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

[punked]

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.

I am not saying it is politically motivated, I am saying it is a bad policy the way they are doing it. No one is arguing that everyone should not be equally represented. It is more about how to go about doing that.

[Thorn]

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

I recognize and accept the need for the government to let the smaller provinces have a little leeway in representation per population. But Quebec is not a smaller province. There is no justification for it getting more than it's proper amount of representation.

[Thorn]

I am not saying it is politically motivated, I am saying it is a bad policy the way they are doing it. No one is arguing that everyone should not be equally represented. It is more about how to go about doing that.

And do you think that argument is going to play well in BC and Toronto?

[punked]

And do you think that argument is going to play well in BC and Toronto?

I think people all over Canada would agree seats should be distributed in a way where political tampering wont be a factor.

[Remiel]

I think people all over Canada would agree seats should be distributed in a way where political tampering wont be a factor.

Tampering is built into the system because of the floors on seats.

[Thorn]

Tampering is built into the system because of the floors on seats.

Agreed. Ideally what should happen is the seat distribution should be more or less equalized, with about 282 seats, no more, no less. How much longer can they keep expanding the walls of the House of Commons, anyway?

[WWWTT]

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.

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

Its funny that this "Quebec over-representation" seems to be geting alot of attention since the last election.

When I last checked eastern Canada has the best representation in Canada.

Oh but the conservatives won the majority of seats there,so why no controversy?

WWWTT

[Vineon]

I recognize and accept the need for the government to let the smaller provinces have a little leeway in representation per population. But Quebec is not a smaller province. There is no justification for it getting more than it's proper amount of representation.

Would the 'small' provinces also include Manitoba and Saskatchewan whose overrepresentation is much, much higher than Québec's? Where do you draw the line? I'm amused that the attention is all on Québec, the one province closest to proper mathematical representation.

I read in these forums that whining is a national sport in Québec... I'd say that in return, whining about Québec probably is Canada's.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Vineon

[TimG]

I am not saying it is politically motivated, I am saying it is a bad policy the way they are doing it. No one is arguing that everyone should not be equally represented. It is more about how to go about doing that.

They made it an issue in in a election. They won. Now they put it in place. What is the problem>?

[Thorn]

Would the 'small' provinces also include Manitoba and Saskatchewan whose overrepresentation is much, much higher than Québec's? Where do you draw the line? I'm amused that the attention is all on Québec, the one province closest to proper mathematical representation.

It is Quebec which is fighting it. The NDP is pandering to Quebec, not to Manitoba or Saskatchewan.

[punked]

They made it an issue in in a election. They won. Now they put it in place. What is the problem>?

You think any government which wins can add seats to provinces with out the process being independent. We will see how you feel about that if the NDP or Liberals win and start adding seats.

[Thorn]

You think any government which wins can add seats to provinces with out the process being independent. We will see how you feel about that if the NDP or Liberals win and start adding seats.

This argument is silly. It's not like the Tories won and then said they were going to add seventy seats to Alberta just cuz. The pressure for more seat redistribution has been building for years as the discrepancies grew greater and greater, and only political cowardice (on the part of the opposition) kept this from going ahead years ago.

As far as I know, under the Constitution, the addition of new seats has to be done for the purpose of equalizing representation.

[TimG]

You think any government which wins can add seats to provinces with out the process being independent. We will see how you feel about that if the NDP or Liberals win and start adding seats.

You seem to be under some illusion that an "independent" process would not be political or that non-partisans actually exist that could participate in the process.

For better or for worse the process we have makes sense. If the Libs and NDP want to pander to Quebec at the expense of other provinces they can make it a clear an unambigious part of their platform. We will see how many seats that gets them in the provinces that they are screwing. The bottom line is rep by pop is the primary principal that governs seat distributions and others don't have much to complain about.

Edited August 22, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

As far as I know, under the Constitution, the addition of new seats has to be done for the purpose of equalizing representation.

52. The Number of Members of the House of Commons may be from Time to Time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate Representation of the Provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-3.html#anchorbo-ga:s_17-gb:s_37

As far as I can tell the "proportionate Representation of the Provinces prescribed by this Act" is the formula with its minimum seat counts cannot be violated.

[Newfoundlander]

Will Nycole Turmel call for Quebec to separate from Canada if they don't get more seats?

[punked]

Will Nycole Turmel call for Quebec to separate from Canada if they don't get more seats?

No because she believes in the Confederation that is Canada. Why you don't know what a Federalist is?

[Newfoundlander]

No because she believes in the Confederation that is Canada. Why you don't know what a Federalist is?

Real Federalists aren't members of separatist parties.

[punked]

Real Federalists aren't members of separatist parties.

Except when they are right? Dion? Denis Lebel?

[Wild Bill]

Except when they are right? Dion? Denis Lebel?

Punked, your arguments have gone on for pages yet you have avoided the actual issue. Who gives a rat's ass if your argument about nitpicking details justifies Quebec perpetually having more seats? YOU care and they other posters you're arguing with care!

The question is, how will voters outside of Quebec look at the NDP position? Do you really expect us to believe that some party spokesman can just slip the media a few of your arguments and there will be no negative repercussions?

Horsefeathers! The average voter is going to look at Quebec retaining extra seats and take it as just pandering to Quebec, yet again! The Star can publish all the nitpicking articles they want but no one is going to believe them!

What's more, by backing Quebec the NDP can't help but look like they don't care about those other province.

So why don't you stop the nitpicking arguments and explain to us how their position will NOT cost the NDP votes outside of Quebec? I'd really like to hear you try!

Edited August 22, 2011 by Wild Bill

[jbg]

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?

One could make the same argument regarding unrestrained immigration from the Muslim world, membership in the U.N. and other affiliations and actions whose only justification is political correctness. The Muslim world, for instance, is not inclusive towards us. Why should everything be a one-way street.

Quebec is not inclusive towards English-speakers. Why should the ROC turn themselves inside out to make Quebeckers happy when they do nothing to make the ROC happy?

[jbg]

Tampering is built into the system because of the floors on seats.

The U.S. has a floor on seats but the only tampering is intra-state, not inter-state.

[Smallc]

But the Conservatives are going to add seats to provinces they won right?

They also won Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Do you see them adding seats there? No. Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia need more representation because up till now, their population growth has outstripped that of the rest of the country to the point where they are very under represented. You're being so blatantly partisan it isn't even funny. The NDP is wrong here, plain and simple, and there's no justification or excuse.

[cybercoma]

This whole notion of "pandering" to Quebec is nonsense anyway. Last I checked they were as much a part of Canada as any other province that's being pandered to. And don't for a minute tell me that Conservatives don't pander to their base. *coughG8fundingcough*

Edited August 22, 2011 by cybercoma

[WWWTT]

So why don't you stop the nitpicking arguments and explain to us how their position will NOT cost the NDP votes outside of Quebec? I'd really like to hear you try!

This thread is really stretching to find a way to use the NDP support in Quebec against the NDP.

I do not believe NDP supporters outside of Quebec have a hatred for Quebec as conservative supporters do.

After all it was only the reform party and then the conservatives that routinely demonized Quebec politicians.Not the NDP!

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

This thread is really stretching to find a way to use the NDP support in Quebec against the NDP.

I do not believe NDP supporters outside of Quebec have a hatred for Quebec as conservative supporters do.

After all it was only the reform party and then the conservatives that routinely demonized Quebec politicians.Not the NDP!

WWWTT

More revisionist nonsense! The caucuses of both the BQ and Reform use to have regularly scheduled hockey games together during the cold Ottawa winter.

I rather doubt if the BQ would have participated with people that were demonizing them!

Pull something else out of your butt! Should prove interesting!