No threads about Ontario (and BC, Alberta) getting more seats in the HofC. Might be missing the thread...
Apparently Ontario is getting 18 to help rep by pop, so that means more seats for the GTA.
I'll be interested to see how the new map is drawn (as a rural person, I've heard some scary rumours) and whether the province will simply adapt and add 18 seats, as well.
Since Ontario shadows the federal representation exactly, it would be more work for Ontario to go out of step than to just add another 18 seats.
Since Ontario shadows the federal representation exactly,
Not quite--the Northern Ontario seats still follow the boundaries prior to the last redistribution.
For those of you interested, here is a map showing how Ontario could redistribute its 124 federal ridings (114 - South, 10 - North).
Historical and projected Ontario population by census division, selected years - Reference scenario
Neat map.
Does the HocC need 18 more bodies? Does Queen's Park?
Does the HocC need 18 more bodies? Does Queen's Park?
Harper does!
You know he's salivating at the prospect of all those new seats in Ontario, B.C., and most especially in Alberta.
Conservative strategists must be going crazy trying to figure out how to stay in power until the new seats can come into play in 2014.
All the more reason why the Harper Conservatives must be defeated in the next federal election (Spring 2011?), or at least held to another minority.
Does the HocC need 18 more bodies? Does Queen's Park?
One of Mike Harris' anti-democratic moves was to reduce the number of seats in Ontario from about 125 to 99 - a reduction of about 20%. This, in addition to the end of enumeration and other stunts helped them squeak through with their phony majority government in 1999.
Yep, adding seats in provinces where the Conservatives have a chance of winning a lot of them will by definition help the Conservatives win more seats. So in a partisan sense this isn't good. On the other hand, it isn't democratic for these provinces to be underrepresented. So partisan reasons aren't a democratically justifiable reason to oppose the legislation, by saying, "no more MP's for BC, Alberta and Ontario <whisper> because with think Harper has a decent shot of winning these ridings </whisper>." So long as the electoral commission does their work in a professional and non-partisan manner the legislation is democratically legitimate except for one thing. Should it be adopted Quebec will be the most underrepresented province in the HoC, unless they're given an extra six MP's (I think or it could be four I don't quite remember). So, for the sake of consistency, opposing the bill on those grounds would be fair, since it would be unfair for one of the four big provinces to be underrepresented vis a vis the others. It would also be stupid since it would likely boost arguments for separatism. Then again, if protecting minimum representation (ie. Sask and Manitoba's 14 seats, NFLD's 7, PEI's 4 and NS and NB's 10 each) wasn't constitutionally enshrined I would advocate redistributing seats away from those slow-growth/declining provinces. It would save us having to constantly add huge batches of MP's to the HoC and it would be easier to keep constituencies around the 100K person/MP mark (except for the territories and possibly PEI with its awkward population numbers). As it stands right now I see no reason why 1 PEI voter should be worth about 3.5 BC voters, except of course because of the constant compromises of Canadian federalism.
If we maintain the minimum in Atlantic Canada then some other province loses. To date the big loser has always been BC. I don't like Quebec getting less than their entitlement but I think it is time BC wasn't punished by our system with chronic under representation. Maybe Ontario could give some of its quota to Quebec since whether it is Upper or Lower Canadian interests being represented they seldom consider the effect on the west or atlantic Canada. Taking seats from the west to make Quebec whole is merely handing the anti-French Tories in Western Canada a stick to beat the other parties with.
@kropotkin1951
I don't think that Quebec is getting less than their entitlement. Quebec's demographics have been decreasing/staying neutral, meaning that their seat allocation is still "fine" given that the number of people represented per MP is low relative to the 3 provinces getting extra seats.
Then again, if protecting minimum representation (ie. Sask and Manitoba's 14 seats, NFLD's 7, PEI's 4 and NS and NB's 10 each)
Better check your numbers again, Vansterdam Kid! We here in Nova Scotia have 11 M.P.s!
For Quebec to retain its current proportion of seats in the House of Commons (24.35%), it would need to add 9.66 seats (rounded up to 10) to the 75 it would receive under Bill C-12.
For Quebec to obtain a number of seats in the House of Commons proportional to its share of the projected 2011 population of Canada (23.12%), it would need to add 4.11 seats (rounded up to 5) to the 75 it would receive under Bill C-12.
For those of you playing at home, the formula for the additional number of seats is:
x = (338p - 75) / (1 - p)
where x is the number of additional seats and p is Quebec's proportion of total seats in the House of Commons.
Then again, if protecting minimum representation (ie. Sask and Manitoba's 14 seats, NFLD's 7, PEI's 4 and NS and NB's 10 each) wasn't constitutionally enshrined I would advocate redistributing seats away from those slow-growth/declining provinces. It would save us having to constantly add huge batches of MP's to the HoC and it would be easier to keep constituencies around the 100K person/MP mark (except for the territories and possibly PEI with its awkward population numbers). As it stands right now I see no reason why 1 PEI voter should be worth about 3.5 BC voters, except of course because of the constant compromises of Canadian federalism.
Of course, the effect of PEI's over-representation in the House is mitigated by the fact that it still only has a whopping total of 4 MPs out of 308, and not 36/308 like BC.
Yeah and BC has about 31 and half times more people than PEI.
VanKid its all right the east is used to screwing BC and they just think it is the natural order of things.
The two Burnaby BC ridings have a total of 220,000 electors. Both these seats are held by NDP members. In PEI the total number of electors is 135,000 and they have 4 seats. Now that is real democracy. But in Burnaby about half the electorate are immigrants mostly from Asia so why should they get the same consideration as the old stock folks in PEI.
Does the HocC need 18 more bodies? Does Queen's Park?
You're looking at it the wrong way.
Do people deserve fair Parliamentary and Legislative representation?
I'd say yes.
Spoken like a politician.
VanKid its all right the east is used to screwing BC and they just think it is the natural order of things.
The two Burnaby BC ridings have a total of 220,000 electors. Both these seats are held by NDP members. In PEI the total number of electors is 135,000 and they have 4 seats. Now that is real democracy. But in Burnaby about half the electorate are immigrants mostly from Asia so why should they get the same consideration as the old stock folks in PEI.
You know...given what's historically guided seat distribution in Parliament, may I suggest that the only way you'll "rebalance" anything is by amalgamating the Maritimes into one province. Then PEI can be a single seat; or at most, two--because the old grandfathering-in circumstances that's led to the present four seats will be redundant.
Either that, or maybe the NDP can make lemonade out of a lemon and start targeting PEI. (Which since 1997's "Alexa breakthrough", isn't as absurdly out of the question as it once might have been.)
To me it is not about who I think that the people in any area of the country are likely to vote for. That should be an irrelevant consideration when determining the number of voters in a seat.
The fact that PEI with less than half the voters than the city I live in gets 4 seats to our 2 is anti-democratic. I'm a grandfather so stop blaming this on old folks. I think most grandfathers would want fairness for all their grandchildren not more privilege based on how long a persons ancestors have resided in this country.
Now if they started giving aboriginal communities that kind of 3 or 4 to 1 ratio then that would be justified since they have rights from being here first.
The seats the Maritime Provinces receive where part of the deal in which they agreed to Confederation.
Reducing the number of seats in PEI or any other province or territory invites only a prolonged political firestorm to rain down on you, whether it was drafted in the Articles of Confederation or not. The easier solution is to add more seats. And using my back-of-the-envelope sums, Canada will only get to the point it should have been five years ago in ten years' time.
The seats the Maritime Provinces receive where part of the deal in which they agreed to Confederation.
NB: that's what I meant by "grandfathering-in circumstances". Nothing to do with actual grandfathers or "older demographics"...
It's never going to happen. It's in the constitution and people are entitled to their entitlements. It wouldn't be worth perusing seeing as those who would loose seats would raise a bigger stink than those who would gain seats. I also realize that it's not politically possible for demographic realities to be acknowledged as we wouldn't want to hurt peepoos feewings. Typos intended.
What do feelings and raising a stink have to do with a system that attempts to balance regional development with rep by pop? This sounds like a very urban centric view of how a democratic political system should be setup and maintained.
Whatever happened to the idea of one person one vote? I'm willing to compromise in certain senses. For instance, MP's with huge geographic areas should have more money for more staff and local offices so that they can effectively serve their spread out populations. And I think that some sort of "regional" role might be an effective role for a reformed and effective Senate. But the House of Commons is supposedly "The People's" house. And yes, if urban areas have more people than they deserve to have more seats. The opposite with regards to rural areas having less people, thus deserving less seats, is also true. Who are MP's supposed to represent? Geography or people? What is Canada? Is it only its geography or are its people as, or even more, important?
Haha, the I seem to remember this discussion from school.
I think elected reps are responsible for geography... natural resources. PEI is set up to be PEI more or less as exists.
To be a bit more clear: the cities are growing in Ontario. So to add seats - juggle the urban boundaries, and try not to mix and match urban\rural mixed ridings as they currently sit.
I'm fine with adding seats when merited, and adding seats was clearly needed a while ago.
But strict rep by pop does not take into account, yes, geography and the environment. Managing these resources takes people, and communities, and a public representative.
Toronto's interests and mine, as a rural person, will not always agree. I'd at least like to have a minority voice in provincial and federal houses.
It's not as if the Ministry governing rural affairs could be more urban, anyway, haha.
You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I currently have political representation. More seats will be added to Ontario. I think they will, and should, go to the growth centers. I don't think that means the currently rural ridings should also be redrawn.
You're suggesting a takedown of the currently enshrined Canadian system, or at least a redrawing of seats to emphasize urban Canada, with a Senatorial overseeing body for everything not urban.
You've served yourself up a pretty big slice of cake, too, dude, while tossing rural areas a bone.
By population, where are the biggest ridings? Will it be something like 10 seats for the GTA, a couple for Ottawa, couple in KW-Guelph, and the rest scattered in Hamilton\Burlington? I assume those places are growth areas, where the more southern ridings are shrinking because of the economy.
My "ideal" system, as I've already acknowledged it isn't going to happen, even if I'm the one who is advocating real democracy ie. representation by population. By definition urban, or really, suburban areas are growth centres and rural areas are (generally) not. That means that all ridings, rural ones included, that do not meet the quota of citizens per MP will have to be redrawn to meet that new quota. You seem to agree that everyone's vote should be equal, but then you keep pulling out all sorts of reasons why rural people should be more equal, ie. have less citizens per MP. I don't think that somehow living in a rural area makes you in need of extra representation, or in need of a higher percentage of the house of commons than what population alone would entitle rural folks too. I realize that this is the current system, and I think it's ridiculous in the 21st century. Especially with modern telecommunications and what not. This of course is made even worse when comparing ridings between provinces, not just within them. Frankly, just because something is a "tradition" doesn't mean it's "good." Sure, being overrepresented relative to population is good for the Atlantic and Prairie Provinces (outside of Alberta). But it's not particularly democratic or "good" for the vast majority of Canadians who don't live in those areas. It's highly understandable that people who are "winners" in the current system would want to protect their entitlements, but the rest of us aren't particularly keen on that.
As for my comments on the Senate. Basically I'd prefer to just abolish it since it's a waste of money and not a particularly democratic instution even if it was elected. But, yes, I suppose if it would get the current systems' winners on side with the idea of democracy than I'd be willing to throw them the bone of having a "triple E" or some sort of type of Senate where representation by population isn't the main criteria of that body. It wouldn't oversee the distribution of seats in the House of Commons, it would simply be a second house of parliament like most second houses of parliament throughout the world.
How many seats would there be in Parliament if one used the population of Nunavut as a benchmark?
I think I'll start a new campaign.
"Come to the country - your single vote counts more out here!"
I've always thought Canada's system was created to promote regional development as a balance against what's clearly happening in a place like the GTA - overdevelopment. Having *entitlements*, as you suggest, is a hedge against everyone migrating to the cities, or to specific areas (eg Alberta) for economic reasons, and creating a need to alter public policy at the whims of boom and bust capitalism.
To my mind it's like rewarding Milton (sorry for the Ontario eg) for being a sprawling insta-suburb.
But I'm drifting off topic.
I don't see the big problem with adding seats to urban areas where the population merits. I'm not against this at all. I am curious to see where the new ridings will be created. I'm against a total redrawing of the Ontario map when it's clear the growth centres are in specific areas of dense population. Isn't Ontario getting 18 seats specifically for this reason?
If we call Nunavut's population 30 00 and Canada's population 33 000 000 you get 1100 seats.
If we call Nunavut's population 30 00 and Canada's population 33 000 000 you get 1100 seats.
Forget Nunavet you get the same ridiculous number of seats if we use PEI as an example. In 2008 there were 108,000 electors in PEI and they got 4 seats. Or 27,000 electors per seat.
In BC there were 3,000,000 electors so they should have 111 seats to equal the representation in Ottawa that an elector in PEI gets. We currently have 36 seats. I want to see how they will redistribute the ridings so we get the extra 75 seats we need to be treated equally.
I was answering the question in post #30.
A lot of this comes back to the central problem with redesigning Parliament... there are two competing "goods" being persued. 1) Rep by pop (all votes being roughly equal) and 2) balancing regional interests. They can't really be reconciled in a single chamber... While I understand the attraction of cutting the Senate loose and letting it float away I would prefer seeing it changed so that the Commons is governed (roughly) by the first good... that the seats should be distributed by population, and the Senate should be changed to represent the second good, regional or provincial interests. What is needed, though, is to make a clean break from the Senate we currently have, and the incomprehensible way the seats are distributed there (effectively, what a province could extort to gain entry).
If the debate about reforming Parliament focuses on only one house at a time all the rules of a zero sum game apply - there will always be a side that can, quite legitimately, claim to be losing out. Perhaps this is precisely the reason why our political "masters" never propose a comprehensive reform - divide and stay in power.
Of course rep by pop is not much of a victory if it is still determined by the first past the post voting system we have.
A question I do have for those who are very concerned about protecting the interests of non-urban ridings: in the event that reform would settle on some formula for proportional representation, rather than trying seek an exception to the principle of rep by pop, wouldn't your interests be better served by working on and with the parties to ensure that the "distributed seats" in such a system would be the preferred method of seeing that non-urban interests are served?
Canada is a federation. That federal nature needs to be represented in Parliament. The H of C was based on rep by pop with the proviso that a province could not have fewer seats in the House than it had in the Senate. NB and NS each gave up to Senate seats with PEI entered Confederation since the Senate was based on Regional Representation and the Maritimes were allotted 24 seats. if we were a unitary state than a straight proportional representation nationally by political party with a unicameral legislature would make sense. But we are not a unitary state, we are a federal one. This federal nature must be recognized at the level of the national legislature not just by having provoincial governments. If we went to propotional representation, I think we would need proportional representation applied on the provincial level.
Let's change the name of the senate to the "House of Federation" then, and let the accomodation for regions take place there. The proviso that a province not have fewer seats in the Commons than in the Sentate was not delivered unto the "fathers" of confedertion in the form of stone tablets, and even if it was... let's take a chisel to it.
Caissa I would agree except that the discrepancy is so striking. PEI residents have three times the representation in parliament. No one at the time of confederation would have considered giving any other region a three to one representation. It is merely an anomaly in an outdated constitution. Why do half the people get to send 3 Liberals and a Tory to Ottawa to outvote my two Burnaby MP's who happen to be NDP.
The 111 seats number above was based on equal numbers in each seat in the province. In the city I live in we have higher than average electoral numbers per riding and therefore if you compare Burnaby to PEI they actually have closer to a 6 to 1 ratio for their vote weight. That isn't regional representation that is insanity.
I think I'll start a new campaign.
"Come to the country - your single vote counts more out here!"
I've always thought Canada's system was created to promote regional development as a balance against what's clearly happening in a place like the GTA - overdevelopment. Having *entitlements*, as you suggest, is a hedge against everyone migrating to the cities, or to specific areas (eg Alberta) for economic reasons, and creating a need to alter public policy at the whims of boom and bust capitalism.
To my mind it's like rewarding Milton (sorry for the Ontario eg) for being a sprawling insta-suburb.
An interesting way of looking at things, but I don't think it's the job of the electoral system to discourage overdevelopment. Overdevelopment needs to be discouraged by other institutions within government. One of these is the allocation of resources, ie. more transit funds, more amenities, and a more "desirable" lifestyle is to be had at the centre of an urban region than at the sprawling suburban edge (at least in most Canadian cities).
I think, in the future at least, this type of development is also discouraged by the economy. Oil isn't getting any cheaper and cities that aren't dense, with well developed public transportation systems, won't be competitive. In addition, while Alberta and these insta suburbs that you highlight are growing it isn't as if political under representation is some sort of a break to everyone just moving to these places. I doubt someone looking for a job in the Oil Patch is thinking, "gee I would move to Fort McMurray but they don't have the political representation they deserve, so I better not." Most people who don't want to move to those places don't because it doesn't jive with their lifestyle, aspirations, their interests, their culture, where their family and friends live, etc, etc. Just because I could make a lot more money if I were to move to Alberta, doesn't mean that I'm going to. And just because I would make less money if I moved to Montreal, doesn't mean that I never would. One's economic prospects are important no doubt, but they aren't the only consideration in choosing where to live. If they where then we'd all just move to Alberta, or the GTA.
That's exactly what's happening, though. Big population booms in the GTA, Alberta, BC (thinking Van, here) and Montreal. Maybe less to Alberta now, but it's still gained people.
By spending political capital, matched with public funds, in "the regions" is a way to encourage people that moving to the big urban centres is not the only option for meaningful work\life.
Good grief. As if we don't already have enough bums and assholes occupying the seats we have now.
PEI has 1.3% of the seats in the House. I think the larger provinces can just suck it up.
I don't see the big problem with adding seats to urban areas where the population merits. I'm not against this at all. I am curious to see where the new ridings will be created. I'm against a total redrawing of the Ontario map when it's clear the growth centres are in specific areas of dense population. Isn't Ontario getting 18 seats specifically for this reason?
According to my map, here is where the additional 18 seats in Southern Ontario would go:
+4.0 - Peel
+3.1 - York
+2.4 - Toronto
+1.2 - Halton
+1.1 - Durham
+1.1 - Ottawa
+0.9 - Simcoe
+0.9 - Waterloo
+0.5 - Hamilton
+0.5 - Essex
+0.4 - Middlesex
+0.4 - Niagara
+0.3 - Brant
+0.2 - Wellington
+0.2 - Frontenac
+0.2 - Peterborough
+0.1 - Hastings
+0.1 - Northumberland
+0.1 - Kawartha Lakes
+0.1 - Elgin
+0.1 - Lanark
+0.1 - Dufferin
+0.0 - Lennox & Addington
+0.0 - Grey
+0.0 - Chatham-Kent
+0.0 - Haldimand-Norfolk
+0.0 - Haliburton
+0.0 - Prescott & Russell
+0.0 - Prince Edward
-0.0 - Lambton
-0.0 - Bruce
-0.0 - Perth
-0.0 - Huron
-0.0 - Oxford
-0.0 - Renfrew
-0.0 - Leeds & Grenville
-0.1 - Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry
If Krago's numbers are correct (and I have no doubt they are), can anyone take an educated guess as to where in Toronto the new seats will come? I've heard tell that the southern half of Toronto Centre is bursting at the seams, and is a priority for splitting off from the rest of the seat. In that case, the northern half may well become a Tory/PC target, while the NDP would have an extremely good chance of taking Toronto Centre South/Toronto Church/whatever. Am I just hearing moonshine?
Thanks for the breakdown, Krago.
I'm surprised Essex and Middlesex are that high on the list. Both are rural ridings, more or less. Middlesex has a London influence and London is expanding outwards, with suburbs in country areas, so maybe that's not such a big surprise. Essex has me puzzled.
I wonder if the unwieldy riding of Elgin-Middlesex-London will be redrawn.
The list above is for counties, regions, etc., not individual riding names.
Based on this map showing seat projections, Essex, Kent and Lambton counties combined would get six seats (5.97), while Elgin and Middlesex combined would get five (5.05). Lambton-Kent-Middlesex would be history, with rural Middlesex county adding parts of London (maybe Byron and Lambeth), while Elgin county would do the same (maybe taking in all of the White Oaks area).
Sorry, quite right. I was mixig up ridings with counties.
I think I see what might happen. Taking London as an example. Would E-M-L, as it currently exists, simply scoop into London a little more (as Krago suggest, WhiteOaks\Southern London). London-Fanshawe could take the northern portion of EML.
Interesting.
I, too, have been 'number crunching' about where the new seats would be located, and I'm a little confused as to where the number 18 came from.
Here's the geographic areas where I see new seats being needed:
Ajax-Pickering, Durham, Oshawa, Pickering-Scarborough East, Whitby-Oshawa...1 new seat
Brant, Cambridge, Kitchener Centre, Kitchener-Conestaga, Kitchener-Waterloo...1 new seat
Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Brampton-Springdale, Brampton West, Mississauga-Brampton South...2 new seats
Mississauga East-Cookville, Mississauga-Erindale, Mississauga-South, Mississauga-Streetsville...1 new seat
Burlington, Halton, Oakville, Wellington-Halton Hills...1 new seat
Markham-Unionville, Newmarket-Aurora, Oak Ridges-Markham, Richmond Hill, Thornhill, Vaughn...2 new seats
Hamilton East, Hamilton-Stoney Creek, Hamilton-Mountain, Niagara Falls, Niagara West-Glanbrook, St. Catherines, Welland...1 new seat
Carleton-Mississippi Mills, Nepean-Carleton, Ottawa South...1 new seat
Chatham-Kent-Essex, Essex, Lambton-Kent-Essex, Sarnia-Lambton, Windsor-Tecumseh, Windsor West...1 new seat
Barrie, Dufferin-Caledon-Simcoe-Grey, Simcoe North, York-Simcoe...1 new seat
Kingston & the Islands, Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington, Leeds-Grenville, Northumberland-Quinte West, Peterborough, Prince Edward Hastings...1 new seat
Don Valley West, Eglington-Lawrence, St. Paul's, Toronto Centre, Willowdale, York Centre...1 new seat
That makes 14 new seats, based on what I see as needed to address population changes.
Where are the other 4 seats needed?
Under Bill C-12, Ontario would get 18 additional seats, B.C. seven and Alberta five. All the other provinces would retain their current representation in the House of Commons.
Canada's Government Restores Fair Representation in the House of Commons
If Krago's numbers are correct (and I have no doubt they are), can anyone take an educated guess as to where in Toronto the new seats will come? I've heard tell that the southern half of Toronto Centre is bursting at the seams, and is a priority for splitting off from the rest of the seat. In that case, the northern half may well become a Tory/PC target, while the NDP would have an extremely good chance of taking Toronto Centre South/Toronto Church/whatever. Am I just hearing moonshine?
Actually, the southern half of Trinity-Spadina is more "bursting at the seams" than Toronto Centre--and indeed, may help explain why Rosario Marchese in 2007 and Olivia Chow in 2008 didn't fare as well as expected. Don't be surprised if there's a "Toronto South Centre" type of seat in the works (consisting of parts of TC and T-S); and that could be a Vancouver Centre-esque Tory/PC target, at least if they're ambitious. As far as the northern half goes--well, if it also combines parts of TC and T-S, it might not even need Rosedale; so for a more likely Tory target, imagine the north-of-Bloor parts of TC plus the east-of-Bathurst parts of St Paul's...
