Canada General Discussion 1.5: The Countdown Begins

[Linus Van Pelt]

I forget whether this has been discussed here, but: what is the status of Ontario provincial redistribution? Is there legislation addressing the question whether a provincial election after the passage of the federal representation order would be held with the new federal boundaries?

[Linus Van Pelt]

I forget whether this has been discussed here, but: what is the status of Ontario provincial redistribution? Is there legislation addressing the question whether a provincial election after the passage of the federal representation order would be held with the new federal boundaries?

Not that I know of; it will probably be addressed after the next election.

Hmm. That will make for some seriously imbalanced ridings, if an election is still to be contested with the old map.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Zach Paikin is running against Chris Charlton in Hamilton-West-Ancaster-Dundas next year.

Are you sure Charlton is running in this riding? It doesn't say this in your link. Why would she run here when her current Hamilton Mountain riding has undergone only minor changes and is more NDP-leaning?

[Linus Van Pelt]

That's what it said earlier IIRC. Either way he loses.

Hmm, that suggests maybe they realized it was a mistake.

Anyway, Zach Paikin and Steve Paikin are not the same person and Paikin Sr. should not have to resign from journalism just because his son is running for office. Maybe he shouldn't moderate the debate this time around though, which is a pity, since he's been good at it.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Grits are moving tilting to port economically, gives us a bigger target.

Bringing in Larry Summers to talk about stimulus is moving "leftward" from where the Liberals were? Some of these journalists haven't left the 1990's.

[Linus Van Pelt]

The slider thing at the top of the election atlas website has spots for 1979-2011, but only has maps for 1988-2011. Weird. Hopefully we get maps soon

No, there's maps there now!

No, there isn't. It's the just the scale which is broken. 1988 is 1979, 1993 is between 1980 and 1984, etc...

I think this may be a browser issue. It works for me in Safari.

[Linus Van Pelt]

A funny coincidence I just realized looking at the 1984 map following MaxQue's post above: in that year, all three parties elected an Anglican priest MP in Toronto (Dan Heap, NDP, Spadina; Reginald Stackhouse, PC, Scarborough West; Roland De Corneille, Liberal, Eglinton-Lawrence).

[Linus Van Pelt]

Why is Paul Calandra such a dick?

lol. I just saw the video of the QP exchange. Have the Purgatories decided to become self-parodies? If so, this is one area where I can give them an A+ grade.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1579059/ndp-leader-tom-mulcair-questions-speakers-neutrality/

Amazing and totally farcical exchange.

[Linus Van Pelt]

"Forces et Démocratie" is a pretty weird name for a political party.

[Linus Van Pelt]

The basic idea of the Alberta PC party is to use oil revenues to fund a welfare state comparable to other provinces with a much lower rate of taxation. It's hard to run to the right of this, because most conservative voters' - as opposed to conservative activists' - dislike of services is just grounded in their dislike of having to pay for the taxes that pay for them. It may also be on the MLA's mind that the recent drop in oil prices will make this even harder.

[Linus Van Pelt]

It seems odd that one specific area of Montreal would reduce from 4 seats to 3 with no domino effect in the rest of the city; surely population shifts aren't that concentrated.

Were these seats underpopulated due to some historical idea that Outremont and Mount Royal should each get their own seat?

[Linus Van Pelt]

It seems odd that one specific area of Montreal would reduce from 4 seats to 3 with no domino effect in the rest of the city; surely population shifts aren't that concentrated.

Were these seats underpopulated due to some historical idea that Outremont and Mount Royal should each get their own seat?

Well, Montreal is growing slower than the province, so their seat entitlement went down one, which is new. Those seats were underpopulated (as was D'Arcy-McGee), but not enough to remove one seat unless you decide to remove one seat on the island. And both Outremont and Mont-Royal were the nameplace + part of Côte-des-Neiges.

Outremont was at -18.3%, Mont-Royal at -9.1%, D'Arcy-McGee at -13.9% and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce at -16.0%. Also, Mercier, which will receive the Plateau parts of current Outremont is at -17.7%.

Westmount wasn't better, at -17.6%. If Montreal loses another seat in the future, it will be in the East (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve -13.7%, LaFontaine -13.5%, Pointe-aux-Trembles -15.3%, Sainte-Marie--Saint-Jacques -11.7% and Viau -13.7%). But current borders make sense, so they won't be changed until the seat entitlement for Montreal changes or than one is getting too close of 25%. Why change what isn't broken?

OK, thanks. I suppose it makes sense if they're willing to keep a bunch of seats in the -10 to -15 range.

[Linus Van Pelt]

I see the Angryphone media did its usual hatchet job. They even tried today, asking Couillard how he dared honour the memory of an evil separatist. Thankfully, he put her to her right place.

Pretty good, complex obituary in the Gazette, though:

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/jacques-parizeau-obit

[Linus Van Pelt]

Just to be clear, constitutional amendments in Canada don't all require the consent of all provincial legislatures. The procedure varies based on the subject matter of the amendment. Parliament + all provincial legislatures is the most difficult requirement, and it applies only to changes to:

- the role of the Queen (or governor general etc.)
- the composition of the Supreme Court
- official languages
- the grandfather clause that gets the Atlantic provinces a few extra Commons seats, and
- the amending formula itself

The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that abolishing the Senate counts as amending the amending formula, since one of the Houses needed to pass amendments would be abolished. So that's where the unanimity requirement comes from.