Friday, August 19, 2011

Not Without Risk

The proposed new Parliament seat allocation issue is a microcosm of the potential problems the NDP face. Today's article in The Toronto Star highlights the NDP high wire act, which involves trying to appease their new found Quebec base, without alienating the rest of the country and their more entrenched and traditional support:
Voting fairness is not divisive

Since when did representation by population – a basic democratic principle if ever there was one – become “divisive?” Apparently since it might threaten the New Democratic Party’s support in the north, rural areas and Quebec.

Nycole Turmel, the NDP’s interim leader, was asked this week about the Harper government’s proposal to add seats in the Commons to ensure fairer representation for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. All three provinces are badly under-represented for the simple reason that they’ve added lots of people over the past decade.

Turmel's viewpoint is woefully narrow. In fact, if she denoted the slightest understanding of western alienation in particular, she would comprehend that consistent under-representation in our Parliament has lead to much "division", much angst and ill feelings. Instead, the NDP position seems a simple champion of Quebec interests with no consideration of other regional viewpoints. The math defies the NDP's position, leaving them with the appearance of almost Bloc-like self interest, before the greater interest of the country. Whatever spin is provided, there is simply no distracting from the optics of resisting rep by pop in the name of political appeasement.

Strategically, the NDP are determined to shore up Quebec support, and one can hardly blame them. However, with a caucus now suddenly dominated by one province, there will inevitably be a "national" tension and this makes for careful navigation. This seat allocation issue is another example, within an emerging theme, that puts the NDP on precarious ground in the rest of Canada. Should other regions start to view the NDP as simply parroting Quebec's interests, it will lose credibility, of that I have no doubt whatsoever. This allocation question position, absurdly calling a move to more fairness "divisive" tells certain provinces the NDP doesn't have your back, they aren't fighting for you, their inclination is to support a democratic slight. Taken in isolation, perhaps nothing seismic, but if the Quebec-first perception starts to gel, the NDP are vulnerable.

Turmel's comments on seat allocation are disappointing for the Official Opposition. Amateurish in tone, offensive in substance, this one sided perspective may curry favour in Quebec, but it also leaves others feeling slighted. Add in the rural/urban disconnect, failure to comprehend the most basic ideas of electoral fairness, and the NDP look opportunistic and political, rather than principled. For my money, the single biggest dynamic in Ottawa to watch the next couple of years is how the NDP nuance the natural tensions of Canadian federalism. So far, so fail...

16 comments:

DL said...

Would you care to enlighten us on where the Liberal party stands on seat allocation? The last I saw from the Liberals was some ambiguous murmuring about the need for "more study" etc...and I believe there is heavy, heavy pressure on the federal Liberals come from what little is left of their Quebec representation and from their friends in the Charest government to take a stand against the Tory proposal which would actually lead to Quebec having LESS seats than it's proportion of the Canadian population warrants. Anyways, I look forward to hearing the official Liberal position. Right now it appears to be identical to that of the NDP (I.e. Yes Ontario and AB and BC should have more seats, but we need to study this issue more blah blah blah)

CK said...

I also remember Michael Ignatieff, when he was leader of the Liberals mentioning offering one or two seats to Quebec, if they went ahead with seat additions, as an act of good faith.

Not sure what Bob Rae's stand is.

I will be doing the math, but if 30 seats are being added, I have a feeling Quebec will be under represented. How is that ok? I'm also curious as to how well that will sit with the East coast.

Lately, Harper and his moves, have been promoting Quebec alienation and I've been noticing a lot of progressive bloggers jumping on that wave.

CK said...

Oh, and about that seat additions. Be careful what you wish for. Harper has that majority, saying screw off to the opposition. Check how he will redraw that electoral map. Check the jerrymandering that will ensue. All new ridings to ensure Conservative wins; all the time. Just like Calgary ridings; urban combined with socially conservative rural.

Besides, in this time when they're preaching austerity and smaller government, this is largesse for themselves and self-contradictory. Increasing government.

Steve V said...

I would hope the Libs support a couple seats for Quebec, because it should be fair distribution.

CK said...

Just did a quick calculation. Assuming Quebec's population remains at 23% of Canada's population as everyone seems to maintain, and going with the original 30 seat addition, Quebec would hold 22%. Now you may all say that this underrepresentation is slight, but then, 24% current overrepresentation is also slight as many seem to be complaining about, loudly. The message I am receiving is that it's ok for Quebec to be underrepresented, but if Quebec is overrepresented, even by a fraction of a percentage point, it's run for the hills.

DL said...

Meanwhile, the following provinces really are GROSSLY over-represented in parliament for no constitutional reason: Manitoba (14 seats - population justifies eight or nine at most) and Saskatchewan (14 seats - population justifies 8 or 9 at most). Of course since the Tories currently control 25 out of 28 seats in these two provinces - I don't expect them to ever address that gross inequity!

sharonapple88 said...

The message I am receiving is that it's ok for Quebec to be underrepresented, but if Quebec is overrepresented, even by a fraction of a percentage point, it's run for the hills

Currently, though Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia are under represented. According to one study Canada has one of the worst rep by pop, 61% of Canadians are under-represented, particularly minorities in urban areas. Just as it's not right to under-represent Quebec, it's not right to under-represent these province, especially if that study is true and urban minorites are under-represented. (I'll admit my bias since I live in a riding with a large visible minority with a population close to 140,000.)

Having said this, I'm not quite sure about the Conservatives' plans, and I don't agree with under-representing Quebec.

Meanwhile, the following provinces really are GROSSLY over-represented in parliament for no constitutional reason

Over-representation has to do with the fact that a province can't have fewer seats in the House of Commons as they do in the Senate. Part of the Constitution back in 1915.

sharonapple88 said...

(I'll admit my bias since I live in a riding with a large visible minority with a population close to 140,000.)

Visible minority population with population close to 140,000. :P

Steve V said...

Another column:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/andrew-steele/muzzling-visible-minorities-is-bad-politics-for-new-democrats/article2135042/

DL said...

That is true in the case of PEI which has 4 senators and New Brunswick which has 10. But Manitoba and Saskatchewan each only have 6 senators - so they could easily have their H of C seats cut back without conflicting with the clause you refer to. The only reason MB and SK have 14 seats is because of a simple act of parliament passed in 1975 that says that no province can ever lose MPs. A simple vote of Parliament is all it would take to get rid of that clause and we could slice 10 seats away from ManSask and move closer to rep by pop!

Notice that no one REALLY cares about provinces being over-represented unless its Quebec - pure "francophobia".

"Over-representation has to do with the fact that a province can't have fewer seats in the House of Commons as they do in the Senate. Part of the Constitution back in 1915."

Steve V said...

Notice that no one REALLY cares about provinces being over-represented unless its Quebec - pure "francophobia".

This whole issue really has NOTHING to do with Quebec being over-represented, more rightly it's about gross under-representation. As well, you keep pointing to Sask and Man, but under the additions, the discrepancy is lessened, so you're really making a case for the reallocation. I hope the final agreement gives Quebec a couple seats to keep representation fair.

DL said...

My personal view is that more seats should be given to Ontario, Alberta and BC, but that Quebec should NEVER have a share of seats in the House of Commons that is LESS than its share of the population of Canada. If they just tweaked the formula a bit to give Quebec three or four more seats so it would be 23% of parliament and not 22% - i would be happy and I have a hunch that that is more or less what the NDP will propose in the end.

Steve V said...

Agree, I favour a compromise that retains Que rep in line with pop. The trouble with Turmel, and I say this respectfully, she reacted with quite a narrow perspective that didn't denote any nuance towards other concerns. Played very poorly I thought.

DL said...

In the end the Tories will do whatever they feel is good for them and nothing the NDP or Liberals say will make any difference. The NDP can earn some "brownie points" in Quebec by standing up for preventing Quebec from being under-represented - and in the rest of the country no one will care because they will get their seats whether the NDP likes it or not (and the NDP stands to win a chunk of the new seats to be created in BC and in parts of Ontario too)

sharonapple88 said...

The trouble with Turmel, and I say this respectfully, she reacted with quite a narrow perspective that didn't denote any nuance towards other concerns. Played very poorly I thought

Yeah, there is the issue of clear under-representation for Alberta, B.C., and Ontario.

Still, I'm not in favour of adding 30 MPs all at once. There are number of points that need to be addressed on this issue -- one of which is keeping Quebec's balance of MPs. There's also a potential recession on the horizon and populations could end up being on the move. Who knows. We could see a rush out of Ontario and into Saskatchewan in the next few years.

The NDP can earn some "brownie points" in Quebec by standing up for preventing Quebec from being under-represented -

Turmel argued for adequate representation in rural areas, the North, and among First Nations -- points which aren't necessarily in Quebec's favour. Quebec is one of the most urban provinces with 80% of its population living in cities. Quebec's First Nation population is just the 6th highest in Canada-- Saskatchewan with a population hovering over a million has more First Nation people living in its borders, 141,890, than Quebec does -- it has 108,430. (In fact the three provinces with the increase in MPs, Alberta, B.C., and Ontario have the highest First Nations populations.) The NDP is trying to avoid being the Quebec only party, but they may have gone too far on the other side with this argument against the additional MPs.

Dame said...

I say only one thing/ without much respect I admit./ Turmel is Not good at any rate.. /Turmel phobia ./

The only thing what I would accept pure mathematic used for creating ridings and representing the population. no more half solutions..
maybe we should rewrite all ridings to be fair...