Liberal seat-distribution formula takes three away from Quebec

[Newfoundlander]

Then why isn't this being done? Also,whether or not the 1985 ammendments has constitional implications isn't that clear.

I guess nobody proposed it before now.

[Smallc]

I guess nobody proposed it before now.

Really? Because if that's it, and if it can be done, I see no reason why the government shouldn't do it.

[Shwa]

I guess your answer would be to have some of the MPs volunteer to quit to even out the Rep By Pop.

The first to bow out would be the approximately 15 extra MPs from the Maritime starting with 3 from PEI.

Hear that loud scratching noise?????????//

That's them writing their resignations now.

Sure it is

HaHaHahaHaHaHaHaHaHahahaHaHaHaha

You don't have to "guess" what my "answer would be" since I am making that plain in subsequent posts in reference to the article in the OP.

You, on the other hand are making simpleton assumptions based on, well, and understanding of the process that appears to be retarded. You may want to read the article and try and be a little more intelligent next time Tilter, as hard as that must be.

[Newfoundlander]

Really? Because if that's it, and if it can be done, I see no reason why the government shouldn't do it.

It is a Liberal idea, therefore the Conservatives won't accept the idea even if it's more fiscally responsible.

[Smallc]

Parties don't always work like that. Often, but not always.

[g_bambino]

Also,whether or not the 1985 ammendments has constitional implications isn't that clear.

The 1985 amendment was to the Constitution Act 1867; a constitutional clause was added. To implement the Liberal plan, then, would require an amendment to S.51 of said act. But, from my reading of the amending formula, it would, per S.44, only require approval by the federal parliament.

The reason why the Liberals' plan isn't being looked at by the government then seems to be political rather than any legal barrier. It's politically and legally easier to add seats.

[Smallc]

The 1985 amendment was to the Constitution Act 1867; a constitutional clause was added. To implement the Liberal plan, then, would require an amendment to S.51 of said act. But, from my reading of the amending formula, it would, per S.44, only require approval by the federal parliament.

I'm not sure of that. It may in fact need the approval of Parliament, and the affected province. You're probably right, but I don't think it's that clear.

[g_bambino]

It may in fact need the approval of Parliament, and the affected province.

I can't find any rule requiring just the approval of the federal parliament and one provincial parliament to make a constitutional amendment. There's only S.38(2) and (3), which deal with any alterations to a province's government or its parliament: Together, they require the consent of the federal parliament, those of 2/3 the provinces with 50% of the population, and no counter-resolution passed by the legislature of the affected province. Since the distribution of seats in the House of Commons doesn't affect any province's government, those two clauses aren't invoked.

[Newfoundlander]

Parties don't always work like that. Often, but not always.

Do you really think Harper is going to say that the Liberals came up with a better plan then us and we'll endorse it? Harper's goal has been to destroy the Liberals and accepting this idea would be beneficial to the Liberals.

[fellowtraveller]

According to the article, PM Harper can redistribute the presently allocated seats and keep the rep by pop in firm view while costing very little in comparison to adding more seats. You haven't presented any sort of evidence or commentary that would prove that wrong so I'll assume your post was more ideologically conservative rather than fiscally conservative.

The answer is in the post above yours.

The options are very limited without constitutional change.

Assume away.

[g_bambino]

The options are very limited without constitutional change.

Yet, the constitutional change required seems minimal; no provincial approval needed.

[fellowtraveller]

Yet, the constitutional change required seems minimal; no provincial approval needed.

I like my idea of just reducing MP salaries 15% across the board.

I know the Opposition will support that fully.

[g_bambino]

I like my idea of just reducing MP salaries 15% across the board.

Unfortunately, that's less likely than a constitutional amendment.

[Wilber]

Do you really think Harper is going to say that the Liberals came up with a better plan then us and we'll endorse it? Harper's goal has been to destroy the Liberals and accepting this idea would be beneficial to the Liberals.

If a majority of people think the Liberal idea is a good one, Harper could gain more credibility by supporting it.

[Newfoundlander]

If a majority of people think the Liberal idea is a good one, Harper could gain more credibility by supporting it.

The Liberals also gain credibility and come off looking good. The last thing Harper wants is for the Liberals to have either bit of a comeback.

[Wilber]

The Liberals also gain credibility and come off looking good. The last thing Harper wants is for the Liberals to have either bit of a comeback.

I don't know what they will do, but. Harper's opponents are big on claiming he is a one man band. Backing, or at least not opposing a good idea presented by the opposition would go a long way to counter that claim.

Opposing something purely out of partisanship without convincing people it is bad policy would do him more harm than good, IMO.