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

Thorn · August 21, 2011

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.

Oh right. Like you guys aren't basing your opposition on politics.

And as I recall, the opposition didn't demand "study" last time around. When they had the majority, they didn't insist on "studying" the issue, they flat out killed it.

Calling for study is simply a means of delaying as long as possible. There's nothing which needs to be studied. The arguments are spurious.

Thorn · August 21, 2011

What is your point there are English speaking MPs in Montreal as well,

I would think my point is clear in that the statement that the 400,000 Francophones in Ontario aren't represented is nonsense. Their MPs actually number a higher percentage of the whole than their population would otherwise justify.

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.

They are overrepresented, and given the trend line of population shifts that will only grow worse as their population diminishes in comparison with the other provinces. Growth in population is driven by immigration, and Quebec tightly limits its immigration - not to mention it isn't an attractive destination for most immigrants in the first place. Immediately after the realigment they might be temporarily under-represented but that won't last.

punked · August 21, 2011

Oh right. Like you guys aren't basing your opposition on politics.

And as I recall, the opposition didn't demand "study" last time around. When they had the majority, they didn't insist on "studying" the issue, they flat out killed it.

Calling for study is simply a means of delaying as long as possible. There's nothing which needs to be studied. The arguments are spurious.

Got it so when you make claims like "There is no other reason blah blah blah" and are shown a very real reason which is supported by experts you ignore it. They aren't saying don't do it, they are saying someone should look at our system and actually fix it because if a majority government can just add seats where ever they want whenever they want the system wont be broken. What happens if the NDP or Liberals when the next election? They get to add seats in Quebec if they want? It is a slippery slope just adding seats where you win elections. Pretty soon your democracy is dead.

Again no government should have the power by themselves to add seats. It should be handled in some unpartisan way.

cybercoma · August 21, 2011

The Conservatives are great. They mess around with party funding, now they want to mess around with seat counts. I mean, that's what they do right? When Mulroney couldn't pass GST he just added more senators. Just keep f'ing around with the system until you get what you want.

Thorn · August 21, 2011

Again no government should have the power by themselves to add seats. It should be handled in some unpartisan way.

It's not like they're adding seats willy-nilly. The seat distribution is based on the actual population from the most recent census. The boundaries of the new seats will be drawn by boundary commisions seat up by Elections Canada.

Thorn · August 21, 2011

The Conservatives are great. They mess around with party funding, now they want to mess around with seat counts. I mean, that's what they do right? When Mulroney couldn't pass GST he just added more senators. Just keep f'ing around with the system until you get what you want.

So you're saying that these provinces should continue to be underrepresented?

Remiel · August 21, 2011

I would consider myself relatively tolerant of extra consideration for Quebec, but everyone has their limit. The idea that Quebec should always have ~25% is complete horseshit. I could see a formula that allowed for their percentage of seats to decrease more slowly than their population, but that is it. None of this " forever " crap.

punked · August 21, 2011

They are overrepresented, and given the trend line of population shifts that will only grow worse as their population diminishes in comparison with the other provinces. Growth in population is driven by immigration, and Quebec tightly limits its immigration - not to mention it isn't an attractive destination for most immigrants in the first place. Immediately after the realigment they might be temporarily under-represented but that won't last.

Again you are wrong. I think you would see if someone did a study that French Canada has about the right amount of seats compared to their population. They are not over represented by they sure will be under represented if you get your way.

Thorn · August 21, 2011

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.

And I've already pointed out that's nonsense. There are a hell of a lot more French speaking MPs from outside Quebec than there are English speaking MPs from Montreal.

kimmy · August 21, 2011

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?

Since the Conservatives proposed this legislation long before they were a majority government, and since the bulk of the new seats will be in Toronto and Vancouver, which are traditionally areas of strength for the Liberals and NDP, I think your attempt to paint this as an attempt at gerrymandering fails badly.

-k

punked · August 21, 2011

It's not like they're adding seats willy-nilly. The seat distribution is based on the actual population from the most recent census. The boundaries of the new seats will be drawn by boundary commisions seat up by Elections Canada.

They are adding them willy-nilly. If there is not real rule around adding seats what do you think "just adding" them is?

punked · August 21, 2011

Since the Conservatives proposed this legislation long before they were a majority government, and since the bulk of the new seats will be in Toronto and Vancouver, which are traditionally areas of strength for the Liberals and NDP, I think your attempt to paint this as an attempt at gerrymandering fails badly.

-k

I am not saying it is gerrymandering I am saying it is bad for the country to ever perceive the government is just adding seats where they won. Which is why the NDP is suggesting a Study be conducted so there is information to back up the plan.

Thorn · August 21, 2011

Again you are wrong. I think you would see if someone did a study that French Canada has about the right amount of seats compared to their population. They are not over represented by they sure will be under represented if you get your way.

You are speaking of French Canada rather than Quebec. We don't assign seats based on linguistic group in this country. But if we did, given Quebec alone is already over-represented (with very few Anglo MPs), if we add in the Francophone MPs from other provinces that over-representation would only grow worse.

punked · August 21, 2011

And I've already pointed out that's nonsense. There are a hell of a lot more French speaking MPs from outside Quebec than there are English speaking MPs from Montreal.

Yah there are plenty of MPs who speak English and French that does not mean they were raised in a French speaking household. Glenn Thibeault I mean honestly you will be naming Harper next. It says right on his parliament website his Preferred language is English. You are really reaching.

punked · August 21, 2011

You are speaking of French Canada rather than Quebec. We don't assign seats based on linguistic group in this country. But if we did, given Quebec alone is already over-represented (with very few Anglo MPs), if we add in the Francophone MPs from other provinces that over-representation would only grow worse.

I see the point went over your head. The point wasn't that French Canada should get equal representation to their population it was that was an argument and because there is an argument we should try to be unpartisan in the way we settle it.

Thorn · August 21, 2011

I see the point went over your head. The point wasn't that French Canada should get equal representation to their population it was that was an argument and because there is an argument we should try to be unpartisan in the way we settle it.

There is nothing partisan about basic arithmetic.

There is no comlex study needed to determine what the pop ratio is to seats in each province and then see whether they are over or under-represented. This ain't rocket science.

punked · August 21, 2011

There is nothing partisan about basic arithmetic.

There is no comlex study needed to determine what the pop ratio is to seats in each province and then see whether they are over or under-represented. This ain't rocket science.

Is it that black and white so you would support Adding seats to Quebec to bring it in line with Atlantic Canada than?

cybercoma · August 21, 2011

So you're saying that these provinces should continue to be underrepresented?

Not at all. But, I am leery of any majority government adding whatever seats wherever they choose.

Remiel · August 21, 2011

Under the proposed plan Quebec would still end up with slightly more favourable population to seat ratio than the average province.

Also, we have had a non-partisan commission that determines federal electoral boundaries since the 60s. There is no gerrymandering of the sort found in the US.

punked · August 21, 2011

Under the proposed plan Quebec would still end up with slightly more favourable population to seat ratio than the average province.

Also, we have had a non-partisan commission that determines federal electoral boundaries since the 60s. There is no gerrymandering of the sort found in the US.

But the Conservatives are going to add seats to provinces they won right? Maybe they have the best of intentions adding these seats but as soon as they set the precedent of a Majority government gets to add seats to the provinces they win then how long is it until elections are only run in Ontario with the promise of giving Ontario more seats.

There needs to be a formula, an independent study, an independent body of some sort. It is bad policy to have majority governments have the power to add seats to where ever they want.

Which has been all the NDP have been saying. Not that seats should not be added. Again the premise of this thread is wrong.

Edited August 21, 2011 by punked

Remiel · August 21, 2011

But the Conservatives are going to add seats to provinces they won right? Maybe they have the best of intentions adding these seats but as soon as they set the precedent of a Majority government gets to add seats to the provinces they win then how long is it until elections are only run in Ontario with the promise of giving Ontario more seats.

There needs to be a formula, an independent study, an independent body of some sort. It is bad policy to have majority governments have the power to add seats to where ever they want.

Which has been all the NDP have been saying. Not that seats should not be added. Again the premise of this thread is wrong.

There already *is* a formula. It is by this very formula that it was determined those provinces need topping up. The Bill it just an implementation of what is already apparent.

2.1.5 The Constitution Act, 1985 (Representation)

The formula presently used to calculate the distribution of seats in the House of Commons is set out by the Constitution Act, 1985 (Representation),also known as the Representation Act, 1985.The seats assigned to each province are calculated as follows:

The Act mandates that there be 282 seated members in the House: one seat is allocated to the Northwest Territories; one seat is allocated to the Yukon; and one seat is allocated to Nunavut.16 The remaining 279 seats are used to calculate the electoral quotient.

The electoral quotient is derived by dividing the total population of the ten provinces by 279.

The number of seats assigned to each province is calculated by dividing the population of each province by the electoral quotient, with remainders of 0.50 or more rounded up to the next whole number.

The Representation Act, 1985 put in place a further guarantee against a province losing seats as a result of a readjustment by supplementing the “senatorial clause” with the “grandfather clause.” The latter stipulates that a province is guaranteed no fewer seats in the House of Commons than it had in 1976, or during the 33rd Parliament.17 Following the 2001 decennial census, the number of members seated in the House was readjusted to 308.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?lang=F&ls=c12&Parl=40&Ses=3&source=library_prb#a7

Edited August 21, 2011 by Remiel

punked · August 21, 2011

There already *is* a formula. It is by this very formula that it was determined those provinces need topping up. The Bill it just an implementation of what is already apparent.

Show me said formula. Saying there is a formula which is applied across the country does not make it true.

Yah you know this bill is not following that formula don't you?

Edited August 21, 2011 by punked

Remiel · August 21, 2011

I added it to me previous post.

punked · August 21, 2011

I added it to me previous post.

Yah that isn't the formula this new bill is following. Here is a story about it. The bill itself has a formula which is not the one in the constitution. It will be with in the bounds of the constitution just as the seats now are.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-add-more-seats-in-commons-for-ontario-bc-alberta/article2044083/

Remiel · August 21, 2011

Keep in mind what that article mentions about rural discontent. Most seats that go to the big cities are going to be also up for grabs for Liberals and NDP, depending on the area.