2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

No the additional seats in Ont, BC, and Ab are justified by population. In Quebec it's just to sooth his newfound support. Read the entire quote, essentially he wants to make sure Quebec has the same proportion of seats going forward regardless of population changes.

Hmmm, there's a bit of a confusing bit here in Jack's quote versus what you are saying. Jack is saying at the end of the quote "yes, it would be proportionate" but you're saying it wouldn't be because of increasing seats based on 'political weight' rather than 'population.'

All things considered, this might be the deus ex machina to get Quebec to accept federalism. I don't have a problem with that. Just how many more seats they would get though, is the cause for concern.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

All things considered, this might be the deus ex machina to get Quebec to accept federalism. I don't have a problem with that. Just how many more seats they would get though, is the cause for concern.

Why is Quebec so important that they get enshrined in policy that their votes should count more than your vote? This is a pillar of democracy. Should 100 years go by and Alberta, BC, and Ontario grow at their current rates and Quebec stagnates populationwise, I would expect the prior three provinces to dwarf Quebec's political power significantly. Jack Layton's suggesting that this should not be so and a 'historical-context' should somehow apply to the future.

This is why the Charlottown Accord was DOA. Because the ROC didn't want to pay the price for Quebec signing the Constitution.

[Ark2]

What do you expect? You don't win Quebec by telling them that they will get treated like everyone else. You have to promise them things that the rest of the country won't get. That's how it always works.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ark2

What do you expect? You don't win Quebec by telling them that they will get treated like everyone else. You have to promise them things that the rest of the country won't get. That's how it always works.

I know, but due to lack of economic growth, and lower birthrates, I always hoped that time would erode their political standing by allowing two other parties the statistical ability to win a majority and tell Quebec to shove it when their requests got unreasonable. I suppose it's Lower Canada attitudes like my own that prevokes this kind of politiking in Quebec.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Why is Quebec so important that they get enshrined in policy that their votes should count more than your vote? This is a pillar of democracy. Should 100 years go by and Alberta, BC, and Ontario grow at their current rates and Quebec stagnates populationwise, I would expect the prior three provinces to dwarf Quebec's political power significantly. Jack Layton's suggesting that this should not be so and a 'historical-context' should somehow apply to the future.

And it should. I am on the boat of "keep Quebec in Canada," and it is that kind of recognition in some form of constitutional amendment or legislative action that will get Quebec onside in Canada. That's what they want, and that's just not going to change. Any imposition of Western seats without recognizing Quebec's 'special' status is just not a realistic for the politics of this country. In addition, Quebec has almost 8 million people - just when exactly is BC or Alberta going to hit that mark? This is not to mention that Quebecers have roughly 1/4 of the country's population, and roughly 1/4 or the seats in parliament. They do, however, have the "special clause" seats, which I think may be more of a contentious point.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I know, but due to lack of economic growth, and lower birthrates, I always hoped that time would erode their political standing by allowing two other parties the statistical ability to win a majority and tell Quebec to shove it when their requests got unreasonable. I suppose it's Lower Canada attitudes like my own that prevokes this kind of politiking in Quebec.

I hope that as well, but it won't happen. Look at the situation now, it's nice that a federalist party is winning in Quebec (even though it's the lousy NDP) but the second they stop bending over backwards for them, you'll see the rise of the Bloc once again.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

And it should. I am on the boat of "keep Quebec in Canada," and it is that kind of recognition in some form of constitutional amendment or legislative action that will get Quebec onside in Canada. That's what they want, and that's just not going to change. Any imposition of Western seats without recognizing Quebec's 'special' status is just not a realistic for the politics of this country. In addition, Quebec has almost 8 million people - just when exactly is BC or Alberta going to hit that mark? This is not to mention that Quebecers have roughly 1/4 of the country's population, and roughly 1/4 or the seats in parliament. They do, however, have the "special clause" seats, which I think may be more of a contentious point.

How is it not realistic to expect that ridings have similar populations regardless of where they are located? I'm not talking about unjustly taking away their seats, but rather reflecting ridings that are mroe 'rep by pop' based. I'm not willing to dilute my voting power so Quebeckers can unjustly get more representation in the house.

According to pop estimates, Alberta and BC already have more people than Quebec (8.24 million vs. 7.97 million). Where is our proper representation? Quebec has 75 seats, Alberta and BC get 64 seats.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

How is it not realistic to expect that ridings have similar populations regardless of where they are located? I'm not talking about unjustly taking away their seats, but rather reflecting ridings that are mroe 'rep by pop' based. I'm not willing to dilute my voting power so Quebeckers can unjustly get more representation in the house.

Because you will not see Quebec voluntarily agreeing to give up seats in the House just so the West can be better represented. If that were to happen, they would probably make the case to balance out the loss of proportional seats to an increase in 'special clause' seats. If Western Canada, and Canada as a whole, were to recognize Quebec as a distinct society in an official manner, then it may be doable.

My point is that you're not going to get adjusted seats without some special consent from Quebec. I just don't see how it would happen any other way.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Now this I completely agree with. I don't see why it's the government's responsibility to raise your kids, but if we have to choose from one or the other, I'll take the tax credit option.

Same here. But it would HAVE to be a tax credit aimed at low to slightly middle class families. I think it goes along the line of GST exemption from groceries, baby clothes and such. Very vital for low income families.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

According to pop estimates, Alberta and BC already have more people than Quebec (8.24 million vs. 7.97 million). Where is our proper representation? Quebec has 75 seats, Alberta and BC get 64 seats.

I'd be more interested to know how many Francophones or people with Quebecois roots now live in the Western provinces and support a 'distinct' society.

Just because the West has factually more people, doesn't necessarily mean the support is there to do it. Hypothetical of course, but I'd rather see numbers now that a the population has shifted West, mostly from the emigration of Eastern Canadians.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'd be more interested to know how many Francophones or people with Quebecois roots now live in the Western provinces and support a 'distinct' society.

Just because the West has factually more people, doesn't necessarily mean the support is there to do it. Hypothetical of course, but I'd rather see numbers now that a the population has shifted West, mostly from the emigration of Eastern Canadians.

How does any of this have to do with the philosophy of rep by pop? We're not talking about taking seats away, just adding them according to population as already is enshrined with the Elections Act (Adding of seats is already on the slate). For Layton to do what he proposes it would mean changing current law to give Quebec more power.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

How does any of this have to do with the philosophy of rep by pop? We're not talking about taking seats away, just adding them according to population as already is enshrined with the Elections Act (Adding of seats is already on the slate). For Layton to do what he proposes it would mean changing current law to give Quebec more power.

If I'm missing something here, please point me in the direction where it says adding more seats is already on the slate. This solution does nothing for Quebec if it means increasing seats for BC, Alberta and Ontario. It would simply water down their house power, and only benefit those who are currently 'under-represented.' Hence my arguement that to do this, special recognition is required, or something of that nature. Again, my point is that that requirement will not go away.

Besides, isn't proportional representation a zero-sum number? How would adding more seats solve this problem? If you increase the percentage of seats to other provinces, you'll have to take them away from somewhere else.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'd be more interested to know how many Francophones or people with Quebecois roots now live in the Western provinces and support a 'distinct' society.

Just because the West has factually more people, doesn't necessarily mean the support is there to do it. Hypothetical of course, but I'd rather see numbers now that a the population has shifted West, mostly from the emigration of Eastern Canadians.

If you put it that way, then it's only fair that you take out all the English speaking people living in Quebec off of the 8 million people count. Afterall, they don't have Quebecois roots.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

If you put it that way, then it's only fair that you take out all the English speaking people living in Quebec off of the 8 million people count. Afterall, they don't have Quebecois roots.

Yes, that's true.

[kn]

Interesting discussion about the Sherbrooke Declaration from 2005, something that isn't getting the attention it deserves.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/spe...?device=mobile

[The Yen Man]

I think at the end of the day, the only real fair way is representation by population. The proportion of seats in parliment should equal your proportion of Canada's population. I wish they had some sort of legislature where seats are adjusted to reflect the population every so often, say every 10 or 15 years.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Hmmm, there's a bit of a confusing bit here in Jack's quote versus what you are saying. Jack is saying at the end of the quote "yes, it would be proportionate" but you're saying it wouldn't be because of increasing seats based on 'political weight' rather than 'population.'

All things considered, this might be the deus ex machina to get Quebec to accept federalism. I don't have a problem with that. Just how many more seats they would get though, is the cause for concern.

If that is what it takes to get Quebec to accept federalism, then it is just one more reason why Quebec can go to hell.

The province's power is already disproportionate to their population, and IIRC, that bias in power was already used to halt a planned increase in seats to accommodate population growth in the wildly underrepresented provinces of BC, Alberta and Ontario, based on population.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

If that is what it takes to get Quebec to accept federalism, then it is just one more reason why Quebec can go to hell.

The province's power is already disproportionate to their population, and IIRC, that bias in power was already used to halt a planned increase in seats to accommodate population growth in the wildly underrepresented provinces of BC, Alberta and Ontario, based on population.

I fully agree. I'm not willing to pay the price of asymetrical federalism to keep Quebec in the country. They can vote with their numbers however they want. I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with them getting an artifical larger voice because they speak a different language.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I fully agree. I'm not willing to pay the price of asymetrical federalism to keep Quebec in the country. They can vote with their numbers however they want. I have no problem with that, I do have a problem with them getting an artifical larger voice because they speak a different language.

Careful...earlier in this campaign Harper said the CPC policy IS asymetrical federalism.

[Cowboy89]

Anders complaining that he has to run against someone this election:

Anders points to his own riding as proof, saying NDP candidate Shawna Knowles (who lives in Edmonton) has been virtually non-existent in the campaign -a tactic he said is being employed to shore up votes for Liberal candidate Janice Kinch.

"There has been deep collusion and co-ordination between these coalition parties for months, and this has been arranged at, in my view, senior levels of the campaign," Anders said.



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/de...#ixzz1KwypZ08I