McGuinty's push for more MPs

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071120/...t_commons_seats

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is becoming the "small man of Confederation" by demanding 21 additional seats in the House of Commons instead of living up to the province's historic role as a nation builder, the federal government charged Tuesday.

Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan upped the rhetoric in his war of words with McGuinty over Ottawa's bill to increase the number of seats in Parliament to reflect population growth in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

"Dalton McGuinty seems to be abandoning the traditional role of an Ontario premier, which would see Ontario's interests protected while at the same time advancing the strength of Confederation," Van Loan said in an interview.

"He seems to prefer to become the small man of Confederation, focusing only on taking partisan shots while not concerned about the strength of Canada as a whole."

Van Loan, who represents a southern Ontario riding in the Commons and is also the minister responsible for democratic reform, said the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan would all lose seats in Parliament if the government adopted the true "representation-by-population" formula McGuinty seems to support.

Small man for not getting representation based on population?

It is obvious that the Tories don't want to risk Ontario having more Liberals being elected with fewer in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Maritimes.

[Fortunata]

It is obvious that the Tories don't want to risk Ontario having more Liberals being elected with fewer in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Maritimes.

Exactly what I thought when I first heard this.

[Topaz]

well, if the Feds were smart(?) they would have a count on the population of each province and you wopuld probably find that Alberta's is far ahead of the others including Ontario, which has probably lost and wouldn't be entitled to 21!! but who ever said they were smart?

[mikedavid00]

is obvious that the Tories don't want to risk Ontario having more Liberals being elected with fewer in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Maritimes.

You know what's funny is that this whole thing is flying under the radar but is a very, very serious issue.

Anyhow, I'm still glad to fight corruption with more corruption.

Anything to stop more immigrant votes, i'm all in favor of.

Of course, our political system is simply out of control.

[Technocrat]

You know what's funny is that this whole thing is flying under the radar but is a very, very serious issue.

Anyhow, I'm still glad to fight corruption with more corruption.

Anything to stop more immigrant votes, i'm all in favor of.

Of course, our political system is simply out of control.

mike

Please correct me if im wrong but don't you have to be a Canadian citizen to vote? Thus a Canadian? Your xenophobia is showing

[guyser]

well, if the Feds were smart(?) they would have a count on the population of each province and you wopuld probably find that Alberta's is far ahead of the others including Ontario, which has probably lost and wouldn't be entitled to 21!! but who ever said they were smart?

Um....you sure you wanted to post that? I mean , really , did you?

[Riverwind]

It is obvious that the Tories don't want to risk Ontario having more Liberals being elected with fewer in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Maritimes.

The current constitution guarantees minimum seat levels to martimes and quebec. This means a seat distribution based on pure rep by pop is impossible. As a result, any government has to short change Ont, BC and Alberta. The previous liberal government rigged the rules in favour of Ont and grossly shortchanged BC and Alberta. Harper has adjusted the balance and it seems like Ont gets the short end of the stick this time around. However, people in Ont should remember that BC and Alberta were short changed a lot more over the last 15 years and that the current constitution forces the government to short change these three provinces. Edited November 21, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

However, people in Ont should remember that BC and Alberta were short changed a lot more over the last 15 years and that the current constitution forces the government to short change these three provinces.

There is nothing in the constitution that says that provinces have to shortchanged in the House of Commons. This should not be a tit for tat affair. However, you will have to show me where the Liberals screwed around with the all party system that agreed on the present 301 seat distribution.

The same thing can't be said for Mulroney's rigging of the system in 1985.

Edited November 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[Topaz]

Dalton was on CBC tonight and he says that AB and BC would get an additional seat when the population grows by 100,000 but Ontario would only get another seat after having 200,000 new residents to its population. Under the new deal BC goes from 2 seats to 7, AB 1 seat to 5 and On from 4 -10. I bet though with eveyone moving out to AB that they probably have picked up 2 extra seats already!

[Riverwind]

There is nothing in the constitution that says that provinces have to shortchanged in the House of Commons. This should not be a tit for tat affair.

The constitutation guarantees that provinces with declining populations will be able to keep the same percentage of seats after redistribution. This means they are entitled to more seats that their population would merit. Since % of seats must add up to 100% any extra seats given to some provinces must be taken away from others (i.e. BC, Alberta or Ontario). So the contitution does not explicitly say that these provinces must be shortchanged that is the unavoidable consequence of the formula.

However, you will have to show me where the Liberals screwed around with the all party system that agreed on the present 301 seat distribution.

The Liberals screwed around by delaying re-distribution as long as possible.

[jdobbin]

The constitutation guarantees that provinces with declining populations will be able to keep the same percentage of seats after redistribution. This means they are entitled to more seats that their population would merit. Since % of seats must add up to 100% any extra seats given to some provinces must be taken away from others (i.e. BC, Alberta or Ontario). So the contitution does not explicitly say that these provinces must be shortchanged that is the unavoidable consequence of the formula.

The Liberals screwed around by delaying re-distribution as long as possible.

The Constitution guarantees a minimum amount of seats for provinces. It does not limit the other provinces with growing population from gaining seats in each decennial census. It doesn't guarantee the same percentage of seats to each province after each distribution.

Please show me the citation where the provinces can keep the same percentage of seats after redistribution.

Please show me the citation that the Liberals delayed redistribution.

Edited November 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

The Constitution guarantees a minimum amount of seats for provinces. It does not limit the other provinces with growing population from gaining seats in each decennial census. It doesn't guarantee the same percentage of seats to each province after each distribution.

From the constitution: http://www.constitution.org/cons/canada.txt

52. The Number of Members of the House of Commons may be from

Time to Time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided

that the proportionate Representation of the Provinces

prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed.

The requirement is for minimum seat levels and the proportion of the seats.

Please show me the citation that the Liberals delayed redistribution.

Online news does not go back before 2000. It was discussed in the news.

[jdobbin]

From the constitution: http://www.constitution.org/cons/canada.txt

The requirement is for minimum seat levels and the proportion of the seats.

Online news does not go back before 2000. It was discussed in the news.

Minimum seat levels is not the same as guaranteed percentage of seats. It doesn't limit Ontario from gaining seats.

There are three constitutional clauses affecting seats:

First: No province will have fewer seats than Senate seats.

Two: No province will have fewer seats than they did in 1986.

Three: No province will lose more than 15% of their seats following a decennial census.

I'm afraid all I have ever heard was Mulroney's rigging of the House of Commons seats in 1985.

I can access the Globe and Mail back to 1977 online through Factiva. You can check it out of if you like. I can find nothing in the paper there on the delays.

Edited November 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

Minimum seat levels is not the same as guaranteed percentage of seats. It doesn't limit Ontario from gaining seats.

I realize the formula is quite arcane and it does not say explicitly that the percentage of seats is guaranteed. However, that is the mathematical outcome of the formula.

You can find the details here:

http://www.democraticreform.gc.ca/includes...0&langFlg=e

The 1985 formula multiplies the ratio of the provincial population to the national population by 279 and then adds seats to ensure no province has fewer than the number of seats had in 1985. This means that growing provinces will always be under representated over time because the number of seats available for rep by pop allocation is fixed at 279. Fixing the number at 279 also ensures the proportion of seats cannot change significantly.

The Harper proposal fixes that problem by allowing the number of seats available for rep by pop allocation to increase over time. This will gradually reduce the impact of the guaranteed seats. It also adds additional seats to try ensure that the pop/riding in Quebec is the same as the pop/riding in Ont/BC/Alberta.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The Harper proposal fixes that problem by allowing the number of seats available for rep by pop allocation to increase over time. This will gradually reduce the impact of the guaranteed seats. It also adds additional seats to try ensure that the pop/riding in Quebec is the same as the pop/riding in Ont/BC/Alberta.

The Harper proposal is meant to help Alberta and B.C. which I agree with and keep Ontario down which I disagree with. Van Loan cannot point to any reason for it other than it is what it is. In other words, there is no constitutional reason to limit Ontario's seats.

I have continued to check Factiva which archives back to 1977 for the Globe and Mail. I cannot find anything about the Liberals blocking or delaying representation.

[Riverwind]

The Harper proposal is meant to help Alberta and B.C. which I agree with and keep Ontario down which I disagree with. Van Loan cannot point to any reason for it other than it is what it is. In other words, there is no constitutional reason to limit Ontario's seats.

The constitution requires that smaller provinces have a minimum number of seats. In practice this means the smaller provinces must be over represented because nobody wants to dramatically increase the number of MPs. If some provinces are required to be over represented then other provinces must be under represented.

I punched the numbers into a spreadsheet to see how many MPs would be required to ensure no province was under/over represented by more than 1%. I came up with ~410 MPs. Do you really think Canadians would accept that large of increase in the number of politicians overnight?

Ontario is short changed by about 5% under the current system and BC and Alberta are short changed by about 1.5%. The new formula gives each province a correction of about 0.5-0.7%. Unfortunately, Ontario is much further behind to start with and that is what McGinty is complaining about. The new formula will allow the number of MPs to increase more rapidly over time. Ontario will likely achieve true rep by pop with the number of MPs reaches ~410. IOW - the new formula is good for Ontario in the long term.

It would be politically impossible for any politician give Ontario more than the Harper proposal.

I have continued to check Factiva which archives back to 1977 for the Globe and Mail. I cannot find anything about the Liberals blocking or delaying representation.

It was well reported in the BC news in the 2000 timeframe. Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The constitution requires that smaller provinces have a minimum number of seats. In practice this means the smaller provinces must be over represented because nobody wants to dramatically increase the number of MPs. If some provinces are required to be over represented then other provinces must be under represented.

I punched the numbers into a spreadsheet to see how many MPs would be required to ensure no province was under/over represented by more than 1%. I came up with ~410 MPs. Do you really think Canadians would accept that large of increase in the number of politicians overnight?

Ontario is short changed by about 5% under the current system and BC and Alberta are short changed by about 1.5%. The new formula gives each province a correction of about 0.5-0.7%. Unfortunately, Ontario is much further behind to start with and that is what McGinty is complaining about. The new formula will allow the number of MPs to increase more rapidly over time. Ontario will likely achieve true rep by pop with the number of MPs reaches ~410. IOW - the new formula is good for Ontario in the long term.

It would be politically impossible for any politician give Ontario more than the Harper proposal.

It was well reported in the BC news in the 2000 timeframe.

I think the proposal will get support if it makes it clear that if true proportional representation is to take place, more seats will be added because of the 1986 rule. I think Canadians will accept that. Many MPs don't want to go to bench seating ala Westminster but I say tough. It is only the rare occasion that everyone is in their seats anyways.

I think Harper will find that they can't win in convincing Ontario that fewer seats is good for Canada.

I can't find anything with a B.C. byline in Factiva on representation. Maybe it was a local issue because I cannot find anything in a national archive going back to 1977.

I have looked in Hansard as well and can't find anything so the Opposition wasn't raising it as a subject back then either.

Edited November 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

I think the proposal will get support if it makes it clear that if true proportional representation is to take place, more seats will be added because of the 1986 rule. I think Canadians will accept that. Many MPs don't want to go to bench seating ala Westminster but I say tough. It is only the rare occasion that everyone is in their seats anyways.

Unfortunately, getting to 410 MPs will take 60+ years.

I think Harper will find that they can't win in convincing Ontario that fewer seats is good for Canada

No politician could please everyone on this file for the reasons I noted. He can at least argue it is an improvement over the status quo (i.e. Ontario representation improves even it is not pure rep by pop).

[jdobbin]

Unfortunately, getting to 410 MPs will take 60+ years.

No politician could please everyone on this file for the reasons I noted. He can at least argue it is an improvement over the status quo (i.e. Ontario representation improves even it is not pure rep by pop).

I don't think people are prepared to wait that long and that is why Harper's proposal won't get support in Ontario. It is hard to reconcile a policy of equality in the Senate with one that doesn't do enough for proportional representation in the House of Commons.

[Riverwind]

I don't think people are prepared to wait that long and that is why Harper's proposal won't get support in Ontario. It is hard to reconcile a policy of equality in the Senate with one that doesn't do enough for proportional representation in the House of Commons.

You seem to forget that the liberals could not do any better unless they decided to increase the number of politicians . Ontario can complain but there are no federal politicians that can/will do anything about it. The system under the Liberals allowed Ontario to fall behind over time - at least Harper is offering an improvement that stops the erosion of Ontario's representation and actually allows it to increase (albeit slowly).

I also think the minimum seat requirements in the commons would go away if the senate became the body to represent regional interests. But that is hypothetical. Senate reform will never happen.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

You seem to forget that the liberals could not do any better unless they decided to increase the number of politicians . Ontario can complain but there are no federal politicians that can/will do anything about it. The system under the Liberals allowed Ontario to fall behind over time - at least Harper is offering an improvement that stops the erosion of Ontario's representation and actually allows it to increase.

I also think the minimum seat requirements in the commons would go away if the senate became the body to represent regional interests. But that is hypothetical. Senate reform will never happen.

The Liberals increased the seats in 1997, 1999 and 2003. As far as I'm concerned they were not treating Ontario any more fairly than the Tories are now.

Van Loan calling Ontario being a "small man" of Confederation is rich considering that the Tories are likely to benefit more from faster growth of seats in B.C. and Alberta than the Liberals are. I find it to be the equivalent of gerrymandering.

Edited November 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

The Liberals increased the seats in 1997, 1999 and 2003. As far as I'm concerned they were not treating Ontario any more fairly than the Tories are now.

The seats may have increased but so did the gap between actual representation and true rep by pop. IOW - the liberals allowed Ontario's representation to decline even as the number of seats increased. If you really care about rep by pop the the gap is more significant than the number of seats.

Van Loan calling Ontario being a "small man" of Confederation is rich considering that the Tories are likely to benefit more from faster growth of seats in B.C. and Alberta than the Liberals are. I find it to be the equivalent of gerrymandering.

Then what is your plan? I explained how it would be impossible to give Ontario more without:

1) Screwing Quebec and/or BC/Alberta

2) Adding an extra 110 MPs

If you choose 1) then wouldn't that be 'gerrymandering' too?

If you choose 2) then what makes you think Canadains would accept that large an increase in politicians?

Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The seats may have increased but so did the gap between actual representation and true rep by pop. IOW - the liberals allowed Ontario's representation to decline even as the number of seats increased.

Then what is your plan? I explained how it would be impossible to give Ontario more without:

1) Screwing Quebec and/or BC/Alberta

2) Adding an extra 110 MPs

If you choose 1) then wouldn't that be 'gerrymandering' too?

If you choose 2) then what makes you think Canadains would accept that large an increase in politicians?

I would go with 110 MPs, go to bench seating and give the actual reasons for the increase which would be for fairness in representation.

You think Canadians would rather go with unfair representation well past the lifetimes of many?

[Riverwind]

You think Canadians would rather go with unfair representation well past the lifetimes of many?

Yes. Increasing the number of MPs by that amount would provoke a visceral backlash from Canadians which would swamp any theoretical considerations. Such a move would also likely have Danny Williams screaming betrayal again - I assume you would be ok with that?

As I said before - making changes to parlimentary representation will never satisfy everyone. Harper's plan may not be perfect from Ontario's perspective but it does represent an improvement over the status quo.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Yes. Increasing the number of MPs by that amount would provoke a visceral backlash from Canadians which would swamp any theoretical considerations. Such a move would also likely have Danny Williams screaming betrayal again - I assume you would be ok with that?

As I said before - making changes to parlimentary representation will never satisfy everyone. Harper's plan may not be perfect from Ontario's perspective but it does represent an improvement over the status quo.

I have seen no evidence that there would be a backlash from Canadians on fair representation. How do you come to that conclusion? I've heard no evidence that Newfoundland are in opposition to fair representation in Ottawa either. Past Newfoundland governments just didn't want to see a reduction of seats from the present number. If I recall the argument, they didn't want to seat declines like Manitoba and Saskatchewan had decades ago. The argument never was to have a percentage of the seats in perpetuity. Since Williams supports proportional representation within Newfoundland, he would have a hard time explaining his position for Canada.

I think the Opposition should reject the present legislation so long as Ontario is not treated fairly in it.