Election 2009?

[Edward Campbell]

Interestingly, Ms Le Prohon was appointed to the National Defence Audit Committee last December (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/iac-cvi/mem/prohon-eng.asp).  The position is significant inasmuch as it provides the individual with a good overview of the departmental program (albeit on a part-time basis); a good primer on both the specific department and some larger governmental agenda items.

Interesting also that her appointment was made by Treasury Board on the advice of the President of the Treasury Board, the Hon Mr Toews, QC.  I suspect his political staff are now trying to keep a low profile; such appointments should go to party faithful, not potential political foes - and that the staff who vetted her missed her political affiliation does not bode well for them...


(EDIT to reflect the proper honorifics to the President of TB)

Here is a profile of Nathalie Le Prohon.

If she becomes a Liberal candidate then the government may have cause to ask her to resign her position.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, is a report on Prince Michael’s speech in Toronto:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/recovery-isnt-good-enough-ignatieff-says/article1295523/

‘Recovery isn't good enough,' Ignatieff declares
Liberal Leader focuses on ‘growth' at luncheon speech unveiling economic plank of what would have been his election platform had New Democrats not propped up the Tories

John Ibbitson

Ottawa
Monday, Sep. 21, 2009

A Liberal government would invest heavily in manufacturing research and development, in regional economic development, in protecting Canadian companies from foreign takeovers, and in building new bridges to China and India, Michael Ignatieff declared Monday in a major economic address .

The Liberal plan sharply contrasts with the approach taken by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which has largely focused on increasing competitiveness by cutting business and other taxes.

“Stephen Harper thinks no taxes are good taxes because he believes that the only good government is no government at all,” Mr. Ignatieff told the Toronto Board of Trade at a noon-hour address. “Liberals say no. We don't believe in big government, but we do believe in good government”

In what would have been a key pre-election address, had the NDP not decided to prop up the Conservatives through the fall in exchange for expanded employment insurance coverage, the Liberal Leader warned that Canada's relatively painless recovery from recession was insufficient to address fundamental challenges to the economy, which was sloughing manufacturing jobs even before the downtown.

“Recovery isn't good enough. We need to get this economy growing again,” Mr. Ignatieff insisted, adding that Liberals would “open the books” and make the parliamentary budget watchdog fully independent.

A Liberal government, he said, would grow the economy by investing in Canadian entrepreneurs and technology, by spreading that investment across all regions of the country and by “going where the growth is – India and China and other emerging economies.”

Canada has previously pursued an industrial policy of investing in winning industries, promoting regional development, protecting Canadian firms from foreign takeovers and seeking alternative markets to the United States. These were the pillars of Pierre Trudeau's approach to the economy. It would be charitable to say that results were mixed.

There was also a certain dissonance to Mr. Ignatieff's condemnation of Mr. Harper's so-called passivity in the face of economic challenges. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments left Canada well-positioned to ride out a recession that has been much more crippling in the United States and other countries.

And a $56-billion deficit exists precisely because the Harper government invested heavily in economic stimulus to limit unemployment and grow the economy. All governments have become Keynesian again, following the late British economist's dictum of stimulating growth during recessions through fiscal intervention.

In that sense, the most Mr. Ignatieff can honestly claim is that he would do enthusiastically – directing government resources to stimulate investment and trade – what Mr. Harper has done reluctantly.

Both leaders, however, share one common illusion, arguing that the deficit is not structural, and that it will be eliminated gradually in the coming decade from the tax revenues that will accompany inevitable economic growth.

Such assumptions are rosy at the least. But neither leader wants to confront the question of which taxes would be increased and by how much in the event that current optimistic projections prove unfounded.

It is mostly and typically vacuous Liberal hot air, except for this bit, which is a real whopper, even for Iggy Icarus: “Liberals say no. We don't believe in big government, but we do believe in good government” The Liberals are, and have been since 1929, the big party of big business, Big labour, BIG banks and so on – culminating in a steady succession of bigger and bigger governments.

The speech is wasted; Taliban Jack Layton reset the election timetable. If Harper had already lost a vote of confidence and had gone to Rideau Hall to ask the GG to call an election then this would have been an important campaign speech – as it is, it means nothing.

For the rest: Ibbitson is right – Iggy Icarus is picking fiscal flyshit out of the economic pepper; there is nothing about Mr. Harper’s response to the economic crisis with which Liberals (or most Canadians) can, legitimately, take a lot of issue. Harper did what Ignatieff asked; it worked well enough. <yawn>

 

[Edward Campbell]

And the Liberals have probably made a mistake, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cauchon-rebuffed-in-outremont/article1296034/

Cauchon rebuffed in Outremont
Woman will run for Liberals in former Montreal stronghold, Ignatieff announces amid feud between his Quebec lieutenant and Chrétien's former justice minister

Ottawa — The Canadian Press
Monday, Sep. 21, 2009

Martin Cauchon, a powerful member of the Chrétien government, has apparently lost in his bid to re-enter politics.

The Liberal Party is expected to run a prominent businesswoman in Montreal's Outremont riding, a onetime Liberal fortress Mr. Cauchon once held for the party.

Leader Michael Ignatieff has announced the nod will go to a woman, amid reports the party is courting Nathalie Le Prohon. She was the president of Nokia Canada and has been a senior executive at IBM and Hydro-Quebec.

Mr. Cauchon was the federal justice minister who announced Canada would allow same-sex marriage, and who proposed decriminalizing marijuana.

He was Jean Chrétien's last Quebec lieutenant.

When Mr. Chrétien left politics, Mr. Cauchon went on to a career in the private sector instead of serving in the Paul Martin government.

He and the current Liberal Quebec lieutenant – Denis Coderre – have had a long-standing rivalry.

Both men are known to have leadership ambitions, and Mr. Cauchon's effort to re-enter politics was reportedly being blocked by his old colleague.

The long-time Liberal fortress fell to the NDP's Thomas Mulcair in a 2007 by-election.

Mr. Ignatieff made the announcement at a Toronto news conference.

Coderre is pretty well the best only choice Prince Michael has for Québec lieutenant. The other Québec MPs are:

• Stéphane Dion
• Raymonde Folco
• Bernard Patry
• Marcel Proulx
• Marlene Jennings
• Irwin Cotler
• Massimo Pacetti
• Pablo Rodriguez
• Francis Scarpaleggia
• Marc Garneau
• Alexandra Mendès
• Justin Trudeau
• Lise Zarac

There are too few pur laine Francophone MPs, and fewer still experienced MPs. Cauchon would have been, may still be, a good back-up if they can find him a good seat and if he still wants in.


Edit: typo

 

[ModlrMike]

Hell hath no fury? I wonder if Mr Cauchon will make an attempt at a return to Ottawa under different colours.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

best[/s] only choice Prince Michael has for Québec lieutenant. The other Québec MPs are:

• Stéphane Dion
• Raymonde Folco
• Bernard Patry
• Marcel Proulx
• Marlene Jennings
• Irwin Cotler
• Massimo Pacetti
• Pablo Rodriguez
• Francis Scarpaleggia
• Marc Garneau
• Alexandra Mendès
• Justin Trudeau
• Lise Zarac

Justin Trudeau, blessed with his mother's brains and his father's looks.  I hope the Liberals aren't looking to him as their next savior.

 

[Journeyman]

Leader Michael Ignatieff has announced the nod will go to a woman, amid reports the party is courting Nathalie Le Prohon.

I sure hope Ms Prohon agrees to run for the Libs....otherwise there'll be an embarrassed ad in Job-hunting.qc: "Seeking political candidate: only qualification - must be a woman"

 

[Old Sweat]

I sure hope Ms Prohon agrees to run for the Libs....otherwise there'll be an embarrassed ad in Job-hunting.qc: "Seeking political candidate: only qualification - must be a woman"

Not to despair. There has got to be another Heddie Fry out there somewhere.

 

[a_majoor]

Justin Trudeau, blessed with his mother's brains and his father's looks.  I hope the Liberals aren't looking to him as their next savior.

The most hilarious post EVER!

Of course they are pinning their hopes and dreams on the "Young Dauphin". They need to do it soon while the name still has resonance. If what Edward said in another post (A leader fromn Quebec, an Anglo leader, then its his turn when he is @ 50, the right age to attempt to be Prime Minister), then the only people who will remember the Trudeau name with nostalga (good or bad) will be 70 years old....and we will have had 20 years to educate people on the real legacy of P.E.T. to boot.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, are Gordon Bell’s thoughts on Prince Michael’s recent, almost election speech in Toronto:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/douglas-bell/

Douglas Bell: Ig the Inevitable

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Yesterday Michael Ignatieff gave an earnestly earnest policy speech which reasserted that most predictable of Liberal nostrums.

We've got to figure out how to grow. And achieving that growth is where the difference between Liberals and Conservatives plays out. Liberals believe growth won't happen on its own, that you can't grow our economy without a government that leads.

A Liberal government will stand up for flagship Canadian companies, made-in-Canada technologies and key intellectual property with an investment review process that protects our national interests. We will welcome foreign investment, but we'll require foreign companies to build and sustain Canadian jobs and head offices. Stephen Harper dropped the ball on Nortel. He let a Canadian champion fail, and sat back while invaluable pieces of intellectual property were sold off to foreign bidders. The fact that the Conservatives have refused even to review that sale is astounding. It's dereliction of duty. It's the Avro Arrow all over again.

Stephen Harper thinks no taxes are good taxes because he believes that the only good government is no government at all. Liberals say no. We don't believe in big government, but we do believe in good government. If we give up on good government the way Mr. Harper has, then we will cease to exist as one great people sharing one great country and Liberals will never let that happen. That's the difference between us and them. That's the difference between Stephen Harper and me.

Well, sure. The guy's got a point. Liberals think governing the country matters. Steve-O, not so much. The national sport aside, I'm not sure the PM's even that crazy about the country. Still, whenever a Canadian politician trots out the Avro Arrow you know it's time to reach for your wallet. Ignatieff offers a balanced approach to growth and deficit reduction, which means he's going to tax you but it's going to be for your own good. Like any good head prefect about to lay on a little discipline, he wants you to know that it's going to hurt him as much as it hurts you. Harper's going to have a tough time countering all this because he's not really that interested in the game. One wishes he had just a bit more flare in suggesting a counter narrative. Yesterday in the Daily Telegraph, the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, offered a witty, at times even hilarious, defence of spending cuts in order to pay for infrastructure improvements. To wit:

Confronted with the human cost of axing the politically correct non-jobs, the danger is that government will go for the easier option. They will cut or defer investment. They will chop plans for spending on roads or rail or schools or sewers or power plants or fibre-optic cables.

Why? For the very simple reason that if you postpone a vital upgrade of a road, the road won't break down in sobs and tell you that its wife is about to leave it. If you axe a new high-speed railway line, the railway line won't answer back, and it certainly won't threaten industrial action. Above all, it costs nothing in the short term to make these savings. There are no immediate costs associated with sacking a sewer or postponing a power plant. The cost is over the medium and long term and there the cost is huge.

If only there were a Conservative pol in this country with sort of verve and panache. In the absence thereof rests the seeming inevitability of Ig, National Head Boy.

Well, I don’t think Ig is inevitable, at all. In fact I still think he is more likely to be Icarus.

But I loved Boris Johnson’s example of why we do not axe the ”politically correct non-jobs” – those that Neil Reynolds said consist, in Canada,of  ”vast numbers of federal and provincial "pseudo-jobs"- which inexorably corrupted the work ethic [of Canadians]”

 

[Edward Campbell]

When he’s back in his lane the Good Grey Globe’s Jeffrey Simpson deserves out attention, as in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/tired-rhetoric-and-not-much-more/article1297662/

Jeffrey Simpson: Tired rhetoric, and not much more
Michael Ignatieff's critiques have done little to separate the Liberals and Conservatives on the deficit, stimulus or foreign affairs

Jeffrey Simpson

Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2009

Strip away the rhetoric from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's recent speeches and two conclusions emerge.

First, there isn't much to them. Second, most of what there is does not differ markedly from what Stephen Harper's Conservative government is doing.

Again, rhetoric aside, a convergence between the two parties is noticeable, as the Conservatives become big-spending middle-of-the-roaders and learn more about foreign policy, and the Liberals seem incapable or unwilling to present anything terribly arresting.

Both parties agree, for example, on how to eliminate the federal deficit – slowly and largely by counting on economic growth to spare them from making too many hard decisions. They are obviously content to let debt pile up because they fear being honest with voters that without tax increases and spending cuts, the debt burden will be passed on to their children. Both have ruled out increasing taxes on individuals, businesses and spending. Both insist they will protect Ottawa's massive transfers to provinces. Neither dares touch big federal transfers to individuals, such as pensions. Neither has mentioned slowing down the increase in defence spending.

What do these exemptions leave? It's simple mathematics: cuts to other government programs.

But which ones? Neither party will say, fearing political controversy. All the Liberals argue is that if they must cut, their cuts will be more compassionate.

That's rhetoric, of course. So is the old scam of arguing that nothing specific can be said or promised until the “books” have been audited after an election. The federal budget is itself scrutinized by the parliamentary budget officer and post facto by the auditor-general. The documents are there for all to see.

The Liberals say they want to enhance the country's productivity and competitiveness. So do the Conservatives. Both promise to invest more in research and development. Both talk about bringing jobs to remote areas, which is much easier pledged than fulfilled.

The Liberals have traditionally been more eager to invest public money in companies, regional development and infrastructure. But has anyone followed the bouncing ball of prime ministerial announcements since the budget unveiled the “Economic Action Plan”? Every week, and sometimes three or four times a week, the Harperites announce another investment in companies, regional development (they've even created an agency for Southern Ontario!) and infrastructure.

Mr. Ignatieff grouses that the federal money hasn't been spent fast enough, but short of Mr. Harper literally dumping cash from wheelbarrows during his various announcements, it's hard to see how the money could have been dispersed much faster. In other words, when a party doesn't fundamentally disagree with a policy, it complains about implementation and timing, which is what the Liberals are doing – and not very credibly.

Economics meets foreign policy when Mr. Ignatieff castigates the government for neglecting China and India. It would have been fair criticism a while ago, but it's not valid any more, what with a gaggle of Conservative ministers having recently been to China, and Mr. Harper slated to visit both China and India in November or early December.

As for the rest of the Liberals' foreign-policy critique, it is astonishingly thin for a party led by a man who lived so long abroad and visited so many other countries, including failed and failing states. Framing a foreign policy based on that experience ought to have been an Ignatieff high card; instead, his speech last week revealed something much lower down the deck.

A secretariat for the G20. A peace institute. These sound good, but are really quite silly. The return of Team Canada missions? Harmless. A new approach to India and China? See above. Complaints that Mr. Harper's government hasn't worked hard enough against U.S. protectionism are simply wrong. On Afghanistan and the Arctic, the Liberal policy is essentially the government's policy.

The one area of true disagreement comes in the Liberal promise to go to bat for Canadians facing death sentences abroad, or languishing without charge in foreign jails. That's a fair point for debate, but it hardly constitutes a different foreign policy, writ large.

The rhetoric infecting these speeches suggests wide differences and new ideas. Strip the rhetoric away, and the differences narrow and the search for interesting new ideas shrivels.

As I read/see/hear more and more of Prince Michael I also see, in my mind’s eye, a TV commercial in which Prince Michael makes one “demand” after another and after each I see Stephen Harper saying, “done,” as a check mark appears on the screen.

Simpson is dead right, the G20 secretariat and some sort of “peace institute” are just plain silly – he wants to spend money on this crap while we are just beginning to recover from a severe recession? Add them to the portrait gallery on the list of ordinary Canadians’ spending priorities.

 

[a_majoor]

Liberals laying the groundwork for a successful campaign in Quebec..... ;D

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-grits-rumble.html

when grits rumble

L.Ian Macdonald writes that the facade of party unity among Quebec grits has pretty much evaporated. Without the sacks of money in brown paper bags, what unity? It's apparently more than just Outremont. coderre is trying to oust dion and several other mps. coderre actually believes he can one day be prime minister of Canada. How frightening.

There are two elements to the latest blow-up inside Liberal ranks - the first is a bitter blood feud between Martin Cauchon and Denis Coderre, formerly close cabinet colleagues in the Chrétien government, who were once presented as the yin and yang of Liberal renewal among Quebec francophones.

And the second is an effort by Coderre, now the party's chief organizer and Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant, to dislodge several other sitting MPs from safe Montreal-area seats to make way for star candidates who would be nominated by acclamation.

One of the incumbents on Coderre's hit list is none other than Stéphane Dion, a former leader of the party. Coderre thinks Dion should have the decency to disappear. Dion thinks Coderre and Ignatieff should treat him, as a former leader, with more respect. And he's right - they owe him, big time. Had it not been for the abortive Three Stooges coalition, and the infamous grainy video that followed, Dion wouldn't have been dumped as leader on the spot, and Ignatieff would have faced a competitive convention.

There are three other names and ridings on Coderre's list - Raymonde Falco from Laval-les-Iles, Lise Zarac from LaSalle-Emard and Bernard Patry from Pierrefonds-Dollard.

And all hell has broken loose inside the party.

The ugliest spat is between Cauchon and Coderre

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, is a comment by Norman Spector in Prime Minister Harper’s leadership, or lack of same, on foreign policy issues:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/mr-harpers-leadership/article1299634/

Mr. Harper's leadership

Norman Spector

Thursday, September 24, 2009

A Nanos poll this morning shows that “Canadians are more likely to trust Stephen Harper over other federal leaders in his ability to manage key issues.” Notably, however, the key issues on which Mr. Harper holds a wide lead (other than in Québec) do not include his management of international relations.

Some Canadians will agree with the Prime Minister’s controversial decision to have our Foreign Minister walk out on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations yesterday, siding in effect with the view expressed by Shirin Ebadi in today’s Times of London. Ms. Ebadi, an Iranian human-rights lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize winner, says that “her worst fears were confirmed when she saw the British Ambassador at President Ahmadinejad’s inauguration,” and she has called for “the downgrading of Western embassies, the withdrawal of ambassadors and the freezing of the assets of Iran’s leaders.”

Perhaps this is what Michael Ignatieff had in mind, when he said in a written statement in reaction to yesterday’s events: ”Boycotting President Ahmadinejad’s speech is absolutely the right thing to do — just as it was the right thing to do at the Durban Review Conference back in April. I question, however, why Stephen Harper has refused to take action in Canada to hold the Iranian regime to account.”

Other Canadians will agree with today’s Globe editorial, which argues that “if Canada is truly concerned about [detained Canadian journalist Maziar] Bahari and has decided publicity is harmful, it would not have walked out on Mr. Ahmadinejad.” And some Canadians so hate the Prime Minister that, as Joe Clark used to say, if Mr. Harper walked across water they’d say he couldn’t swim.

Strictly in terms of ordinary language, however, it’s difficult to deny that Canada has exercised leadership after about a dozen other countries — including the United States, Great Britain and France (one of whose citizens is also being detained in Iran) — followed in our footsteps yesterday. As it was to deny that Canada exercised leadership after dozens of western ambassadors walked out of the UN Durban II racism conference last April — a meeting that we were first to boycott.

Unless, that is, you’re among those — a not inconsiderable number, alas — who believe that the world is run by an international Jewish conspiracy. In which case, you’ll see yesterday’s walkout as further evidence of the view expressed by President Ahmadinejad from the General Assembly podium:

"It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the U.S., to attain its racist ambitions."

I give Harper’s Tories full marks for walking out on Ahmadinejad, I’m a little depressed that we appear to have kept a bum in a seat for Goofy Gadhafi’s tirade a bit earlier in the day.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here is the Nanos poll to which Spector referred.

In summary: Harper leads all the other leaders on all five issues by wide margins (The Economy and Taxes), moderate margins (Healthcare) and narrower margins (The Environment and National unity).

 

[Edward Campbell]

Another factor: At some undetermined point in the future the seat distribution in the House of Commons will change as follows:

• Territories: From 3 to 3 – no change – percentage of seats remains at >1
• BC: From 36 to 43 – + 7 – percentage of seats rises to 12.6
• AB: From 28 to 35 – +5 – percentage of seats rises to 10.2
• SK/MN: From 28 to 28 – no change – percentage of seats falls to 8.2
• ON: From 106 to 127 – +21 – percentage of seats rises to 37.2
• QC: From 75 to 75 – no change – percentage of seats falls to 21.9
• Atlantic Canada: 32 to 32 – no change – percentage of seats falls to 9.3

The redistribution will cause changes to riding boundaries to give more and more seats to areas of (recent) high population growth. That will be the suburbs: areas where the Tories can and must do well if they want to win a majority.

The new challenge will be to win 171 of 341 seats or to keep the 155 I described above and get 16 of the 33 new seats.

Good news! According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, legislation to expand the House of Commons should be introduced this fall:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-moves-to-reshape-the-house/article1300709/

Ottawa moves to reshape the House
Legislation, potentially to be introduced as early as this fall, would see Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia gain seats in Parliament

John Ibbitson

Ottawa

Thursday, Sep. 24, 2009 08:44PM EDT

Democratic Reform Minister Steven Fletcher is in the advanced stages of preparing legislation that would reshape the House of Commons, adding dozens of seats to the three fast-growing provinces that are now seriously underrepresented.

Legislation could be ready this autumn, said a government official speaking on background, or in the new year.

The new seats would most likely be concentrated in the burgeoning suburban and exurban ridings that ring Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. Voters in these ridings – typically younger and multiethnic –would finally wield a political clout that has been denied them in previous elections in favour of voters in mostly white rural ridings.

“We never had a debate and said that new Canadians, visible minorities, people who live in the GTA [greater Toronto], Calgary, Edmonton and the Lower Mainland [of British Columbia], young people, gays and lesbians – that they should all have less representation,” observes Matthew Mendelsohn, director of the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation, a new Toronto-based think tank that examines the impact of public policy on the province of Ontario. “If we had framed it that way, no Canadian would support it.

“But we haven't had that debate. We've just allowed institutional inertia to carry on.”

That may all be about to change.

A previous attempt at riding redistribution last year died on the order paper amid howls of complaint from Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, because his province received far fewer new seats under the proposed bill than its fast-growing population warranted.

A federal government official said that in the new legislation, “there will be different numbers,” ones that should please Ontario voters. The final figure, said an official, would be closer to the 21 seats that a representation-by-population formula would suggest the province is entitled to than the 10 seats offered in the previous bill.

Alberta could be awarded up to six seats and British Columbia up to seven, taking the current Parliament from 308 members to around 340.

Adding so many seats to the Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta totals could transform the political map, potentially putting an end to this decade's chronic run of unstable minority governments.

The Conservatives could be expected to dominate any new Alberta seats, would be favoured in added British Columbia ridings, and would be competitive in many of the new ridings in Ontario, which may be why they are keen on redistribution. Being just 12 seats shy of a majority, they would have the best shot at winning a majority in an enlarged Commons.

Still, the Liberal Party is the party of cities. Apart from their Atlantic redoubt, the party's remaining strength is mostly concentrated in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. The new ridings should offer fertile ground for Liberal victories.

But downtowns and older suburbs, where Liberals tend to dominate, are not the locus of population growth. Cities are growing at their edges, as new suburbs replace farmlands. It is no coincidence that Prime Minister Stephen Harper forsook the United Nations earlier this week for an event at Tim Hortons, or that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff spent Thursday in Burlington, in the Golden Horseshoe, decrying what he claimed were the inadequacies of the government's stimulus efforts.

One obvious loser in any parliamentary reform would be the Bloc Québécois, which seems to be in permanent possession of about 50 seats, delivered by Quebec voters who prefer to have a sovereigntist voice representing them in the House of Commons.

But the province isn't growing, and may even be on the cusp of population decline. Expanding the size of the House of Commons would weaken the influence of Quebec's voice in Parliament and the Bloc along with it.

The Bloc is expected to do all it can to prevent parliamentary reform.

If Parliament fails to pass the new legislation before the next election, Statistics Canada will report the results of the 2011 census to the Chief Electoral Officer, who will assign new seats to provinces as warranted. But it could take several years for the non-partisan electoral commissions to redraw the riding boundaries while consulting with the public and Parliament. And Ontario, especially, would continue to be underrepresented in the House.

“The bedrock principle of political legitimacy in a liberal democracy is one person, one vote,” observes Sujit Choudhry, a law professor at the University of Toronto who has studied the question of parliamentary representation. “This is what we fought for.”

In Canada, today, population growth is now almost exclusively confined to major cities in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. But constitutional conventions and acts of Parliament over the years have entrenched protections for smaller and more rural provinces and for Quebec, creating a serious parliamentary skew.

If all ridings were equal, each would have about 108,000 people. But a Prince Edward Island riding typically has only 35,000 voters and a Saskatchewan riding 72,000, while Alberta ridings average 127,000 voters. It takes almost four Calgary votes to equal one PEI vote.

And the situation will only grow worse, because all the growth in Canada is occurring in those parts that are already most underrepresented.

Since stripping provinces of existing seats is legally and politically impossible, the only solution is to grow Parliament.

Critics maintain that failure to pass legislation to permit the new ridings would be, even if unintentionally, racist, since most population growth in Canada is driven by immigration, and the vast majority of immigrants are non-white. Underrepresenting high-growth areas in the House means depriving new, visible-minority voters of the electoral clout of voters in places that are almost uniformly white.

“Unfortunately there is a racial aspect creeping into this as well,” observes Prof. Choudhry. “So there's another cleavage developing, and in the long run that's dangerous.”

It is not possible to reconfigure Parliament without cost – to the Atlantic provinces, to Quebec, to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Even within Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta there will be losers, as rural ridings cede influence to their urban counterparts – assuming the electoral commissions apportion the new ridings in areas where the population is growing.

But there may be no alternative if Parliament is to evolve into something that more closely reflects today's urban, more multiethnic Canada. It is simply a question of how. And when.

Parliament must act. The numbers may be slightly different than the ones I used but the principle is the only possible one. Not to act is to admit that we are not quite a democracy, yet.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Constitution Act 1867

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html

Readjustment of representation in Commons 
51.  (1) The number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces therein shall, on the coming into force of this subsection and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census, be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules: 

Rules 
1.  There shall be assigned to each of the provinces a number of members equal to the number obtained by dividing the total population of the provinces by two hundred and seventy-nine and by dividing the population of each province by the quotient so obtained, counting any remainder in excess of 0.50 as one after the said process of division.

2.  If the total number of members that would be assigned to a province by the application of rule 1 is less than the total number assigned to that province on the date of coming into force of this subsection, there shall be added to the number of members so assigned such number of members as will result in the province having the same number of members as were assigned on that date.

Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories and Nunavut 

51 (2) The Yukon Territory as bounded and described in the schedule to chapter Y-2 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, shall be entitled to one member, the Northwest Territories as bounded and described in section 2 of chapter N-27 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, as amended by section 77 of chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada, 1993, shall be entitled to one member, and Nunavut as bounded and described in section 3 of chapter 28 of the Statutes of Canada, 1993, shall be entitled to one member.

Constitution of House of Commons 
51A.  Notwithstanding anything in this Act a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province.
Increase of Number of House of Commons 

52.  The Number of Members of the House of Commons may be from Time to Time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate Representation of the Provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed.

Regardless of actions authorized under these sections, at what point should someone ask the courts to redistribute?  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms also recognizes democratic rights.  The country is electing governments according to the 1991 population distribution and that is simply wrong.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC web site, is more on the Coderre vs. Cauchon imbroglio:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/09/24/cauchon-ignatieff-outremont-0924.html

Key Liberals back Cauchon in riding fight
Ignatieff offers Cauchon chance to run in Bloc riding

September 24, 2009

By Krista Erickson, CBC News

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is facing increasing pressure from within his caucus to accommodate former cabinet minister Martin Cauchon, who wants to run in the next election.

In interviews with CBC News, several Liberal MPs went public with their views about the party's decision to reserve the Liberal nomination in the Montreal riding of Outremont for business executive Nathalie Le Prohon.

"For me, the best candidate to win should get the riding," Quebec MP Bernard Patry said. "Mr. Cauchon knows the riding, I have no clue if Madame Le Prohon knows the riding."

Quebec MP Alexandra Mendes noted: "Mr. Cauchon has proven his mettle. He has nothing to prove. The party should make Mr. Cauchon very welcome and give him whatever chance he needs to help us form the government."

The Liberal leader appears to be responding to the concerns. Ignatieff's office confirmed to CBC News that he spoke with Cauchon by phone Thursday and offered him the Liberal nomination in the Bloc Québécois-held riding of Jeanne-Le Ber.

Ignatieff's office said it was awaiting Cauchon's decision. Cauchon did not respond to requests for comment.

MP for 11 years

Cauchon, a former justice minister who spearheaded legislation to legalize same-sex marriage, served 11 years as an MP in Outremont under Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien, but retired from politics in 2004 after Paul Martin took power. He now wants to return to political life.

But last week, the Liberal Party's Quebec lieutenant, Denis Coderre, sidelined Cauchon when he announced the Outremont nomination would be reserved for another candidate of his choosing.

That candidate is widely reported to be Le Prohon, who was president of Nokia Canada and served as a senior executive at IBM and Hydro-Québec.

This week, Cauchon appealed to the Liberal leader to reverse Coderre's decision. But Ignatieff sided with his lieutenant, saying it was part of a strategy to renew the party by recruiting female star candidates to run in ridings that are winnable.

Divisions emerge

Ignatieff's decision created divisions between Coderre and Cauchon supporters and a backlash in the blogosphere.

On Wednesday, Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae was the first MP to express concerns about the decision, telling The Canadian Press "room must be found" for Cauchon in the party.

In addition to Rae, Patry and Mendes, other MPs have weighed in publicly, including Quebec MPs Raymonde Folco and Massimo Pacetti. Both said there is another option available to the party — a nomination race between Cauchon and Le Prohon.

"He [Ignatieff] does have another possibility according to the constitution. The possibility of the two having a race for the riding," Folco said.

"I'm a believer in a nomination contest," said Pacetti. "I think it should have been an open battle."

Some Liberal MPs would not agree to speak on the record, but told CBC News they are firmly against the decision to reserve the nomination for Le Prohon. Others said they are less sympathetic to Cauchon and wonder how significant his interest in running is, since he didn't declare his intentions until recently.

This is the sort of thing that ought to be done “behind closed doors.” That it is out in the open, all over the media, suggests that Prince Michael’s grip on the leadership is not as strong as it should be. That's not a good thing IF a late fall election is probable possible.

 

[GAP]

You are right ER...this is creating divisions (ah la...Martin/Chretien) that will be a long time healing. Cauchon should be welcomed back to run in his old riding...this shows leadership support, while Nathalie Le Prohon should have been offered the Bloc riding to run....what we have now is Ignatieff overruling not one, but two Liberal Riding Associations. This just aggravated the situation.

 

[Rifleman62]

And Bob Rae openly challenging Ignatieff's leadership.

P.S. I do not think Iggy should do TV close ups. He is scaring children looking like the old wicked witch (quoting my grand daughter).

 

[GAP]

Cauchon to run again as Liberals settle Quebec squabble  TheStar.com - Canada September 25, 2009 THE CANADIAN PRESS
Article Link

OTTAWA – Former Liberal cabinet minister Martin Cauchon will get the chance to make a political comeback in his old riding after all.

Party insiders say Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has decided to allow an open nomination contest in the prized Montreal riding of Outremont.

Earlier this week, Ignatieff declared that the riding had been reserved for businesswoman Nathalie Le Prohon.

Ignatieff made that decision despite Cauchon's expressed interest in making a comeback in the riding he represented for 11 years before retiring from politics in 2004.

But insiders say Ignatieff relented in the face of a fierce party backlash and decided to give Le Prohon another Montreal riding – Jeanne-Le Ber.

Outremont was a longtime Liberal fortress until it was snatched away by New Democrat Thomas Mulcair in a stunning 2007 byelection upset.
End

 

[dapaterson]

The Economist has an article on Canada's deadlocked parliament.  Worth reading, if only to get an outside perspective.

http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14506460