This ain't no party

This ain't no party
With Turmel at the helm, the NDP is a disgrace to its honourable history of social democracy

Canada's population is booming — 34.5 million people, according to Statistics Canada. But that growth isn't evenly distributed.

Over the past 10 years, Western Canada has grown a lot, and Ontario, too. Not so for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. But Canada's House of Commons hasn't kept up with this trend. The last time new MPs were added was eight years ago.

That means some ridings in places like Toronto and Calgary have around 150,000 citizens. Compare that to Prince Edward Island — the whole province has just 141,000 people, but they have four MPs and four Senators.

As a minority government, the Conservatives introduced legislation to add 18 seats to Ontario, seven to B.C. and five to Alberta to even things out a bit. But the bill was never put to a final vote. Now Tim Uppal, the Conservative minister of state for democratic reform, has said it's a priority.

But not Nycole Turmel, the interim leader of the NDP. She doesn't want to change the proportion of the House of Commons because it means Quebec would lose a bit of clout.

Look how she said it: "The approach of the Harper government is really divisive right now. It's not constructive, it's not nation-building."

Not constructive? How is adding new MPs to represent shifts in population not constructive? And not nation-building? What does that even mean? And this, "really divisive." How is it divisive?

We have a tradition — a Constitutional convention, you could say — of representation by population. We're lacking that right now. Wouldn't it be divisive not to fix it?

It's literally been done 20 times since Confederation. When Canada was born, there were 181 seats in Parliament: 82 in Ontario, 65 in Quebec, 19 in Nova Scotia and 15 in New Brunswick. Adding new MPs made sense as whole new provinces were being added. And, yes, each time Quebec lost a bit of clout.

Welcome to a democracy.

But when it comes to deciding between Quebec's power and Canada's national interests, Turmel and the NDP choose Quebec — although the majority of Quebecers are surely democrats, who believe in rep by pop, even if it means losing some power. Ordinary Quebecers would surely put the sacred principle of democracy over some trifling political advantage.

Not Turmel. The explanation is obvious: Turmel has been a long-time member of Quebec separatist parties. She was a member of the Bloc Quebecois. And, at least until a few weeks ago, she was a member of an even more radical separatist party called Quebec Solidaire.

So whose agenda is she really promoting? The NDP is an unserious party. No one was more surprised with their electoral successes in May than they were — this is the party of Ruth Ellen Brosseau, the candidate who spent part of the campaign in Las Vegas, only to come back to strike the jackpot on election day.

Half the NDP caucus is made up of accidental MPs like that. And now their leader is a long-time separatist supporter, who has committed her party against democratic equality for the West and Ontario.

Imagine if Tommy Douglas, the NDP's first leader — from the Prairies, by the way — were around. He'd be shocked at what his party has become.

The NDP's socialist economic policies mean they've never been serious. Every once in a while, Canadians forget this and elect a disastrous NDP government provincially — like Bob Rae in Ontario. Turmel has shown that despite its head count in Parliament, the NDP is less serious, less credible and even less Canadian than ever.

It's a disgrace to the honourable history of patriotic social democracy in this country. And it's an embarrassment to Quebec voters who clearly voted by using a dartboard.

It's ironic: Turmel, the accidental NDP leader from Quebec, is actually the best advertisement possible for giving more seats to other provinces.

EZRA LEVANT, QMI AGENCY