Over the weekend the Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister requesting more federal seats for his province in the House of Commons.
The premier first broached the subject in June, but decided to renew his request for at least 10 more seats after hearing Harper’s own views on democracy when the prime minister addressed the Australian parliament last week.
McGuinty said Harper’s description of democracy as “an instinctive sense of fairness, self-restraint and compromise” doesn’t match Ontario’s current situation.
“I call on you now . . . to restore representation by population in the House of Commons,” McGuinty wrote in the letter.
“I continue to urge you to make a simple amendment to Bill C-56 so that Canadians in Ontario receive the same treatment as those in British Columbia and Alberta.”
On the subject of polling blues, Shane Edwards explains why swings in party support in Quebec have such a dramatic effect federally on the party totals in the House of Commons.
It’s worth asking, what would it take to “restore” representation by population in the House of Commons?
My own view is that anyway you cut it PEI is going to lose at least half of its four MPs, and such a project will likely entail raising the total number of MPs in the House of Commons to around 400 members, if not more; that is, to prevent a major constitutional blow out over it—except from PEI.
Considering the British House of Commons has 641 members, and their chamber can’t even fit all of them in one sitting, this is doable. It could also entail some nice changes to the Canadian House of Commons, making it both a more intimate setting for debate by abolishing the desks, and, also, making it more unruly since 400 members are harder for party whips to reign in than at present (contingent on the number of parties)—less goodies to go around.
No doubt such a dramatic increase would entail a loud debate over the expense of maintaining an MP, the office resource they are afforded. That said, I think democracy would be better served in Canada by more members in the Commons, by making it harder for even a majority government to maintain party discipline.
In Britain, the government at Westminster regularly struggles to keep the support of its MPs. Just consider the controversy over Gordon Brown’s willingness to sign up to what is basically an EU constitution under the guise of the “Reform Treaty.” Just consider this story from the end of August:
Gordon Brown is facing a deepening party split over Europe after it became clear that more than 120 Labour MPs, including several senior ministers, want a referendum on the new EU reform treaty.
The figure - more than a third of the Parliamentary Party - was disclosed by Ian Davidson, a Scottish Labour MP who, despite being close to Mr Brown, is co-ordinating the strong internal campaign for the British people to be given a say.
Mr Davidson, who has written to Mr Brown on behalf of the Labour rebels demanding major changes to the proposed EU Treaty - or alternatively a referendum - told The Daily Telegraph that support among his fellow MPs was running at levels similar to 2004 when Tony Blair had to give way and promise a plebiscite.
“On the basis of the soundings and conversations I have had with colleagues, the support for a referendum is similar to last time round when well over 120 Labour MPs publicly or privately backed a referendum,” Mr Davidson said.
It is understood that several senior ministers are privately supporting the campaign.
Back to Canada, McGuinty is whacked if he thinks, and it appears he does, that Alberta should just roll over while Ontario gets more seats.
Aaron Unruh wrote:
I actually think that McGuinty has a legitimate beef here. Too bad that he only cares about it when he’s fighting an election campaign and hopes to score points from attacking a Conservative prime minister.
Posted on 19-Sep-07 at 8:55 pm | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
Oh yeah, and can someone actually give me a defensible reason for why Prince Edward Island automatically gets a floor of four seats instead of one?
Posted on 19-Sep-07 at 8:56 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
But Aaron, it’s not in Alberta’s national interest to support Ontario getting more seats without getting some for ourselves. :-)
As for PEI, the “convention” is that once a province has seats, it can’t lose any, from what I gathered long ago, not sure where. In this respect representation by population in Canada’s House of Commons is no where near as strictly adhered to as it is in the United State’s House of Representatives; American states do lose seats from time to time.
While our system is heavily dependent on conventions, I think some semblance of an equal and effective Senate—more legitimate appointment procedures—would be adequate compensation for any province losing seats. And some provinces are going to be losing seats, if you want to do it right, and will demand some compensation.
I don’t suspect an elected Senate is on the horizon because it’s not in the national interest of Quebec. Elected Senators from Quebec would outshine “national” Quebec leaders, there very election further legitimating Canadian federalism; so it’s likely not going to happen, not in Quebec anyway.
Posted on 19-Sep-07 at 11:04 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Adhering to “representation by population” seems simplistically intuitive but from there could be very good reasons to stick with conventions which may “over-represent” less populated regions: territorial integrity.
When we look at our governmental organization today, we are being naive. We should also ask: what would happen if we did NOT over-represent the less populated regions??
—
Does anybody remember when the Soviets sent missiles over to be stationed in Cuba?
—
I always liked this little tidbit of Canadian history: the first Confederation hoe-down was hosted in Charlottetown but after the dust settled, the politicians of P.E.I. did not agree to join until much later. Population numbers was obviously not a concern.
It is foolish to think of our current “dependent” regions as being naturally dependent. The country we call Canada is a two-way street.
Posted on 20-Sep-07 at 5:02 am | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
“McGuinty is whacked if he thinks, and it appears he does, that Alberta should just roll over while Ontario gets more seats.”
However, should McGuinty, as the Premier of Ontario, really take into consideration what Alberta wants when speaking to the Prime Minister of Canada?
While I agree that, over the long run, if this issue does go anywhere, that the Prime Minister will need to be mindful of all of the views from each of the jurisdictions. However, it has been my experience in participating at FPT discussions, that provinces and territories don’t really care about the positions of other provinces, as they were elected to improve their own lots. Furthermore, when provinces and territories try to tell another jurisdiction what it should or should not consider, they are usually shut down VERY quickly, and are told to focus on their own jurisdiction.
It isn’t ideal, but that is how politics works in the federation.
Posted on 20-Sep-07 at 9:06 am | Permalink
Aaron Unruh wrote:
“But Aaron, it’s not in Alberta’s national interest to support Ontario getting more seats without getting some for ourselves.”
Of course. Maybe Stelmach and Campbell should be jumping on this gravy train with McGuinty.
Is BTE trying to be banal?
Posted on 20-Sep-07 at 12:33 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
STE, your point brings us back to Aaron’s pointing out how this is likely a cynical ploy to sway voters his way. If he was actually serious about getting more seats for Ontario, he would have reached out and made allies with the Premiers of British Columbia and Alberta. Instead, he hams up the “privileging” of Canadians in British Columbia and Alberta.
Last I checked, both BC and Alberta would gain seats if we were to truly allot seats in the House of Commons on the basis of representation by population.
In politics, one should always know who your friends are, which friends to keep, and especially so if you actually want to accomplish what you say you want to accomplish. McGuinty clearly isn’t too serious about more seats for Ontario; otherwise, he’s playing a very poor strategic hand.
Posted on 20-Sep-07 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
Indeed, you could be right about him not being serious on this one (or not serious yet). He could be trying to get something else, and is using this issue as his pawn. It is a very typical Ontario move. Quebec is also pretty good at it.
Posted on 20-Sep-07 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
He could also be “sending up balloon”, as they call it, to test to see who trys to shoot it down (or, who actually takes it up). Also a very popular move in Ontario.
Posted on 20-Sep-07 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
Maybe. However, he appears to have leisurely written the letter on a Sunday, or at least that’s how it is portrayed: McGuinty stands up for Ontario even when he’s relaxing. Even that suggests this is not, in the least, a major initiative for him.
But like I write above, trying to fix representation by population in the House of Commons could be very good; even more so if it entails adding significantly more MPs overall.
Posted on 20-Sep-07 at 1:25 pm | Permalink
Smarter than Ezra wrote:
I do understand wanting better representation by population. But what is your rationale for wanting more MPs in the House of Commons and why would this be better than the number we have now?
Posted on 20-Sep-07 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
George Freeman wrote:
More members in the House of Commons makes each member less likely to sit in cabinet, or shadow cabinet, and lessens committee assignments per MP. More members makes party discipline harder to enforce simply because of the greater scarcity of goodies to go around; less goodies to lose by breaking party ranks.
Caucusing is always a privilege, of course, but a bigger house affords more stable factions of opinion within the major party caucuses.
I also think that Canadians need to consider ways to make the House of Commons a more effective chamber for debate, and more members would effectively crowd the chamber; force the removal of those stupid desks. We should have straight benches like the Brits, and scrap assigned seating apart from an assigned “front bench” for government and loyal opposition, and, of course, grouping parties together.
The Canadian Commons, with assigned seating and desks, and party discipline that is too strident, simply doesn’t function as an effective check on government, especially in majority government scenarios. The best way to weaken party discipline is to lessen the rewards each MP can receive from his party, from cabinet and shadow cabinet. More MPs, assuming a standard level of awards for MPs, makes a scarcer economy of privilege for MPs.
Posted on 20-Sep-07 at 3:49 pm | Permalink