Kevin Lamoureux - "I believe the vast majority of Manitobans agree we do not need more MPs,"

23 posts / 0 new

Sat, 2011-11-19 14:56

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So, in the Winnipeg Free Press, Kevin Lamoureux is quoted saying:

"I believe the vast majority of Manitobans agree we do not need more MPs,"

From an article in the Winnipeg Free Press, "Manitoba one of the biggest losers under Liberal plan" written by Mia Rabson. Here are some important quotes:

"Manitoba Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux defended the plan, saying after the bill to increase the House of Commons by 30 seats was introduced, he had a number of constituents complain about it."

So Kevin Lamoureux and his Liberal cronies thinks that it was be a good thing if the Commons were to adopt a Liberal proposal that would result in fewer seats for Manitoba, and more seats in among other places, Ontario, Alberta and BC. Well, what do you expect, I asked myself. If you aren't able to win seats in other parts of Canada, take their seats from them and put them in places where you are likely to be able to win them.

While of American origin, it is worth noting the definition of Gerrymandering, detailied at www.dictionary.com as follows:

"ger·ry·man·der - [jer-i-man-der, ger-] Show IPA noun 1. U.S. Politics . the dividing of a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible.

By any other name?

Regions:

Sat, 2011-11-19 15:02

wage zombie

Manitoba is over represented. You guys have too many seats and need to lose a few. You might not like it but it is about fairness.

I'm no fan of Kevin Lamoureux or the Liberals but I'm definitely a fan of lowering Manitoba's seat count. Sorry.

Sat, 2011-11-19 15:18

Orangutan

Why do so many NDPers seem to loath Kevin Lamoureux? From what little I know about him, he seems like a decent and hard-working MP. Is it just the fact that he seemingly has denied seats (provincially and federally) that Manitoban NDPers feel entilted to? is his personality cantankerous and partisan? Is there some legtimate policy reasons? Can someone please fill me in.

Sat, 2011-11-19 17:23

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Why, ok, here is some why.

For example, he has been trying to tie the NDP to a policy he alleges is in line with that of the PQ and the Bloc involving the replacement of cash payments with tax point funding of health care. In the house, very recently he asked 5 NDP MPs in succession what their position was regarding this, without commenting on the fact that Tory Maxine Bernier has been quoted as supporting this proposition. As near as I can tell from reading Hansard, Lamoureux finally stopped asking this question once Mr. Caron reiterated that the NDP's position was full support of the CHA, and that the party never had supported the tax point supposition. He never asked any Tory MPs what positions the had.

That this came up for me as an issue was the direct result of Lamoureux distributing a consitutency flyer alleging this. After Libby Davies Office staff confirmed that this allegation was baseless I emialed Mr. Lamoureux asking he verify the veracity of the flyer contained claims. His respose was to email me back asking I provide him the names of NDP MPs who had spoken out against the "Sepratist" position; in other words, he tried to prove a negative with a negative, an impossibiliity. Given that he stated in his flyer that adoption of what he called "the Sepratist" position would result in the destructio of the CHA, I don't think it was unreasonalbe to ask him to provide the documentation supporting his allegations. The fact he chose to challenge me to disprove the veracity of his own allegations left me feeling it might be possible to infer he couldn't verify the accuracy of his claims.

During the 2011 Federal Election, in the last weekend prior to the vote, Mr. Lamoureux distributed a flyer that impled NDP MLA Dave Chomiak supported his candidacy. This led Chomiak to release a press release stating that he did not support Mr. Lamoureux and that he supported Blakie's candidacy without hesitation. I also asked Mr. Lamoureux about this via email. His response to ask me to disprove he hadn't accurately quoted Mr. Chomiak, without addressing the issue of how he tried to use Mr. Chomiak's own statements. Again, to reiterate, Mr. Chomiak felt compelled to release a Press Release clarifying his unreserved and sole support of Ms Blakie's candidacy.

Regarding the seat issue, this is simply an attempt by the Liberals to put a thumb on the scale in their favor, nothing else. This has nothing to do with fairness, or cost efficiency. The Libs can't win a fair fight straight up, and will resort to anything to hold onto power. That is all the Libs are about, power, and, placating the rich. It would appear Mr. Lamoureux is interested in trying to influence the outcome in a way advantageous to his party. That his right, but I would argue that if this is his intention, he ought to come clean on this. It would seem to me that if he actually has been approached by constituent's who allededgly supported his position, it isn't unreasonable to ask he actual provide proof in the form, for example, of a constituet survey. I can't imagine he would accept the say so of a NDP MP alleging for example, that the constituents of Winnipeg North supported the redrawing of the riding in a way detrimental to Mr. Lamoureux's candidacy without asking any such NDP MP or representative providing documeted provable fact in support of their position.

Sat, 2011-11-19 17:52

Stockholm

Orangutan wrote:

Why do so many NDPers seem to loath Kevin Lamoureux?

For one thing he's an anti-abortion freak.

Sat, 2011-11-19 18:32

vaudree

So that is how he barely managed to beat Rebecca Blaikie! Blaikie should have won!

Sat, 2011-11-19 19:16

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@vaudree:

Instead of what looks like sarcasm, why don't you try and make your point instead, and then we'll respond. Ok?

Sat, 2011-11-19 19:47

Catchfire

Moving to Manitoba

Sat, 2011-11-19 20:22

Aristotleded24

Catchfire wrote:
Moving to Manitoba

Drop me a line, I'll show you around.

Sat, 2011-11-19 20:27

#10

Aristotleded24

As for the subject of the thread, I don't think what the Liberals propose will help them out at all. Fact is, 2 of the three under-represented provinces are British Columbia and Alberta, and giving more seats to these provinces won't help out the Liberals at all. They may even lose seats in Atlantic Canada under this plan, as Atlantic Canada is over-represented.

Sat, 2011-11-19 20:49

#11

Threads

Atlantic Canada would lose all of two seats (Nova Scotia's eleventh and Newfoundland and Labrador's seventh), since thirty of the seats there are protected by the senate clause.

Sun, 2011-11-20 03:36

#12

ghoris

They really need to abolish the Representation Act, 1986 (which grandfathers in existing seat numbers in each province) and the senatorial clause. Otherwise we will have an ever-expanding House, and fast-growing places like Alberta, BC and Ontario will still be under-represented. It is absolutely ridiculous, for example, that PEI has four seats in the House of Commons. The United States re-allocates a set number of seats among the states based on the dicennial census, and we don't hear any gnashing of teeth about it. Why? Because in a rep-by-pop chamber, it's the only fair way to do it.

A properly-weighted 300-seat House of Commons would look something like this: BC 39, AB 33, SK 9, MB 11, ON 115, QC 70, NB 7, NS 8, PE 1, NL 4, NU 1, NT 1, YT 1.

Sun, 2011-11-20 09:29

#13

Aristotleded24

But ghoris, don't you realize that taking seats from Saskatchewan and Manitoba just prove that Western Alienation is right and that the federal government is out to screw over Western Canada every move it makes? Even cold Prairie winters are the federal government's fault!

Sun, 2011-11-20 11:01

#14

Sineed

ghoris wrote:
They really need to abolish the Representation Act, 1986 (which grandfathers in existing seat numbers in each province) and the senatorial clause. Otherwise we will have an ever-expanding House, and fast-growing places like Alberta, BC and Ontario will still be under-represented. It is absolutely ridiculous, for example, that PEI has four seats in the House of Commons. The United States re-allocates a set number of seats among the states based on the dicennial census, and we don't hear any gnashing of teeth about it. Why? Because in a rep-by-pop chamber, it's the only fair way to do it.

This can't be overstated. Rep by pop is the only acceptible framework in a democracy. Anything else is anti-democratic and is a hold-over from the days when rep by pop was viewed as granting too much power to non-landowning citizens by the wealthy and powerful.

Sun, 2011-11-20 11:49

#15

Unionist

If it's "rep by pop", in a federal body, why talk about "provinces" at all? Why does the U.S. have to reallocate seats among states - why base representation on states at all (and I'm not talking about the U.S. Senate, which obviously recognizes only states)?

It's logical to have "ridings" based on some local geography and participation. But why should a riding not cross provincial borders (for example) where that makes sense in terms of a region or community? For example, why do some folks living in Lloydminster vote for their federal MP in Vegreville-Wainwright, while others vote in Battlefords-Lloydminster? Apartheid??

So I think comparing which province has how much is a far cry from "rep by pop".

Sun, 2011-11-20 13:51

#16

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:

But why should a riding not cross provincial borders (for example) where that makes sense in terms of a region or community? For example, why do some folks living in Lloydminster vote for their federal MP in Vegreville-Wainwright, while others vote in Battlefords-Lloydminster? Apartheid??

So I think comparing which province has how much is a far cry from "rep by pop".

But we electoral reformers keep repeating until we're blue in the face -- ELECTORAL REFORM DOES NOT REQUIRE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT if you use any normal proportional representation model such as recommended by the Law Commission of Canada.

Changing the Senate clause requires unanimous consent. So does changing the provisions requiring us to count the number of MPs per province. Not achievable in the real world.

Beside, unless you have a burning desire to move 3,000 people from Gaspésie - Îles-de-la-Madeleine to Madawaska - Restigouche, or 1,400 people from Argenteuil - Papineau - Mirabel to Glengarry - Prescott - Russell, there are no communities in Canada that cross provincial borders except Lloydminster. (And Ottawa--Gatineau, but I doubt you want any cross-province ridings there.)

Sun, 2011-11-20 15:47

#17

David Young

If it were guaranteed that losing one seat here in Nova Scotia were to mean that the two Cape Breton seats were to become one....!

One fewer Liberal in the House...!

Let me think about it.

Sun, 2011-11-20 16:06

#18

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:

I was merely commenting on the (to me) odd notion that anyone should pay attention to the allocation of federal representatives based on provincial boundaries.

Prairie folk say this sometimes. I can't recall hearing anyone before now from our Quebec founding nation dispute the nature of the Confederation bargain which spelled out how many MPs from each of the four founding provinces. ;)

Sun, 2011-11-20 23:05

#19

Orangutan

Stockholm wrote:

Orangutan wrote:

Why do so many NDPers seem to loath Kevin Lamoureux?

For one thing he's an anti-abortion freak.

Between that and what Arthur Cramer mentioned, yeah, Mr. Lamoureux is some piece of work.

Sun, 2011-11-20 23:34

#20

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:
Unionist wrote:

I was merely commenting on the (to me) odd notion that anyone should pay attention to the allocation of federal representatives based on provincial boundaries.

Prairie folk say this sometimes. I can't recall hearing anyone before now from our Quebec founding nation dispute the nature of the Confederation bargain which spelled out how many MPs from each of the four founding provinces. ;)

I hold no brief for Confederation, which was imposed on the people of Québec by the business and church elites, who rejected the popular demand for a referendum (as called for by the Rouges party among others). It was as dirty a deal as the ones before it, which guaranteed wealth and power to a minority in exchange for keeping the masses in check. Québec is a nation, and it has the unilateral right to secede if it doesn't like the deal. I'm not now, nor was I in 1867 , a proponent of the "give us more power and money and we'll be happy" thesis.

Sun, 2011-11-20 23:35

#21

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:

But we electoral reformers keep repeating until we're blue in the face -- ELECTORAL REFORM DOES NOT REQUIRE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT if you use any normal proportional representation model such as recommended by the Law Commission of Canada. Changing the Senate clause requires unanimous consent. So does changing the provisions requiring us to count the number of MPs per province. Not achievable in the real world.

Oh, I agree, Wilf. I was merely commenting on the (to me) odd notion that anyone should pay attention to the allocation of federal representatives based on provincial boundaries.

Quote:
Beside, unless you have a burning desire to move 3,000 people from Gaspésie - Îles-de-la-Madeleine to Madawaska - Restigouche, or 1,400 people from Argenteuil - Papineau - Mirabel to Glengarry - Prescott - Russell, there are no communities in Canada that cross provincial borders except Lloydminster. (And Ottawa--Gatineau, but I doubt you want any cross-province ridings there.)

Yeah, but Canada is as much based on regions as municipalities. I always saw Kenora, for example, as being [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2005/08/03/mb_kenora_separa... closer to Winnipeg[/url], in a multitude of ways, than to anywhere in southern Ontario. I'd even say the same for Thunder Bay.

None of this was intended to detract from or diminish the feasibility of electoral reform - the kind which doesn't need the impossible constitutional amendments to proceed.

Sun, 2011-11-20 23:59

#22

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:

I'm not now, nor was I in 1867 , a proponent of the "give us more power and money and we'll be happy" thesis.

You are almost as long-lived as the great Gaffar Khan and his son who adopted his father's famous saying: “I am a Pakistani for 50 years, a Muslim for 1,400 years and a Pushtun for 5,000 years.”

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Ws150611Peace.asp

Mon, 2011-12-19 17:10

#23

The Analyst The Analyst's picture

ghoris wrote:

They really need to abolish the Representation Act, 1986 (which grandfathers in existing seat numbers in each province) and the senatorial clause. Otherwise we will have an ever-expanding House, and fast-growing places like Alberta, BC and Ontario will still be under-represented. It is absolutely ridiculous, for example, that PEI has four seats in the House of Commons. The United States re-allocates a set number of seats among the states based on the dicennial census, and we don't hear any gnashing of teeth about it. Why? Because in a rep-by-pop chamber, it's the only fair way to do it.

A properly-weighted 300-seat House of Commons would look something like this: BC 39, AB 33, SK 9, MB 11, ON 115, QC 70, NB 7, NS 8, PE 1, NL 4, NU 1, NT 1, YT 1.

I've actually heard that there are benefits to a large House. One being that not everyone in a party has a high chance of being picked for cabinet, so individual MPs have less of a disincentive to speak independently.