Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad
A Senate based on regional representation is essential in a large federal state like Canada. It would aid in preventing a "tyranny of the majority" in which the populous central provinces (where 2/3rds of the population lives) can exercise complete sway over the rest of the federation, with virtually no regard for special circumstances that can have a very large impact on lesser populated areas of the federation.
An example would be the fisheries. The vast majority of Canadians live far from the coastline and couldn't give two figs about how the fisheries are conducted, as long as they have lots of haddock for their fish and chips. There is proportionately less concern in Ottawa over the fishery than over the auto industry in part because nobody in Ottawa gives a damn about the Maritimes or Newfoundland. The large car plants in Oshawa or Windsor however are a different thing, because this is highly visible to a vote rich part of the country.
A unicameral house elected by rep-by-pop does not address this. Having a second elected house with regional representation would definitely help. It gives the regions a larger voice in Ottawa.
I am sensitive to western concerns about relative under representation in the Senate. There is an imbalance created by the fact that Newfoundland was given six seats upon entry into the federation. My proposal would be for a 99 seat Senate elected by provincially based proportional representation.
24 seats for Ontario
24 seats for Quebec
24 seats for Atlantic Canada (7 each from NB. NS and NL, 3 for PE)
24 seats for the west (6 each for MB, SK, AB & BC)
3 seats for the north (1 each for YK, NU and NT)
In the east, both NB and NS would lose 3 seats, PE would lose one seat and NL would gain one seat). The net result would be that the Atlantic provinces would have the same level of representation as the west.
Of course some westerners would still howl in outrage over the fact that they were less well represented (on a population basis) in the Senate than Atlantic Canada, but that's not really the point in a legislative body elected on the basis of regional representation. The same concept works in the US Senate where California and Wyoming both have two senators despite the huge discrepancy in their relative populations. If it's good enough for the US, then why wouldn't it be good enough for us. The regions have to be protected in the federation or else alienation and bitterness would flow from a sense of lack of representation and resulting powerlessness. It's the only way the federation would work.
Of course, for it to work, the Senate would have to be meaningful and powerful and this would require it to be an elected Senate. Otherwise, the Senate has no legitimacy.
The Senate however doesn't need to be as powerful as the HoC. The PM and the vast majority of the cabinet (aside from the Senate leader) would still come from the HoC. In addition, even under our current system, the Senate ultimately has to bend to the will of the HoC. If I recall, the Senate can only turn back a bill passed in the HoC twice. If the HoC passes a bill the third time, then the Senate is obliged to pass it. Those sort of safeguards maintaining the primacy of the HoC could be carried on in a reformed Senate.
The regions just need to be assured that their concerns are heard and understood in Ottawa. Right now, that isn't necessarily the case. Regional concerns need to be taken seriously. That didn't happen in the west with the NEP. It also didn't happen in the east with the collapse of the cod fishery.
There's more to Canada than Ontario and Quebec...........
In summary, my proposal would be to have:
1)- The HoC to be representative on a population basis, and to be elected on a traditional FPTP ballot. The PM and the cabinet would be drawn from the HoC.
2)- The Senate would be regionally representative, and would be elected on the basis of provincial proportional representation.
3)- The Senate would be a strong and effective voice for the regions, but ultimately would be subservient to the HoC if a stalemate occurred.
|
A couple of things....
1. The western provinces will not be satisfied with 6 senators each, less than NS and NB. They will push for equal or "equitable" representation. While I could see Ontario agreeing to more senators for the west, Quebec never will, and Trudeau stated some time ago that he would not be in favour of reducing Quebec's proportion of seats in the Senate.
2. The Senate is under no legal obligation whatsoever to pass any bill from the Commons, no matter how many times that House has passed it. Presently, if there is a deadlock the PM can appoint either 1 or 2 Senators from each section (as the case may be). If that is not sufficient to break the deadlock, the bill is lost. This has only occurred once under Mulroney. The only case where the Commons can impose its will on the Senate is in the case of a constitutional amendment, where he Senate has a 180 day suspensory veto.
3. The provincial governments, whose approval is needed for an amendment to the method of selecting Senators, are unlikely to be in favour of directly elected Senators ; they would prefer to name Senators themselves. Provincial governments are less interested in regional input into federal decisions than they are in more power and money for themselves.
4. You seem to be saying that the equal representation of states in the US Senate is an example we should follow, but fail to follow that point to its logical conclusion, i.e. that the provinces should be equally represented in our Senate.
The problem with opening up the constitution again is that's its going to lead to years of pointless debate again, even if it's only to reimagine the Senate. In the Quebec conference of 1864 most of the delegates' time was spent arguing about the Senate as most of the other points were generally agreed upon. Minor tinkering is all that's likely to happen.
Prev
Linear Mode
