Publius demands some spine from Mr Harper--another good read:
Quebec RulesThe Quebecois are different from you and me. They're Quebecois.
Quebec is demanding that the federal government not trim the province's political clout in the House of Commons, warning that it will not be satisfied with the consolation prize of an extra seat or two.Both the governing Liberals and the Parti Quebecois shrugged off reports that the Harper government might be prepared to add an extra seat for Quebec to soothe critics of the new Commons configuration.
What they want instead is a guarantee that the province will continue to hold 24 per cent of the chamber's seats. Quebec currently has 75 of the 308 seats.
This is the Quebec rule of Canadian politics. If something prejudices Quebec, no matter what it may do to the rest of Canada, it cannot come to pass...
...Our [RoC, once quaintly English Canada] sense of nationality can best be described as a neurotic hatred of the United States, interspersed with a militant insistence that we have no nationality. Canada as anti-American multicultural hotel. No doubt what the men of Juno Beach were hoping to find when they returned home.
The last half century of Canadian history is a case study in cultural appeasement. The steady surrender by the Anglophone majority of their culture in hopes of placating the Francophone minority...
The shift in relative economic and demographic strength to the West has been the great unsung story of the last few decades. From hinterland to heartland, the Prairie provinces and B.C. can now provide a counter-weight to the influence of self-interested Quebec and pragmatic Ontario. Back in April the Tories proposed giving Albert five and B.C. seven additional seats in the Commons, while Ontario would get another eighteen seats (mostly in the bluish suburbs surrounding Toronto). These new seats would not only recognize demographic reality, they would create the electoral basis of a Conservative Party pre-emience for decades to come.
Whatever pressure may come down upon the Prime Minister he must not, whatever the cost, fail to grant those new seats to the West and maintain Quebec at about its current 75 seats. For reasons of political cosmetics it might be necessary to toss another seat or two to Quebec. That province, however, cannot continue to be over represented...
Amen!
Oui. C'est ca. Tu as raison.
And then there is Danielle Smith.
Her position on favours for Quebec is, shall we say, unequivocal.
Goodbye, Quebec, write if you find work.
If seats in the House are supposed to be distributed based on population, then there should be no more than a 10% difference - at most - between the population of any riding. The over representation of eastern provinces, including and especially Quebec, is already enshrined in the Senate and Supreme Court. Enough is enough!
Abso-frigging-lutely.
In normal circumstances, I understand Quebec wanting to assert its provincial rights. The provinces are paramount and chose to be part of the confederation.
However, a determination to hold the rest of the confederation hostage is wrong. If you chose to be part of the confederation then you should be required to return federalists to the House of Commons. Though I admit it would be a difficult thing to police. Certainly sending avowed separatists to the confederal parliament is politically schizophenic.
Frankly I'd like Quebeckers to engineer another referendum on Quebec's inclusion in the federation, only this time, we all get to vote.
One has to ask Quebec - why, in the name of justice and logic, should ONE province receive preferential treatment in the statistical allotment of seats in the House of Commons?
That is, the representation is by population size. Quebec's population has diminished. It already, by legal constitutional rule, is allotted a minimum of 75 seats in the House. If we take it as a reference point, then the West now has 11 seats fewer than it should have. Its population has increased.
Why should Quebec, alone of all the provinces, have a seat allotment - not based on its population as is the case with all other provinces - but..just because???
And no - Quebec should not receive even one extra seat. The rule of representation is by population. Not by privilege.
Dear Quebec: Get stuffed!!!!!
The Rest of Canada is the hotel maid and Quebec is Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
Time to allow Quebec to experience adulthood. So far all we have seen & heard is juvenile temper tantrums that have been rewarded by a fearful Ottawa/ROC.
Quebec can figure out the game has changed, if the ROC just insists it has changed.
New day, new game, new rules, new reality.
C'mon Steve.
Ah Yes, Quebec should not have voted NDP.
Sad but....?
Is there some risk they wont go through with the bill if not make it worse for Quebec, The census actually meant there probbaly should have been 5 more seats in Ontario in addition to the 30 additional that were to go to Ontario ALberta and BC.
In a majority situation with the seats being prime con seats this just makes a a majority without Quebec not just possible but likely.
I dont think you have to worry. It will happen.
Canada majority CPC, Danielle Smith in Alberta, Quebec votes NDP - could it be any better ? .......Oh, and please defund the CBC - the very essence of waste and bias
By the way, the Publius article writes, incorrectly, that Harper moved a House Motion recognizing Quebec as a nation. He did no such thing.
He passed a motion recognizing 'the Quebecois (i.e., the people) as a nation within a united Canada'. Not Quebec, the geographic and political entity. Not Quebec as independent.
The reason he did this was because first, Ignatieff, who was then a leadership candidate, had introduced a resolution to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada. That's Quebec, the territory.
Then, not to be outdone by Ignatieff, the Bloc, under Duceppe, quickly introduced an actual motion to declare Quebec as a nation. No mention of Canada.
The Liberals didn't want 'no Canada' but instead wanted 'Quebec is a nation within Canada'.
Harper deflected the crisis - and it was a dangerous situation- by moving the 'identity crisis' from a geographic and political territorial claim..to a focus strictly and only on the people in Quebec: the Quebecois. And, insisting on the phrase 'within a united Canada'.
That blocked Duceppe and the Bloc and Ignatieff and the Liberals.
As for Quebec's role, remember that the Charter, created by Trudeau has very little to say about rights, and these individual rights are trumped by its multicultural privileges. The Charter is primarily about installing official bilingualism in Canada.
"Rep by Pop" is based on what is false: that all voters in all jurisdictions are equal and therefore deserve equal representation in Parliament. Replace it with a formula that adjusts representation according to whether you and your region are a net producer or a net consumer of wealth. Votes in regions and provinces perennially "in the red", as net takers of federal dollars, should not be considered the equal of those perennially "in the black"---those who pay the bills.
Um...Quebec HAS representation by population. Its seat count right now is roughly proportional to its share of population.
It's Atlantic Canada and the historically "have-not" prairie provinces (Manitoba and Saskatchewan) whose caucuses outstrip their share of population. PEI's four MPs for 140,000 people (enough to merit one MP at most) is the most obvious example.
Yes, Ontario, BC and Alberta are getting shafted under the current system, yes, this is a real problem, and yes, it ought to be much easier to fix than it is. But get your facts straight. French Canadians are not to blame for EVERYTHING that's wrong with Confederation, and neither is Quebec.
Stop adding seats and start shifting seats based on population changes.
308 over paid under-working MP's is 100 or so to many already.
Population of Canada: 33.7 Million. For every 110,000 people +/- 10-15% you get 1 seat.
Que gets 72. Of course they are guaranteed 75.
You want to talk really unfair look to PEI and Saskatchewan. PEI should lose 3 of 4 seats if we stick with 308 and Sask should loose 5 of 14.
Why should the territories be represented by 1 MP each while PEI gets 4 for similar populations?
If we can't change the guarantees in the constitution act perhaps we need to drastically expand the HOC so that each 33,000 people get an MP. Of course that would mean we'd have a thousand or so seats so each MP would have to take a 65% pay cut/expense cut...
And Harper caves in 3, 2, 1...
And why would Prime Minister Harper cave, libertariansmarmy?
The CPC went from 10 to 5 seats in Quebec and even without those 5 seats has an 6 seat majority.
No need to court Quebec at the expense of the RoC any longer at all.
Why this Quebec bashing?
As Dick Slater noted above, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan (Yes! Saskatchewan!), Nfld, PEI and NB all have more seats per person than Quebec.
In any case, representation in federal institutions is not strictly a question of population. (If this confuses you, look up the wikipedia article for the US Senate.)
Quebec is the only sizeable jurisdiction in North America with a French language majority. Like it or not, this is a fundamental feature of confederation.
I'm no Canadian political pundit but what leverage does Québec have to demand the number of seats they want?
Stop piddling around with those idiots. Let them secede, then starve when they can't get enough food up the St. Lawrence.
dick slater - no, the reason Quebec gets 75 seats is because it is guaranteed by the constitution.
Furthermore,
"The Representation Act, 1974, also known as the “amalgam” formula, was introduced to guarantee, among other things, that no province could lose seats. The new formula fixed the number of seats in Quebec at 75, up from 65, and further prescribed an automatic increase by four seats in Quebec at each subsequent readjustment to take population growth into account. The formula also created three categories of provinces: large provinces (population of 2.5 million or more); intermediate provinces (population between 1.5 and 2.5 million); and small provinces (population under 1.5 million). The large provinces were to be allocated seats in strict proportion to Quebec, while separate and more favourable rules were used to calculate the number of seats for the small and intermediate provinces".
Two things: no province can lose seats. And at each re-allocation, Quebec gets an 'automatic four seats'!!! Even if it loses population! And only Quebec gets this preferential treatment. These are the seats Harper is talking about. He's going strictly by the rule-of-law.
I strongly doubt that Harper would ignore these constitutional rules on seat allocation and instead, 'amend the constitution' (not easy to do!!) as Quebec wants, so that it could have, always, 24% of the House seats, no matter the population size of the rest of the provinces! That's an unreasonable request and furthermore, requires a constitutional amendment which no other province would agree to.
Nor can I see Harper agreeing to it - even if he could do it without a constitutional amendment.
Harper, by ignoring this Quebec demand, has nothing to lose. What Quebec doesn't realize is that Quebec no longer counts in Canada. Economically or politically. This is due, entirely and only, to Quebec and its refusal to mature, move out of adolescent dependency on 'the federal largesse'.. and take charge of its economy.
So- this is a political situation. Layton and the NDP will be screaming about it; he's trying to set himself up as some kind of Quebec Messianic Voice. But..it's too late. The old way of life of Quebec, based on manipulation, threats, entitlements, and isolation..is over. Quebec simply doesn't count for a penny anymore..and what we'll be seeing is Layton, Mulcair, Charest and Marois..all screaming at each other for political reasons. But, being ignored by the rest of the country.
It comes as a surprise to many Canadians that most Americans spend precious little time thinking of Canada. Most of what we think about when we think of Canada has to do with sports -- ie, Alex Tagliani or hockey. Maybe the odd bear hunting or fishing trip.
I was surprised when I visited Toronto during the Dubya years and found entire book stores devoted to "Bush is Stupid" books in GTA. I never once have seen a book in an American book store about any Canadian politician.
While paranoia about a rumored American invasion certainly gave birth to Canada -- and let me remind Canadians that Americans had good reason to distrust Canadians after our little Civil War -- perhaps you could note that most Americans don't define themselves by anti-British resentment....
slater/august - so what? Why does being 'French speaking' mean that one is allocated more seats in parliament? That doesn't make any logical or even political sense.
Since Canada is officially bilingual in its federal institutions including parliament, then, such a demand doesn't make any sense. That would, after all, be 'racist', i.e., privileging one group on the basis of its ethnic identity.
No, parliament has to be based on population. The Constitution has dealth with 'historical rights' by its sections which declare that no province can lose seats and also, by giving Quebec the unique and special privilege of 4 extra seats at each re-allotment. But to declare that language privileges a population ..whew..that's quite something.
It comes as a surprise to many Canadians that most Americans spend precious little time thinking of Canada.
Says you.
I'm well aware that Americans think they are the whole world.
Why else would they have called their baseball game playoffs "the World Series" for so many decades when only American teams were represented?
I once met an American book salesman at the Calgary Stampede.
Among his wares was a book titled 'World Travel', which was entirely about travel within the U.S.
I agree with Duffman. Re-draw the lines. we don't need more scumbag politicians sucking the life out of the taxpayer.
Publius: "The notion that if la belle province loses its 24% share of the Commons its language and culture will be crippled is sheer nonsense."
Touche.
How about all the Quebecois who winter in Florida? If they were so worried about "losing their language and culture," they wouldn't be spending so much time Stateside, would they?
It's time for the Quebecois to grow up, and take their knocks like the rest of us, the ROC. They're not special, they're Canadians just like all of us who don't live in Quebec.
Never missing a occasion to bash on Quebec.
what about proportional voting at the UN then?
Since 1/5 of the world is china then china should hold 1/5 of the vote. Then another 1/5 for India..
That's democracy.. yet you right wing bush wanna be extreminist would oppose it i am sure.
Quebecois NDPist.
Vive Jack Layton.
This is one issue that would shatter the CPC if PMSH were to give QC more seats.
Quebecois NDPist:
Citing the UN as the model isn't helping your case - quite the contrary in fact. The model is (rightly) the US: Rep by pop in the HOC and EEE in the Senate - it is the grand compromise* that saved the Union and makes it strong. we Need EEE ASAP to prevent ours from disintegrating. Quebec needs to sign onto a canadian version of the grand compromise otherwise this confederation AND quebec will not reach their fullest potential.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise
"what about proportional voting at the UN then? ... yet you right wing bush wanna be extreminist would oppose it i am sure."
I oppose the UN. Period.
Let's pull an Obama and tell Quebec that they can suced,but to the 1841 boundries with a land swap to enable the martitine provinces to be connected to the rest of the country by a corridor that runs along the US-Canadian border. But no entitlement to Ruperts Land. see what they would have to say about that. By the way 1841 is the year of the Union Act that created the United Province of Canada.
Publius says it well.
Would the new seats not be effectively in place until the next election or are they created as soon as Parliament passed the bill in which case would there be by-elections to fill the seats?
ET said "Quebec's population has diminished".
Indeed it has. Since 1976, about a million Anglophones left La Belle Province, driven out by Quebec's draconian language laws.
"Why else would they have called their baseball game playoffs "the World Series" for so many decades when only American teams were represented?"
Because we weren't thinking of Canada at the time. Because at that time only American teams played the game.
As I said, Canadians spend a lot more time thinking about the States than Americans think about Canada. Quite frankly, it's viewed as that spare bedroom that one never uses, or perhaps that third car that the kids used to drive before they left for college.
What do you call someone who thinks that everyone is thinking about them, when in fact they are not?
Is there something wrong with our constitution? It seems to me that Quebec (whoever that may be) is simply asking for some recognition of the original deal.
Perhaps instead of bashing Quebec (whoever that may be) people should be focusing on just how much the federal government's scope has widened. Perhaps a little more sovereignty-association would be a good thing for all provinces.
I agree with Dick. Let's cut seats for Saskatchewan, Manitoba and PEI. Saskatchewan's population hasn't changed significantly in a century.
quebecois ndp - you aren't making any sense.
First, we aren't 'bashing' Quebec. We are criticizing Quebec's demand for special treatment; we are criticizing Quebec's insistence that it be given more representation than its population merits. So far, no-one has come up with a factual or logical reason why Quebec should get more seats than its population.
Your UN example, which asks for seats based on population, is contrary to Quebec's demands! Quebec's population is small; it now has 23% and this is falling as the West increases - why should it demand 24% representation?
Are you seriously suggesting that Quebec can't be criticized? And - please tell us, do you support Quebec never having less than 24% of the seats in parliament, even though its population would not merit such a voice?
And, what does 'proportional representation' have to do with this? I oppose proportional representationo anywhere because I consider it undemocratic. The MPs so selected are not voted in by the electorate; they are appointed by the political party. That, to me, is a basic format for patronage, cronyism and corruption.
Remember, the UN delegates are not elected - proportional or otherwise. The delegates are appointed by each nation.
Second, I reject the UN in itself, as a corrupt, unethical site for 'the high life in NY' for 'diplomats who exploit their own peoples.
Consider the US; each state no matter the size of the population has two; that's two; seats in the Senate. The House of Representatives has seats by population - and no state is 'privileged'; it's strictly by population.
Could you explain yourself? And without insults?
djb at 8.02
Neither has PEI's; but that's because every time a girl gets pregnant, a guy leaves the Island.
Oz, Not me..."It comes as a surprise to many Canadians that most Americans spend precious little time thinking of Canada."
I view Canadians as my brothers and sisters...
Boo! Hiss! on Taliban Jacques Bloc Separatist.
Jacques, Why were you naked in TO?
…-
“Layton rudest MP in question period: study
Toronto Sun – Jessica Murphy – 56 minutes ago
A McMaster University study ranked NDP Leader Jack Layton the lowest on the civility index. (ANDRE FORGET/QMI AGENCY) Boo! Hiss! NDP Leader Jack Layton has been crowned question period’s rudest MP.”
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/05/31/layton-rudest-mp-in-question-period-study
glasnost - what 'original deal' are you referring to?
Do you mean the 1982 Constitution?
The 1867 Constitution - where there were only four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?
Or 1974?
" There shall be assigned to Quebec seventy-five members in the readjustment following the completion of the decennial census taken in the year 1971, and thereafter four additional members in each subsequent readjustment.
2. Subject to Rules 5(2) and (3), there shall be assigned to a large province a number of members equal to the number obtained by dividing the population of the large province by the electoral quotient of Quebec. " (51.1).
Posted by: August1991 at 5:04 PM
"Quebec is the only sizeable jurisdiction in North America with a French language majority"
Not for long, the only way they have been able to keep up the relevancy pretense is by mass immigration. Soon they will be speaking with more of an arabic tongue.
ET, I mean the 1867 version that set out the division of powers, which is still for the most part our constitution. It seems to me that there's been federal intrusion into many areas that were not intended for federal jurisdiction, a situation which many of our founders, French and English were wisely, and mutually, apprehensive.
Perhaps that could be the real intention of "Je me souviens".
While Quebec has 75 seats the amalgam formula has been superceeded, so I think people can relax about Quebec getting more seats.
From the elections canada site
"Following the 1981 census, calculations revealed that the amalgam formula would result in a substantial increase in the number of seats in the House of Commons both immediately and after subsequent censuses (369 seats were projected after 2001). Effectively putting a hold on the process already underway to reassign seats, Parliament passed the Representation Act, 1985. It came into effect in March 1986.
The adoption of the Representation Act, 1985 greatly simplified the formula described in the amended section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 for calculating representation.
The present formula for calculating representation in the House of Commons.
The current formula for representation is applied by carrying out the following four steps:
1 – Allocation to the territories
Starting with the 282 seats that the House of Commons of Canada had in 1985, one seat is allocated to the Northwest Territories, one to the Yukon Territory and one to Nunavut, leaving 279 seats. This number is used to calculate the electoral quotient.
2 – Calculation of the electoral district average
The total population of the ten provinces is divided by 279 to obtain the "electoral quota" or "quotient", which is used to determine the number of seats for each province.
3 – Distribution of seats to each province
The theoretical number of seats to be allocated to each province in the House of Commons is calculated by dividing the total population of each province by the quotient obtained in step 2. If the result leaves a remainder higher than 0.50, the number of seats is rounded up to the next whole number.
4 – Adjustments
After the theoretical number of seats per province is obtained, adjustments are made in a process referred to as applying the "senatorial clause" and "grandfather clause."
As we have seen, since 1915, the senatorial clause has guaranteed that no province has fewer members in the House of Commons than it has in the Senate. The Representation Act, 1985 brought into effect a new grandfather clause that guaranteed each province no fewer seats than it had in 1976 or during the 33rd Parliament."
@geek49203 - We in Canada have a vested interest in the US due to our proximity, trade and for me, a US based employer. I'm actually in Webster, NY as I type this.
The US also has approximately 10x our population and a huge military/industrial complex that has fortunately never been pointed in our direction (since I've been around anyway...).
I enjoy being affiliated with the US and have many friends here. Not all of us are anti-American wackos (especially here).
We worry about your country and your indebtedness because we like you and we will ultimately be affected if bad things happen here. That's all.
stephen - the constitutional law does indeed give Quebec 75 seats, and no less than 75. And, at each reallocation, up to 4 more seats.
That's not what Quebec is concerned about. It wants to prevent the other provinces from being allocated seats dependent on their population...such that the West, for instance, would have more seats in the House than Quebec.
Quebec wants, in its case, to have the law amended such that it, and it alone, would not have seats allocated by population but by a set percentage: 24% of the House. This 24% would not represent its ratio in the Canadian population total (at the moment it has only 23% of the population). It would simply belong to Quebec. Just because.
glasnost - the intrusion by the federal govt into provincial affairs is indeed a great concern. And I certainly think it should be reduced.
However, Quebec, for one, insists on a 'fiscal intrusion'; it wants ever more federal funds while insisting that it alone gets to determine how those federal funds are spent.
"what [sic] about proportional voting at the UN then?"
RED HERRING ALERT: The UN isn't a sovereign state and need not concern us here; it's entirely irrelevant.
When will we stop pandering to Quebec? It has diminished in importance yet it demands and is pandered to. How badly do we need it? Call its bluff one day and see what happens.
However, Quebec, for one, insists on a 'fiscal intrusion'; it wants ever more federal funds while insisting that it alone gets to determine how those federal funds are spent. ~ ET
I would suggest that Quebec is asking for nothing more than other provinces should be. When the federal government uses its "spending power" to subvert the intention of our constitutional division of provincial/federal responsibility, all provinces should be squawking..