From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: legal text and H of C seats
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:34:58 GMT
Organization: McGill University

Several of us (notably Mark Young and I) have been posting on
the effect of the Ch'town Accord on the distribution of seats
in the House of Commons.  After having looked at the legal text,
I see that we've been making some incorrect assumptions.  So
I'd like to restart this thread, trying to get the facts right.

There will be a reallocation of seats following the 1991 census.
This is apparently not based on the census data, but purely ad
hoc.  This gives the following number of seats: Nfld 7, PEI 4,
NS 11, NB 10, Que 93, Ont 117, Man 14, Sask 14, Alta 28, BC 36,
NWT 2, Yuk 1.  Total 337.

There will be another reallocation following the 1996 census.  Again,
this will apparently not be based on the census data, since the
results of the reallocation have already been decided (figure this
one out)!  This gives 3 extra seats to Ont and BC, 2 to Alta, and
the other provinces are unchanged.  Result: Nfld 7, PEI 4,
NS 11, NB 10, Que 93, Ont 120, Man 14, Sask 14, Alta 30, BC 39,
NWT 2, Yuk 1.  Total 345.

This reallocation is the one mentioned in the Ch'town accord as
giving all provinces at least 95 % of rep-by-pop.  With 1991
census data and the 1996 number of seats, I find we have Ont
at 94.15 %, Alta 93.25 %, and BC at 94.02 %.  Presumably
I and the government are using different measures of how close
we are to rep-by-pop.  Given that these 3 provinces are growing
faster than the national average, they are likely to be even
further below rep-by-pop in 1996.

For future redistributions, the exact rules are not specified, but
the basic rule is to be rep-by-pop, subject to the following exceptions:

(1) No province can fall below its "fixed floor", namely Nfld 7,
PEI 4, NS 11, NB 10, Que 75, Ont 95, Man 14, Sask 14, Alta 21,
BC 28, NWT 2, Yuk 1.

Note that the 6 smallest provinces and the territories are already
at their floors.  Since all these provinces are growing at less
than the national average, and the territories are already far above
rep-by-pop, these provinces seem destined to remain at their floors
for the forseeable future, unless there's a large increase in the
total size of the H of C.

(2) Quebec must have at least 25 % of the seats.

This will likely not be important for several decades, as we'll
see below.

(3) A province cannot have fewer MPs than another province with a
smaller population, unless its because of rule (2) above.

If NS overtakes Sask, NS will get boosted to 14 seats.  That's
the only application of this rule that seems at all plausible to
me in the next few decades.

(4) A province cannot lose more than one seat in each reallocation.
(This was not mentioned explicitly in Ch'town.  I presume it
comes from the Royal Commission mentioned there.)

This is likely to benefit Quebec more than the 25 % rule for
several decades, unless the total size of the H of C is considerably
expanded.  Quebec will be overrepresented in 1991 and 1996, so it should
lose seats in 2001, but it can only lose one.  The six smallest
provinces can't lose any, since they're already at their floors.
So the decennial redistributions will likely consist of Quebec
losing 1 seat per decade, until they hit the 25 % minimum, no
change for the 6 small provinces, and some limited shuffling
of seats between Ont, Alta, and BC.  By 2001, these 3 provinces
will likely be down to 90-92 % of rep-by-pop, if the 1996 total size
of 345 seats is retained.  These provinces could be better off if
the total size of the house is increased.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA