Hey Quebec

[Argus]

You do not allocate seats based on demographical predictions. You allocate them based on their actual representation, that's the idea. Should they have to be revised again later, they will.

Frankly I don't see the problem with adding seats. It isn't an additional cost to society because the population grows accordingly.

Yes, but that would again mean adding still more seats to compensate for Quebec's over-representation. I'd rather see the number of seats cut in half, then adjusted, but Quebec, and a few others would balk at that.

[Vineon]

Important? I would say impractical. As you have already acknowledged, French is just not needed most places outside Quebec. This means very, very few Canadians outside Quebec and a few distinct regions such as parts of New Brunswick, eastern and northern Ontario are actually bilingual (as opposed to thinking bilingual means being able to ask where the toilet is).

Requiring every SC nominee to be bilingual, which was the proposal, would basically limit SC nominees to that tiny pool of fluently bilingual lawyers, almost all of whom are Francophones. You would not only be required to accept a lesser quality of applicant, given 95% were shut out of contention, but it would actively discriminate against Anglophones who were from any province other than Quebec.

It was brought up in that post I was replying to that French was mandatory in English schools. Yet what is clear is that it doesn't contribute to more bilingual Canadians. Having positions such as this one requiring bilingualism sends the message that learning French does have a use in this country. Doing the opposite simply contributes to the fact that it isn't important.

I want to believe that the few actually qualified for a position of Supreme Court Judge are highly educated people, people I most expect would have given learning a second language a shot. Not so hard to plan ahead when you have ambitions, politicians aspiring to the higher position in the country do it. Certainly, the best jurists could.

You realize the same rhetoric you used could be for the position of Prime Minister as well right? Would it be alright to have a unilingual PM representing all Canadians?

Edited October 16, 2011 by Vineon

[Vineon]

Yes, but that would again mean adding still more seats to compensate for Quebec's over-representation. I'd rather see the number of seats cut in half, then adjusted, but Quebec, and a few others would balk at that.

I don't see a problem with adding more seats over time. Those that imply it costs more to the system simply aren't right. The number of seats simply grows with the population. As it grows, let's continue giving them to where it most grows.

It makes less sense to me to have a set in stone number of seats than a set in stone number of citizens represented by 1 MP.

[Evening Star]

You're right, we only have a 'Constitution' in the 'organic, living tree' sense that includes unwritten conventions, etc, not a specific document like the French and Americans have. So in that sense, I suppose it's hard for Quebec's representatives to sign it. They did sign on to the BNAA though, didn't they?

I think we agree on some of the main points in this thread, btw.

Really? I always thought that like many British-style democracies we had no formal Constitution! Instead, we had Law based on precedent, over years and years and years.

From what this old guy remembers, part of how Trudeau's Liberals sold us on having a written Constitution and Charter of Rights was by making the claim that we never had them before, implying that somehow this left us vulnerable and defenceless.

Some folks warned us that by writing them down (described as "French" style Law instead of "British") we actually were hurting ourselves! The metaphor used was a "Keep Off the Grass" sign. With a British style basis it was assumed that a citizen could walk on whatever grass he wished. Only if there was some good reason would and could a "Keep Off" sign be posted.

When the Constitution and Rights were formally written down, they really defined only what rights we DID have, as opposed to assuming we had any and all rights, proscribing only specifics when necessary. IOW, we have to keep off grass with no signs! If we had a right to walk on it there would be a sign saying so!

A good student of Law would of course frame it better than I did but again from memory, that was the gist of the arguments at that time. One definite fact is that Canada became less like Britain, who has never felt the need to have such formal documents, and more like France or even the Americans!

Edited October 17, 2011 by Evening Star

[Smallc]

Yes, they did sign the BNA act, and so they signed the Constitution. We have a hybrid constitution, meaning that there are both living and fixed parts.

[Evening Star]

Yes, they did sign the BNA act, and so they signed the Constitution. We have a hybrid constitution, meaning that there are both living and fixed parts.

Thanks. That's much more precise.

[Wild Bill]

You've listed a plethora of negative perceptions the ROC has of Québec and explained/relativised them after saying the ROC doesn't think much of it. Does it ever see Québec in a good light? As in a province with a very small criminality rate? Where actual racism as recorded in statistics is much lower than seen more west? Where aboriginals have more than elsewhere kept their ancestral languages and don't massively crowd our jails? Where people have most accepted homosexuality? Where social progressive values hit the peak in this country? Where green energy is most valued?

I agree with your conclusion in that ignorance resides in both sides of the fence.

"Does it ever see Quebec in a good light?" As people, sure! Politically, not really! As I said, most Canadians in other provinces simply never think about Quebec at all. How often does the average Quebecois wake up thinking about the rest of Canada?

As I believe I said earlier, much of what TROC believes is not really true but that's the perception and in politics perception is reality.

Most non-francophones really don't understand Quebec's wish to preserve its culture and language. In these modern times frankly it seems an old-fashioned, primitive notion. We have the Internet and we have language translation programs that keep improving all the time. We share huge amounts of common movies and music. It was 10 years ago that I reported to that Pointe Claire office but ALL of my francophone workmates were quite familiar with Seinfield, Friends and Star Trek, especially Voyager where a good friend of mine from Ste. Therese referred to the "Seven of Nine" character as "Two of Huge"!

We all have heritage cultural aspects. Your ancestors wrote provencal poetry. Mine painted their arses blue and ran naked into medieval British battles! Others did origami. The Schmengies from SCTV ate copious quantities of cabbage rolls, drank barrels of coffee and every Christmas the men all exchanged socks!

The difference is, those of us outside Quebec don't feel the need for any laws to protect culture or any threat by having traces of many cultures in our community.

Whatever, the world will go the way it will and you and I have little or no influence on it. As long as I can still get the occasional Bras D'or biere I'm not all that worried about the outcome.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Evening Star]

vYou've listed a plethora of negative perceptions the ROC has of Québec and explained/relativised them after saying the ROC doesn't think much of it. Does it ever see Québec in a good light? As in a province with a very small criminality rate? Where actual racism as recorded in statistics is much lower than seen more west? Where aboriginals have more than elsewhere kept their ancestral languages and don't massively crowd our jails? Where people have most accepted homosexuality? Where social progressive values hit the peak in this country? Where green energy is most valued?

I and many of the left-leaning people I know, and certainly people in the arts, do see Quebec in some of these terms, as a progressive society.

[Vineon]

In these modern times frankly it seems an old-fashioned, primitive notion. We have the Internet and we have language translation programs that keep improving all the time. We share huge amounts of common movies and music. It was 10 years ago that I reported to that Pointe Claire office but ALL of my francophone workmates were quite familiar with Seinfield, Friends and Star Trek, especially Voyager where a good friend of mine from Ste. Therese referred to the "Seven of Nine" character as "Two of Huge"!

There are interesting things in there to answer to. First off, I don't believe online translators have gotten any better since the first one was released online. In fact, I believe what we use today (the babelfish translator) is the same thing we used 10 years ago and it is still pretty awful. If there is a better one available, I'd like to be directed to it. Anything to make my faulty English a bit better would be appreciated.

Cultural globalisation (read here americanisation) is all the more a reality with the internet now, as you point out. That is an additional reason for cultural protectionnism to exist, it doesnt make it a primitive idea but more than ever a very contemporary one.

I share a lot with Canadians and Americans, I also know what Seinfeld, Friends or Star Trek are (although watched none.. but there are American shows I watched extensively, the Fresh Prince of Bel Air for one). When living in Pointe-Claire (which is as much English as Québec can be), you realised you share certain common grounds with the Québécois, certain common grounds you likely also have with the rest of the Occident (those shows have aired over the entire planet) not mentionning sharing more common grounds very distinctive to all Canadians (say hockey). You named a few tv American shows but did you also have any Québécois shows in common with them? I'm sure they all had La Petite Vie in common between them, did you? For most in Québec it would not seem very plausible not to know who Claude Meunier is, for instance. Do you know who that is? I also grew up watching a very popular children show named Passe-Partout that ran for years, as did everyone from Québec from my generation. I also know that every other Canadian from other provinces did not watch this show for years as a kid, that they watched something else, whatever that was. These are the things that add up and make of a society one with a certain amount of distinctive cultural references. English Canada has a lot of its own, but I think its easy to argue that this is more clearly observed in Québec if at least when we compare one province to another.

It is a mistake to say that all that seperates us is language because that is toning down how far-reaching this difference actually is and what it impacts ; it is a major difference. The Québécois acknowledge that, hence their efforts to make sure it is preserved, which isn't a simple task considering the demographics of this continent.

An English Canadian could potentially list this for a top 100 of Canadian albums : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Top_100_Canadian_Albums

Just a quick look allows me to notice only 3 french albums in there (2 by Harmonium and Jaune by JP Ferland). If any Québécois was asked to make a top 100 of Canadian albums, just how similar to this one do you think it might end up looking? An easy guess is 'nothing like it'.

What I'm saying is because we share a lot when it comes to culture, it shouldn't lead us to downplay the differences, they remain quite important to anyone half observant. And no need to tell me there are differences between English Canadian provinces as well, I know that. Language however, is an added element that is just all the more important, it's no trivial difference.

Cheers

Edited October 17, 2011 by Vineon

[Wild Bill]

Just a quick look allows me to notice only 3 french albums in there (2 by Harmonium and Jaune by JP Ferland). If any Québécois was asked to make a top 100 of Canadian albums, just how similar to this one do you think it might end up looking? An easy guess is 'nothing like it'.

What I'm saying is because we share a lot when it comes to culture, it shouldn't lead us to downplay the differences, they remain quite important to anyone half observant. And no need to tell me there are differences between English Canadian provinces as well, I know that. Language however, is an added element that is just all the more important, it's no trivial difference.

Cheers

In the early 70's I was a soundman/roadie for a touring rock and roll band. Not a famous one, just a cover band but we were on the road in Ontario for months at a time.

Occasionally we strayed over into Hull and once into Montreal. One thing I noticed was that "progressive rock" like Yes and Genesis (that was before they let that drummer sing and went all disco!) was far more popular in Quebec amongst the francophones than it was in Ontario. In Barrie the crowd would even boo and yell out for more "LEDDD ZZZEPPELIN!!!". In Quebec we played "Watcher of the Skies" and the crowd would catch all our mistakes!

[Boges]

Well they get two seats.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1071825--harper-to-give-ontario-13-more-federal-seats?bn=1

Under the revised plan, which Harper discussed with Premier Dalton McGuinty last Friday, Ontario would be boosted to 119 seats from 106 in time for the 2015 federal election to reflect population growth.

In other changes, Alberta would gain six seats and jump to 34, British Columbia an additional five for a boost to 41, and Quebec another two to increase to 77.

While Ontario’s tally is lower than the 18 seats the province had been expecting, sources say McGuinty is pleased that “representation by population” is finally being recognized.

The change would increase the Commons to 334 seats from 308 today.

Sources say both McGuinty and Harper hope to alleviate any unity crisis by ensuring Quebec’s concerns about diminishing influence in Parliament are addressed.

At least those 6 additional seats in Alberta more than cancel out the paltry 2 that Quebec gets.

[Rick]

Well they get two seats.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1071825--harper-to-give-ontario-13-more-federal-seats?bn=1

At least those 6 additional seats in Alberta more than cancel out the paltry 2 that Quebec gets.

Ya because that's precisely what this country needs..more pompous asses in Ottawa living high on the hog, collecting an obscene pension and Jet setting all around the world on our tax dollars...

Way to go Stevie.... moron.

[Boges]

Ya because that's precisely what this country needs..more pompous asses in Ottawa living high on the hog, collecting an obscene pension and Jet setting all around the world on our tax dollars...

Way to go Stevie.... moron.

Have you read this entire thread?

Should the seat count just remain the same? Apparently you can't just set a number of seats and re-distribute them without agreement from all the provinces. Which will never happen.

[Rick]

Have you read this entire thread?

Should the seat count just remain the same? Apparently you can't just set a number of seats and re-distribute them without agreement from all the provinces. Which will never happen.

If it were up to me, instead of adding seats I'd cut the number of seats by 75% equally, based on current populations, across all the provinces and get rid of a bunch of pork up in Ottawa.

Less of them = more money for us.

Lord knows they don't do anything remotely worth the bloated salaries they get.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Rick

[Boges]

If it were up to me, instead of adding seats I'd cut the number of seats by 75% equally, based on current populations, across all the provinces and get rid of a bunch of pork up in Ottawa.

Less of them = more money for us.

Lord knows they don't do anything remotely worth the bloated salaries they get.

I wouldn't disagree with that. Especially when you consider the pensions MPs get.

You'd find constituents wouldn't have proper representation though. But as said in this thread, that's not something that can easily be done.

[Rick]

I wouldn't disagree with that. Especially when you consider the pensions MPs get.

You'd find constituents wouldn't have proper representation though.

They don't get it now...

Hence the need to rid this country of its bloated Jet set who think they're entitled... government.

How does it happen?

Through revolts like say, French Revolutions...Boston Tea Parties.... Arab Springs......Occupying streets....

[Boges]

They don't get it now...

Hence the need to rid this country of its bloated Jet set who think they're entitled... government.

How does it happen?

Through revolts like say, French Revolutions...Boston Tea Parties.... Arab Springs......Occupying streets....

I would argue much of the Occupy protesters are calling for more government, not less.

[Rick]

I would argue much of the Occupy protesters are calling for more government, not less.

More government as in regulations are absolutely needed to control these corporate blood suckers that have been feasting off of workers wages.

More of the same corporate backing parasites to make these regulations....not needed.

[fellowtraveller]

Sources say both McGuinty and Harper hope to alleviate any unity crisis by ensuring Quebec’s concerns about diminishing influence in Parliament are addressed.

What, Quebec isn't concerned about Ontario, BC and ABs diminished influence?

[cybercoma]

You'd find constituents wouldn't have proper representation though.

What's "proper" representation anyway? I don't think constituents get proper representation now and besides an MP's job is to work for the good of the entire country not just every pet project of local constituents. Either way, the MPs are required to vote along party lines. Sure they can maybe possibly voice their concerns in caucus, but if they're a backbencher, no one is going to listen to them. Some argue that they do invaluable work in committees. While that may be true, it still does little to represent their constituencies. I believe local representation is a myth. They'll field your concerns and turn around and do whatever it is that they're told from the party brass when they get to Ottawa. Take the Canada Post debate as an example. Every letter that the NDP read supported the workers and every letter that the CPC read supported Canada Post. In other words, the representatives just do whatever the hell they want anyway and don't actually represent the people's true intentions, rather they simply represent the constituents that support their own view and filter out the rest. So, I don't think there's representation at all.

I would love to see the number of MPs reduced, but important work is done in committees. You need enough people to work on them. Cutting them by 75% is rhetorical... I hope. However, increasing the number of MPs is nonsense. For a party that is supposed to represent the values of people that want a smaller, less intrusive government, their policies seem to be working towards the opposite: a larger, more intrusive government.

[Smallc]

If it were up to me, instead of adding seats I'd cut the number of seats by 75% equally, based on current populations, across all the provinces and get rid of a bunch of pork up in Ottawa.

You can't do that.

[Boges]

You can't do that.

Well in the US, a Congressman represents a district of about 500,000. Using that model we could get by with about 60-70 MPs.

Good luck getting anyone to approve that through.

The Riding of Nova Scotia/PEI, Saskatchwan North, Oh and my favourite, Territories/Labrador/North Quebec. Campaigning in that riding would suck.

[Smallc]

Good luck getting anyone to approve that through.

That was my point, but my point had to do with the constitutionality.

[Evening Star]

In the early 70's I was a soundman/roadie for a touring rock and roll band. Not a famous one, just a cover band but we were on the road in Ontario for months at a time.

Occasionally we strayed over into Hull and once into Montreal. One thing I noticed was that "progressive rock" like Yes and Genesis (that was before they let that drummer sing and went all disco!) was far more popular in Quebec amongst the francophones than it was in Ontario. In Barrie the crowd would even boo and yell out for more "LEDDD ZZZEPPELIN!!!". In Quebec we played "Watcher of the Skies" and the crowd would catch all our mistakes!

Ha, I loved scouring the second-hand shops for prog rock gold on LP when I lived in Montreal.

The Musical Box was still doing pretty well for themselves last I checked!

[fellowtraveller]

Good luck getting anyone to approve that through.

Yep.

And in the meantime, Harper is doing what he can to address at least some of the inequity in representation.

It is interesting to note those here that resent and oppose even that minimum sop to representation by population.