Too Many Quebecers and not enough Albertans in Parliament
September 27, 2006 · By Aaron Unruh
Not Dead Yet reports the good news:
BC and Alberta’s population is larger than Quebec’s for the first time in history.
With the sort of annoying rejoiner that westerners are so used to hearing:
“…a total of 64 members of Parliament are chosen from B.C. and Alberta, compared to Quebec’s 75 seats.”
The reason for this, of course, is that electoral commissions have a tough time dealing with population growth of the sort that has occurred in the west. The current distribution of seats is based on the 2001 census.
Is this an excuse? Of course not. Even tolerating differences in the populations of riding, the votes of Quebecers carry considerably more weight than do the votes of Westerners. Take the city of Calgary as an example. Even discounting the population growth of the city since 2001, which has been significant, the city’s population is expected to grow by 83,600 over the next four years. That’s an entire federal riding. Together with the lag in the last redistribution and the number of immigrants to the city between 2001 and 2006, it’s obvious that the west is indeed getting screwed.
So is Canada. Instead of responsible, forward-looking Calgarians in Parliament, we have an inflated number of backward separatist buffoons from Quebec (emigration from rural Quebec is as dramatic as is immigration to rural Alberta, particularly the Corridor). It’s time to update the redistribution process.
Hey Greg, hopefully you get this; would you be able to email me in the next few days? Cheers, Matthew!
Yes put more real Albertan’s in the house.
Yes. put more westeners in the house - by far too long Quebec has been the tail that wags the Cdn donkey!
Enough is enough!
This really pisses me off! And I don’t suppose this will be rectified before the next general election, will it?
Representation in the Canadian House of Commons long ago dispensed with strict proportionality. Why on earth does Prince Edward Island have four Members of Parliament when at most it should have two?
To best account for emmigration, when one part of the country gains seats in the Commons because of population growth, areas that lose population should lose seats.
If the Senate were shorn of old notions of region, recognising provinces as the new standard for region, it might be easier to get a more proportional House of Commons.
I would also add that constituencies should be set around the 75,000 person mark, bringing the total number of seats in the House of Commons to well over 400, maybe even 440.
The Canadian House of Commons is a bit of joke when it comes to being any kind of forum for debate. I propose, and I wouldn’t be the first, that they take out the desks, offer straight benches with minimal assigned seating, and make MPs more numerous thus weakening the economy of favourable appointments and party discipline.
Britain has done this and it has worked well for getting better government by reigning in executive power.
I’ve done some math on this (based on the old numbers). I guess it depends on how you define the west, but if you include Saskatchewan and Manitoba (which I do, but some don’t), then the west has pretty much as many seats as it should. While BC and Alberta lose 4 and 3 seats, Saskatewan and Manitoba gain 3 and 4 seats. (You may get slightly different numbers depending on how you round).
Quebec is the least over represented province in the country.
Saskatchewan is the most over represented province in the country after PEI (and the territories).
Maybe BCns and Albertans can take comfort in the fact that, proportionally, Ontario loses about as many seats as BC and Alberta do.
That being said, some of the rules for seat distribution are rather ridiculous. Why should the seat distribution of today reflect the population distribution of some time in the past?
If we have a true representation by population, then AB and BC should have more seats. But, Quebec will squeal like a pig if they think they will lose any power.
Seats should be based on 100,000 Population Per Seat which will give fair representation or you can divide 308 seat by Population. It is quite clear AB, BC & ON should get extra seats
I take no comfort whatsoever from Saskatchewan being over-represented.
Albertans need to start making a lot of noise, and start by helping Ted Morton become Premier.
308 remains too few members. We need at least 400 to seriously weaken the economy of parliamentary appointments and party discipline.
George Freeman is bang on!
First, our current system of Parliamentary representation is garbage. Why should Alberta or BC take solace in the fact that another western province (Sask.) has over-representation. If we truly value representation by population then Alberta should be entitled to those seats which its population entitles it to. BC and Ontario should also be justly represented. As well, while your math may be correct, the “overrepresentation” of Saskatchewan is not a result of a silly grandfather clause. In fact, taking the current seat distributions and statscan populations the average riding size in Sask. is about 68,500 while New Brunswick is 71,500. Moreover, given that Saskatchewan is now a have province and that there is likely to be increased oil and gas production, there will be resulting jobs increases and hence migration to Saskatchewan. As a result, this slight overrepresentation will probably be remedied within the next couple years, unlike other provinces. The overrrepresentation of provinces in Atlantic Canada is a reuslt of a failure to adequately provide for geographical representaiton in the Senate. Due to the Senate’s lack of democratic legitimacy, provinces had to clamour for increased House representation in the 1950s as their populations declined. While these provinces may not want to loose seats in the House a revived Senate with democratic legitimacy would provide a forum for these provinces to receive adequate representation while also respecting the principle of representation by population. The current system is simply the bastard child of the Canadian cultural and political elite under the guise of equality.
Second, a larger house would be beneficial as it would allow backbench MPs to control cabinet. In other words - we would once again have responsible government. Currently a government with half the seats (154) can appoint around 40 of them to cabinet, plus an additional number as various committee chairs. If we say that 10 people are appointed committee chairs this means that 33% of a party is absolutely loyal to the executive. And that 16% of the House is. If we increased the numbers in the House to 400. These percentage would drop to 25% and 12.5% respectively. With a 500 member House these percentages would be 20% and 10%. This would result in more opportunities for backbench control, rather than allowing executive pet projects to dominate the parliamentary agenda, MPs could act in what they believe is the best interest of the country. While the exact number would be subject to financial constraints, an enlarged House is a great idea.
Overall, a Senate with 60 representatives (6 for each province) and a House with 400 people would only be a few more people than our existing numbers and we could achieve representation by population, representation by federal sub-division and responsible government. What a joy that would be.
“Moreover, given that Saskatchewan is now a have province and that there is likely to be increased oil and gas production, there will be resulting jobs increases and hence migration to Saskatchewan.”
All the more reason for Saskabushers to elect Brad Wall in the next election.
Thanks for the analysis Jim. Well said! It’s time we do like Abraham: send Ishmael and his mother packing.
I do think the democratic legitimacy of the Senate is easier said than done. Right now I really think Harper is going about democratising the Senate almost ass backwards; but since he’s made election promises, he has to do something.
I would prefer there NOT be fifty some elected Senators from Quebec and Ontario for Albertans (of which I am one), and their representatives, to have to contend with on every piece of legislation, not to mention the issue of provincial equality in the Senate. Of course, that is if Harper can get the respective provincial governments to oblige and elect Senators, as opennings become available.
For this reason, I think electing Senators now, of all times, is a very bad idea. It makes for very slight prospects for provincial equality in the Senate in the future; Quebec and Ontario don’t like that idea and neither will their Senators.
I should say, I’m not particularly keen on an elected Senate. I think upper chambers of Westminster parliaments should be more judicious in their nature, so I would be happy with a more legitimate and diverse appointment process. But it seems, at least in conservative circles right now, such a view constitutes a major faux pas.
I wonder how immigration will be added into this calculation, considering that 75 - 80% of immigrants settle in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver? In fact, over 50% of all immigrants end up in Toronto.
If immigration levels remain constant (and there doesn’t seem to be any political will to slow down the flow of immigrants to Canada, given the labour market need fore more skilled workers) then on average, 250,000 new people will arrive in Canada each year.
Yes, this will push up the numbers in Quebec and British Columbia slightly… but Toronto is increasing at a much faster rate than Calgary, simply from the inflow of new Canadians (not to mention the fact that the GTA is sucking up a substantial portion of in-Canada migration as well).
Just thought I would throw that bone out there.