In a comment since made here at the Nexus (where CK indulges herself in the privilege of posting comments, yet bans unwelcome commenters from her own blog), CK makes herself a little more clear on what her precise vision for Canada is -- and it isn't pretty (grammatical errors, incoherence and all):
" I never said Quebec should never have anymore seats. I don't think there should be anymore seats. Don't you cons prefer smaller government anyway? 30 new seats would certainly expand government further at about 25 000 000$: Don't you cons hate wasteful spending?"If CK knew anything about Canadian politics, she might actually understand one point that renders her entire argument moot:
In Canada, government and Parliament are actually separate entities. Parliament is not the government of Canada, but rather its legislature.
Within Canadian democracy, the party that is designated to govern by the Governor General (according to Constitutional convention, the party that produces a working plurality or majority of seats) becomes the governing party, and is responsible to Parliament for its management of government institutions.
Ergo, expanding Canada's Parliament does not increase the size of its government. It merely increases the size of its legislature.
But there's more to CK's lunacy:
"Allow me to introduce myself here with specifics.Pay particular attentio to the "justice for all".
Help your fellow man; needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few; the working class before big corporations and eradicating poverty and equal access to health care and other social programs, justice for all = good"
Canadian democracy is based on the principle of representation. We elect our MPs to represent us.
Yet, as it turns out, not all Canadians are represented equally.
For example, in 2009 the province of Quebec was determined to have 7,828,900 citizens living there. Divided by the 75 seats Quebec has in the House of Commons, Quebec has one seat for every 104,385 people living there.
Alberta, on the other hand, has 3,687,700 citizens living here according to 2009 numbers. Divided by Alberta's 28 seats, this leaves Alberta with one seat for every 131,703 people living there.
Ontario has 13,069,200 citizens living there according to the same 2009 numbers. Divided by Ontario's 106 seats, Ontarians have one seat for every 123,294 people living there.
British Columbia has 4,455,200 citizens leaving there according to the 2009 figures. Divided by BC's 36 seats, British Columbians have one seat for every 123,755 people living there.
So, the question simply must be posed to CK:
How, precisely, is this "just"?
And then one remembers that to individuals like CK, justice doesn't necessarily entail all citizens being treated equally. One remembers that, in the minds of individuals like CK, justice requires that some citizens enjoy greater benefits than others.
Such as, for example, Quebeckers, who under the current status quo, are "more equal" than Albertans. And that's "justice".
That, by the way, shouldn't be mistaken for a "superior equality" of generic Quebeckers over generic Albertans. That's a "superior equality" of Quebec women over Albertan women, a "superior equality" of Quebec LGBTs over Albertan LGBTs, a "superior equality" of Quebec minorities over Albertan minorities.
It's even a "superior equality" of Quebec francophones over Albertan francophones.
CK's vision of Canada is essentially a vision of Canada as Animal Farm. But to CK, it's conservatives who must always wind up being "less equal" than other Canadians. Thus she opposes provinces that tend to vote Conservative (and those that are voting Conservative in greater numbers) receiving more seats in the House of Commons.
It has nothing at all to do with the size of government. CK simply hates conservatives:
"Paranoia, Greed, bigotry, useless wars to keep corrupt governments in power = bad.Considering who CK takes her orders from, it's impossible to read a statement like that without having to suppress a snicker.
Unfortunately, the latter is all we see of today's conservatism: no redeeming social qualities here. You included. Not my fault you can't successfully defend irredeemable character flaws."
Considering that CK fawns over the deeply bigoted Bloc Quebecois when its leaders say something that make conservatives angry, it's impossible to take her seriously on the topic of bigotry.
But, once again, even the "irredeemable character flaws" of a movement she mistakenly believes to be progressive (Quebec separatism is actually starkly regressive and reactionary) are not deemed to be equal to those she attributes to conservatives.
Even established bigots like the BQ are "more equal" than the alleged bigots in Alberta.
It should probably be rather amusing that CK would accuse conservatives of hating Quebec while she herself strikes positions that are starkly anti-Alberta, anti-British Columbia, and anti-Ontario.
In CK's fevered mind, in the course of being anti-conservative, absolutely anything goes. Even opposing increasing representation for the majority of Canadians so they can be closer to parity with Quebec and the Maritimes.
It's just another reason for Canadians to oppose the extreme agenda of lunatics like CK by any democratic means necessary, and by any democratic means available.
It's crystal clear that a great many Canadians cannot afford to settle for being "less equal" than CK and her cohorts -- which is exactly what Canada's extreme progressive fringe wants.