[skrish]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/05/11/election-reform.html

Biggest provinces to get more MPs as 330-seat House proposed
Ontario would gain 10 seats, B.C. 7, and Alberta 5

Last Updated: Friday, May 11, 2007 | 5:42 PM MT
CBC News

Canada's three fastest-growing provinces would get more seats in the House of Commons by 2014 under legislation proposed by the Conservative government on Friday.

Under the bill, Ontario would get 10 more members of Parliament, British Columbia would get seven and Alberta would get five.

All other provinces, whose populations are not growing as quickly, would be guaranteed to keep the number of seats they have.

The 22 new seats mean the House of Commons would have 330 seats, up from the current 308.

Peter Van Loan, the minister for democratic reform, said the idea behind the bill is to give large provinces representation that is more fair while ensuring small provinces aren't forgotten. He said this is a balance that Parliament has sought since Canada was founded.

"It's a question governments have wrestled with," Van Loan told reporters in Ottawa. "Today, with the democratic representation bill, our government will provide a modern, realistic and balanced solution to this age-old problem."

He said large provinces have such high populations that their MPs have to represent 21,000 more constituents than MPs in provinces with low populations. By 2014, the discrepancy could be 30,000, Van Loan said.

Van Loan said the government is using Quebec as its benchmark, with the aim of having other provinces achieve close to the same level of proportional representation enjoyed by Quebec.

Alberta and B.C. will come close to Quebec's mark under the new bill, Van Loan said, although Ontario will still be below.

"The additional seats for British Columbia and Alberta will move these provinces from a position of significant under-representation to a level playing field," Van Loan said.

"Ontario will be better represented than is the case under the existing formula, closer to representation by population, but still modestly under-represented."

Under the new bill:

~Alberta will have 33 of 330 seats, or 10 per cent. Currently the province has 28 of 308 seats, or nine per cent.
~British Columbia will have 43 seats, or 13 per cent. Currently it has 36, or 12 per cent.
~Ontario will have 116 seats, or 35 per cent. Currently it has 106 seats, or 34 per cent.

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach welcomed the news.

"I was just looking at some numbers," he said. "The first quarter of this year, over 11,000 people moved to Alberta. That's just in the first three months, so I'm pleased the federal government is moving quickly in this area."


Adjustments to come after 2011 census

The bill calls for the adjustments to take place after the next census in 2011, Van Loan said. The changes will likely be in place by mid-2014 and in use by the next scheduled election in 2017.

If the bill isn't passed, Canada's three large provinces are still scheduled to gain more seats after the 2011 census under the existing formula.

Ontario is set to gain four seats, British Columbia will get two and Alberta will get one.

Van Loan said the proposed changes do not require amending the Constitution or consulting provinces. The changes will be voted on in the House, as other bills are.

The last time the government changed the seating formula was in 1985.

[vid]

Alberta and BC combined have less seats than Quebec, yet more people. Some ridings in Southern Ontario represent almost 200,000 people, compared to seats in PEI which represent as little as 30,000.

[MonkeyRonin]

If we were to have roughly 100,000 people per riding (excluding the Territories), based on 2005 stats it should be something like this:

Ontario: 125 (+19)
Quebec: 76 (+1)
BC: 43 (+7)
Alberta: 33 (+5)
Manitoba: 12 (-2)
Saskatchewan: 10 (-4)
Nova Scotia: 9 (-2)
New Brunswick: 8 (-2)
Newfoundland: 5 (-2)
PEI: 2 (-2)

Total: 323 (+15)

[The Kid]

If we were to have roughly 100,000 people per riding (excluding the Territories), based on 2005 stats it should be something like this:

Ontario: 125 (+19)
Quebec: 76 (+1)
BC: 43 (+7)
Alberta: 33 (+5)
Manitoba: 12 (-2)
Saskatchewan: 10 (-4)
Nova Scotia: 9 (-2)
New Brunswick: 8 (-2)
Newfoundland: 5 (-2)
PEI: 2 (-2)

Total: 323 (+15)


And that's the way it should be...

[SunCoaster]

Adjustments to come after 2011 census

The bill calls for the adjustments to take place after the next census in 2011, Van Loan said. The changes will likely be in place by mid-2014 and in use by the next scheduled election in 2017.

:previous: What a crock of crap!! Using a modest 3%/annum growth rate by the time 2017 rolls around Alberta will have another million, BC another 1.2million and Ontario likely over 3 million more people ... to me the damn feds should get this act thru parliment ASAP in time for the next election likely in 2008 or 2009 ... then make further adjustments after the 2011 census ....

Ontario: 125 (+19)
Quebec: 76 (+1)
BC: 43 (+7)
Alberta: 33 (+5)
Manitoba: 12 (-2)
Saskatchewan: 10 (-4)
Nova Scotia: 9 (-2)
New Brunswick: 8 (-2)
Newfoundland: 5 (-2)
PEI: 2 (-2)

Total: 323 (+15)

:previous: I also agree with the foregoing proportional representation ... as for the 3 territories they combined are still way less than 100,000 ... but, guess there they should each still merit one seat versus one seat total for the 3 territories combined ....

[malek]

are you guys serious or just playing games?:rolleyes:

you can't take away seats from a province.

[CCF]

:previous: I also agree with the foregoing proportional representation ... as for the 3 territories they combined are still way less than 100,000 ... but, guess there they should each still merit one seat versus one seat total for the 3 territories combined ....

Over 101,000 people is way less than 100,000?

[SunCoaster]

Over 101,000 people is way less than 100,000?

:previous: I stand corrected ... my appologies to those 103,756 (Yukon - 31,032, NWT - 41,777, Nunavit - 30,947) Canadians who reside north of the 60th parallel as of January 1st, 2007 !! -
Source - http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070329/d070329b.htm

BTW ... The following URL gives a 'blow by blow' description of how Canada's electoral seats per province are calculated now and how they have been calculated historically ...
http://www.elections.ca/SCRIPTS/FEDREP/federal_e/red/representation_e.htm

[WaterlooInvestor]

If we were to have roughly 100,000 people per riding (excluding the Territories), based on 2005 stats it should be something like this:

Ontario: 125 (+19)
Quebec: 76 (+1)
BC: 43 (+7)
Alberta: 33 (+5)
Manitoba: 12 (-2)
Saskatchewan: 10 (-4)
Nova Scotia: 9 (-2)
New Brunswick: 8 (-2)
Newfoundland: 5 (-2)
PEI: 2 (-2)

Total: 323 (+15)

I agree. This should be the seat counts.

[barneyg]

are you guys serious or just playing games?:rolleyes:

you can't take away seats from a province.

It's actually been done as recently as 1966:

http://www.elections.ca/SCRIPTS/FEDREP/federal_e/red/representation_e.htm

[malek]

i stand corrected.

[Lyle]

It's actually been done as recently as 1966:

http://www.elections.ca/SCRIPTS/FEDREP/federal_e/red/representation_e.htm

Today, politically, it can't be done. Whichever province lost seats would punish the party in power when it lost them. That's why 1966 will be the last time province lost seats.

[rrskylar]

If you want a good example of disproportional representation you have to look no further than the useless appendage called the Canadian senate:


Province or Territory Number of Senators Population per Senator (2001 census)
Newfoundland and Labrador 6 85,488
Prince Edward Island 4 33,824
Nova Scotia 10 90,801
New Brunswick 10 72,950
Quebec 24 301,562
Ontario 24 475,419
Manitoba 6 186,597
Saskatchewan 6 163,156
Alberta 6 495,801
British Columbia 6 651,290
Nunavut 1 26,745
Northwest Territories 1 37,360
Yukon Territory 1 28,674

[malek]

lets just get rid of the senate.

[SteelTown]

You can definitely lose a seat. Look at Hamilton, it lost the Hamilton East riding forcing Sheila Copps to run in another riding against Tony Valeri. Now it looks like Hamilton will get back it's Hamilton East riding with this news.

But with Quebec under the Confederation Quebec made a deal that it can’t lose any seats.

[kirjtc2]

AKA the "Atlantic Canada isn't irrelevant enough" bill.

[caltrane74]

If you want a good example of disproportional representation you have to look no further than the useless appendage called the Canadian senate:


Province or Territory Number of Senators Population per Senator (2001 census)
Newfoundland and Labrador 6 85,488
Prince Edward Island 4 33,824
Nova Scotia 10 90,801
New Brunswick 10 72,950
Quebec 24 301,562
Ontario 24 475,419
Manitoba 6 186,597
Saskatchewan 6 163,156
Alberta 6 495,801
British Columbia 6 651,290
Nunavut 1 26,745
Northwest Territories 1 37,360
Yukon Territory 1 28,674


The richest provinces not only give up their cash, they give up their democratic representations.. (oops senate is not very democratic anyway)

oh well sucks to be rich!! haha.. :P

[someone123]

When's the last time anybody in this thread has attempted to contact their MP but has been unable to get their attention because of the size of their riding?

The actual ability of an MP to have things done for their constituents has very little to do with the size of their riding and quite a lot to do with their role in the current government. Historically, Quebec and Ontario have determined who has ended up in power and they have had the powerful MPs who have been able to dole out funding and shape federal policies.

[skyscraper_1]

It is not like the so richer provinces are suffering because of a there representation in the senate.

[Wooster]

Time to make it irrelevant where you live in the country as far as how well you're represented. Time for a mixed-member plurality, with proportional representation. That is the only really fair and democratic electoral system. Why should someone have zero chance of representation if they are a NDP supporter in rural Alberta, or if you are a conservative living in downtown Montreal? Everyone should have representation.

[malek]

^^ well said.

[adam-machiavelli]

In the US, shrinking states regularly lose seats during redistricting, which is why many states want to count illegal aliens as residents. I remember Mississippi sued the feds for losing 1 seat in the House of Representatives.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000-census-reapportionment.png

[skyscraper_1]

Time to make it irrelevant where you live in the country as far as how well you're represented. Time for a mixed-member plurality, with proportional representation. That is the only really fair and democratic electoral system. Why should someone have zero chance of representation if they are a NDP supporter in rural Alberta, or if you are a conservative living in downtown Montreal? Everyone should have representation.
Agreed, It would be also great to have an elected senate too with more power.

[IntotheWest]

Adjustments to come after 2011 census

The bill calls for the adjustments to take place after the next census in 2011, Van Loan said. The changes will likely be in place by mid-2014 and in use by the next scheduled election in 2017.

:previous: What a crock of crap!! Using a modest 3%/annum growth rate by the time 2017 rolls around Alberta will have another million, BC another 1.2million and Ontario likely over 3 million more people ... to me the damn feds should get this act thru parliment ASAP in time for the next election likely in 2008 or 2009 ... then make further adjustments after the 2011 census ....

Ontario: 125 (+19)
Quebec: 76 (+1)
BC: 43 (+7)
Alberta: 33 (+5)
Manitoba: 12 (-2)
Saskatchewan: 10 (-4)
Nova Scotia: 9 (-2)
New Brunswick: 8 (-2)
Newfoundland: 5 (-2)
PEI: 2 (-2)

Total: 323 (+15)

:previous: I also agree with the foregoing proportional representation ... as for the 3 territories they combined are still way less than 100,000 ... but, guess there they should each still merit one seat versus one seat total for the 3 territories combined ....

An adjustment will need to be made. I know that the numbers above were ballparking, but the provincial populations for the 4 largest provinces are:

BC
1996 3.724m
2001 3.908m 4.9%
2006 4.113m 5.3%
2011 4.331m @5.3%

AB
1996 2.697m
2001 2.908m 10.3%
2006 3.290m 10.6%
2011 3.639m @10.6%

on
1996 10.754m
2001 11.410m 6.1%
2006 12.160m 6.6%
2011 12.963m @6.6%

Qu
1996 7.139m
2001 7.237m 1.4%
2006 7.546m 4.3%
2011 7.870m @4.3%

The growth rates have been consistent for the last decade (except for Quebec, where its grown more in the latest census), but I don't think there's anything forecasting these will change much over the next 5 years...

Using the 100,000/riding, Ontario would have 130, Alberta 36, and BC 43.

[MonkeyRonin]

But with Quebec under the Confederation Quebec made a deal that it can’t lose any seats.

Why would Quebec lose seats, when it is growing pretty steadily? Aside from rearranging them to not favour rural areas so much (so is that not allowed?).

[someone123]

Preventing a province from losing seats doesn't really mean much when theoretically any number of additional seats could be granted to other provinces. What matters is the percentage of the legislature controlled by each region, and normally regions amount to areas with similar economic interests.

When Canada started out these were the approximate populations:

Ontario: 1,620,000
Quebec: 1,119,000
Atlantic: 912,000 (NS 387,000, NB 285,000, NF 146,000, PEI 94,000)
Remainder: ~120,000

In 1871, Quebec and Atlantic Canada made up the majority of Canada's population. Today they are only 1/3. (Another interesting fact is that 3 of Canada's 6 largest cities were in Atlantic Canada at the time of Confederation, and now none are).

PEI's relatively slow growth explains why it has so many seats. Originally it was about 1/17 the size of Ontario. If that ratio held today, PEI would have 650,000 people.

[SFUVancouver]

If you want a good example of disproportional representation you have to look no further than the useless appendage called the Canadian senate:


Province or Territory Number of Senators Population per Senator (2001 census)
Newfoundland and Labrador 6 85,488
Prince Edward Island 4 33,824
Nova Scotia 10 90,801
New Brunswick 10 72,950
Quebec 24 301,562
Ontario 24 475,419
Manitoba 6 186,597
Saskatchewan 6 163,156
Alberta 6 495,801
British Columbia 6 651,290
Nunavut 1 26,745
Northwest Territories 1 37,360
Yukon Territory 1 28,674

Damn, I knew BC was getting hosed but I never knew it was that bad. Alberta and Ontario too.

If anyone wonders where Western Alienation has its roots, look no further than the incredible discrepancies in the Senate. The next worst-off province after Alberta is Ontario and it still has 20,000 people fewer per senator. In BC it takes 19 times more people get get a senate representative as it does in PEI.

[Smevo]

I've been researching these discrepancies for a project I'm working on, and here's a couple wikipedia articles related to this discussion, it'll help explain some of the issues involved.

First, the senate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate#Senators

Seats are assigned on a regional basis, with each region receiving twenty-four seats. The regions are: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces, and the Western provinces. The seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned apart from these regional divisions.

As a result of this arrangement, Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta — Canada's fastest growing provinces in terms of population — are severely under-represented, while the Maritimes are greatly over-represented. For example, British Columbia, with a population of about four million, is entitled to six senators, while Nova Scotia, with a population of fewer than one million, is entitled to ten. Only Quebec has a share of Senators proportional to its share of the total population. It should be noted that most other upper-houses worldwide do not use population as a basis for membership.

And the House of Commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_House_of_Commons

Seats are distributed among the provinces in proportion to population, as determined by each decennial census, subject to the following exceptions made by the constitution. Firstly, the "senatorial clause" guarantees that each province will have at least as many Members of Parliament as Senators. Secondly, the "grandfather clause" guarantees each province has at least as many Members of Parliament now as it had in 1986. Finally, no province may lose more than fifteen per cent of its seats after a single decennial census.

The calculation is done by taking the minimum 282 seats and subtracting the three terrorites to equal 279 seats. The population of Canada is then divided by 279 to equal the electoral quotient. The population of the province is then divided by the electoral quotient to equal the provincial seat allocation.

Those are just some highlights, it's explained more in-depth in the articles, obviously.

Further to this, I second the sentiments of someone123's last post.

[kirjtc2]

Exactly. I don't hear too many complaints from the US that California has the same number of senators as Delaware.

[rrskylar]

^ what if Oregon had more senators than California?

[skyscraper_1]

^ as others have said, the amount of senators is based on regions, not provinces.

Either way the senate needs serious reform.

[chuber]

^ either way, BC, AB, SK, MB is a pretty damn big 'region'.

[skyscraper_1]

When the Canada was created the western region wasn't very populated.

[adam-machiavelli]

I've also always supported equality of regions.

I've always believed in this formula (and if the government won't get on board, I hope individual Canadians can show it support by passing it on to their fellow Canadians):

Eastern: 15 seats
NFLD: 4
NS: 4
NB: 4
PEI: 3
Quebec: 15 seats
Ontario: 15 seats
Centre + North: 15 seats
MB: 5
SK: 5
YT: 1
NWT: 1
NT: 1
West: 15 seats
AB: 7
BC: 8

TOTAL: 75 seats

[Boris2k7]

Bring in MMP for the House of Commons and scrap the senate. The "regions" are bullshit and don't work for most of Canada (not to mention how arbitrary they are), and we don't need more representation per province when premiers/provincial ministers can do that job themselves. Theoretically, MMP would always give us minority governments, there would be more small parties, and thus absolutely no need for a "house of sober second thought." (aka the rubberstampers) Not to mention it would help solve a lot of grievances between genders/language groups/ethnic groups/regions, etc.

[adam-machiavelli]

The whole point of a senate is that in federations you need to have equal power of the 2 orders of government (note how I don't say 2 levels of government). The federal and the collective sub-national governments are treated as 2 orders and thus the legislative branch of government is where they meet. The House of Commons is federal and Senate is sub-national. In any real federation, you need a senate to represent the interests of the sub-national governments.

[vid]

Why not an equal number of senators for each province? Or an oddball formula based on population?

0 to 99,999 - 1 senator
100,000 to 499,999 - 2 senators
500,000 to 999,999 - 3 senators
1,000,000 to 2,499,999 - 4 senators
3,000,000 and up - 5 senators plus one for every extra million
12,000,000 and up - a turtle, and a turtle only.

(I had to mention them. Sorry.)

[lubicon]

To me, the whole idea of the Senate is to balance off the House of Commons and it's representation by population. To that end, the Senate MUST consist of an equal number of senators for each and every province. PEI gets the same number as Ontario. You need a mechanism to give each province an equal say and prevent them from being 'ganged' up on by larger provinces.

[WaterlooInvestor]

mistake

[WaterlooInvestor]

mistake

[WaterlooInvestor]

Federal bill cheats Ontario out of Commons seats
IAN URQUHART
(May 30, 2007)

Given this province's past willingness to sacrifice in the interest of national unity, the federal Conservatives may have thought they could get away with blatantly discriminating against Ontario in the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons.

If so, it was a serious misreading of the new mood in the province.

Premier Dalton McGuinty has been joined by provincial Conservative Leader John Tory in condemning the redistribution bill, C-56, and major newspapers in the province have thundered against it editorially.

Peter Van Loan, federal minister for democratic reform (and an Ontario MP), acknowledged yesterday that the province's reaction had surprised the government. But he warned his Ontario critics that, if Bill C-56 is not passed, they will be stuck with the status quo, which is numerically even worse for the province.

"If they want to cut off their nose to spite their face, then that's what they'll do,'' said Van Loan in a telephone interview.

That's an interesting argument but it still leaves unanswered the question why only Ontario is being asked to sacrifice in Van Loan's bill.

Bill C-56 would give British Columbia seven more seats in the House of Commons and Alberta five more to bring their shares up to a level commensurate with their populations.

Ontario would get 10 more seats, but that is about half what the province's population justifies.

The government backgrounder on the bill suggests Ontario is being shortchanged because an increase strictly commensurate with its population would leave the Commons with too many seats overall and the smaller provinces with seriously diminished shares.

OK, but why is Ontario the only province being asked to put some water in its wine?

Why not spread the dilution around to B.C. and Alberta as well?

This appears to be a case of blatant partisanship, for Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives fare much better in B.C. and Alberta than in Ontario, particularly in urban areas, which is where the new seats would go.

For the provincial Liberals, this discriminatory move by the Harperites is manna from heaven, giving them a new excuse to run against Ottawa in the coming provincial election. (The old excuse -- fiscal imbalance -- was "fixed'' in the federal budget earlier this year.)

Accordingly, McGuinty was quick to pounce on Bill C-56 in media interviews and his intergovernmental affairs minister, Marie Bountrogianni, piled on this week, decrying the "unfair legislation.''

Not wanting the provincial Conservatives to be caught on the wrong side of the issue, Tory this week wrote an open letter to Harper calling on him to reconsider the measure.

But the Harperites appear not to be swayed.

Van Loan noted yesterday that Bill C-56 is being attacked from different directions by both Ontario and Quebec (which would get no additional seats). "I think that's an indication that we have struck a balance,'' he said. Of course, with a minority government in Ottawa, and the opposition parties could always gang up to defeat the bill.

Which raises the question of where the federal Liberals stand on Bill C-56.

More than half the Liberal MPs represent Ontario ridings, but they often seem oblivious to the province's concerns.

Stephen Owen, a B.C. MP and the Liberal critic on democratic reform, told me the party would caucus on Bill C-56 today and might decide to support it on second reading (approval in principle).

If the federal Liberals do that, it will take some of the steam out of Ontario's opposition to the bill.

[ungodlycrosscheck]

Alberta and BC combined have less seats than Quebec, yet more people. Some ridings in Southern Ontario represent almost 200,000 people, compared to seats in PEI which represent as little as 30,000.


No riding in Southern Ontario, or anywhere in Canada has even close to 200,000 constituents.

The top 5 largest ridings in the country by population are:
West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast, BC (Blair Wilson, MP) - 124,570
Peace River, Alberta (Chris Warkentin, MP) - 123,880
North Vancouver, BC (Don Bell, MP) - 120,840
Niagara Falls, ON (Hon. Rob Nicolson, P.C., MP) - 120,790
Misssissauga - Erindale (Omar Alghabra, MP) - 120,350

[vid]

Well it was a while since I looked that up. I know Northern Ontario, PEI and Quebec are all grossly overrepresented, and the opposite is true for Vancouver, the GTA and Calgary.

[Bassic Lab]

No riding in Southern Ontario, or anywhere in Canada has even close to 200,000 constituents.

The top 5 largest ridings in the country by population are:
West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast, BC (Blair Wilson, MP) - 124,570
Peace River, Alberta (Chris Warkentin, MP) - 123,880
North Vancouver, BC (Don Bell, MP) - 120,840
Niagara Falls, ON (Hon. Rob Nicolson, P.C., MP) - 120,790
Misssissauga - Erindale (Omar Alghabra, MP) - 120,350

Those are 2001 population numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if certain ridings were well over 150,000 people in 2006 numbers.

[ToxiK]

Well it was a while since I looked that up. I know Northern Ontario, PEI and Quebec are all grossly overrepresented, and the opposite is true for Vancouver, the GTA and Calgary.

Québec is grossly overrepresented?? Look at the numbers presented earlier in the thread:

Ontario: 125 (+19)
Quebec: 76 (+1)
BC: 43 (+7)
Alberta: 33 (+5)
Manitoba: 12 (-2)
Saskatchewan: 10 (-4)
Nova Scotia: 9 (-2)
New Brunswick: 8 (-2)
Newfoundland: 5 (-2)
PEI: 2 (-2)

Total: 323 (+15)


This is the number of MPs adjusted for one MP per 100 000 inhabitants. Quebec is the closest to that number. I agree that Ontario, Alberta and BC need more, i wouldnt say that Québec is grossly overrepresented.

[waterloowarrior]

top 5 ridings

Brampton West (Ont.) 170,422
Oak Ridges - Markham (Ont.) 169,642
Vaughan (Ont.) 154,206
Bramalea - Gore - Malton (Ont.) 152,698
Halton (Ont.) 151,943

more numbers here

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=501&PR=0&SR=1&S=3&O=D


There are 33 ridings with over 124,570 people (the previous high)

BC - 2
Alberta - 8
Ontario - 23

[vid]

^See? I was right the first time. :)

[The Great Scaper]

Victoria, or the CRD. (Victoria and Municipalites) population around 365,000 people, yet we only have 3 MPs. Absolutely brutal!

Victoria needs at least one more seat, but really 2 more.

[vid]

If you get two more you'll be more represented than Thunder Bay, and we're over represented. (on MP for every 75,000 people)

[skyscraper_1]

Lets rank them(population per MP)

Prince Edward Island 33 824
Saskatchewan 69 924
New Brunswick 72 950
Newfoundland 73 276
Manitoba 79 970
Nova Scotia 82 546
Quebec 96 500
Alberta 106 243
Ontario 107 642
British Columbia 108 548

[ungodlycrosscheck]

Those are 2001 population numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if certain ridings were well over 150,000 people in 2006 numbers.

I would be surprised even given the level of growth in cities like Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver, in fact this would be to my knowledge unprecedented.

Take Calgary, which currently has 11 ridings in its CMA-- 9 exclusively urban, and two urban-rural. Let's for simplicity sake and to take the rural factor into account which can be distorting, split the difference and say Calgary has 10 ridings. Okay, in 2001 the CMA population for Calgary according to Stats Can was 951,000; in 2006 the CMA population had grown to 1,079,000 or about 13.5% growth over 5 years. That's an average of 107,000 constituents per riding in 2006Even if the CMA grew at 20% in one year--which it certainly hasn't--then the average riding would have 125000 constituents. I know there are certain limitations of this model but for illustrative purposes it's a good example.

As a matter of process, let me add that riding boundaries are adjusted between elections by the Chief Electoral Officer and receive royal assent through Parliament to ensure that ridings don't get that large. The Commissioner also takes local growth rates into account to ensure that riding populations don't get don't get to the numbers you've described.

[ungodlycrosscheck]

Lets rank them(population per MP)

No love for the territories?
Yukon 30,372
NWT 41,964
Nunavut 29,474

[Bassic Lab]

I would be surprised even given the level of growth in cities like Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver, in fact this would be to my knowledge unprecedented.

Take Calgary, which currently has 11 ridings in its CMA-- 9 exclusively urban, and two urban-rural. Let's for simplicity sake and to take the rural factor into account which can be distorting, split the difference and say Calgary has 10 ridings. Okay, in 2001 the CMA population for Calgary according to Stats Can was 951,000; in 2006 the CMA population had grown to 1,079,000 or about 13.5% growth over 5 years. That's an average of 107,000 constituents per riding in 2006Even if the CMA grew at 20% in one year--which it certainly hasn't--then the average riding would have 125000 constituents. I know there are certain limitations of this model but for illustrative purposes it's a good example.

As a matter of process, let me add that riding boundaries are adjusted between elections by the Chief Electoral Officer and receive royal assent through Parliament to ensure that ridings don't get that large. The Commissioner also takes local growth rates into account to ensure that riding populations don't get don't get to the numbers you've described.

Incidentally, recently the government House Leader, introduced Bill C-56 to make radical changes to seat representation in the House of Commons. Under the bill Ontario will receive ten additional seats, BC 7 and Alberta 5.

Under existing legislation if Bill C-56 is not passed Ontario will only receive 4 more seats, BC 3 and Alberta 2 additional seats. Bill C-56 will move representation closer to rep-by-pop than the existing formula.

Well, be surprised, as waterloowarrior's link shows, statscan's 2006 figures show five ridings with over 150,000 people in them. All within Toronto's suburbs.

Calgary's CMA is indeed covered by eleven ridings, but only eight are urban and the three rural ridings contain huge areas that are not within the CMA. Infact those three ridings (Wildrose, Macleod, and Crowfoot) cover an area from BC to Saskatchewan, and from north of Red Deer to within miles of the US border. Macleod in particular contains no signifigant population centres that are within the Calgary CMA as it primarily covers areas south of Calgary, Okotoks and down to Fort Macleod and whatnot.

Now Calgary has eight ridings within the city, the city has well over a million people at this point, although 2006 census numbers show it to be just under. In any case only five of the ridings with in Calgary showed any signifigant levels of growth (Calgary East lost 5000 people, Calgary North-Centre lost about 2500, and Calgary Centre gained about 6700, a complete wash between those three). Calgary Nosehill showed the most growth with nearly 31,000, followed by Calgary West with 29,000. The other three grew by between 13,000 and 20,000.

The redistricting commisions tend to take growth into account but really are not supposed to, the ridings are supposed to cover rerlatively similiar numbers of people at the time of the census it is based on (notwithstanding differences between provinces and between urban and rural areas). Now they tend to place ridings like Calgary Centre (which was the largest Calgary riding in 2001 numbers at 117,439, just ahead of Centre-North and East) near the top of the allowable margin since growth rates are slower than the suburbs but it really isn't supposed to take such things under consideration, as the members are not prophets.

Yeah, C-56 is pretty well the entire point of this thread, so we know about it.

[skyscraper_1]

No love for the territories?

Nope! :D

[vid]

"riding boundaries are adjusted between elections by the Chief Electoral Officer"

Nope. Electoral district boundaries are adjusted to reflect population changes after each decennial census. That means every 10 years.

Any adjustment of electoral district boundaries is official as of the date the changes are legislated, but is not put into actual effect until the first subsequent election.

The next change is in 2012, so Brampton's riding could get as high having 200,000 people in one riding.

[DLLB]

Agreed, It would be also great to have an elected senate too with more power.

I agree. Either do it or get rid of it.

[DLLB]

But with Quebec under the Confederation Quebec made a deal that it can’t lose any seats.


It never ceases to amaze me how much Quebec is favoured in this country but it is never enough or good enough for them. Could you just imagine the howls from them if any other province had the same deal?

[DLLB]

^ either way, BC, AB, SK, MB is a pretty damn big 'region'.

And growing substantially (BC and AB that is).

[barneyg]

It never ceases to amaze me how much Quebec is favoured in this country but it is never enough or good enough for them. Could you just imagine the howls from them if any other province had the same deal?

Define "them". Is this some kind of blob that somehow glued together 7 1/2 million people?

[malek]

It never ceases to amaze me how much Quebec is favoured in this country but it is never enough or good enough for them. Could you just imagine the howls from them if any other province had the same deal?

in this world, you get only what you negotiate.

[ungodlycrosscheck]

It never ceases to amaze me how much Quebec is favoured in this country but it is never enough or good enough for them. Could you just imagine the howls from them if any other province had the same deal?


They do have the same deal, no province can lose seats under the current formula.