HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


View Poll Results: Which party do you plan to vote for in the 2019 federal election?
Conservative Party 73 25.61%
Liberal Party 119 41.75%
NDP 44 15.44%
Green Party 27 9.47%
Peoples Party of Canada 22 7.72%
Voters: 285. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4661  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 8:59 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Astineux
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada (see below*)
Posts: 46,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by wave46 View Post
PEI gets 4 seats for ~150,000.

There's a stipulation of a grandfather clause and Senatorial clause.

The Representation Formula
The doomed Charlottetown constitutional accord of 1992 actually included a stipulation that Quebec would be guaranteed 25% of HoC seats forever regardless of population share.

The accord was not defeated (primarily) because of this measure.

But imagine how some people would be pissed today if that were the case! Mind-losing anger!
__________________
*An assembly of shareholders that likes to pretend it is a close-knit family, in order to maintain access to grandpa's inheritance.

Still a really nice group of people to spend Christmas dinner with, though.
     
     
  #4662  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:00 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
I still don't understand why Atlantic Canada is allowed to be so over represented in seats with 32 for a region of 2.4 million people while Manitoba and Sask at over 2.5 million people only get 28 seats and Ontario with over 38% of the population gets only 36% of the 338 seats in parliament, Alberta only gets 10% of seats yet is 11.6% of the population.
It was the price of Confederation.

Also, political influence isn’t directly proportional to the number of seats. Ontario’s 36% of the seats makes it highly influential in close to 100% of political debates. Newfoundland’s 7 seats make it imperative to gain the support of Newfoundland MPs ... virtually never. That doesn’t explain the anomaly between the Atlantic and Man/Sask ... just the general principle of how strict rep by pop doesn’t necessarily work fairly in a federation.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
     
     
  #4663  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:00 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 19,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
The one thing I like about the americans and congress is they redistribute seats based upon states gaining and losing population to reflect population shifts without having to add more members to congress which is pointless and expensive. Canada does not need more MP's but the seat allocations could easily be redistributed and save taxpayers money from having more backbench mp's and their staff members and their hotel and flight costs ect.. ect...
I don't disagree, but that could only happen if Quebec were to lose seats over time. That is unlikely.
     
     
  #4664  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:02 PM
jigglysquishy's Avatar
jigglysquishy jigglysquishy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,233
I would like to have more MPs. Ideally, close to 500.

We have 61 MLAs in Saskatchewan compared to 14 MPs. As a result, I've been able to get to know more provincial politicians and have more local representation.

The cost of a politician is relatively small in the grand scheme of things.
     
     
  #4665  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:03 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
The doomed Charlottetown constitutional accord of 1992 actually included a stipulation that Quebec would be guaranteed 25% of HoC seats forever regardless of population share.

The accord was not defeated (primarily) because of this measure.

But imagine how some people would be pissed today if that were the case! Mind-losing anger!
Quite rightly. Now they just arbitrarily give Quebec 4 more seats each time, and adjust the other provinces accordingly. That’s so separatists can’t point to a declining number of seats as evidence of Quebec’s decreasing influence. Thanks to that, the size of the House is going to balloon over time.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
     
     
  #4666  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:04 PM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,167
It's unfortunate that the constitution Pierre Trudeau made is so unworkable to amend or modernize without risking the destruction of Canada that simple things like senate reform or seat allocations are almost impossible to have implemented.
     
     
  #4667  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:05 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Astineux
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada (see below*)
Posts: 46,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
Quite rightly. Now they just arbitrarily give Quebec 4 more seats each time, and adjust the other provinces accordingly. That’s so separatists can’t point to a declining number of seats as evidence of Quebec’s decreasing influence. Thanks to that, the size of the House is going to balloon over time.
I'd gladly settle for more autonomy to manage our own affairs the way we see fit, in areas that are important to us.
__________________
*An assembly of shareholders that likes to pretend it is a close-knit family, in order to maintain access to grandpa's inheritance.

Still a really nice group of people to spend Christmas dinner with, though.
     
     
  #4668  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:05 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
The one thing I like about the americans and congress is they redistribute seats based upon states gaining and losing population to reflect population shifts without having to add more members to congress which is pointless and expensive. Canada does not need more MP's but the seat allocations could easily be redistributed and save taxpayers money from having more backbench mp's and their staff members and their hotel and flight costs ect.. ect...
Quebec separatists would make hay out of any loss in Quebec’s seat total. That’s the main reason the total isn’t frozen.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
     
     
  #4669  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:08 PM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
Quebec separatists would make hay out of any loss in Quebec’s seat total. That’s the main reason the total isn’t frozen.
Oh I know yet they don't want to have more babies or accept more immigrants while the same time wanting a time freeze where their population share never decreases from the 1960's before they drove all the anglos out.
     
     
  #4670  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:08 PM
kwoldtimer kwoldtimer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: La vraie capitale
Posts: 19,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
Quite rightly. Now they just arbitrarily give Quebec 4 more seats each time, and adjust the other provinces accordingly. That’s so separatists can’t point to a declining number of seats as evidence of Quebec’s decreasing influence. Thanks to that, the size of the House is going to balloon over time.
I don't think that "arbitrarily" is the right word. The additional seats for Quebec last time were intended to ensure that it's percentage of MPs was the same as its percentage of the national population, no?
     
     
  #4671  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:08 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Astineux
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada (see below*)
Posts: 46,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
I would like to have more MPs. Ideally, close to 500.

We have 61 MLAs in Saskatchewan compared to 14 MPs. As a result, I've been able to get to know more provincial politicians and have more local representation.

The cost of a politician is relatively small in the grand scheme of things.
I'd be cautious about that. Countries with much larger countries than us don't have legislatures with 10,000 or 20,000 members as a result.

And they don't necessarily function any more smoothly than we do. (Some such as unitary states also don't have much in terms of regional or sub-national legislative bodies, so that's often most of "it" in terms of elected reps.)
__________________
*An assembly of shareholders that likes to pretend it is a close-knit family, in order to maintain access to grandpa's inheritance.

Still a really nice group of people to spend Christmas dinner with, though.
     
     
  #4672  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:09 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Astineux
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada (see below*)
Posts: 46,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
Oh I know yet they don't want to have more babies or accept more immigrants while the same time wanting a time freeze where their population share never decreases from the 1960's before they drove all the anglos out.
Are we really gonna go there, guys?

BTW we do want more babies. What do you think all those fancy-schmancy parental leave, baby bonus and daycare programs are about?
__________________
*An assembly of shareholders that likes to pretend it is a close-knit family, in order to maintain access to grandpa's inheritance.

Still a really nice group of people to spend Christmas dinner with, though.
     
     
  #4673  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:11 PM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Are we really gonna go there, guys?

BTW we do want more babies. What do you think all those fancy-schmancy parental leave, baby bonus and daycare programs are about?
I think it is fine Quebec has control of its own language and immigration I just don't find it fair it should be locked into having 25% of seats in Canada when it is no longer that large a portion of Canada's population and is on a continual decline in terms of share of the national population.
     
     
  #4674  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:13 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is offline
Astineux
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canada (see below*)
Posts: 46,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
I think it is fine Quebec has control of its own language and immigration I just don't find it fair it should be locked into having 25% of seats in Canada when it is no longer that large a portion of Canada's population and is on a continual decline in terms of share of the national population.
Well, we're not locked in for 25% so you don't need to be concerned.

That proposal died at the same time as the Charlottetown accord did in 1992.
__________________
*An assembly of shareholders that likes to pretend it is a close-knit family, in order to maintain access to grandpa's inheritance.

Still a really nice group of people to spend Christmas dinner with, though.
     
     
  #4675  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:13 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I'd gladly settle for more autonomy to manage our own affairs the way we see fit, in areas that are important to us.
What’s left? You practically run Ottawa anyway. Since 1968, we’ve had 40 years of Quebec Prime Ministers, 10 years of Prime Ministers from Alberta, and a few months worth of caretaker PMs from B.C. But the rest of Canada, notably Ontario, seems to get zero credit for tolerating this.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
     
     
  #4676  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:14 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
I don't think that "arbitrarily" is the right word. The additional seats for Quebec last time were intended to ensure that it's percentage of MPs was the same as its percentage of the national population, no?
No, I’m pretty sure that it’s now the rule that they go up 4 each time, no matter what.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
     
     
  #4677  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:15 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 13,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
What’s left? You practically run Ottawa anyway. Since 1968, we’ve had 40 years of Quebec Prime Ministers, 10 years of Prime Ministers from Alberta, and a few months worth of caretaker PMs from B.C. But the rest of Canada, notably Ontario, seems to get zero credit for tolerating this.
And everybody else gets zero credit for tolerating Ontario.

Take it from a BC'er. Just relax. We're a federation. I can find many reasons to be pissed at QC, ON, even the maritime provinces. Don't get me started on Alberta...
     
     
  #4678  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:18 PM
Andy6's Avatar
Andy6 Andy6 is offline
Starring as himself
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto Yorkville
Posts: 9,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I'd be cautious about that. Countries with much larger countries than us don't have legislatures with 10,000 or 20,000 members as a result.

And they don't necessarily function any more smoothly than we do. (Some such as unitary states also don't have much in terms of regional or sub-national legislative bodies, so that's often most of "it" in terms of elected reps.)
No government wants 300 backbenchers sitting around knowing they’ll never make cabinet. That’s what leads to all the internal party schisms in the UK.
__________________
crispy crunchy light and snappy
     
     
  #4679  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:18 PM
wave46 wave46 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy6 View Post
No, I’m pretty sure that it’s now the rule that they go up 4 each time, no matter what.
That's incorrect. The current system for redistribution dates from 1985.

Until 2015, only Ontario, Alberta and BC have received new seats.

In 2015, Quebec got 3 new seats as well.
     
     
  #4680  
Old Posted Oct 21, 2019, 9:18 PM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 2,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwoldtimer View Post
I don't think that "arbitrarily" is the right word. The additional seats for Quebec last time were intended to ensure that it's percentage of MPs was the same as its percentage of the national population, no?
A previous attempt by the Conservative government to adopt legislation on seat allocation died in the last Parliament over criticism from Quebec that it would not gain any seats and lose some of its influence in Parliament and federal government decisions. Under the new formula, Quebec, which now has 23.22% of the Canadian population, would have 23.28% of the seats in the Commons after the 2015 election.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...use-of-commons
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:39 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.