Federal Electoral Reform - Ontario Wants In!

“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.

Minority Vote Dilution in Canada

Although all adult citizens have the right to vote under section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the worth of one’s vote depends upon where one lives. Representation from Canada’s three fastest growing provinces — Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario — is increasingly out of step with demographic realities. The average ballot cast in these provinces is worth less than one cast in any other province. Moreover, within provinces, rural ridings are overrepresented in relation to urban constituencies.

Lies, Damned Lies and Campaign Promises

Today, as the home stretch of Ontario's election campaign begins, Conservative leader John Tory announced that he will allow a free vote after all on his controversial proposal to extend public funding to faith based schools. Many will seize on the turnaround as evidence of a "broken promise" (Tory has earlier indicated he would not put the proposal to a free vote if elected on October 10th). Perhaps this is an example of Tory having to get cozy in a bed of his making. Much of Tory's campaign has emphasized Premier McGuinty's broken promises, including most notably his "no new taxes" pledge of the 2003 campaign and the Liberal's subsequent decision to impose a new tax (the "health premium").

This all raises the question –What is the nature of integrity, ethics and accountability in political campaigning?

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which had encouraged the “no new taxes” pledge in 2003, took Premier McGuinty to court after the health premium was passed in 2004, arguing that he had breached a contract. The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this legal ploy, affirming the obvious, which is that politicians who make campaign promises have not created a legal obligation to do the thing they promised.

Ontario 2007 Election

Thursday, October 11, 2007

By visiting scholar Adam Dodek.

One way to analyze the Ontario election results is in terms of a decisive rejection of constitutional change by Ontarians.

Ontarians generally want their premiers and their governments to focus on the business of governing rather than on constitutional change.  Premier David Peterson was punished at the polls in 1990 in part for focussing on Meech Lake and Canadian unity and Premier Bob Rae often seemed more interested in constitutional issues like Charlottetown than the more mundane issues that capture the Tim Horton's crowd.  Somehow John Tory fell into a similar trap by daring even to raise the issue of funding for faith-based schools.  After the Supreme Court of Canada's 1996 Adler decision, the issue of funding for non-Catholic faith-based schools was transferred from the judicial to the political realm.  Most politicians knew well enough that religion and politics make for an incediary mix (see Bill Davis' extension of funding for Catholic schools in 1984 and Premier McGuinty's experience with Sharia law from 2004 and 2005) and were content to let the issue lie dormant.  Ultimately, Tory was unable to foresee let alone control the firestorm that he had sparked and he was punished at the polls as a result.

SJD student Michael Pal on TVO's The Agenda, discussing "Pushing Electoral Boundaries"

Thursday, October 11, 2012

SJD student and Trudeau Scholar Michael Pal was on TVO's The Agenda with Steve Paikin last night as part of a panel discussion on proposed federal electoral map boundary changes that mean more seats for Ontario.

Watch the discussion on the TVO website.

YES: PR is More Democratic

This commentary was first published in the Toronto Star on November 1, 2008.

The days and weeks following a national election are invariably a time of reflection and recrimination.

The Liberals in particular are in for a period of intense soul-searching as they begin yet another leadership campaign.

But it is not only Liberals who should reflect on the recent election.

All Canadians should be disturbed by the results because once again we have gone to the polls and ended up with a government that almost two-thirds of the country opposes.

The flaws in this election go way beyond party politics and political egos. The way we count votes and award seats in the House of Commons, it turns out, deserves much more of the blame.

The fact is that Liberals suffered more from the Canada Election Act than anything Stéphane Dion said or did. Even though the Liberals trailed the Conservatives by only 12 percentage points in the popular vote (38-26), they got barely half as many seats (143-76).

If seats had been awarded to the parties in the same proportion as the votes they received, the Conservatives would have won 116 compared to 80 for the Liberals.

Pages