But he got more than me!

This seat dispute between McGuinty and Van Loan reminds me of a parent trying to be fair to all the kids, and yet inevitably someone's nose ends up being out of joint. Maybe Johnny has a part-time job and brother Sammy doesn't, so you end up giving Sam an extra buck or two for a treat, and then Johnny screams blue murder. It's a no-win situation.

Anyway, Christina Blizzard has interviewed political scientist Dr. David Docherty and relates his observations (More seats, less democracy) . Please read the whole article. It's quite enlightening.


Here's what I didn't know - There is very little rep by pop in this country:

"There have only been three provinces whose seats are determined by population: Alberta, B.C. and Ontario," Docherty said in an interview this week.

Quebec gets 75 seats no matter what -- despite declining population in that province. So if you divide their population by 75 seats, you get a higher voters-to-MP ratio than you get here in Ontario. And it's that formula that critics -- particularly McGuinty -- are applying to the new formula. Or they take the overall population of the country -- 33,800,700 -- and divide it by the number of seats in the House of Commons. Except that doesn't work either.

New Brunswick and tiny P.E.I. are protected by what is called the "senatorial floor." A province can't have fewer MPs than it has senators. This means that despite their minuscule populations, P.E.I. and New Brunswick get four and 10 seats respectively.

According to Doherty, other provinces have their seat numbers protected by the 'federal Representation Act.'

"Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia probably shouldn't have the seats they do, but the act protects them from losing seats..."

Under the proposed changes, the number of federal ridings would increase from 308 to 330. Of those 22 new ridings, 10 would be in Ontario, seven in B.C., and Alberta would get five.

New provisions to the act guarantee that provinces with smaller populations than Quebec -- the largest province that has a seat guarantee -- are entitled to equivalent representation. So Alberta and B. C. get more seats to reduce their MP-to-voter ratios until their constituencies are roughly the same size -- but conveniently slightly larger -- than Quebec's.

Blizzard calls it "the quintessential Canuckistan dog's breakfast of a compromise". If Ontario's seats are increased, then Quebec will be throwing the tantrum.

What a mess. McGuinty's letter to all Ontario MP's calling for "Representation by population, 'one person, one vote,' equality under the law and effective representation", seems rather unachievable.


Blizzard has advanced her own proposal:

Dump the Senate, so you don't have to worry about how many seats provinces have. While we're at it, ditch P.E.I. as well. What's it doing with four MPs? It has a smaller population than some GTA ridings. Roll it into New Brunswick or Nova Scotia.

Then let's start from ground zero. No deals. No seat guarantees. Just rep by pop -- all across the country.

Sounds good in theory, Christina, but I doubt that the kids would ever stop whining no matter how hard you tried to resolve the situation.

* * * *

Update: Jason Cherniak - Wake up Ontario. (For a Liberal POV)

Kerplonka!: Aha.

Liberal Senate could be Harper's Best Ally

The inimitable Chantal Hébert warns Liberals Senators that they may be walking right into a Tory trap; with their sabre-rattling about opposing the budget ("Beware, Liberal Senators").

So far, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, as the aggrieved provinces in the equalization dispute, have had the centre stage to themselves.

That could change in a rearguard Senate battle against the budget.

Seven provinces – accounting for more than 90 per cent of the population – are relatively satisfied with the new way the federal government proposes to redistribute its revenues among them.

Some have already factored the changes into their plans.

Moreover, she suggests that Dion may have less control over his non-elected counterparts than he cares to admit, and that he is obviously worried about the potential fall-out:

By virtue of the government's minority status, Harper's budget has already had to secure sufficient opposition support to have it adopted in the House. So, it's at the will of the Commons rather than just at a soft Conservative target that Liberals senators are currently rattling their wooden sabres. They court a boomerang effect.

With his differences with his senators already public, a blockade in the Upper House could do more damage to Dion's credibility than to the battered budget itself.

So we have a Liberal-dominated Senate angry with Harper for attempting to democratize and control their very existence vs. a Liberal opposition leader who is worried about his own political future.

We also have MSM pundits who are very anxious to start their summer vacations, and would be in a foul mood to have to scuttle those plans because of a snap election.


So, what do I think about it?

Go, Senators, go!!!

* * * *

Update: Alberta Ardvark links to an article where McGuinty backs the Federal budget.

This is actually quite interesting when you think about it. Those Ontario Federal MP's who voted against the budget (i.e. everyone of them except the now Independent Joe Comuzzi) actually voted against Ontario's best interests!


That is certainly good fodder for the next election - It works both ways, Rodney.

Update #2: Chuckle of the Day QP - John Baird got up to ask the Liberals to lobby the Senate to pass the budget, on behalf of his Premier!