From: CZ94000 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Rep. by pop. in the Commons (was RE: Absolute Madness...)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:46:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.144015.14090@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>Our first ministers have gone mad...they are actually talking
>about getting rid of representation by population in the
>House of Commons...
>
Personally, I'm all in favor of strict representation by population
in the House of Commons.  Unfortunately, we've been deviating from
that ideal for a very long time.  A brief history of apportionment
of seats in the H of C follows.  I'm working from memory, so I
can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of all that follows.

The rule established in 1867 was that Quebec would always have 65
seats, with other provinces receiving a number of seats based on
their population relative to that of Quebec.  This was pure rep.
by pop., a major demand of the Upper Canada Grits in the pre-Confeder-
ation period.

Two modifications were soon added.  One, still in effect, was that a
province couldn't have fewer MPs than senators.  This benefitted
mainly PEI, though in recent years it has come into play for New
Brunswick as well.

The other rule was that if a province's population growth rate was
within 5% of the national average, it couldn't lose seats in
the reapportinment following the decennial census.  Since Quebec
(fixed at 65 seats) was then growing faster than the national average,
other provinces should have lost seats, but several were saved by this
rule, decade after decade  (my memory is a little hazy on the exact
details of this rule).

By the time of the census of 1941, more provinces were covered by the
exceptions than by the basic rule.  So the whole system was scrapped,
and replaced by one in which the total number of seats in the
Commons was fixed at 261(?), then apportioned among the provinces
by population, subject to the "Senate floor," guaranteeing as
many MPs as senators.

In 1951, Saskatchewan would have lost "too many" seats, so a new rule
was added saying that a province could lose no more than 15 % of
its seats each decade.

The same rules were used in 1961 as in 1951, but in 1971 several
provinces would have lost seats (meaning several sitting MPs would
lose their jobs), so again the system was scrapped, in favor of a new
one of truly bizarre complexity.  Quebec got 75 seats, plus 4 more
every 10 years.  Ontario got a number of seats based on its
population relative to that of Quebec.  There were two additional
sets of rules, one for BC and Alberta, who fared somewhat better
than Ontario and Quebec, and another set of rules for the other
provinces, who fared even better.  In addition, there was a rule
that no province could ever lose seats.

After the 1981 census, it was decided that the Commons would grow
too rapidly if the 1971 ruls were used, so yet another scheme was
devised.  It is basically a return to the 1941 system of a fixed
total number of seats, apportioned by population, but with the
additional rule that no province can ever lose seats.  Since
the small provinces had benefitted in the past from the various
exceptions to the rules, they continued to be overrepresented.

The amazing thing is that all these changes were effected by Ottawa
alone, with *NO* input from the provincial premiers.  (Some of
the earlier changes probably involved London, as well.)  Another
remarkable fact is that these changes, even though they benefitted
some provinces at the expense of others, were adopted with all-
party approval and with very little attention from the media (at
least for the changes in the 1970s and '80s).

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: can.politics