Spreadsheets
- A
- B
- C
Description
The fifth “279” Representation Formula only contained two rules. First, the number of provincial MPs in 1985, 279, became the permanent electoral divisor to calculate the single federal electoral quotient each decade based on the total population of the provinces in a manner similar to the Fixed and Flexible Floor Formulas. This electoral divisor remained set in stone, even as the number of provincial MPs increased from 279 in 1985 to 292 under the Representation Order, 1987, to 298 under the Representation Order, 1996, and, finally, to 305 under the Representation Order, 2003. Fractional remainders rounded normally, with 0.5 and greater going up to the next larger integer, as under the Confederation Formula. But this basic method would have caused provinces to lose MPs even at the outset under the census of 1981. Quebec would have lost one, falling from 75 to 74 under pure representation by population; furthermore, Nova Scotia would have also lost one MP, while Manitoba would have lost two, and Saskatchewan would have stood poised to lose fully three MPs at once, just as it had in the 1950s. Second, Parliament therefore conserved the Grandfather Clause from the Amalgam Formula as rule 2 and declared that provinces could never lose MPs.
The 279 Formula never mentioned the Senatorial Clause, but section 51A continued nevertheless to necessitate malapportionment on the pain of a unanimous constitutional amendment. The Grandfather Clause mounted more malapportionment and skewed representation by population yet further each decade, with seven extra MPs in the 1980s, thirteen in the 1990s, and eighteen in the 2000s, all because Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia kept growing in leaps and bounds compared to rest of the provinces. This malapportionment continued apace because the modest increases in the total number of MPs – all awarded to Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia – could never fully counteract the entrenched malapportionment shielding the other seven provinces, nor the static electoral divisor that did not take into account that the House of Commons had expanded each decade.
Rule 1
Rule 1 takes up columns B, C, D, and E in the worksheet. In column B, I entered the population of the provinces under the decennial census and the fixed electoral divisor of 279 in C14, the row for “provinces combined.” The electoral quotient then equals the population of the provinces combined by the electoral divisor: =B$14/C$14
The raw number of MPs equals the population of the province divided by the electoral quotient in column D:
=B4/C4
Column E then applies normal rounding to the raw number of MPs, rounding up x.5 and above and rounding down anything below:
=ROUND((D4),0)
The Senatorial Clause
The 279 Formula did not directly incorporate the Senatorial Clause. I placed it in between Rules 1 and 2 because some provinces obtained additional MPs under the Grandfather Clause over and above what they get under the Senatorial Clause. Even though a province would ultimately get the same number of MPs under the Grandfather Clause as it under the Senatorial plus the Grandfather Clauses, I have chosen to separate them into two simply because Parliament alone could repeal the Grandfather Clause but not the Senatorial Clause. And for the purposes of measuring disproportionality, I like seeing which extra MPs came from the Senatorial Clause versus those which fall purely under the Grandfather Clause.
Columns F, G, and H show the Senatorial Clause. In column F, I entered the number of senators per province under section 22 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Column G then uses an if-then function to derive the number of extra MPs that a province must hold under section 51A:
=IF((F4>E4),(F4-E4),0)
Finally, column H shows the sub-total number of MPs under Rule 1 and the Senatorial Clause:
=E4+G4
Rule 2: The Grandfather Clause
The Grandfather Clause similarly takes up columns I, J, and K. In Column I, I entered the number of MPs held by each province in 1986, when the Constitution Act, 1985 (Representation) entered into force. Column J uses an if-then function to find the number of extra MPs that a province must hold in addition to the calculations under Rule 1 and the Senatorial Clause:
=IF((I4>H4),(I4-H4),0)
Finally, column K shows the sub-total number of MPs under the Grandfather Clause and therefore also under Rule 1 and the Grandfather Clause because all the steps build on each other as I have constructed this workbook:
=H4+J4
The Grand Total
I entered the number of MPs for the territories as well under section 51(2) in column L to derive the total number of MPs in the House of Commons in column M, which could use either the number of MPs rounded plus the MPs added under the Senatorial Clause plus the number of MPs added under the Grandfather Clause, or, more economically, the sub-total at the end of the Grandfather Clause, as follows:
=E4+G4+J4
Or, it equals simply =K4
The Original Rule 3
The 279 Formula originally contained three rules in the Representation Bill, 1985. Rule 3 stipulated that if a province gained two or more new MPs under the pure representation by population of rule 1, then the province would either keep only half of those extra MPs if rule 1 yielded an even number, or half of those extra MPs, plus one, if rule 1 produced to an odd number greater than one. The poor wording of Rule 3 did not take into account the order of operations that order matters in division and subtraction, but it would have meant that a province gained its number of new MPs under rule 1 divided by two and rounded down. The lawyers who drafted these sorts of bills seem to suffer from dyscalculia.
“3. If the total number of members that would be assigned to any province by the application of rule 1 is greater than the total number assigned to that province by the last preceding readjustment of the representation of that province made in accordance with this Act, the number of additional members that would be so assigned shall, unless the number of additional members is one, be reduced so that the actual number assigned is equal to one-half of the additional number that would be so assigned plus, where the number of additional members that would be so assigned is an odd number in excess of one, one other member.”
This counterfactual Rule 3 takes up columns L, M, N, and O in the workbook. In column L, I entered the number of MPs per province under the previous readjustment. Column M then shows the number of new MPs granted under Rule 1 compared to the previous readjustment:
=IF((E4>L4),(E4-L4),0)
Column N then halves and rounds up the number of new MPs, which fixes the poor legislative drafting of Rule 3:
=ROUND(M4/2,0)
Column O then lists the sub-total of MPs per province under Rules 1, 2, and 3, and the Grandfather Clause:
=IF((L4<K4),(L4+N4),L4)
James Bowden's Blog 