Overstuffed and unnecessary: It’s time to downsize the House of Commons

But doesn’t a larger number of MPs provide a needed check on the near-total power of the prime minister? Well, if that held true, the prime minister and his staff would have less power today than in earlier eras, which clearly is not the case. The opposite happened. Paradoxically, instead of a heavier counterbalance to the executive branch, the ever-growing brood of MPs may have created the greater need for centralized control from and delegation to the Prime Minister’s Office. The swollen number of ridings is also an unmentioned burden to the parties who struggle desperately to field candidates, even for winnable ridings. I’m not talking about recruiting rock stars. I mean, finding anyone who’s game and can pass a background check. Recruiting, vetting, nominating, onboarding, and standing up candidates has become so difficult for parties, despite having months and sometimes years of prep time before elections, that they madly scramble after the writ is dropped to rustle up and appoint scores of them—who are then instantly abandoned by campaign headquarters. We need a smaller pond with bigger fish In the big scheme of things, the cost savings from downsizing are trifling on the massive federal budget, but the argument isn’t financial. It’s political and operational. A smaller House of Commons may actually enhance democratic accountability if MPs receive meaningful resources to better research policy and scrutinize bills. Former Conservative cabinet minister Kellie Leitch made this point in 2019: “A smaller number of effective MPs will be better for Canadian democracy than more backbenchers collecting a pension while reiterating talking points.” Fewer ridings means larger, more internally diverse ones. The electoral map, therefore, changes, with fewer politically homogeneous ridings that lack democratic competition—the ultra-safe seats that are shoo-ins for one party, whose election night results are foregone conclusions, and which tend to elect the doctrinaire careerists who are fully aware of their own locked-in job security. More battleground ridings will force national campaigns to be more politically responsive to and interested in a greater number of regions, thereby boosting electoral competition in many parts of the country that are now cinches for just one party. In that way, our democracy will be enhanced. Why don’t the Liberals care about Alberta? Why don’t the Conservatives care about Toronto? Because it’s pointless. We need to change that. What’s the right size? The right size of a smaller House is debatable. Reducing it to roughly 300 would return it to the size between 1988 and 2000, hardly a retrograde period of democracy. But this should only be done if it creates a fair allocation nationwide. The formula for allocating MPs to each province is anachronistic and creates a deformed spread of MPs across the country, the net result being unfairness to millions, with some having less voting power than others. Contrary to popular belief, Quebec’s share of MPs is in rough balance with its population share. B.C., Alberta, and Ontario have too few, and the others have too many. Think what you will of Alberta’s grievances about Confederation. The one about under-representation in Ottawa is legitimate but fixable with enough political resolve. Here’s the hard part. Only a constitutional amendment can modernize the allocation formula to ensure a fair allotment of MPs to the provinces. B.C., Alberta, and Ontario would presumably be supportive, with Quebec perhaps being neutral at best. The rest may scream blue murder. It’ll get raucous as important debates appropriately do. Premiers will haul out their bottomless demands. Leadership, compromise, discipline, and some backroom deals will be needed. Clear, hard boundaries as well. Negotiating the allocation of seats shouldn’t mean reopening other issues like Senate reform. The attempt may fail, but it’s well worth the try. Above all, maybe Canadians, tired of how things are run by MPs and dissatisfied with the results, actually want fewer of them. Ultimately, it’s their money, their country, and their call. To its detriment, Canada has too many MPs. The size of the House of Commons is not chiselled on a stone tablet. We can reduce it—and we should.