Liberal seat-distribution formula takes three away from Quebec

[Shwa]

Rep by pop is a good thing and no doubt there could be reform with the seat distribution in Parliament. But what I don't get, in these tough economic times, why the government would want to add seats and the resultant costs to Parliament. The article below shows that the Harper Government wants a bigger, more expensive government. Whatever happened to the fiscal conservatives?

Liberal seat-distribution formula takes three away from Quebec

“Canadians say that they don’t want more MPs,” Mr. Garneau said. “It’s important that, as politicians we demonstrate by example that we understand the difficult economic times in which we live. If we can obtain a fair proportional representation by provinces without increasing the number of members of Parliament from the current 308. It would be better and it would be less expensive.”

A Conservative bill currently before the House would add 30 new members – three in Quebec, 15 in Ontario and six each in British Columbia and Alberta.

The Liberals complain this will be too much of a burden on taxpayers. Estimates suggest that the addition of new MPs would cost between $14.8-million and $18.2-million a year. It would cost $11.5-million for each election.

Not to mention the costs in pensions.

Larger governments, larger deficits, is this the new conservative way?

[eyeball]

Whatever happened to the fiscal conservatives?

You might find the odd wannabe polishing their creds in the occasional thread about the cost of Harper's plan to build a bunch of new prisons and stamp out pot.

Edited November 19, 2011 by eyeball

[fellowtraveller]

Rep by pop is a good thing and no doubt there could be reform with the seat distribution in Parliament. But what I don't get, in these tough economic times, why the government would want to add seats and the resultant costs to Parliament. The article below shows that the Harper Government wants a bigger, more expensive government. Whatever happened to the fiscal conservatives?

Liberal seat-distribution formula takes three away from Quebec

Not to mention the costs in pensions.

Larger governments, larger deficits, is this the new conservative way?

the OP and the article are both disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

Representation by population is not mainly intended to address or maitain parity in provinces, it is intended to provide equal or nearly equal numbers of constituents in each riding.

Realistically, Harper has two choices: either do nothing or do what he is planning.

Good on him.

If the Liberals want to do anything constructive financially, they should propose an across the board 15% pay cut to every MP. Problem solved.

[scribblet]

I agree that adding more seats will be expensive, but we know the provinces will never agree to having a seat cut and the Constitution guarantees Quebec 75 Commons seats, no matter what. A 1915 amendment also guarantees every province will have at least as many Commons seats as it has Senate seat along with the 1985 rule that says no province will have fewer seats than it had previously.

Therefore, reducing a province's number of MPs will require a constitutional amendment needing provincial agreement - fat chance that'll ever happen. This then rules out redistribution leaving expansion in keeping with rep. population. Either that or the gov't does nothing which will not fix Ontario, Alberta and B.C.'s under representation.

Edited November 19, 2011 by scribblet

[Shwa]

Realistically, Harper has two choices: either do nothing or do what he is planning.

According to the article, PM Harper can redistribute the presently allocated seats and keep the rep by pop in firm view while costing very little in comparison to adding more seats. You haven't presented any sort of evidence or commentary that would prove that wrong so I'll assume your post was more ideologically conservative rather than fiscally conservative.

[Mr.Canada]

Population is falling in Quebec why exactly do they need more seats for again?

[Shwa]

I agree that adding more seats will be expensive, but we know the provinces will never agree to having a seat cut and the Constitution guarantees Quebec 75 Commons seats, no matter what. A 1915 amendment also guarantees every province will have at least as many Commons seats as it has Senate seat along with the 1985 rule that says no province will have fewer seats than it had previously.

Therefore, reducing a province's number of MPs will require a constitutional amendment needing provincial agreement - fat chance that'll ever happen. This then rules out redistribution leaving expansion in keeping with rep. population. Either that or the gov't does nothing which will not fix Ontario, Alberta and B.C.'s under representation.

So gather you actually didn't read the article including the parts about Ontario, Alberta & BC gaining seats, the sense that Quebec will agree to lose seats and no constitutional amendment being required for this type of rearrangement.

[Shwa]

Population is falling in Quebec why exactly do they need more seats for again?

Geez, not only did you not bother to read the article, but you didn't even bother to read the frickin' thread title.

[Mr.Canada]

Geez, not only did you not bother to read the article, but you didn't even bother to read the frickin' thread title.

Yet my post is brilliant. I know, I can't explain it either. I'm a freak of nature.

[Smallc]

According to the article, PM Harper can redistribute the presently allocated seats

then the article is wrong.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Smallc

[msj]

then the article is wrong.

Did you read the article?

[Smallc]

.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Smallc

[Smallc]

You see, the Constitution makes clear that unanimous consent is required to lower the number of MPs below the number of Senators. It's not that far of a stretch to say that a court is going to interpret that to include the 1985 amendment that never allows a province to lose seats. If they were right, I'd be all for it, but I don't think that they are I would say that since the amendment affects the provinces, you'd at least need the consent of each of the provinces that you were taking seats away from.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Smallc

[Shwa]

You see, the Constitution makes clear that unanimous consent is required to lower the number of MPs below the number of Senators. It's not that far of a stretch to say that a court is going to interpret that to include the 1985 amendment that never allows a province to lose seats. If they were right, I'd be all for it, but I don't think that they are I would say that since the amendment affects the provinces, you'd at least need the consent of each of the provinces that you were taking seats away from.

Amendments by Parliament

44. Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

If I get what you are saying then IF the Liberal plan and procedures were to be correct and the courts DID rule that Section 44 included the ability for Parliament to make Constitutional amendments in relation to the composure of the seats in the Senate and House of Commons, then you would be all for the redistribution of the presently allocated seats?

Edit:

Amendment by unanimous consent

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

( the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;

© subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;

(d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and

(e) an amendment to this Part.

Amendment by general procedure

42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):

(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;

( the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;

© the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;

(d) subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada;

(e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and

(f) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces.

Exception

(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).

It appears that there must be an amendment, but with altering the number of senators, only the 2/3's rule is invoked.

It might be more prudent, and cost less to simply up the number of senators before redistributing the seats in Parliament.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Shwa

[Argus]

So under the Liberal plan, Quebec would get 'slightly more' representation than its population deserves, while Alberta, BC, and Ontario would continue to be under-represented.

Sure. Okay. Sounds like a plan.

[Wilber]

So under the Liberal plan, Quebec would get 'slightly more' representation than its population deserves, while Alberta, BC, and Ontario would continue to be under-represented.

Sure. Okay. Sounds like a plan.

The same is true of the Conservative plan. They both only go part way to correct the imbalance. This country doesn't need more MP's, I like this idea if it is doable.

[Keepitsimple]

I don't want to see our Paliament keep on expanding until it's over 4 or 500 MP's - it's logistically and managerially inefficient, if not totally unworkable at the larger numbers....but lets not jump to the conclusion that a lower number of MPs will save money - it won't. It just means each MP will have a larger support staff to effectively communicate and serve the much larger number of constituents that they will represent. At this point, the argument is moot - but it's something to consider when the next couple of expansions come around. But at least the Liberals got a minute of airtime.

[Wilber]

So when do you start limiting the total number and why not now? More MP's will result in more support staff because some positions will have to be duplicated. The total number of MP's should only increase as a result of population increase, not to address imbalances in population.

[Eric James]

I am surprised that no one has bothered to ask the question of why we need more MPs in Ottawa. One of the great pains in our current Canadian parliamentary model is the role of the MP. Pierre Trudeau once remarked that back bench MPs were nobodies. Considering that the majority of people sitting in the House of Commons are back bench MPs why would we want to increase that number? Certainly expanding the membership in the House of Commons would not correlate to an expansion of membership on Standing Committees. It may mean a larger Cabinet but that is doubtful especially considering the optics of expanding the Ministry while we are in these unstable economic times.

The House of Commons is able to make amendments without the amending formula on matters related to the Senate and the House of Commons. There is little doubt that the courts, if it ever came to it, would rule that this includes the composition of both Houses. Imagine how complicated the process of expanding the House with changing demographics would be if the government of the day had to go to the provinces for approval. I can tell you what would happen in that instance. Either no changes would ever get made and the membership of House of Commons would become wildly out of tune with the demographics of the nation or the issue would become so political that expanding or reducing seats would be held as a bargaining chip by the provinces to get other issues resolved. Imagine Quebec saying that they will not support losing seats unless Ottawa resolves their HST issue to their liking first. Not good.

[scribblet]

I am surprised that no one has bothered to ask the question of why we need more MPs in Ottawa.

Representation by population ?

[Eric James]

Representation by population ?

Representation by population is a principle that the number of seats in the House of Commons should correlate to a ratio of the population. That ratio does not mean that an increase in population should reflect an increase in seats if the ratio can be amended to include more Canadians under one MP.

For example, three ridings over a region with a population of 30,000 will have a ratio of 1:10,000. If the population spikes to 50,000 with one region getting the majority of the newcomers that does not mean a whole new seat needs to be created. Three new ridings can be imposed that have a new ratio of 1:~20,000. The principle of rep. by pop. is maintained and the state does not bear the burden of extra costs for creating a whole new seat. Sure that MP has to represent more people but in our digital age connecting with people can be done on a larger scale than in the past with a little innovation and creativity.

[PhilosopherKing]

So when do you start limiting the total number and why not now?

These ones won't be guaranteed, including Quebec's new ones. In a further round, if the population showed it was overrepresented, the new seats could be taken away from Quebec without a constitutional amendment.

[Newfoundlander]

You see, the Constitution makes clear that unanimous consent is required to lower the number of MPs below the number of Senators. It's not that far of a stretch to say that a court is going to interpret that to include the 1985 amendment that never allows a province to lose seats. If they were right, I'd be all for it, but I don't think that they are I would say that since the amendment affects the provinces, you'd at least need the consent of each of the provinces that you were taking seats away from.

The Liberals are not proposing to lower the number of MPs below the number of senators, that's why PEI and New Brunswick aren't losing seats. The 1985 agreement is not in the constitution and therefore it can be changed.

Whether you support the party that came up with the plan or not, a major party would not announce such a bold proposal if they knew it was illegal to do. Stephane Dion is a former minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, so I'm sure he knows what he is talking about.

[Smallc]

Then why isn't this being done? Also,whether or not the 1985 ammendments has constitional implications isn't that clear.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Smallc

[Tilter]

Rep by pop is a good thing and no doubt there could be reform with the seat distribution in Parliament. But what I don't get, in these tough economic times, why the government would want to add seats and the resultant costs to Parliament. The article below shows that the Harper Government wants a bigger, more expensive government. Whatever happened to the fiscal conservatives?

Liberal seat-distribution formula takes three away from Quebec

Not to mention the costs in pensions.

Larger governments, larger deficits, is this the new conservative way?

I guess your answer would be to have some of the MPs volunteer to quit to even out the Rep By Pop.

The first to bow out would be the approximately 15 extra MPs from the Maritime starting with 3 from PEI.

Hear that loud scratching noise?????????//

That's them writing their resignations now.

Sure it is

HaHaHahaHaHaHaHaHaHahahaHaHaHaha

Edited November 21, 2011 by Tilter