's probably also worth noting that Québec has about 25% of the voting-age population and that using that criteria, one could claim it is already currently underrepresented.

CANADIEN · August 21, 2011

Being the chief electoral officer does not make him an expert on such things. He is expressing a personal opinion. With a name like "jean-pierre" it is safe to assume his personal opinion is coloured by by personal background.

If his name was Peter and he agreed with you, wouold his first name even be an issue? Of course it wouldn't. And I doubt very much that you would question his expertise.

The man's trqack record speaks for itself when it comes to his expertise on issues pertqining to the elctoral system. I, for one, can still ackowledge that while disagreeing with him.

Edited August 21, 2011 by CANADIEN

cybercoma · August 21, 2011

"More study".

Here's Jack Layton's stance on the issue:

In other words, if ON/BC/AB get more seats, QC has to get more seats to maintain its current over-representation, so the only increase in proportional representation for ON/BC/AB is a slight increase that comes at the expense of the North, SK, MB, and the Maritimes.

-k

Since regional equality is theoretically achieved in the upper house, I think the NDP has put itself into a tough position by not recognizing the Senate. In this context, it makes sense that they would want Quebec to keep its weight; however, it does give the Maritimes the middle finger at the same time.

Thorn · August 21, 2011

Oh you mean he has the same argument that Canada's former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley has I am shocked that the NDP would listen to the opinion of experts. That is why they suggest that an independent board of experts look at the seat count and population numbers and actually make suggestions not have a majority government add seats to where they won the most in an election. It just looks bad on the house of commons.

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/legislation-06-20-2011

His argument boils down to Quebec has always had 25% of the seats and so it should continue to do so no matter what their population percentage. That's not an argument based on a complex understanding of electoral justice.

What your answer boils down to is that you don't care if your province gets screwed over if it pleases Quebec. I wonder if the people considering voting NDP in BC, Alberta and Ontario will feel the same. Because if I was a Tory candidate come next election you can bet I'd bring that up repeatedly if the NDP was my main opponent.

Thorn · August 21, 2011

I believe what they said was adding seats with out independent study is divisive. Would you disagree?

When the bureacracy doesn't have a good argument to say no they call for more study. Hopefully, the studying can last long enough for everyone to forget the question.

punked · August 21, 2011

Since regional equality is theoretically achieved in the upper house, I think the NDP has put itself into a tough position by not recognizing the Senate. In this context, it makes sense that they would want Quebec to keep its weight; however, it does give the Maritimes the middle finger at the same time.

They will still have a larger rep by pop then the other provinces.

punked · August 21, 2011

When the bureacracy doesn't have a good argument to say no they call for more study. Hopefully, the studying can last long enough for everyone to forget the question.

Yah but there are real people who have studied in this area who have real arguments which have no been addressed. It looks bad for a Majority government to add seats only the places they won would you not agree? Vote to have an independent board who has a mandate to take certain things under consideration come to some sort of binding conclusion. That is one of the only ways to take politics out of the process.

punked · August 21, 2011

His argument boils down to Quebec has always had 25% of the seats and so it should continue to do so no matter what their population percentage. That's not an argument based on a complex understanding of electoral justice.

No it really isn't. All that you show is you can't read. Please go read the article. His argument is outside of Montreal Quebec represents French Canada, and while there are French speakers outside of Quebec they have such small populations that they can't actually effect the out comes of elections. So because of First past the post Quebec ends up representing the 25% French speaking population by having 25% of the seats but only having 24% of the population.

Thorn · August 21, 2011

No it isn't. There are plenty arguments. Like even though Canada has a roughly 25% French speaking population the actually population only gets representation from Quebec because even though On has 400,000 French speakers their population is not concentrated enough to elect someone who represents their mother tongue.

That's what, 3% of the population?

Bernard Trottier, Glen Thibeault, Pierre Pollievre, Pierre Lemieux, Guy Lauzon, Claude Gravelle, Royal Galipeau, and Mauril Belanger are all MPs from Ontario. I don't know them all, but I bet at least a few of them are quite familiar with the French language.

That is just one of the many arguments people are saying our government should look at and study before changing our electoral distribution. Which happens to be the NDPs stance not the one which was created in this thread which is a lie.

The NDP is opposed to any diminishment of electoral power for Quebec. Your leader has said as much. Even if you agree to give more seats to other provinces it will have to be counterbalanced by more seats for Quebec to continue it's high level of representation. And screw the other provinces.

CANADIEN · August 21, 2011

They will still have a larger rep by pop then the other provinces.

What I find interesting is that the last time the proposal to increase reproesentation for underrepresentated provinces, there was opposition by people in the Atlantic provinces (which are over-representated). But of course, noboby would dream of dumping on them for that.

punked · August 21, 2011

That's what, 3% of the population?

Bernard Trottier, Glen Thibeault, Pierre Pollievre, Pierre Lemieux, Guy Lauzon, Claude Gravelle, Royal Galipeau, and Mauril Belanger are all MPs from Ontario. I don't know them all, but I bet at least a few of them are quite familiar with the French language.

What is your point there are English speaking MPs in Montreal as well, the point is when you look seats with the things shake out now you get an actual representation of the French Minority they reflects population. When the Cons add their seats will under represent that minority. That in itself should be a reason to actually study this and give its handling over to an independent board of experts not let a party who won a lot of seats in English Canada and not many in French Canada give seats to English Canada. It looks bad, it is bad politics at a time when French Canada is finally buying into the idea of Canada as a whole country.

cybercoma · August 21, 2011

The problem out here is that there isn't the population to sustain the standards of other provinces when it comes to things like healthcare, education, and roads. Also the federal government is responsible for a lot more things out here, like lighthouses and ferries for example. The federal government does a lot out here. Reducing the Maritimes' representation could be crippling to these provinces.