How are the Libs and NDP Selling out the West?

[Smallc]

Is there an amendment to the Consitution or act of Parliament with a formula somewhere that indicates that the numbers will adjust themselves according to population? Only absolute numbers are spelled out in the 1867 Constitution (BNA) Act afaict, right?

http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1867.html

I think there's an act somewhere. There's a formula the currently exists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_district_(Canada)#Formula

[Evening Star]

Thanks! I found it, following the citation in the link, actually. #51 here:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/Page-3.html

[kimmy]

In short, an MP for every (population/279) people. Then every province except Alberta, BC, and Ontario get topped up to comply with various clauses, with the result that every province except Alberta, BC, and Ontario are overrepresented in the Commons.

In other words, no, those extra MPs aren't coming after all, SmallC.

-k

Edited April 25, 2011 by kimmy

[TimG]

In other words, no, those extra MPs aren't coming after all, SmallC.

If you plug the numbers into the formula we find that Ontario and Alberta are short 2 and BC is short 1. I don't know where Harper got the numbers for his bill but they sound completely out to lunch.

[Smallc]

In other words, no, those extra MPs aren't coming after all, SmallC.

-k

No, there will be more people added, just not as many as there would have been.

[Smallc]

If you plug the numbers into the formula we find that Ontario and Alberta are short 2 and BC is short 1. I don't know where Harper got the numbers for his bill but they sound completely out to lunch.

They're based on the number of seats Quebec has. Ontario would have had close to 130 seats under that.

[TimG]

They're based on the number of seats Quebec has. Ontario would have had close to 130 seats under that.

If you go with pure rep by pop and a 75 seat floor for Quebec you get 20 seats for Ontario, 7 for BC and Alberta. If you apply the formula in the constitution you get 2, 2, and 1.

[Smallc]

If you go with pure rep by pop and a 75 seat floor for Quebec you get 20 seats for Ontario, 7 for BC and Alberta. If you apply the formula in the constitution you get 2, 2, and 1.

And the Conservatives wanted the former numbers that you're talking about.

[cybercoma]

How about instead of giving more seats, you could just make everyone in the Maritimes have the same MP. I'm sure everyone out here would love to be numerically insignificant in the House. The Maritimes don't need a voice in the House anyway; the population is too small.

Edited April 25, 2011 by cybercoma

[kimmy]

And the Conservatives wanted the former numbers that you're talking about.

In 2007 the Conservatives wanted a one-time adjustment for Alberta, BC, and Ontario that would have yielded more fair numbers for all 3 provinces. Originally 10 seats were proposed for Ontario, which was much more than the formula would have provided, but still less than population warranted.

And of course Gilles Duceppe and his buddies howled about it, and of course others howled too because more seats for the west was "gerrymandering" that was obviously just designed to help the CPC according to some geniuses.

And now it's back only Ontario gets 19 more seats now.

But a special adjustment was required because if it had been left to the existing formula the 3 provinces would continue to be screwed. You get your fair share of a pie... and then everybody except you gets special pie that you're not allowed to have.

-k

[Smallc]

How about instead of giving more seats, you could just make everyone in the Maritimes have the same MP. I'm sure everyone out here would love to be numerically insignificant in the House. The Maritimes don't need a voice in the House anyway; the population is too small.

Well, in fairness, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, NB, NS, PEI and N+L should have fewer seats.

[RNG]

How about instead of giving more seats, you could just make everyone in the Maritimes have the same MP. I'm sure everyone out here would love to be numerically insignificant in the House. The Maritimes don't need a voice in the House anyway; the population is too small.

I am assuming you are typing with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek, but there is an element of truth, at least qualitatively if not quantitatively in what you said. Which is why I do like the concept of the US Senate, in that each political sub-unit has the same number of delegates.

Of course that would require them to be elected rather than political patronage appointments, and the regs would have to change to give them some actual power, beyond slowing bills down.

Edited April 25, 2011 by RNG

[kimmy]

How about instead of giving more seats, you could just make everyone in the Maritimes have the same MP. I'm sure everyone out here would love to be numerically insignificant in the House. The Maritimes don't need a voice in the House anyway; the population is too small.

wahhh.

You're already guaranteed way more representatives in parliament than your numbers warrant. Plus you have 30 senators for a region with less people than Vancouver. I think the provinces of the Maritimes are quite well represented, all things considered.

-k

[cybercoma]

Oh lucky us. Appointed Senators. They're not ineffectual at all.

All sarcasm aside though. There are other considerations than population. The Maritimes and other areas of Canada have lower populations, but also much lower population densities, which presents certain challenges. I'm all about fairness in representation, but it should not be based simply on population. If things need to be re-worked, then all things should be considered.

Edited April 25, 2011 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

Of course that would require them to be elected rather than political patronage appointments, and the regs would have to change to give them some actual power, beyond slowing bills down.

They can reject bills and send them back to the House, they simply don't, generally.

[TimG]

All sarcasm aside though. There are other considerations than population. The Maritimes and other areas of Canada have lower populations, but also much lower population densities, which presents certain challenges.

The BNA Act was basically rep by pop. The only thing that changed is some provinces grew faster than others. I can understand some skew but this trend has been going on for along time and there needs to a periodic re-establishment of the rep by pop principles.