Yes, I did very well in history but that has nothing to do with it (unless you want to live in the past).
High Ho it's off to the polls we go.
- Thread starter Trex
- Start date
Yes, I did very well in history but that has nothing to do with it (unless you want to live in the past).
At least Ignatieff is clever!
Spade my friend – Iggy is to clever by half –
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/16/ignatieff-and-the-hst-when-we-whisper-it-means-we-don-t-really-mean-it.aspx
Note the careful wording of this official release from Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who evidently got an earful from the Ignatieff camp after he spilled the beans on the federal Liberal leader's willingness to support a harmonized sales tax.
Michael Ignatieff has been busy attacking the tax in public, trying to tie to the federal Conservatives (even though the two provincial governments about to adopt it are both Liberal). McGuinty let slip that Ignatieff's bluster was all for public consumption, and behind the scenes he was fully on board. Oops! Time for a "clarification":
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty was forced to backtrack yesterday after saying federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff had pledged to support an unpopular new tax in the province. "Earlier today during a media availability, I indicated that Michael Ignatieff was supportive of the HST [Harmonized Sales Tax] in Ontario," Mr. McGuinty said in a statement. "This is based on my understanding derived from a number of conversations between my office and Mr. Ignatieff's office. In fact, there has been no formal agreement." Ignatieff spokeswoman Jill Fairbrother said, "We're in no position to make any arrangement with any government, nor any person -- nor would we. We're the Opposition." McGuinty insiders insist the two offices had communicated many times on the issue.
No formal agreement. Just an informal assurance between like-minded pals. McGuinty should have been able to tell, because the Ignatieff folks were whispering when they promised their support. Besides, the Liberals aren't in government, and thus no agreement can be formal.
Gee, that's setting the record straight.
That is why 10 Politicians at the bottom of the Rideau Canal is a good start.
Spade my friend – Iggy is to clever by half –
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/16/ignatieff-and-the-hst-when-we-whisper-it-means-we-don-t-really-mean-it.aspx
Note the careful wording of this official release from Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who evidently got an earful from the Ignatieff camp after he spilled the beans on the federal Liberal leader's willingness to support a harmonized sales tax.
Michael Ignatieff has been busy attacking the tax in public, trying to tie to the federal Conservatives (even though the two provincial governments about to adopt it are both Liberal). McGuinty let slip that Ignatieff's bluster was all for public consumption, and behind the scenes he was fully on board. Oops! Time for a "clarification":
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty was forced to backtrack yesterday after saying federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff had pledged to support an unpopular new tax in the province. "Earlier today during a media availability, I indicated that Michael Ignatieff was supportive of the HST [Harmonized Sales Tax] in Ontario," Mr. McGuinty said in a statement. "This is based on my understanding derived from a number of conversations between my office and Mr. Ignatieff's office. In fact, there has been no formal agreement." Ignatieff spokeswoman Jill Fairbrother said, "We're in no position to make any arrangement with any government, nor any person -- nor would we. We're the Opposition." McGuinty insiders insist the two offices had communicated many times on the issue.
No formal agreement. Just an informal assurance between like-minded pals. McGuinty should have been able to tell, because the Ignatieff folks were whispering when they promised their support. Besides, the Liberals aren't in government, and thus no agreement can be formal.
Gee, that's setting the record straight.
That is why 10 Politicians at the bottom of the Rideau Canal is a good start.
Nice spin, AlbertaBlue; I didn’t ‘forget’ the Maritimes, we weren’t discussing those provinces—we were discussing the western provinces. Nonetheless, if you want to discuss the Eastern provinces, I’d be happy to—they are just as appropriately represented as are the rest of the nation’s provinces.
- New Brunswick has 2.3 % of the population, and 3.1 % of Commons seats;
- Nova Scotia has 2.8 % of the population, and 3.6 % of Commons seats;
- Prince Edward Island has 0.4 % of the population, and 1.3 % of Commons seats; and
- Newfoundland and Labrador has 1.5 % of the population, and 2.3 % of Commons seats.
These numbers, once again, are very appropriately representative of the population.
Having some provinces under represented and others over represented is very appropriate? No wonder you are a Liberal.
So, what's your limit for the percentage difference between populations and representations? Should the number of seats in the House be changed every year? Every month? Every week?
You're claiming that a tolerance of a couple of percent is not acceptable, so what's your limit?
Further to this - Cannuck - Harper wants to increase the number of seats for Alberta and BC - in order to bring them in line with the % of pop vs % of seat in HoC - but short change Ontario. Can I assume that you then disagree with his proposal?
I think they should add regions to the rep. by pop. As pointed out earlier, it doesn't matter what the ROC votes, if QC and ON are similar in voting, what they say goes and screw the ROC. That's also true of urban/suburban types over rural types.
The other alternative is decentralisation of power.
The other alternative is decentralisation of power.
Last edited:
Re: Representation by Region?
Of course it’s appropriate, Cannuck—the distribution of seats is redrawn, as I mentioned, with each decennial census. The numbers are always brought, with each census, to the closest to proportional as they can be. Of course Ontario and Québec can single-handedly decide the election—those two provinces have a majority of Canadian electors, and therefore, a majority of the decision. Since the House of Commons is our representative democratic chamber, this is entirely appropriate.
As to the suggestion that representation by region should be an aspect of the House of Commons, I very much disagree; I would suggest that the House of Commons must be “representation by population”, for Her Majesty’s Government for Canada to truly be considered accountable to the people through the Commons. Besides, the Honourable the Senate of Canada is our chamber of regional representation, and our honourable senators do an admirable job of ensuring regional interests are protected. (I encourage members to review the Debates, to see for themselves.)
Of course it’s appropriate, Cannuck—the distribution of seats is redrawn, as I mentioned, with each decennial census. The numbers are always brought, with each census, to the closest to proportional as they can be. Of course Ontario and Québec can single-handedly decide the election—those two provinces have a majority of Canadian electors, and therefore, a majority of the decision. Since the House of Commons is our representative democratic chamber, this is entirely appropriate.
As to the suggestion that representation by region should be an aspect of the House of Commons, I very much disagree; I would suggest that the House of Commons must be “representation by population”, for Her Majesty’s Government for Canada to truly be considered accountable to the people through the Commons. Besides, the Honourable the Senate of Canada is our chamber of regional representation, and our honourable senators do an admirable job of ensuring regional interests are protected. (I encourage members to review the Debates, to see for themselves.)
FP, there is a real imbalance in the Senate. Of course, it doesn’t matter much, because the Senate chooses not to exercise the considerable power that it has. But an imbalance does exist in the Senate.
But not in the House, which seems to be the beef of some Westerners. Any imbalance in the House is because of the population differential. And there is nothing the West can do about it. Ontario and Quebec together have more than 175 seats in the Commons, so they are always going to decide who forms the government. The flip side is that any government in Ottawa has to suck up to Ontario and Quebec, if it wants to get elected.
Alberta is particularly irrelevant when it comes to federal politics. Since it elects all Conservative MPs, it is ignored by Libs and NDP, taken for granted by Conservatives. It is always the squeaky wheel which gets the grease. In this case, it is Ontario and Quebec, not Alberta.
But not in the House, which seems to be the beef of some Westerners. Any imbalance in the House is because of the population differential. And there is nothing the West can do about it. Ontario and Quebec together have more than 175 seats in the Commons, so they are always going to decide who forms the government. The flip side is that any government in Ottawa has to suck up to Ontario and Quebec, if it wants to get elected.
Alberta is particularly irrelevant when it comes to federal politics. Since it elects all Conservative MPs, it is ignored by Libs and NDP, taken for granted by Conservatives. It is always the squeaky wheel which gets the grease. In this case, it is Ontario and Quebec, not Alberta.
No I'm not claiming that. You have shown either a complete inability to understand the written word or an insatiable desire to put your own spin on what you read. You really should ask for clarification if it's the former. If it's the latter...well...there's not much can be done about that.
Just because it's done the way it's "supposed" to be done, doesn't mean it's right or appropriate. It just means not enough people are willing alter the status quo.
And your opinion of right or appropriate is that Albertan voters have more democratic weight than Ontarian voters?
My opinion of right or appropriate is that which works well. I don't feel that dividing up votes by land mass is particularly effective. I understand that that method was optimal years (and centuries ago) because of the importance of land. However, that is the system we have chosen to use and there are far too many people like yourself that fear change so we need to make do with what we have. Since the present system creates tensions because of it's perceived unfairness the "right" or "appropriate" thing to do is to fix it....unless tension is the goal..then let's just carry on as usual.