Fresh Old Ideas
By Arnold Malone
When it comes to communicating within a gathering and there is a stated purpose, the correct number of persons is important. If you have friends who have been on an adventure and you are curious about the details of their experience you already know not to invite eight other couples. That many participants would result in a scatter of chatter.
Some communication requires just a personal number of people while regional or national matters require a broad participation. In all cases the size of the group should to be adjusted to meet the objectives.
It is from the above contentions that I wish to discuss the size of Canada’s House of Commons.
Currently, Canada tends to follow the British example for determining how many members of parliament there will be.
In both countries we assign a population number that is to have a representative. As the population grows, the number of representatives increases. At first blush this seems like a reasonable and workable approach. However, such a system can grow out of effective participation.
As a high school student with an interest in federal politics I knew the names of many private members of parliament. At that time there were only 264 members of parliament.
The big problem with adding more and more members as the population grows is that there is no possibility to add more hours to a day or days to a week. The result is that with too many members it becomes difficult for the private members to develop a profile of active public engagement.
Private members are an important part of the parliamentary responsibility. When the number of MPs grows too large the result is that parliament is diminished and the power of the cabinet becomes exaggerated.
The beauty of the parliamentary system is that the House of Commons – the representatives of the common people – is a force for holding the government to account.
In England there are now 650 members of parliament. So, if a member asks a penetrating question of a government minister on one day it may be weeks, months or never before a follow-up or another question can be considered. What this means is that when there are too many MPs it becomes government by cabinet and the private members – ones who represent your local issues – become diluted.
In the British situation, if a budget speech is about to be delivered or a foreign leader is going to address Parliament there is no longer enough room in the chamber for all of the MPs to sit. Further, the chamber has become so crowded that members no longer have desks; just benches. Without desks a member is reduced to memory regarding all comment. That diminishes effective debate.
In Canada, exceptions regarding how big a population needs to be for an area to have a Member of Parliament already exists. Prince Edward Island has four MPs but they have about the same population as Lethbridge. That was Prince Edward Island’s condition to join confederation. Likewise, the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Iqaluit each have one MP with much smaller than the stated formula for population size. These are special considerations and they are respected and they work.
In my opinion a functional size for Parliament should be 200 members. These fewer members would then have additional staff to serve population increases. This would mean a lower cost than increasing the number of MPs. Most importantly, this would be a size of representation that those MPs could develop a national profile, and important local concerns could have a greater chance of being brought to attention.
