When every citizen voted on each and every measure - the Year Was 500 BC.
But here in Canada we have - or think we have - Representative Democracy and Ever since the Tories promised to redistribute the Seats of the House of Commons, I have been yearning to do this Blog. Here is my chance: it will be a Two Parter.
Direct Democracy, as practiced by the ancient Athenians was True Democracy in every sense of the word. The funny thing now is - with the advent of computers - we could, if we wanted to, return to those 'good olde days' any time we want.
But dear Reader - this will not happen - at least not in our life times, since the Elites have no faith whatsoever in the unwashed masses - that is to say, in either you or me. They enjoy telling us what to do and how to do it. Sadly, no Direct Democracy for us.
But I digress.
So with growing populations, the Athenian Way of Doing Democracy went by the Wayside. And, as I mentioned, has been replaced by Representative Democracy whereby the Citizens vote for Representatives to Represent them in the Drafting and in the enforcing of Laws.
That too now occurs in name only, and I will be dealing with that in Part 2. But for the purposes of this Part 1 - let's pretend that Representative Democracy is alive and well and is still with us.
So in that context, let's now look at the Tory Redistribution Plan as well as a Second Plan, put forward by the Liberals affectionately known as the Dion Plan. The Tory Plan proposes the addition of 30 seats to the existing 308 House seats while the Dion Plan maintains the 308 seat ceiling.
Both Plans have their flaws; the Liberal Plan is less Flawed.
Let's start our review by looking at how the House of Commons' seat distribution should look if all Provinces and Territories were treated equally i.e. if each vote counted the same, regardless of place of residence.
- Canada's population in 2011 is stated to be some 34.5 Million. Divided by 308 Seats, means that each riding should consist of 112,000 persons. Given this, each Province / Territory should have the following number of MPs:
- The Territories - all three together warrant only .9 of an MP - they now have 3 (1 each)
- Ontario warrants 119 - it now has 106 or 13 too few
- Quebec warrants 71 MPs - it has 75 MPs or 4 too many
- Nova Scotia .. 9 MPs ( currently has 11 MPs or 2 too many); Newfoundland .. 4.5 MPs ( currently has 7 MPs or 2.5 too many ); New Brunswick .. 7 MPs ( currently has 10 or 3 too many) and PEI *warrants only 1.2 MPs ( currently has 4 or 2.8 too many). *Note: If given the power, I would force PEI to join with New Brunswick since it is about the size of a mid sized city and has a very small land mass.
- Manitoba...11 MPs ( currently has 14 or 3 too many); Saskatchewan...9.3 ( currently has 14 or 4.7 too many)
- Alberta warrants 34 MPs ( currently has 28 or 6 too few ) - and -
- B.C. would warrant 41 MPs( currently has 36 or 5 too few )
So the big losers under the current regime are Ontario (-13); Alberta (-6) and BC (-5)
The big winners are Saskatchewan (+4.7) and Quebec (+4).
Okay, let's look how the Tory and Dion Plans would change this - beginning with Dion's.
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland would each lose 1 MP and Saskatchewan and Manitoba would each lose 2 MPs. So all four Provinces would continue to be over - represented but only marginally.
Quebec would lose 3 seats under Dion's Plan which would also bring it virtually in line with what it is entitled to - i.e. it would have 72 seats - just 1 more than its population warrants.
Ontario would gain 4 seats taking it to 110 or 9 seats short of what it should have; Alberta would gain 3 seats taking it to 31 or 3 seats less than it should have; and BC gains 2 for a total of 38 and would now be under-represented by 3 seats.
The big loser under Dion's plan continues to be Ontario since it would continue to be short changed 9 MPs. Otherwise, the Dion Changes does a good job of reinstating the balance of representation in the House.
Just as important - the Dion Plan maintains the 308 MP Ceiling. Even 308 is far too many Members - 250 would be more in keeping with Canada's modest size and fewer MPs would help to empower the ordinary MP. In the United Sates for instance - with a population 10x our own - their House of Representatives (equivalent to our H of C) has but 435 Members. If the US was to adopt our ratio of representation their H of R would have a staggering membership of 4,350.
So all things considered - not too bad of a plan.
Now the Tory Plan:
It adds a total of 30 seats to the current H of C configuration bringing its size to 338. In so doing, it drops the average size of a constituency from 112,000 to 102,000 which distorts the current make-up of Parliament even more.
Ontario is to be given 15 more seats thereby increasing its membership to 121. But with the increased size of the House of Commons - Ontario's entitlement would balloon to 129.5. The net result is that Ontario would still be short changed 8.5 or virtually the same as called for by Dion (9 short).
Six are to be added to Alberta giving them 34 MPs which is consistent with its current population. And 6 MPs will be added to BC's number taking it to 42 which is 1 more than its population warrants.
It will also give to Quebec 3 more seats taking their total to 78 which is given the increased number of seats in the House is only 1.5 MP more than its population warrants.
So the major difference between the two plans is the 30 additional MPs proposed by the Tories. The increased number is not only an issue of manageability, it is also a matter of increase cost. Thirty new MPs require 30 new offices, staff both in Ottawa and in their new ridings, travel / living expenses and so on. And as noted, it dilutes the power of the individual mp more than is already the case.For these reasons, I find the Dion Plan preferable and I suggest that the Tories adopt it over their own. I would also encourage the Conservatives to take a few more seats from those jurisdictions that are over-represented and give those seats to Ontario to bring it closer to its rightful number of 119.
If the Conservatives do not do it now - while they have a majority - a fair and just redistribution will never be achieved.
As I see it ...
'K.D. Galagher'
