More Seats in the House

[jdobbin]

More seats proposed after the 2011 census.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0511?hub=Canada

The Conservative government wants to add 22 new members to the House of Commons to reflect the growing population in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

Under legislation introduced Friday, these provinces would get more seats after the 2011 census to reflect their population growth. Provinces whose growth is static or even dwindling will keep the seats they have now.

The bill is essentially an amendment to the Constitution, but because it deals solely with seats in the Commons, it can be done unilaterally by Parliament without any need for consultation with the provinces.

The legislation would change the complex mathematical formula used to allocate Commons seats.

That formula, last adjusted in 1985, would have added seven new seats to the Commons after the next census and raised the seat total to 315. The changes will added 22 seats, bring the total to 330.

The NDP aren't happy with it because it doesn't have proportional representation.

Perhaps the NDP could demonstrate this idea in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

[normanchateau]

More seats proposed after the 2011 census.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0511?hub=Canada

The Conservative government wants to add 22 new members to the House of Commons to reflect the growing population in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

Under legislation introduced Friday, these provinces would get more seats after the 2011 census to reflect their population growth. Provinces whose growth is static or even dwindling will keep the seats they have now.

The bill is essentially an amendment to the Constitution, but because it deals solely with seats in the Commons, it can be done unilaterally by Parliament without any need for consultation with the provinces.

The legislation would change the complex mathematical formula used to allocate Commons seats.

That formula, last adjusted in 1985, would have added seven new seats to the Commons after the next census and raised the seat total to 315. The changes will added 22 seats, bring the total to 330.

The NDP aren't happy with it because it doesn't have proportional representation.

Perhaps the NDP could demonstrate this idea in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

It's the fair thing to do even though I suspect the Conservatives will be the greatest beneficiaries.

[jbg]

More seats proposed after the 2011 census.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0511?hub=Canada

The Conservative government wants to add 22 new members to the House of Commons to reflect the growing population in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

*snip*

The NDP aren't happy with it because it doesn't have proportional representation. Perhaps the NDP could demonstrate this idea in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

And get weak coalition governments all the time, with zero accountability. No thanks.

[cybercoma]

Funny how the United States with over 10 times the population of Canada only has 435 members in the House (not including Senators)...

Do we have too many representatives?

[jdobbin]

And get weak coalition governments all the time, with zero accountability. No thanks.

You mean like Israel? Some people think it is more democratic.

[jdobbin]

Funny how the United States with over 10 times the population of Canada only has 435 members in the House (not including Senators)...

Do we have too many representatives?

My thoughts were: Does the House of Commons even have the space? Or are we going to move to a bench seating style like the Brits do?

[cybercoma]

That's a joke, right? I'm laughing, but I'm not 100% certain you intended it that way.

[jdobbin]

That's a joke, right? I'm laughing, but I'm not 100% certain you intended it that way.

I was joking. Still, several years ago, this was the argument that the some rural Tories made when opposing their own government. They said there was not enough seats for the new members (the Commons was built for future expansion on the floor. How much I don't know). The story was a bit of a cover because there was a fear that city ridings were going to outnumber rural ones.

[jbg]

Funny how the United States with over 10 times the population of Canada only has 435 members in the House (not including Senators)...

Do we have too many representatives?

We have an effective Senate so our numbers are higher, 535 to be exact. And given the Federal Government's slender role in the States (really, all governments are much more modest in role than in Canada), it really isn't disproportionate.

[cybercoma]

We have an effective Senate so our numbers are higher, 535 to be exact. And given the Federal Government's slender role in the States (really, all governments are much more modest in role than in Canada), it really isn't disproportionate.

I understand, but just taking the congressmen and congresswomen, you have 1 representative for every 690,000 people (approx.). In Canada, with the proposed 330 seats, we would have 1 representative for for every 91,000 people (approx.).

If we had the same population as the United States, we would have almost 3300 representatives.

Does that seem insane, or is it just me?

[August1991]

I understand, but just taking the congressmen and congresswomen, you have 1 representative for every 690,000 people (approx.). In Canada, with the proposed 330 seats, we would have 1 representative for for every 91,000 people (approx.).

If we had the same population as the United States, we would have almost 3300 representatives.

Does that seem insane, or is it just me?

I agree cybercoma. The more elected politicians we have, the more research staff they have, the more crazy schemes get invented to spend our money. I have never verified that hypothesis but I think it's true.

You also ignore that Canada has ten provincial and three territorial parliaments. How many sitting members in total represent us?

Let me quote myself from another thread:

But what's this I read that NB (pop. 760,000) has 55 MLAs. 55! And each one earns $60,000 per year plus a tax-exempt annual "office" allowance of $25,000. [Link]

What earth shaking decisions does NB face that require all that brain power? What heavy responsibilities justify that salary?

BTW, Maine with about 1.3 million people has about 150 members in its House. They each earn around $10,000 annually. [Link]

I suggest we reduce the salaries of MPs to nothing, let them sit only 60 days a year and we should vote for them on 30 April - the same day we have to pay our taxes.

It's the fair thing to do even though I suspect the Conservatives will be the greatest beneficiaries.

True. The last time we increased the HoC, above the normal increase, was in 1985 under Mulroney.

There's no doubt in my mind that politics is playing a role here. They can't reduce the number of seats of Quebec or the Maritimes, so they'll just increase the number in Alberta and BC.

[cybercoma]

August, I think you were right in that thread. I didn't realize it at the time, but I have a hard time justifying having that many representatives making half-assed decisions, when we could save a lot money by having less representatives making half-assed decisions.

55 MLAs in NB is like having 932 MPPs in Ontario. That's over 10 times as many representatives per capita in NB than in Ontario. Unfortunately, if we were to cut NBs MLAs to the same number per capita as Ontario, there'd only be 6 MLAs.

Perhaps that's right for the province though...there is less than 800,000 people in the entire province after all.

[jbg]

I understand, but just taking the congressmen and congresswomen, you have 1 representative for every 690,000 people (approx.). In Canada, with the proposed 330 seats, we would have 1 representative for for every 91,000 people (approx.).

Our numbers are slightly skewed by the number of "small states" which have a minimum of one Representative, no matter how few people live there.

[cybercoma]

I understand, but just taking the congressmen and congresswomen, you have 1 representative for every 690,000 people (approx.). In Canada, with the proposed 330 seats, we would have 1 representative for for every 91,000 people (approx.).

Our numbers are slightly skewed by the number of "small states" which have a minimum of one Representative, no matter how few people live there.

If there wasn't a minimum of one rep per state, you'd have even LESS representatives, which would make the disparity even greater.

[Wilber]

There's no doubt in my mind that politics is playing a role here. They can't reduce the number of seats of Quebec or the Maritimes, so they'll just increase the number in Alberta and BC.

It's not politics so much as the change in the country. Some provinces (Quebec in particular) would go apoplectic if their number of seats was reduced so the only way to acurately reflect the change in demographics of the country is to increase seats elsewhere. Welcome to Canada.

[August1991]

It's not politics so much as the change in the country. Some provinces (Quebec in particular) would go apoplectic if their number of seats was reduced so the only way to acurately reflect the change in demographics of the country is to increase seats elsewhere. Welcome to Canada.

Apolplectic? It's the BNA Act that imposes the numbers.

PEI is the most egregious example. With about 120,000 people, it is constitutionally guaranteed to have four MPs.

[Wilber]

It's not politics so much as the change in the country. Some provinces (Quebec in particular) would go apoplectic if their number of seats was reduced so the only way to acurately reflect the change in demographics of the country is to increase seats elsewhere. Welcome to Canada.

Apolplectic? It's the BNA Act that imposes the numbers.

PEI is the most egregious example. With about 120,000 people, it is constitutionally guaranteed to have four MPs.

Yup, apoplectic, the BNA act notwithstanding. Certainly Quebec is nowhere near the worst example, probably not far off the average for the moment. If the rest of the country had the same representation by population as PEI there would be over 1300 seats in the Commons. Makes you wonder where it will all end. Also makes an argument for some sort of US style senate to give some kind of balance before things get really stupid.

[geoffrey]

There's no doubt in my mind that politics is playing a role here. They can't reduce the number of seats of Quebec or the Maritimes, so they'll just increase the number in Alberta and BC.

I disagree, it's not politics, it's democracy. This is giving seats where they are due. Only the Maritimes benefit from ridiculous over representation. Albertans and British Columbians are only a 100,000 short of Quebec's population (and vastly out employ and produce Quebec), but we have 11 less seats.

Something is up with that, no? It must be fixed.

[jbg]

It's not politics so much as the change in the country. Some provinces (Quebec in particular) would go apoplectic if their number of seats was reduced so the only way to acurately reflect the change in demographics of the country is to increase seats elsewhere. Welcome to Canada.

The problem would not seem to be the number of ridings, but the relative numbers among the provinces. As a result of whipped voting, the total number of ridings is relatively unimportant.

What is important is that the growing areas of the country have an adequate voice. Areas that are growing also tend to be more prosperous. If they are effectively shouted down by overrepresented and poorer areas, eventually, they get sick and tired of being tapped economically. Boston Tea Party (maybe at Lake Athabasca) anyone?

[BC_chick]

There's no doubt in my mind that politics is playing a role here. They can't reduce the number of seats of Quebec or the Maritimes, so they'll just increase the number in Alberta and BC.

Under Mulroney was the last time as you mentioned earlier. Under the Liberals I remember nothing but whining about the sleazy Liberals carving out new seats for themselves by "redrawing the boundaries" all throughout Ontario.

Like everything else the Harper government does, it's only bad when the Liberals do it.

[Wilber]

There's no doubt in my mind that politics is playing a role here. They can't reduce the number of seats of Quebec or the Maritimes, so they'll just increase the number in Alberta and BC.

Under Mulroney was the last time as you mentioned earlier. Under the Liberals I remember nothing but whining about the sleazy Liberals carving out new seats for themselves by "redrawing the boundaries" all throughout Ontario.

Like everything else the Harper government does, it's only bad when the Liberals do it.

Nice to see someone was happy with their vote being worth less than Canadians in other parts of the country.

[BC_chick]

I disagree, it's not politics, it's democracy. This is giving seats where they are due. Only the Maritimes benefit from ridiculous over representation. Albertans and British Columbians are only a 100,000 short of Quebec's population (and vastly out employ and produce Quebec), but we have 11 less seats.

Something is up with that, no? It must be fixed.

Compared to Quebec, every province experiences an unjust number of seats, that's not a fair comparison. It was part of the stipulations of the confederation if I'm not mistaken.

You have to compare Western Canda to other provinces to get a true picture. In that sense, it's actually comparable. I did the math once too thinking it was unfair, but excluding Quebec, it's actually quite proportional.

[scribblet]

Apparantly the government is using Quebec as its benchmark, with the aim of having other provinces achieve a similar level of representation enjoyed by Quebec. I suppose we should be even stephen huh

Even if this isn't passed, the three largest provinces will still be scheduled to gain more seats after the 2011 census under the existing formula.

Ontario - + four seats, British Columbia +1 Alberta +1

[BC_chick]

Apparantly the government is using Quebec as its benchmark, with the aim of having other provinces achieve a similar level of representation enjoyed by Quebec. I suppose we should be even stephen huh

Even if this isn't passed, the three largest provinces will still be scheduled to gain more seats after the 2011 census under the existing formula.

Ontario - + four seats, British Columbia +1 Alberta +1

Considering Vancouver's growth alone, I think the number of seats should be more than one by 2011.

[Michael Bluth]

Considering Vancouver's growth alone, I think the number of seats should be more than one by 2011.

I also wonder how we can know now what the population figures will be in the 2011 census.