“The West wants in” was often repeated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper during his years in opposition. A principal Western Canadian grievance has been the under- representation of Western Canada in the federal House of Commons. Alberta and British Columbia continue to attract immigrants and migrants from the rest of Canada and to grow in size relative to the rest of the country. But, the argument goes, the number of Members of Parliament they send to Ottawa has not kept pace with new demographic realities.
However, the situation is far more complex that that. The Conservative Party platform promises to address the under- representation of not only Alberta and British Columbia, but also Ontario, with good reason. Actually, it is Ontario that is vastly under-represented in the House of Commons.
Let’s look at some numbers. The current House of Commons has 308 members. Strictly on the basis of representation by population, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario should have 31, 40 and 117 MPs respectively. However, the actual figures are 28, 36 and 106. In other words, these provinces are 18 MPs short.
The shortfall is caused by the formula used to calculate the number of MPs. The formula starts with 282 seats. Each territory gets one seat, which leaves 279 to be distributed across the 10 provinces. That number never changes, but the federal ridings are redistributed after each Census in an attempt to maintain representation by population.
However, two special rules then apply.
One rule is the Grandfather Clause (s. 51(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, added by the Constitution Act, 1985), which ensures that provincial representation cannot decline below the levels in the 1986 House of Commons. The principal beneficiaries are Manitoba and Saskatchewan, whose total complement increases from 19 to 28 MPs, and Quebec, which gains seven seats. The other rule is the Senate Floor (s. 51A of the Constitution Act, 1867, added by the Constitution Act, 1915), which guarantees each province at least as many MPs as it has Senators. The Senate Floor benefits the Atlantic provinces exclusively, which receive an additional nine MPs. Taken together, these clauses add 27 MPs to the House of Commons.
These rules were adopted to protect the representation of provinces whose population is dropping both as a share of the national total (Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan), and in some cases, in absolute terms (Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan). The extreme example is Nova Scotia, which had 21 MPs in 1872 — over 10% of the House of Commons. Today, on the basis of population, the province would only be entitled to nine MPs in a much larger body. Moreover, because these demographic trends are continuing, the impact of these rules guaranteeing a minimum number of seats is increasing over time. For the 2003 redistribution, they accounted for 27 additional MPs. By contrast, for the 1996 redistribution, they added 20 MPs.
These rules undermine the principle of representation by population. The idea of one person, one vote requires that each vote counts equally. In Canada, the constitutional rules that restrain the growth in representation from Canada’s fastest growing provinces have moved our system away from this ideal. These growing gaps imperil the legitimacy of the House of Commons.
The under-representation of Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia means their young, urban and multicultural populations are under-represented. These three are the most urban provinces in the country. For example, Toronto, despite having a greater population than all four Atlantic Canada provinces (2.4 million vs. 2.28 million), has only 23 MPs to Atlantic Canada’s 32. Slightly over 42% of Toronto residents are visible minorities, compared to 13.4% for Canada as a whole.
This under-representation could affect the balance of control and the direction of public policy, especially in a minority Parliament. Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are all “have” provinces with large urban centres. A restructured House of Commons might address fiscal imbalance, public transit, and the "cities agenda" rather differently. Another issue is Employment Insurance, where the eligibility rules vary considerably by region. In Toronto, only one-fifth of the unemployed qualify, less than half the proportion in the rest of Canada. Federal public policy may look rather different if Ontario had greater representation in the House.
Prime Minister Harper wants to redress the under- representation of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario without reducing the representation of other provinces. This is far easier said than done. The problem is PEI, which has one MP per approximately 34,000 people. By comparison, the average riding size (excluding the territories) is 107,000. If every province were to receive MPs in the same proportion as PEI, the size of the House would have to be increased to 887!
So what should we do? The history of Canada’s electoral system has been one of compromise, which is what is needed here. If Parliament adjusted the formula for calculating seats in the House of Commons, by increasing the base from 279 to 311, while still allowing the Grandfather Clause and the Senate Floor to apply, it would add 21 MPs to the House of Commons – 13 for Ontario, three for Alberta, and five for British Columbia — for a total of 329.
The political architecture of Canadian democracy must keep pace with the country we have become.