The Shotgun Blog
« The damage is done in the Guy Earle case | Main | The World's Best Wedding Singer? Maybe »
Saturday, April 03, 2010
In support of Representation by Population
The House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada was established on the
principle of representation by population. Every citizen of Canada would
have equal representation and an equal vote in the election. Right from
the beginning this principle was compromised with assurances towards
Quebec and a rule that there must never be fewer MPs than Senators
representing a province. Still, it is the Rep by Pop principle that
guides seat distribution in the House of Commons.
Despite this principle, over time, some provinces have become
overrepresented and others have become underrepresented in the House of
Commons. My former home riding of Trinity-Spadina had a larger
population than the entire province of PEI, which has four MPs. Ontario
and certain western provinces have rightly complained that the balance
of power in the House of Commons does not represent the balance of
population in Canada.
After decades of inaction the federal government is finally doing
something about it, or at least they are once again trying to do
something about it. The Conservative government is reintroducing their
2007 proposal to change the distribution formula and add more seats to
the House of Commons to better reflect population. A consequence of
doing this is that provinces that have not increased their population
will have a smaller proportion of seats.
You can expect Quebec, or more specifically the BQ, to complain
about this. They accuse the government of trying to weaken the voice of
Quebec. This seems to be framed as some Lord Durham-like plot to
assimilate French speakers, which is absurd.
Quebec nationalists are not the only ones complaining. Professor Donald
Savoie is warning that Atlantic Canada is also going to lose out. He
points out that the Maritimes has been losing representation since the
time of Confederation (which makes sense considering that the population
compared to the rest of the country has consistently declined). He even
goes as far to say that maybe Joseph Howe was right and Confederation
was a bad idea (not that Nova Scotia had much of a choice but that’s
another story).
He continues by saying that Canada is a federal state and should
thus have regional representation. This sort of thing is acceptable,
according to Professor Savoie, in unitary states such as France but
unacceptable in federal Canada. Actually the reverse is true, regional
representation is not as big of a problem exactly because Canada is a
federation.
In a unitary state (i.e. a state with no regional governments) there
are still often regional differences. These differences have to be
accommodated somehow or else there will be political discord. In the
case of the United Kingdom pre-1999, Scottish distinctiveness was
accommodated by over representation in the House of Commons. The idea
was that if you give Scotland a strong voice they will be able to
protect their interests and culture.
After the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999, the number of
Scottish MPs was reduced to be more in line with the population
distribution in the UK. It was universally acknowledged that with
devolved government the need for an over-represented Scotland no longer
existed. Scotland could now carry out its own policies in key areas.
This argument can not only be applied to Canada, but it is even more
applicable. The amount of autonomy that a Canadian province enjoys is
the envy of Scottish nationalists. Canadian provinces don’t need special
representation in the House of Commons because they have their own
government. They have their own legislatures to create policies that
they want. And if there is something happening in the federal government
that interferes with Nova Scotia’s interests, they have their very own
Premier to take on the Prime Minister.
Would it be in a region’s interests to have more representation in
Ottawa? Certainly, but that becomes less vital because we are in a
federation, not more vital. It is up to Donald Savoie and the BQ to
demonstrate why people East of Ontario need more representation than
everyone else. They can’t argue that it is because of distinctiveness
because they already have their very own governments to represent that
distinctiveness.
Equal representation is an important principle in democracy, and if
that principle is going to be compromised than there has to be a good
reason. Appealing to the narrow regional interests of a few is not
reason good enough.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on April 3, 2010 in Canadian Politics, Canadian Provincial Politics | Permalink
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.