Is some provinces seat total fair?

[A True PC]

It starts in the far east with PEI, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, even Nova Scotia perhaps.

Prince Edward Island has a population of 139,089 and 4 MPs in Commons. How about Newfoundland and Labrador, a population of 751,250 and 7 MPs in Commons. That's over 600,000 citizen difference, but only a 3 seat difference. Now how about Nova Scotia, it has a population of 935,573 and 11 MPs in Commons. Compared to Newfoundland and Labrador, ahem, a difference of less then 200,000, but it has a 4 seat difference...Shouldn't NFL have 12 more seats then PEI, resulting in 19 seats for NFL. Alright, fair enough, but Manitoba has 14 seats, but over 1,000,000 people, cool, nearly a 500,000 population difference. Cool, let's add 9-10-11 more seats for them. Resulting in 25 seats for Manitoba. Of course their are many flaws in my opinion, maybe, but this should result in a total seat reform.

In the end, no party leader has the leadership to propose this or mention this.

[Keepitsimple]

It starts in the far east with PEI, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, even Nova Scotia perhaps.

Prince Edward Island has a population of 139,089 and 4 MPs in Commons. How about Newfoundland and Labrador, a population of 751,250 and 7 MPs in Commons. That's over 600,000 citizen difference, but only a 3 seat difference. Now how about Nova Scotia, it has a population of 935,573 and 11 MPs in Commons. Compared to Newfoundland and Labrador, ahem, a difference of less then 200,000, but it has a 4 seat difference...Shouldn't NFL have 12 more seats then PEI, resulting in 19 seats for NFL. Alright, fair enough, but Manitoba has 14 seats, but over 1,000,000 people, cool, nearly a 500,000 population difference. Cool, let's add 9-10-11 more seats for them. Resulting in 25 seats for Manitoba. Of course their are many flaws in my opinion, maybe, but this should result in a total seat reform.

In the end, no party leader has the leadership to propose this or mention this.

I've got a bigger problem - and that's with the actual distribution of ridings and the resulting MP's. Today the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) has about 40 MP's - greater than the total of all the Atlantic provinces and about equal with Alberta and Saskatchewan combined. The proposed changes would eventually increase that number to 70 MP's. That's far too much power for what amounts to a city. As the article says: While the country's makeup is changing from rural to urban, Ottawa must ensure electoral changes aren't "disenfranchising" rural areas.

OTTAWA–Ontario could have an extra 30 federal seats within three decades – and significantly more clout in the House of Commons – under a piece of legislation the Conservative government plans to release in the coming days, sources say.

A bill to be unveiled by government House leader Peter Van Loan will use the predicted growth in population, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area, to justify a boost in the number of Ontario MPs. Ontario currently has 106 ridings.

Alberta and British Columbia, the two other provinces experiencing major population growth, are also expected to get extra federal representation, but Canada's largest province will get the biggest boost. Alberta currently has 28 seats and B.C. has 36.

The Canada Elections Act already provides for changes to electoral boundaries to keep up with population growth, but observers say the system has lagged behind the jump in population, meaning that booming areas such as Alberta or the GTA's suburbs do not benefit from the principle of representation by population.

"The Conservative party did make a commitment in the last election to correct the representational imbalance or inequity in the country and it's a commitment that we intend to keep," Van Loan said yesterday.

A government source who was briefed on the legislation said the Tory bill envisions periods of adjustment, meaning that every 10 years there would be a legislated correction to the number of seats in the Commons.

Based on projected population growth, Ontario would receive 10 more seats by 2014, the first period of adjustment. The bill proposes that the process be repeated in 2024 and 2034. In 27 years, Ontario would have 136 Commons seats.

"Almost all of that will be in the GTA, so we'll go from about 40 to 70 seats in that region," said the source.

If the bill passes through the House, the number of MPs from the GTA could equal the number of MPs from Quebec, Canada's second-largest province.

"I can tell you in my riding, which is a fast-growing suburban, 905-area riding that, man, our population base has exploded," said Liberal MP Garth Turner (Halton). "In an area like mine I've got as many as three times as many electors as some other ridings, so from that point of view it makes absolute sense to do it."

While the country's makeup is changing from rural to urban, Ottawa must ensure electoral changes aren't "disenfranchising" rural areas.

"It's a delicate balance," he said. "I hope we've got the independent, non-political, arms-length process to determine the new boundaries."

At Queen's Park, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Marie Bountrogianni had no critique on the federal government's proposal, but noted that the province will be voting in a referendum on proportional representation in October that would see the provincial seat count rise to 129 from 107.

Ontario will remain underrepresented in the federal Parliament because of constitutional provisions that protect smaller provinces in the Prairies and in Atlantic Canada. For example, the Constitution says no province can have fewer seats than it had in 1986 and no province can have fewer seats in the House than it has in the Senate.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said his party supports the principles in the legislation, though it has not been consulted or briefed on the bill.

"We think that the occasion should be seized to bring in proportional representation at the same time and that would help to deal with the under-representation of regions, of people who vote and don't see their votes translated into seats," Layton said.

The bill is part of a package of democratic reform initiatives. Yesterday, Van Loan announced legislation to include two more advance voting days in the lead-up to a general election. He said allowing voters to cast ballots on the two Sundays before election day will help reverse the decline in voter turnout.

He said the government would take a piecemeal approach to amending the Canada Election Act because it doesn't want a situation where the opposition defeats a sweeping omnibus bill because it doesn't like one piece of it.

[Wilber]

Let's not have more seats, we have more than enough MP's already.

[jdobbin]

Let's not have more seats, we have more than enough MP's already.

Can't happen under our constitution. Can't maintain the status quo for everybody because you can't reduce seats for some provinces. The government must expand representation according to population.

The only fix is a constitutional one which I don't see happening by itself.

The only thing Harper is trying to do is to limit how many of the new seats come from Ontario, Toronto specifically.

[Remiel]

In a more ideal situation, I think that perhaps it would have been preferrable if disproportional representation was reserved for the Senate, though to function properly that would require a stronger upper house. And senators appointed for " ridings " rather than provinces.

But as things stand, perhaps there is something to be said for rexamining how ridings are distributed within provinces. As a liberal/socialist, redistributing some ridings from urban to rural would have something of a deleterious effect on the fortunes of the parties I support. But, I think the benefits could be worth it. Note however that this sort of recalculation would also affect right leaning cities like Calgary, so I would hope that conservative partisans would base their support on whether they think it is acceptable democratically to redistribute ridings in that way, rather than look at it as a way to harm their oft times nemesis, the Greater Toronto Area.

[White Doors]

yes

[Wild Bill]

It starts in the far east with PEI, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador, even Nova Scotia perhaps.

Prince Edward Island has a population of 139,089 and 4 MPs in Commons. How about Newfoundland and Labrador, a population of 751,250 and 7 MPs in Commons. That's over 600,000 citizen difference, but only a 3 seat difference. Now how about Nova Scotia, it has a population of 935,573 and 11 MPs in Commons. Compared to Newfoundland and Labrador, ahem, a difference of less then 200,000, but it has a 4 seat difference...Shouldn't NFL have 12 more seats then PEI, resulting in 19 seats for NFL. Alright, fair enough, but Manitoba has 14 seats, but over 1,000,000 people, cool, nearly a 500,000 population difference. Cool, let's add 9-10-11 more seats for them. Resulting in 25 seats for Manitoba. Of course their are many flaws in my opinion, maybe, but this should result in a total seat reform.

In the end, no party leader has the leadership to propose this or mention this.

I don't think democracy is served by assigning seats only according to the number of warm bodies within them. The idea is to represent areas and groups, is it not? A Toronto riding may have far more people but if they all live in a similar part of town they likely have similar values and needs. One MP can represent them.

In many if not most areas of the country if you wanted a riding to have a similar number of people it would have to be HUGE! Like many northern Ontario or prairie ridings. Such ridings would have areas from cities, farmland and "mountain men". How could one MP possibly properly represent all such voters? He would end up cosying with all the city folks and leaving all the rural voters to go hang, because of their numbers at election time.

Come to think of it, isn't that the problem today?

[Michael Bluth]

In a more ideal situation, I think that perhaps it would have been preferrable if disproportional representation was reserved for the Senate, though to function properly that would require a stronger upper house. And senators appointed for " ridings " rather than provinces.

That's an interesting take on things. What do you see as the benefits of senators elected for ridings within a province?

[Remiel]

While I did not necessarily mean that they would be elected, the reason is essentially the same as for why PEI and Quebec have a higher proportion of senators now. The rural areas would have more senators appointed on their behalf than urban areas, so as to combat the tyranny of the majority.

This would be accompanied by a House of Commons where X voters = Y seats, no matter where in the country the ridings were. So, the Commons would be purely representational, while the House of Sober Second Thought would be divvied up in accordance with who needs a greater voice to look after their interests.

Of course, this would likely never happen, so perhaps it would be best to concentrate on proportions within the House of Commons...

[oreodontist]

Canada is not a unitary state. We had the BNA Act which produced a 'Confederation'. The Federal government is limited in jurisdiction and power. The ultimate arrangement, however well meaning, is not about 'fairness'....it's about protection of provincial and regional interets. Nova Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick would not have entered the Confederation otherwise...and definitely Quebec would not have.

It's a bit like Canada joining with Mexico and the USA in NAFTA. We joined because it's in our interest. We expect 1 seat at the table and Mexico and the USA to have 1 seat. After agreeing to the Treaty we then don't say....well Mexico should have 4 seats to reflect it's population...the USA 10 and Canada keeps 1. Formers parts of Canada did not agree to Confederation terms because of any love for Canada...they were mostly British and Nova Scotian, Catholic and Quebecers, etc. in sentiment...Canada was a hard sell than no region wanted to submit sovereignty to.

There's no way that Atlantic provinces are going to agree to any arrangement that diminishes their disproportionate power....and it's a non-starter in Quebec.

[Michael Bluth]

While I did not necessarily mean that they would be elected, the reason is essentially the same as for why PEI and Quebec have a higher proportion of senators now. The rural areas would have more senators appointed on their behalf than urban areas, so as to combat the tyranny of the majority.

This would be accompanied by a House of Commons where X voters = Y seats, no matter where in the country the ridings were. So, the Commons would be purely representational, while the House of Sober Second Thought would be divvied up in accordance with who needs a greater voice to look after their interests.

Of course, this would likely never happen, so perhaps it would be best to concentrate on proportions within the House of Commons...

You won't see major reform of the Senate without elections. As for your idea about Senators representing certain parts of a province. That is officially how it works now. Nobody really cares because the Senators are appointed thus have no legitimacy.

Perhaps a reform package that includes an equal number of Senate seats for all provinces would be enough to ensure the principle of one man one vote for election Members of Parliament.

[Wild Bill]

While I did not necessarily mean that they would be elected, the reason is essentially the same as for why PEI and Quebec have a higher proportion of senators now. The rural areas would have more senators appointed on their behalf than urban areas, so as to combat the tyranny of the majority.

This would be accompanied by a House of Commons where X voters = Y seats, no matter where in the country the ridings were. So, the Commons would be purely representational, while the House of Sober Second Thought would be divvied up in accordance with who needs a greater voice to look after their interests.

Of course, this would likely never happen, so perhaps it would be best to concentrate on proportions within the House of Commons...

This is old stuff to Reformers. Manning proposed a Triple E Senate - Elected, Equal and Effective. He noted that in virtually every other parliamentary style democracy they had a "Commons" or lower house based on "rep by population" and an upper house or "Senate" based on regions.

Take the Americans, for example. Their Congress is roughly based on population but their Senate gives exactly the same number of senators to tiny Rhode Island as they give to California. This is to give a check and balance situation to their government. The "tyranny of the majority" is offset by the power of the little members in the Upper House.

The situation is similar in all the British based democracies, from Australia to Britain herself.

Only here in Canada do we have a system where the Upper House is next to useless, except as a reward to party bagmen. Trudeau was so disgusted with the way the Senate worked he appointed his chauffeur just to prove the point!

I hear so many voices talking about Senate Reform that assume it would have to give more seats to Ontario or Quebec because of their greater population. These folks should go back to school - grade school! There is absolutely no point in having two houses both based on population.

[Sean Hayward]

Only here in Canada do we have a system where the Upper House is next to useless, except as a reward to party bagmen. Trudeau was so disgusted with the way the Senate worked he appointed his chauffeur just to prove the point!

I hear so many voices talking about Senate Reform that assume it would have to give more seats to Ontario or Quebec because of their greater population. These folks should go back to school - grade school! There is absolutely no point in having two houses both based on population.

Not only here in Canada. How about the House of Lords? I would say its probably more useless than our Senate.

Exactly. It is simply redundant to have two houses based on population. The Senate should be equal or near-equal by province. The House of Commons should be based purely on population, without "seat floors" for small provinces, or any other distortions.

[Remiel]

Being so simplistic as having each province given the same number of Senate seats seems somehow intuitively unwise to me. There are so many factors that could be taken into consideration. And with it being so difficult to institute change in the first place, it is not something you want to fail to fix. The dynamics of having 10 Senate seats for 10 provinces (with the extra 5 either for the territories or perhaps as special pan-Canadian aboriginal seats) is significantly different than having 2 seats for 50 states. So, I think that we would need to base the decision on what is going to effectively work, not what sounds good and simple on paper.

[Michael Bluth]

Being so simplistic as having each province given the same number of Senate seats seems somehow intuitively unwise to me. There are so many factors that could be taken into consideration. And with it being so difficult to institute change in the first place, it is not something you want to fail to fix. The dynamics of having 10 Senate seats for 10 provinces (with the extra 5 either for the territories or perhaps as special pan-Canadian aboriginal seats) is significantly different than having 2 seats for 50 states. So, I think that we would need to base the decision on what is going to effectively work, not what sounds good and simple on paper.

Perhaps it's simplistic to stay with 105 Senators.

Why not 6 per province and 1 per territory?

Is that dynamic closer to the 2 senators for 50 states?

[Remiel]

Yes, you could change the number of seats. But changing it to six instead of ten would not significantly alter what I was thinking of. I think that with only ten provinces with equal seats it would be very easy to end up with (more) situations where you have a tyranny of the minority. The four eastern provinces, for instance, form somewhere around 7% of the population, but would have just under 40% of Senate seats. What I would be concerned about is that if they were to bloc on some issues, they would have an overwhelming advantage over the other regions. Perhaps that worry is out of place, given that there would likely be a split between between the parties representing those provinces, but there is nothing to stop them from voting like Alberta (uniformly) in the future. Since the four provinces share a number of similarities, that that scenario might arise at some point in this hypothetical future is not too unlikely I think.

While the Senate should give the smaller provinces a bigger voice, but I think you have to carefully weigh the effects of the ultimate proposal so as not to unintentionally go too far in the other direction.

But, as I mentioned before, perhaps we should try and get back to looking at the House of Commons, as that is what the OP was about...

[fellowtraveller]

I don't think democracy is served by assigning seats only according to the number of warm bodies within them. The idea is to represent areas and groups, is it not? A Toronto riding may have far more people but if they all live in a similar part of town they likely have similar values and needs. One MP can represent them.

One person, one vote, equally represented.

Through decades of Parliamentray machinations, we have arrived at the point where that is scarcely true in the Commons. Trudeau- knowing where his bread is buttered- brought us a Constitution that makes it enormously complex to fix what shopuld be a striaghtforward redistribution of ridings to equalize them across the country.

The Senate was originally designed to represent the regions, and sto[p the Commons from using a tyranny of the majority to ram through eveyrghting desired by the heavily populated areas at the expense of the lightly populated areas.

We should just adopt the American model, which adresses much of this and would have the bonus of stripping the PMO of much of its omnipotence.

[jdobbin]

One person, one vote, equally represented.

Through decades of Parliamentray machinations, we have arrived at the point where that is scarcely true in the Commons. Trudeau- knowing where his bread is buttered- brought us a Constitution that makes it enormously complex to fix what shopuld be a striaghtforward redistribution of ridings to equalize them across the country.

The BNA Act and subsequent provinces entering Confederation put restrictions in place from the get go.

Mulroney made a whole lot of changes in 1986 that made things even more uneven.

Blame Trudeau if you want. Many of the problems began earlier than that or later than that with Mulroney inn 1986.

[fellowtraveller]

Blame Trudeau if you want. Many of the problems began earlier than that or later than that with Mulroney inn 1986.

The Constitution was Trudeaus creation, and it made an awkward situation nearly impossible to fix.

I know you hate to hear anythign that treats PET as anything other than a deity, but there it is....

[Michael Bluth]

The Constitution was Trudeaus creation, and it made an awkward situation nearly impossible to fix.

I know you hate to hear anythign that treats PET as anything other than a deity, but there it is....

Well said. Creating a floor for Quebec seats in Constitution Act 1982, as well as enshrining the Senate floor provisions is Trudeau's 'legacy' as it applies to this thread.

[Argus]

The real problem with Canada and the representation of various regions is how bloody lop-sided it is. Ontario by itself has a larger population than eight other provinces combined. Franklly, this serves no one well. I can tell you that within Ontario most people outside the Toronto region do not feel well-served by their provincial government. They feel neglected and ignored in favour of the Toronto crowd. Within Quebec it is much the same thing. People in west Quebec feel ignored (and are) by the Quebec city government, as are those in the north. The perfect solution is to break up both Ontario and Quebec. Ontario could easily be split into regions, Eastern Ontario, Northern Ontario, Western Ontario and central Ontario. Name that whatever you want, be creative. Quebec could be split into three regions, or four.

Canada with sixteen provinces, none of them overwhelming in size, would be a very different place to govern, and I think many of the regional rivalries would fade away.

[Oleg Bach]

The real problem with Canada and the representation of various regions is how bloody lop-sided it is. Ontario by itself has a larger population than eight other provinces combined. Franklly, this serves no one well. I can tell you that within Ontario most people outside the Toronto region do not feel well-served by their provincial government. They feel neglected and ignored in favour of the Toronto crowd. Within Quebec it is much the same thing. People in west Quebec feel ignored (and are) by the Quebec city government, as are those in the north. The perfect solution is to break up both Ontario and Quebec. Ontario could easily be split into regions, Eastern Ontario, Northern Ontario, Western Ontario and central Ontario. Name that whatever you want, be creative. Quebec could be split into three regions, or four.

Canada with sixteen provinces, none of them overwhelming in size, would be a very different place to govern, and I think many of the regional rivalries would fade away.

The average person outside of Toronto is a have not - and is not part of the have all mystiqe that Ontario is supposed to have. Look at the core of the have all Ontario...the core is but a few bank towers in Toronto. Those who own the towers and buisnesses within are the HAVES ...and anyone out side their field of investment is a HAVE NOT. Argus you do have all the all seeing eyes and are correct..instead of more centralization around the black towers down town it would be wise to break up the grand old private estate of Ontario and Quebec..that would spread the wealth and culture around a bit. I say break them up the same way congress in the states broke up Micro soft..to much power in the hands of a few overly focused men is not healthy..plus those in control of Quebec and Ontario are aging and are eccentric. They have lost sight of what good management is.

[oreodontist]

Quebecers might like a say in breaking their provinces into two provinces. It certainlty would not be 'ideal' for them. the Quebec nation is much more than a political institution to be efficiently squeezed into a polyanish political system. Political systems should serve the social and national aspirations and not the other way around.

Nobody is going to break up Quebec into two provinces and, if that fantasy ever did come true...which ever 'province' did not include Montreal would very shortly be an independent country.

[Oleg Bach]

Quebecers might like a say in breaking their provinces into two provinces. It certainlty would not be 'ideal' for them. the Quebec nation is much more than a political institution to be efficiently squeezed into a polyanish political system. Political systems should serve the social and national aspirations and not the other way around.

Nobody is going to break up Quebec into two provinces and, if that fantasy ever did come true...which ever 'province' did not include Montreal would very shortly be an independent country.

Who cares what Quebecers want..why give them a choice? Giving them a chance to consider the idea is like displaying ten colourful boxes of breakfast food to a 3 year old and asking him to choose...why bother with the head ache? The kid will go on and on and never be happy with what you serve up. IF Quebec is Canada then it should do what it is told! If it does not do what is nessesary to create peace, stablity and security - THEN instead of asking it if it wants seperation...don't! Tell them to get the hell out of the family of Canada if they will not do what is good for all. Give them the boot!

I have always thought that a corridor or new province should be created smack dab right though Quebec - in order to connect the rest of Canada with Canada. This buisness about having a seperate nation stuck in the middle like a thorn simply does not work..are we nuts to believe we could have a living room in a huge house with a smaller living room in the center of that room with a "distinct" other family living dead center in OUR house hold? Time to either have Quebec be part of the family or get the hell out of the house called CANADA.

[oreodontist]

Who cares what Quebecers want..why give them a choice? Giving them a chance to consider the idea is like displaying ten colourful boxes of breakfast food to a 3 year old and asking him to choose...why bother with the head ache? The kid will go on and on and never be happy with what you serve up. IF Quebec is Canada then it should do what it is told! If it does not do what is nessesary to create peace, stablity and security - THEN instead of asking it if it wants seperation...don't! Tell them to get the hell out of the family of Canada if they will not do what is good for all. Give them the boot!

I have always thought that a corridor or new province should be created smack dab right though Quebec - in order to connect the rest of Canada with Canada. This buisness about having a seperate nation stuck in the middle like a thorn simply does not work..are we nuts to believe we could have a living room in a huge house with a smaller living room in the center of that room with a "distinct" other family living dead center in OUR house hold? Time to either have Quebec be part of the family or get the hell out of the house called CANADA.

More rambling hysterics.