News   Mar 28, 2024
 224     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 613     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 373     0 

What is Jack doing in Quebec?

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
12,836
Reaction score
9,151
I find it absolutely bizarre that Jack Layton seems hell-bent on re-igniting nationalist issues in Quebec.

First the man threatens to impose language rules on federally regulated industries (I don't even know if this constitutionally allowed). Next he actually speaks out against the principles of the Clarity Act. His deputy is taking jabs at immigrants who don't want to learn French. And now to top it all off, Jack is pitching for more seats in Parliament for Quebec (which would effectively rob regions like Toronto of political clout).

Seems like Quebecers got a good deal voting for the NDP. The NDP has simply taken up the PQ's banner in Parliament, with new colours. Everybody else who voted NDP, not so much.
 
It's kind of sad that Layton rejected a population-based allocation of federal ridings when he was speaking in French in Quebec. I don't understand how he can serve in good conscience as a Toronto MP when he rejects basic fairness for Ontario.
 
I find it absolutely bizarre that Jack Layton seems hell-bent on re-igniting nationalist issues in Quebec.

First the man threatens to impose language rules on federally regulated industries (I don't even know if this constitutionally allowed). Next he actually speaks out against the principles of the Clarity Act. His deputy is taking jabs at immigrants who don't want to learn French. And now to top it all off, Jack is pitching for more seats in Parliament for Quebec (which would effectively rob regions like Toronto of political clout).

Seems like Quebecers got a good deal voting for the NDP. The NDP has simply taken up the PQ's banner in Parliament, with new colours. Everybody else who voted NDP, not so much.

It's kind of sad that Layton rejected a population-based allocation of federal ridings when he was speaking in French in Quebec. I don't understand how he can serve in good conscience as a Toronto MP when he rejects basic fairness for Ontario.

I have always considered Jack Layton to be the ultimate political whore. There are no surprises here. Just to think, he ran for Mayor of Toronto once; he was soundly defeated by June Rowlands.
 
It's kind of sad that Layton rejected a population-based allocation of federal ridings when he was speaking in French in Quebec. I don't understand how he can serve in good conscience as a Toronto MP when he rejects basic fairness for Ontario.

Seriously. I find this quite upsetting. The guy is pushing for proportional reprentation on one hand and then pushing for Quebec to get seats beyond its proportion of the population. Ridiculous.

The crazy part in all this: Stephen Harper is looking like the guy standing up for Ontario.
 
Seriously. I find this quite upsetting. The guy is pushing for proportional reprentation on one hand and then pushing for Quebec to get seats beyond its proportion of the population. Ridiculous.
...

Upsetting and ridiculous, yes, but not at all surprising. I have never trusted Layton.
 
Upsetting and ridiculous, yes, but not at all surprising. I have never trusted Layton.

I had my doubts about the NDP. I've never voted for them federally. But this pretty much seals it for me. When the guy does things that jeapordizes the unity of the country, it puts him on par with Gilles Duceppe for me. Whatever chance he had of getting my vote just evaporated.
 
If the proposed increases for Ontario, Alberta, and BC go through then Quebec ridings would be larger than the national average, and thus underrepresented in the House of Commons. Why then is it so horrible to give Quebec an extra seat or two?
 
NDP have always talked out of both sides.... The way they see it, if they clutch onto quebec, they'll have more representation, even if they lose some/all of their seats in the rest of the country. More seats = More money and perks...

That's why NDP policies are only good for a niche population, and never for the general public.
 
That's why NDP policies are only good for a niche population, and never for the general public.

Yup, health care, pensions, environmental protection. Those are in no way good for the general public.
 
NDP have always talked out of both sides.... The way they see it, if they clutch onto quebec, they'll have more representation, even if they lose some/all of their seats in the rest of the country. More seats = More money and perks...

The NDP will not lose the rest of the seats across the country unless they do something incredibly stupid. The party rebuilt itself after '93 with popular local candidates that had to fight their way through local elections, often in areas where the NDP had little to no support historically: Alexa McDonough in Halifax, Yvon Godin in Acadie-Bathurst, Thomas Mulcair in Outremont, Ed Broadbent in Ottawa Centre, Jack Harris in St. John's East, etc. Even Jack Layton himself had to fight a strong local campaign to originally win Toronto-Danforth, breaking back into Toronto. The NDP, probably better than any party on a federal level know how to win ridings with star local candidates (as opposed to those parachuted in), sometimes despite the party banner. Many of their MPs are popular enough in their own ridings to withstand a national drop in NDP support.

And on top of that, the NDP does have its bases of support. For example, it would take a huge shift in the polls for the NDP to get shut out of Northern Ontario where their winning candidates won with strong pluralities (>48%) if not outright majorities - and this after they were supposed to suffer tremendous losses due to their support of the long-gun registry (to be fair, they did lose Sault Ste. Marie).

That's why NDP policies are only good for a niche population, and never for the general public.

Every party is only good for a niche population - large niches maybe, but niches nonetheless. Do you really think that Conservative Party policies are good for the general public as a whole? Liberal policies? Green policies? There are many competing interests in this country and not all of them can be winners all the time.
 
I find it absolutely bizarre that Jack Layton seems hell-bent on re-igniting nationalist issues in Quebec.

First the man threatens to impose language rules on federally regulated industries (I don't even know if this constitutionally allowed). Next he actually speaks out against the principles of the Clarity Act. His deputy is taking jabs at immigrants who don't want to learn French. And now to top it all off, Jack is pitching for more seats in Parliament for Quebec (which would effectively rob regions like Toronto of political clout).

Seems like Quebecers got a good deal voting for the NDP. The NDP has simply taken up the PQ's banner in Parliament, with new colours. Everybody else who voted NDP, not so much.

Jack Layton is trying to build a big orange machine in Quebec. To do this he has to get the people who voted for his party to continue to vote for his party, form riding associations, become members and donors, etc. Since he basically has no power in Parliament and the next election is far in the future, he does have the time to do this. He cannot get Quebec more seats right now. He knows this, but he needs to prove to Quebeckers that he has their interests in mind right now to keep the NDP popular there. He needs to start off on the right foot in Quebec. In four years this redistribution of ridings will be a non-issue. Ontario, Alberta, and BC will get their seats, Quebec will complain, and we'll all forget about it (just like we forgot about Harper's original plan to give new seats only to BC and Alberta).

As for immigrants in Quebec having to learn French - I really don't think that will resonate in the ROC, especially with NDP supporters. It may become a problem for him if he starts preaching that "what is reasonable accomodation anyway?" crap that Quebec's obsessed with right now though.

The Clarity Act is a thornier issue. There are a lot of problems with it, and if Layton's going to continue courting the soft nationalist vote, he's going to have to address them. At its core, the Clarity Act is borderline anti-democratic. It's "clear majority" clause is of particular concern: 50%+1 is a win, it seems, in every Canadian election but referendums (a similar super-majority requirement was made necessary when British Columbians and Ontarians went to the polls to vote on PR). And what happens if Quebec votes "oui," but does not attain a clear majority as defined by the Parliament of Canada? I see two scenarios occurring:

1) A second referendum is held, in which the "oui" side would almost certainly win a clear majority due to a perceived denial of Quebec's right to self-determination, or
2) A PQ government uses the referendum, and its subsequent denial, as grounds for a unilateral declaration of indepence. This isn't constitutional, of course, but it would cause all of us a huge headache. What if Quebec's government were to set up border crossings? What if the international community got involved? What if it escalated into some form of violent conflict (as unlikely as that may seem now)?

Repealing the Clarity Act, or at least some parts of it, would remove a grey area that could cause us all a lot of trouble. It may even have the added benefit of assuaging the concerns of soft nationalists - the type who are more concerned with Quebec's right to secede than it actually separating. And afterall, the NDP had already endorsed this position before the orange wave to Quebec by storm. The left has often been sympathetic to the idea of self-determination. The Labour Party in the UK, for example, supported Ireland's right to leave the Union, and to this day maintains an alliance with the nationalist SDLP in Northern Ireland. In Scotland and Wales they've supported devolution, if not the separatist aspirations of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.

Just as the Labour Party is able to tap into the soft nationalist vote in Scotland and Wales, the NDP hopes to tap into the soft nationalist vote in Quebec. They know committed sovereigntists will continue to vote for the Bloc. They know committed federalists (in the Trudeau vein) will continue to vote Liberal. They need to become the default choice for the middleground that could go either way - and with the Liberals in shambles and the BQ headed for a long decline (the end of the per-vote subsidy will hit them particularly hard), they may have a chance of doing just that. Ultimately I think that will be good for the federalist cause in the long run. That is if it works - it is a game that carries huge risks (just ask Mulroney).

The idea that the NDP will become the new Bloc is hyperbole at best, although the NDP must remain mindful of the reason why they don't have a political party on the provincial level in Quebec anymore.
 
I dunno. I'm deeply uncomfortable at this latest turn of events. Jack has in effect decided to throw the ROC under the bus to secure Quebec for the next election. As you point out, this could all just be politics. However, we've always had a tradition in this country of federalist parties not fanning the separatist flames in Quebec. Jack seems to be doing just the opposite. By pushing these issues for the sake of his own political gain, he's putting the rest of Canada into a tight corner and promoting national disunity. He's out to play Quebec against the rest of Canada for votes. How utterly irresponsible.

I can't even begin to describe how flabbergasted I am that Comartin is insisting that Quebec get 25% of Parliament's seats. Under the rumoured Harper plan, Quebec would drop from 24.5% of seats (75 of 306) in the house to 22.1% of the seats (75 of 338), with 23% of the country's population (trending downwards). Yet, even as their share of the population is dropping the NDP is insisting on even more seats (than they have today) for Quebec? WTF?

As for the Clarity Act....there's a very good reason the SCC insisted on a "clear majority". What happens when Quebec votes to separate and the negotiations don't go well and many Quebecers decide the process is not worthwhile? And I don't think this is far-fetched. I could see this happening, once aboriginals in Northern Quebec start insisting they don't want to leave Canada for example. Or what happens when assets and fiscal obligations start being negotiated and Quebecers all of a sudden find out that they face massive tax increases to maintain their new state? What if these folks, on finding out the real costs and consequences now have second thoughts? For this reason, the SCC was right to insist on more than 50%+1. And they were right to insist on a clear question. That Jack Layton would play politics with this (and he's arguing against the clear question bit too), and that too so early in his term, makes me doubt his integrity.

I don't know if I'll ever be able to vote NDP federally after seeing all that has transpired in the last few weeks. That Jack would so easily throw Ontario (the province that sustained him for so long) under the bus for the sake of votes in Quebec leaves me speechless.
 
If the proposed increases for Ontario, Alberta, and BC go through then Quebec ridings would be larger than the national average, and thus underrepresented in the House of Commons. Why then is it so horrible to give Quebec an extra seat or two?

Are you sure about this? From everything I've read Quebec ridings would basically be on par with the national average. And if there is any disparity, it would largely be erased well before the next census, given the population trends in Ontario and the West.

Aside from that, what's wrong with Quebec being slightly underrepresented for a change? Why should Ontario, Alberta and BC perpetually get the shaft? How is that fair? Even more specifically (and more relevant to this forum), we are talking about urban regions in those provinces taking a hit to appease their sensitivities.
 
Currently the voters per riding in Quebec is just a bit below the national average. The new arrangement would bring Quebec slightly over the national average. Adding one or two seats in this new distribution would drop them back to the average.

While folk might be fine with Quebec also "getting the shaft" this time around, it's unreasonable to expect the party with the majority of the seats in the province to be happy with Quebec being shafted.

What you'd expect is that the party that now dominates Ontario should be more upset about how underrepresented our province is, but the Conservatives seem happy to let this continue. Perhaps they worry that if we did move closer to pure rep-by-pop people would start questioning why rural seats all have so many fewer voters than urban ones. Something which is a huge advantage for right wing parties.
 
^ As per my understanding, Canada as a whole has about 108k residents per MP. Quebec has about 104k per MP. Ontario has 120k/seat. Alberta is 125k/seat. BC is at 123/seat. That's my rough math. My stats could be wrong. So please feel free to correct me. So Quebec is already better off. With growth trends being what they are, Alberta, BC and Ontario, which are already under-represented would be even worse off going forward. So Quebec is really not losing any represnentation relatively speaking. It's more that the other three provinces are being brought in line with the national average. Indeed, even after these new seats are added, Ontario (17), BC (7?) and Alberta (5) will still have more residents per MP than Quebec....and if that isn't the case we can be sure that population growth in the 3 provinces will make it so in a few years. So I fail to see the validity of Quebec's complaints. But forget their complaint of under-representation. Comartin is actually insisting that Quebec should get 25% of Parliament's seats. That's what's most egregious.

As for the urban/rural divide, we can pretty much be sure that virtually all these seats are going to urban areas. The government just establishes population guidelines and Elections Canada draws the riding lines. This makes it impossible for the Conservatives to gerrymander, as you are implying. The rules virtually guarantee that something like 12-15 of the 17 coming to Ontario would be in the GTA (1-2 to Ottawa, maybe 1 each to Hamilton and London) with a couple of those likely to be added to the 416. Ditto for most Alberta seats going to Calgary and Edmonton and BC's seats to the GVA. So this does actually make it a fight between urban areas in those provinces and Quebec as a whole. Giving seats to Quebec actually exacerbates the urban-rural divide.

As for the politics. I can't believe people are defending the NDP with the argument that it's just politics. Do people forget the outcry when the last time around Harper attempted to throw out the guidelines and ram through extra seats for the West? That was rightfully called out as a political move and I was fully supportive of McGuinty threatening legal action. How is Jack Layton and the NDP acting any differently here? What Harper and the Conservatives did then was wrong. Thankfully, whether out of principle or political considerations, they've come to their senses. This advocacy for power beyond proportion for Quebec by Layton and the NDP, is equally wrong as Harper's past actions. What makes it worse though, is that this a Toronto MP, advocating policies that directly hurt the interests of his own riding...and urban areas everywhere.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top