At regular intervals, the electoral map of Quebec must be redrawn to take into account the demographic transformations that are affecting the territory. We want to ensure that the National Assembly fairly represents all citizens. This redistribution exercise inevitably leads to tensions and, above all, dissatisfaction. This time, we note that, to ensure that the constituencies represent electorates of relatively comparable sizes, it is necessary to sacrifice a Montreal constituency and especially a Gaspé constituency.
Several entirely legitimate principles are at odds here. Some consider it necessary to make this type of change to ensure that ridings are of relatively equivalent demographic sizes. Otherwise, inequity appears with votes that suddenly are worth less than others. Many oppose it in the name of a democratic need to ensure a balance between the city, the suburbs and the rural regions and thus prevent the constituencies on the periphery from being marginalized.
These underpopulated constituencies should therefore be protected, even if this means lasting demographic imbalances. Finally, others defend the idea that the merger of constituencies leads to the creation of representation spaces that are far too large to allow an MP to carry out their work properly. How do we find a way to take all these principles into account?
Add ridings
A simple solution exists. Just add constituencies. Nothing obliges the National Assembly to remain fixed at 125 seats. In fact, we are in a unique period in the history of Quebec, when the National Assembly has not increased its number of seats since the 1989 general election. During the same period, the House of Commons in Ottawa went from 295 to 338 seats. An increase of almost 15%. And another increase is planned.
The reasons to justify the status quo in Quebec seem unusual to me, to say the least. We are talking about a comparison with Ontario, or even the costs associated with such an exercise. What if it was Ontario that had a legislature that was too small for its size? What if adding seats allowed better representation of the Quebec electorate?
If we rely on the most cited works on the subject, the National Assembly is below the world standard. Indeed, depending on its population, our assembly could easily have dozens more seats. Furthermore, if the point of comparison is no longer Ontario but Massachusetts — we note that their assembly has 160 seats for seven million people — we suddenly feel poorly represented at “only” 125 seats. But beyond comparisons, what would we gain?
First of all, we can easily reconcile the three principles presented above without making any losers. We can in fact restore a certain balance by creating new constituencies within territories experiencing population growth. In addition, we are protecting a critical mass of seats in rural areas, essential for putting issues that are dear to them on the agenda. Finally, we make sure to maintain constituencies of reasonable size to allow everyone access to their representative.
And there’s more. Recent empirical work tends to demonstrate that, all things being equal, a larger assembly leads to less distortion between the percentage of votes and the percentage of seats of the parties. In other words, more seats allows for more proportionality. Recent research also indicates that larger assemblies allow for better representation of women and minorities within deputations. Why refuse such a powerful representative tool?
The overwhelming argument that too often stifles the debate revolves around the costs associated with adding seats. These are indeed additional salaries and budgets. I would answer that the additional cost is marginal compared to the size of the budgets of the National Assembly but also of the Quebec state. I will also say that the bad laws and bad budgetary decisions that an assembly of sufficient size can help to avoid more than justify the investment. Democratic representation is a complex issue. When simple solutions are available, you should not hesitate.