Hey Quebec

[Boges]

And I couldn't be happier about it.

PETERBOROUGH, ONT.—Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he plans to make good on an election promise to improve representation for three provinces in the House of Commons.

He says his government is committed to increasing representation for British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta to better reflect increases in population.

The proposal to add seats came during this spring’s federal election campaign, which gave Harper’s Conservatives a majority government.

And on Friday, Harper even cited the page number in his election platform that makes the promise.

The plan is not popular in Quebec, where it’s feared the number of seats would not increase.

Harper made the comments in Peterborough, Ont., where he was attending a ceremony marking the expansion of the Peterborough Municipal Airport.

This'll piss the NDP off as 2/3 of their caucus will be dilluted in next election. It's nice that a PM can win an election in this country without having to pander to a single province anymore.

[Smallc]

What a stupid thread title. Harper is doing no such thing, and even if he was, the fact that you seem happy about it is rather juvenile.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Smallc

[olp1fan]

And I couldn't be happier about it.

This'll piss the NDP off as 2/3 of their caucus will be dilluted in next election. It's nice that a PM can win an election in this country without having to pander to a single province anymore.

That would only benefit the Liberals, Quebec will never vote Conservative in Federal elections

NEVER, won't ever happen

[Boges]

What a stupid thread title. Harper is doing no such thing, and even if he was, the fact that you seem happy about it is rather juvenile.

Indirectly he is.

Up until the 2011 election the last PM that won a majority and wasn't from Quebec was Diefenbaker. You have to win Quebec to win a majority.

Harper made so many inroads in 2008 but because Quebec didn't like him he was denied a majority. This election changed that because he dominated Ontario. But regardless the critical mass of the population of Canada has moved west and so should the votes.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Boges

[Boges]

That would only benefit the Liberals, Quebec will never vote Conservative in Federal elections

NEVER, won't ever happen

How many Alberta MPs are Liberal?

Edited October 14, 2011 by Boges

[Smallc]

I agree with that Harper is doing. He isn't effing over Quebec though.

[fellowtraveller]

I wish Harper could do the right thing, which would be to redistribute the 308 existing Commons seats based on population.

The last thing we need is more MPs and a larger govt. That would mean fewer MPs in for example Quebec and PEI, and more in AB, BC and ON.

But he cannot do that, so his options are to let it be or redistribute as he is planning, which is the least unjust option.

Of course, the NDP thinks he should just give more seats to Quebec too, which is utterly moronic.can you believe this crap?

[Smallc]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/14/pol-harper-new-seats.html

I'm not sure their interpretation of his words are correct.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Smallc

[punked]

It is not the Quebec vote that is being Diluted it is the French vote. Why did Mulroney try to give Quebec 25% of the seats no matter what? It is because even though Quebec does not represent 25% of the population it is closer to 23 or 22 now their vote was always to represent a distinct and what was to be an equal culture. 25% of Canada is French however outside of Quebec and a few ridings in NB and Ottawa the French population is to small to actually win a seat. In NS 10-15% of the province is French but they are spread so thin not one of the NS MPs is a francophone. That is why Quebec has always been given 25%. Agree or disagree with that, it was always the logic.

So lets have a real argument about the actual facts here. This isn't about Quebec it is about Canada's Equal francophone population and the dilution of their vote.

[WWWTT]

It is not the Quebec vote that is being Diluted it is the French vote. Why did Mulroney try to give Quebec 25% of the seats no matter what? It is because even though Quebec does not represent 25% of the population it is closer to 23 or 22 now their vote was always to represent a distinct and what was to be an equal culture. 25% of Canada is French however outside of Quebec and a few ridings in NB and Ottawa the French population is to small to actually win a seat. In NS 10-15% of the province is French but they are spread so thin not one of the NS MPs is a francophone. That is why Quebec has always been given 25%. Agree or disagree with that, it was always the logic.

So lets have a real argument about the actual facts here. This isn't about Quebec it is about Canada's Equal francophone population and the dilution of their vote.

Agreed!

But didn't the Bloq at one time win a seat in Newfoundland and Labradour?

WWWTT

[cybercoma]

I'm not necessarily opposed to revamping the proportion of seats in the House of Commons, but I am unequivocally opposed to adding more MPs. The last thing we need to do right is spend more money on representatives in the House. Granted, England has a slightly better proportion of representatives to population ration (1:~95000 Eng vs 1:~110000 Can), so there is an argument to be made. Given the economy at the moment and the fact that the government is trying to scrape savings together by putting in place an absurd incentive plan, I don't see the value in spending more money on reps.

[Smallc]

So lets have a real argument about the actual facts here. This isn't about Quebec it is about Canada's Equal francophone population and the dilution of their vote.

It isn't necessarily about your interpretation of the facts. The reality is that all provinces are equal partners in Confederation. French already has the same federal recognition as English in all of Canada, and it has equal status at the provincial level in New Brunswick, and superior status in Quebec.

This is about the fair distribution of seats. I, personally, wish that the Senate floor and provincial minimums didn't exist on Commons seats. I would be happy to see my own province lose a couple of seats in the name of representative fairness.

[Smallc]

I'm not necessarily opposed to revamping the proportion of seats in the House of Commons, but I am unequivocally opposed to adding more MPs.

Without getting all 10 provinces to agree to a Constitutional change, there is no alternative.

[cybercoma]

Then they should leave things alone for now.

Edited October 15, 2011 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Then they should leave things alone for now.

How is that fair to Alberta, BC, or Ontario? Ontario is missing something like 25 seats right now in reality.

[William Ashley]

How is that fair to Alberta, BC, or Ontario? Ontario is missing something like 25 seats right now in reality.

This is why a one vote per person system works best.

Oil sands development and unemployment so people migrate, now with higher populations in Alberta they are upping the seats, but with oil sands downturn as the oil industry sinks and growth of employment outside of alberta the seat redistrobution will be completely unrepresentative on a per capita basis. What they do is they need to reassign riding boundaries if they arn't per capita representative so each riding should be reassigned not more ridings. MP's already costs enough. They need more "federal" non political jobs that can do what MP's do its not like MP's put out private member bills from their consitiuents anyway.

There arn't even enough physical seats for all the MP's to sit in the commons as it is.

What is the point of hiring more people not to attend parliament at the tax payer expense?

Edited October 15, 2011 by William Ashley

[cybercoma]

How is that fair to Alberta, BC, or Ontario? Ontario is missing something like 25 seats right now in reality.

Then they should open a Constitutional amendment to redistribute the seats.

[Smallc]

Then they should open a Constitutional amendment to redistribute the seats.

Fine....you get PEI, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador to agree to that. I agree with you, but this is the next best thing. In reality, it's what most parliamentary countries seem to do (Canada's provinces don't though...Manitoba just redistributed in 2008, without adding to the 57 seats.

[WWWTT]

I'm not necessarily opposed to revamping the proportion of seats in the House of Commons, but I am unequivocally opposed to adding more MPs. The last thing we need to do right is spend more money on representatives in the House. Granted, England has a slightly better proportion of representatives to population ration (1:~95000 Eng vs 1:~110000 Can), so there is an argument to be made. Given the economy at the moment and the fact that the government is trying to scrape savings together by putting in place an absurd incentive plan, I don't see the value in spending more money on reps.

Does England have the same total political representation as Canada?

Meaning municipal,provincial and federal(upper and lower houses) combined?

WWWTT

[Smallc]

Does England have the same total political representation as Canada?

The UK is a unitary state, so it might be close, but it isn't a good comparison.

[cybercoma]

Fine....you get PEI, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador to agree to that. I agree with you, but this is the next best thing. In reality, it's what most parliamentary countries seem to do (Canada's provinces don't though...Manitoba just redistributed in 2008, without adding to the 57 seats.

I understand where you're coming from and I conceded that there is a valid argument to be made for it; however, my stance is and will continue to be that it is an unnecessary expense right now. Moreover, I might be in the minority with this, but I believe MPs' primary focus, regardless of their constituency, should be for what's in the nation's best interest, rather than focusing on their ridings to the exclusion of everyone else in the country. Some might believe that there is some sort of Invisible Hand at play in politics, where everyone fights for their own interests and that would benefit the whole. I don't believe that's a good theory for political representation. The unfortunate reality is that my view isn't actually the way things work in practice and its a shame.

Edited October 15, 2011 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

I forgot to add Saskatchewan.

[fellowtraveller]

Fact: If Ontario was not getting screwed by being underrepresented in the Commons, this would be seen as the West whining again.

Fact: our system of govt is based on representation by popualtion, with all constituencies in the Commons being more or less of the same size numerically. This has not been maintained as the population has shifted significantly in the last 150 years.

Time to fix it, although this repair is far from perfect.

[punked]

Fact: If Ontario was not getting screwed by being underrepresented in the Commons, this would be seen as the West whining again.

Fact: our system of govt is based on representation by popualtion, with all constituencies in the Commons being more or less of the same size numerically. This has not been maintained as the population has shifted significantly in the last 150 years.

Time to fix it, although this repair is far from perfect.

Your second fact is an opinion.

[Vineon]

Does anyone care that adding 30 seats makes of Québec a slightly underrepresented province? Of course not.

I'm asking considering there seems to be a big deal made about Québec being a slightly overrepresented province. The key word is 'slightly' here ; look elsewhere for actual overrepresented provinces, Québec isn't one. The thing is, when considering the number of seats every province has, Québec is currently the one province most rightfully represented.

When demands by Québec are made so that a few seats be added to the province as well, it is no more than 3 or 4 (as I believe is proposed by the NDP), which would be enough to guarantee it rightful population representation which I thought was what everybody wanted here. But no, in reality what people here most desire, is for Québec to eat dirt.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Vineon