Some believe that the regions need more say and an “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. Harper seems to be of that mind.
The problem is two fold. First such an argument rests on a false contrast. Seats in the House of Commons are supposed to be assigned on basis of population, but in actuality that is not the case. For example, PEI has a population of 135,851 and has 4 MPs and people in the Federal riding of Oak Ridges Markham has a population of 169, 642 obviously only has 1 MP. In other words, a vote in Oak Ridges Markham has less than a 5th the value of a vote cast in riding of Charlottetown.
Harper plans to increase in the number of seats in the House of Commons. Ontario would get 10 more, BC 7 and Alberta 5. These changes would only come about following the 2011 census. According to Harper all provinces, with the notable exception of Ontario, would have an average would have more than the Canadian average of people per riding. This is both false and misleading. The average riding in Quebec, and Alberta would also be larger than the national average. Moreover, such talk of average sized ridings overlooks the fact that the rest of Canada, that only one riding, Selkirk Interlake (90,807) outside of BC, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec is bigger than 90,000. The government would have to add a lot more than just 22 seats to insure that no province is overrepresented and no province underrepresented. Of course no government would ever dare take away seats from a particular province or region and even if they were so bold there are constitutional hurdles. For example no province can have less MPs than senators. This means that it more or less impossible for PEI and the territories to be anything other than outliers. They would still be over represented.
However, if the government would commit to an MP for every 70,000 people, things would be more or less equal everywhere else. Given current figures, such a commitment to fairness would see Ontario gain 67 seats, Quebec 32, BC 23, Alberta 19, and Manitoba, Nova Scotia 2 each. All told, 145 seats should be added, most of those in urban areas and nearly half in Ontario.
However, even if Ontario, BC and Alberta and Quebec were to given their proper allotment of House of Commons Seats, there is still no need for the Senate. Whatever regional concerns a population of a lesser populated province might have are taken care of by the very fact that live in a such a province. This becomes readily apparent when instead of looking at what province has more clout, as if provinces were somehow greater than the sum of people that live there, one instead compares how much clout various populations have. Indeed, the 135,851 in PEI have, for example, a million times the political clout of the 169, 642 people in the Federal riding of Oak Ridges Markham. Indeed, not only do the 135,581 people in PEI have the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, and provincial representation, but they have also have 4 MPs to Oak Ridges Markham one MP. Giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the Triple E Senate model for instance, as 12.1 million Ontarians is grossly undemocratic.
All told, what should happen is the government should add those 145 extra seats. Fairness requires it. The government should then seek to abolish the Senate to pay for such an expansion. The current senate serves no purpose and reformed senate is an affront to democracy. The provinces abolished their senates. Federal government should follow in their footsteps. Let Canada would then join the club unicameral states. Canada would be in good company. New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal are all unicameral.
|