Democratic Representation Act is Dead

[FiveParadox]

Today, word surfaced that the federal parties have agreed not to pass Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (democratic representation). The bill, also known as the Democratic Representation Act, would have added 30 seats to the House of Commons--these seats would have been distributed between Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta. The constitutional amendment was moved by The Honourable Steven Fletcher P.C., M.P. (Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia), the Minister of State (Democratic Reform).

It has been leaked by strategists for Her Majesty's Government for Canada, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and the New Democratic Party of Canada, have agreed not to pass the Democratic Representation Act due to concerns expressed by Québec caucus members--namely, that the new law would have reduced the province's proportion of representation in the House of Commons (which it would have, closer to its percentage of the population). The Bloc Québécois has also opposed the Democratic Representation Act since its introduction.

The change would have taken place once the next census had concluded (scheduled for 2011). Seats are recalculated every ten years, but the existing formula attempts to prevent the House of Commons from growing too quickly; the Democratic Representation Act would have adjusted this formula, so that faster-growing provinces would be better represented. Here are the number of seats that each province would have, after the 2011 census, with this constitutional amendment, and without this constitutional amendment.

• Ontario: 124 with the amendment, 110 without the amendment (+14)
• Québec: 75 with the amendment, 75 without the amendment (no change)
• Nova Scotia: 11 with the amendment, 11 without the amendment (no change)
• New Brunswick: 10 with the amendment, 10 without the amendment (no change)
• Manitoba: 14 with the amendment, 14 without the amendment (no change)
• British Columbia: 43 with the amendment, 38 without the amendment (+5)
• Prince Edward Island: 4 with the amendment, 4 without the amendment (no change)
• Saskatchewan: 14 with the amendment, 14 without the amendment (no change)
• Alberta: 33 with the amendment, 29 without the amendment (+4)
• Newfoundland and Labrador: 7 with the amendment, 7 without the amendment (no change)
• Each of the territories' single members of the House of Commons are unaffected

Source

• The Globe and Mail: homepage / Federal parties agree to scrap bill to correct voting inequalities

 

[eh1eh]

It may very well have so merit to it but anything that adds money pit politicians can't be good.

 

[Colpy]

A political game.

Of course the Act should have passed. There is nothing on earth that would be better for the Canadian nation than the lessening of the influence of the province of Quebec. That particular tail has been wagging the dog for far far too long......and it has changed the nature of the nation, and not for the better.

But the Conservatives realized that the Liberals have traditionally been so far up Quebec's arse that the are known in some circles in la belle province as the "Toenail Party",,,,,,,,,,,the NDP have been suffering of late from delusions of popularity in the province, and so have discovered the joys of le bum de francois...................and the Bloc, well, need I say more.

So, all the CPC would have gained by pushing the bill was another brush war in Parliament that, as a minority gov't with all three opposition parties arrayed against them, they had absolutely NO chance of winning.

Yet another excellent reason to give the CPC a majority next time out.

 

[Trotz]

You people think its news that neither Ottawa nor Quebec give a damn about the Western Provinces?

Harper being elected was supposed to alleviate our greviances but he has shown to be no different than Liberal Prime Ministers. Regionalism in form of non-cooperation is the only answer to unlawful centralization in Ottawa.

 

[Praxius]

I don't give two craps about what Quebec thinks, but BC, Alberta and Ontario don't need more representation then they already have in the country.... while most other provinces are between 4-14 seats of representation, BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec are between 29-110 as it currently stands, which basically means they make the decisions and the rest of us follow....... but because some people don't like Quebec or it's level of influence to keep BC, Alberta and Ontario in check...... suddenly it makes a good idea to give the big three more power, rather then possibly giving the smaller provinces a bigger voice.

I'm glad it was canned..... it wouldn't benefit me or the rest of the country and would only benefit BC, Ontario and Alberta who are already doing well enough as it is.

Give more power to the Conservative and Liberal main provinces?

Yeah, that sounds like a great plan.... cuz both have done so well so far when given more power over everyone else.

 

[TenPenny]

Quebec cares only, solely and completely, for Quebec.

Personally, I think it's about time to stop caring about Quebec every time someone proposes anything.

 

[Colpy]

You people think its news that neither Ottawa nor Quebec give a damn about the Western Provinces?

Harper being elected was supposed to alleviate our greviances but he has shown to be no different than Liberal Prime Ministers. Regionalism in form of non-cooperation is the only answer to unlawful centralization in Ottawa.

Baloney.

Centralization is far from unlawful. Read the BNA Act, and you will soon discover that power is intended to be in the hands of the federal government, as demonstrated by the fact that they can disallow ANY provincial legislation, and that all residual popwers are awarded to the feds.

Your grievances over rule from the centre may be valid........but do you are best advised to deal with reality.....the Feds are the power in this nation according to the constitution.

 

[s_lone]

I think there was some sense in trying to balance the democratic weight of provinces according to population. But in the end, I think the real problem was being shoved aside. Our democracy is anemic and needs a big boost of vitamins.

I think our political system is long overdue and needs some major update. More seats won't solve the problem. We drastically need an improved system where there is at least some form of proportional representation. People need to feel that their vote is important and with the current system, too many people feel compelled to vote for a party for the single reason that they don't want the other party to win.

Canada is a complex country. It's huge and very diverse sociologically and geographically. It follows that our political system needs to mirror this complexity. Currently, it doesn't.

 

[Colpy]

I don't give two craps about what Quebec thinks, but BC, Alberta and Ontario don't need more representation then they already have in the country.... while most other provinces are between 4-14 seats of representation, BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec are between 29-110 as it currently stands, which basically means they make the decisions and the rest of us follow....... but because some people don't like Quebec or it's level of influence to keep BC, Alberta and Ontario in check...... suddenly it makes a good idea to give the big three more power, rather then possibly giving the smaller provinces a bigger voice.

I'm glad it was canned..... it wouldn't benefit me or the rest of the country and would only benefit BC, Ontario and Alberta who are already doing well enough as it is.

Give more power to the Conservative and Liberal main provinces?

Yeah, that sounds like a great plan.... cuz both have done so well so far when given more power over everyone else.

Ahhh....you have heard of democracy and the principle of representation by population, have you not?

The whole point is that Quebec is over represented......(slightly) while Ontario, BC, and Alberta are becoming quite seriously under represented according to their population. This needs to be addressed, and if fixed, will be very good for the nation.

Now all we need to do is give the CPC a majority so it can be pushed through.

 

[Praxius]

Ahhh....you have heard of democracy and the principle of representation by population, have you not?

The whole point is that Quebec is over represented......(slightly) while Ontario, BC, and Alberta are becoming quite seriously under represented according to their population. This needs to be addressed, and if fixed, will be very good for the nation.

Now all we need to do is give the CPC a majority so it can be pushed through.

Well speaking as a small town folk fella from the Maritimes, I can't say I give a crap about poor Alberta, BC or Ontario losing a little bit of representation since most of the decisions that affect the country are dictated by those same provinces, including Quebec, while the rest of us just dangle in the breeze to whichever direction those provinces wish to blow.

There never was a point in most provinces voting in federal elections to begin with considering the final decision on what parties lead what are generally determined by Ontario & Quebec for the most part..... once they clear Ontario's count, it's pretty well a foregone conclusion as to who's going to win.

Giving BC, Alberta and Ontario more representation won't make a lick of difference for anybody else in the country, so in my view, I couldn't care less if this passed or failed..... but on the principle of increasing those province's representation while the other provinces that hardly have any representation remain the same, thus by overall %, get less representation due to this plan, I'm against the idea.

If the only excuse for this is to shove a stick in Quebec's eye..... they're going to have to come up with a better excuse...... and I have yet to see anything that would justify me in voting Conservative next election in order to lead to a Majority.

The big question for both approving this plan and giving the Conservatives a Majority is, What's in it for the rest of us?

The answer to both situations is: Nothing.

 

[FiveParadox]

On the Question of Centralisation

Someone above had suggested that the centralisation of power, in Canada, is somehow "unlawful," and this is entirely untrue. The Constitution Act, 1867 very clearly intended that the greatest powers be exercised by the federal level of government, with the provinces intended to be subordinate. There are several constitutional principles that illustrate this point.

Distribution of Powers. Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, lists the matters that were considered the most important, at the time, as being within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal Parliament. The powers given to the provinces, under s. 92, were intentionally narrow and restrictive; and s. 91.29 gave, to the federal level, all of the areas of jurisdiction that were not expressly enumerated. Given this obvious intention, it makes sense to continue to interpret this division of powers in such a way as would preserve this principle.

Federal Paramountcy. The judicial principle of federal paramountcy has found that valid provincial laws that conflict with valid federal laws are inoperable, to the extent of the conflict. The Supreme Court of Canada rearticulated this principle in Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen by the court of The Right Honourable Patrick Kerwin P.C., the 10th Chief Justice of Canada, and it was reinforced again in the case of the Law Society of British Columbia v. Jaswant Singh Mangat, Westcoast Immigration Consultants Ltd., and Jill Sparling, as decided by the court of our present head of the judiciary, The Right Honourable Madam Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin P.C., the Chief Justice of Canada.

Structure of the Federation. The very structure of our federal framework suggests that the federal level is superior to the provincial. Consider the fact that the Lieutenant Governors are appointed by the Governor General of Canada on the advice of federal ministers; consider further that Lieutenant Governors can reserve bills for the Governor General's decision; consider even further that the Governor General-in-Council can disallow provincial bills within two years of passage.

 

[wulfie68]

Well speaking as a small town folk fella from the Maritimes, I can't say I give a crap about poor Alberta, BC or Ontario losing a little bit of representation since most of the decisions that affect the country are dictated by those same provinces, including Quebec, while the rest of us just dangle in the breeze to whichever direction those provinces wish to blow.

Actually, the decisions are dictated by Ontario and Quebec, which is why the Reform Party came into being: people in the West were tired of the decisions in Ottawa being made with little to no regard for how it affected the "hinterlands". BC and Alberta made a lot of noise on some issues but were really powerless in most cases.

There never was a point in most provinces voting in federal elections to begin with considering the final decision on what parties lead what are generally determined by Ontario & Quebec for the most part..... once they clear Ontario's count, it's pretty well a foregone conclusion as to who's going to win.

I agree and its more demoralizing when you turn on a TV set in Western Canada on Federal Election and realize that your vote meant nothing because Quebec and Ontario have already decided it for us all.

Giving BC, Alberta and Ontario more representation won't make a lick of difference for anybody else in the country, so in my view, I couldn't care less if this passed or failed..... but on the principle of increasing those province's representation while the other provinces that hardly have any representation remain the same, thus by overall %, get less representation due to this plan, I'm against the idea.

Representation by Population was a founding principle of the federation, as espoused by Sir John A. MacDonald. While you might see a slight proportional decrease in your regions power, the fact that more seats are being created outside of the 2 behemoths, may mean that regional concerns have a greater chance of being addressed because the entire dynamic changes, meaning that the "small regions" banding together have more clout when taking on issues where the stances of Ontario and Quebec differ sharply from the rest of the country.

I guess it all depends on how you view the federation as a whole. On many issues, I see Ontario and Quebec as differing sharply from the rest (Quebec most of all). Having the balance of power shift (albeit slightly) from those two provinces, is not something I see as a bad thing in the least.

 

[petros]

We need less government, not more.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I can't see anything wrong with the goal of the Democratic Representation Act. If a supposed democracy is going to be even remotely democratic one of the basic principles is that regions of the nation with more people have more Members of Parliament. There really is nothing new about this. The populations of Ontario, Alberta, and BC, have been growing faster than the rest of the country for decades and the seats in Parliament have been continually adjusted to reflect this. Those regions of the country with populations that are growing more slowly may not like this, but that is not the issue.

I do have one question though. The original post uses the term "constitutional amendment." So far as I can determine from the article the bill is not an amendment to the Canada Act, just a bill under that act.

 

[FiveParadox]

The bill makes adjustments to s. 51(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867; therefore, it is a constitutional amendment. However, since it is only an amendment to the workings of the House of Commons (and does not materially disturb the principle of proportional seat distribution), it can be made without the engagement of the provinces (that is, with the simple adoption of the bill by the Senate, and Commons).

 

[Bar Sinister]

The bill makes adjustments to s. 51(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867; therefore, it is a constitutional amendment. However, since it is only an amendment to the workings of the House of Commons (and does not materially disturb the principle of proportional seat distribution), it can be made without the engagement of the provinces (that is, with the simple adoption of the bill by the Senate, and Commons).

Interesting. I thought that an amendment to the Canada Act required that a bill be passed by Parliament and then approved by 7 out of the 10 provinces, provided those provinces have a population exceeding 50% of all Canadians. Somehow I don't think that a change in the number of MPs from each region of Canada counts as a true amendment, especially as the original article makes no reference to the change as an amendment.

 

[FiveParadox]

I'm a bit confused as to your logic, Bar Sinister.

Bill C-12 is called An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867--how that could be considered anything but a constitutional amendment is a bit beyond me. As per the Constitution Act, 1982, there are three primary ways to amend the constitution--one, the "general amending formula" for most issues, is done with both Houses of Parliament, and seven out of ten provincial legislatures. For amendments to some key offices (for example, the Queen or the Governor General), the consent of the Houses and all ten legislatures is required. The third category is for changes that affect only Parliament, and these may be made with the consent of Parliament alone.

 

[Colpy]

In the Globe & Mail, John Ibbitson states the government has come to an agreement with opposition parties to kill C-12, the Democratic Representation Act.

This story is completely false.

Today the Prime Minister confirmed that our Government will continue to move forward with our representation by population bill.

We believe, to the greatest extent possible, each Canadian's vote should carry equal weight.

It is only fair that as some provinces increase in population, so too should their representation in the House of Commons. Ensuring citizens are adequately represented is fundamental to democracy.

Our government is taking a principled approach that strikes a balance between restoring fairer representation for faster growing provinces, while protecting the seat counts of remaining provinces.

We urge the Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc Québécois Coalition to support this important legislation.

InfoAlerteBotWatch: Reports of the death of C-12 greatly exaggerated? - Inside Politics

Good Luck with that!

Although we hope so too............

 

[FiveParadox]

The opposition parties couldn't support this legislation if they wanted to. The Democratic Representation Act was proposed on April 1, 2010, and so far, Her Majesty's Government for Canada has failed to call the bill for second reading. Since the Government controls the order of Government business, there's nothing the opposition parties can do. It's all well and good for the Government to now say (in the face of public outrage at the prospect of the bill's death) that they "call upon" the opposition parties to support this bill, but the fact is that it's the Conservative Party of Canada alone that controls the timing.

 

[YukonJack]

What democratic representation??

Since every MP must vote toeing the Party Line, nobody is "represented" except the Leader of the Party.

And so, why isn't an MP "represent" at least half a million people? The House of Commons could be far more reasonable and less expensive if it were so. Manners would be more civil. There would be less desk stomping, shouting "hear, hear" and other barbaric custom embraced now. Have these MP's ever had a mother to teach them manners?

Anybody here on this forum can be proud of his/her "representative" Member of Parliament?