MONTREAL
It does not take a degree in advanced mathematics to figure out that Canada’s federal scene is plagued by a gaping democratic deficit.
Our 19th century parliamentary institutions have failed to keep up with 21st century demographics to the detriment of fast-growing provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia.
Part of the rationale for patriating the Constitution three decades ago was to bring the country’s colonial-era institutions up to date.
That was before the well was poisoned by the Meech and Charlottetown capers. Today, repeat failures on the constitutional front have turned attempts at modernization into daunting balancing acts.
But in its ongoing efforts to address the issue of the democratic deficit while side-stepping the constitutional minefield, the Conservative government is very much playing a zero-sum game.
It is advancing the cause of regional fairness in one house of Parliament while moving in the opposite direction in the other.
Even as it seeks to rectify the regional balance in the Commons by granting more seats to the larger provinces, Stephen Harper’s government is proposing to enhance the legitimacy of the Senate — an institution whose regional make-up gives imbalance a whole new meaning.
Consider for instance that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (which account for about 5 per cent of Canada’s population) outnumber British Columbia and Alberta (24 per cent) by a ratio of almost 2 to 1 in the upper house.
In a Senate reformed along the lines of the current government proposal, the Atlantic Canada tail will not only continue to wag the Alberta/British Columbia dog but also do so with the greater moral authority conferred by an elected mandate.
The Conservatives’ Senate reform plan will ultimately do more harm than good to the legitimate aspiration of the two senior western provinces for influence on the federal scene on par with their ever-growing contribution to the federation.
It is a disquieting paradox that the perverse consequences of moving to an elected Senate without addressing its regional make-up has generated little backlash while the notion of the addition of a couple of Quebec seats in the Commons is raising hackles.
The notion that Quebec’s representation in the House should be on par with its share of the population should be a no-brainer.
That the same should be true for Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario should go without saying.
If the government is going to be guided by the principle that representation in the Commons should be as population-based as the limits of the Constitution will allow, allocating more seats to larger provinces is a step in the right direction.
But paying attention to the way the seats are drawn up within the provinces is just as important, for Canada’s democratic deficit is both qualitative and quantitative.
As a recent report by Ontario’s Mowatt Centre points out, the seat variations allowed under the current system discriminate against urban voters, in particular those who live in suburban areas where, as it happens, new Canadians have tended to concentrate.
A final word on the potential partisan payoff of the planned redistribution: there have been suggestions that because it will give more representation to the suburban areas where the Conservatives did well in the May election, the move will enhance Harper’s re-election prospects in four years.
There is less to that theory than actually meets the eye.
The Conservatives (when they are not divided) have traditionally been able to count on staunch support from rural Canada (outside Quebec).
Suburban ridings by comparison are notoriously more fickle — be it only because their demographics are in constant flux.
A redistribution that increases the representation of the latter at the expense of the former is hardly a guaranteed win-win for a Conservative government.
Moreover, if there is one lesson to be drawn from the dramatic NDP breakthrough in Quebec last May as well as from the shut-out of the provincial Tories from the Toronto area in this month’s Ontario election, it is that anyone who bases calculations for the future on past election results — including recent ones — is playing a mug’s game.
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
It does not take a degree in advanced mathematics to figure out that Canada’s federal scene is plagued by a gaping democratic deficit.
Our 19th century parliamentary institutions have failed to keep up with 21st century demographics to the detriment of fast-growing provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia.
Part of the rationale for patriating the Constitution three decades ago was to bring the country’s colonial-era institutions up to date.
That was before the well was poisoned by the Meech and Charlottetown capers. Today, repeat failures on the constitutional front have turned attempts at modernization into daunting balancing acts.
But in its ongoing efforts to address the issue of the democratic deficit while side-stepping the constitutional minefield, the Conservative government is very much playing a zero-sum game.
It is advancing the cause of regional fairness in one house of Parliament while moving in the opposite direction in the other.
Even as it seeks to rectify the regional balance in the Commons by granting more seats to the larger provinces, Stephen Harper’s government is proposing to enhance the legitimacy of the Senate — an institution whose regional make-up gives imbalance a whole new meaning.
Consider for instance that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia (which account for about 5 per cent of Canada’s population) outnumber British Columbia and Alberta (24 per cent) by a ratio of almost 2 to 1 in the upper house.
In a Senate reformed along the lines of the current government proposal, the Atlantic Canada tail will not only continue to wag the Alberta/British Columbia dog but also do so with the greater moral authority conferred by an elected mandate.
The Conservatives’ Senate reform plan will ultimately do more harm than good to the legitimate aspiration of the two senior western provinces for influence on the federal scene on par with their ever-growing contribution to the federation.
It is a disquieting paradox that the perverse consequences of moving to an elected Senate without addressing its regional make-up has generated little backlash while the notion of the addition of a couple of Quebec seats in the Commons is raising hackles.
The notion that Quebec’s representation in the House should be on par with its share of the population should be a no-brainer.
That the same should be true for Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario should go without saying.
If the government is going to be guided by the principle that representation in the Commons should be as population-based as the limits of the Constitution will allow, allocating more seats to larger provinces is a step in the right direction.
But paying attention to the way the seats are drawn up within the provinces is just as important, for Canada’s democratic deficit is both qualitative and quantitative.
As a recent report by Ontario’s Mowatt Centre points out, the seat variations allowed under the current system discriminate against urban voters, in particular those who live in suburban areas where, as it happens, new Canadians have tended to concentrate.
A final word on the potential partisan payoff of the planned redistribution: there have been suggestions that because it will give more representation to the suburban areas where the Conservatives did well in the May election, the move will enhance Harper’s re-election prospects in four years.
There is less to that theory than actually meets the eye.
The Conservatives (when they are not divided) have traditionally been able to count on staunch support from rural Canada (outside Quebec).
Suburban ridings by comparison are notoriously more fickle — be it only because their demographics are in constant flux.
A redistribution that increases the representation of the latter at the expense of the former is hardly a guaranteed win-win for a Conservative government.
Moreover, if there is one lesson to be drawn from the dramatic NDP breakthrough in Quebec last May as well as from the shut-out of the provincial Tories from the Toronto area in this month’s Ontario election, it is that anyone who bases calculations for the future on past election results — including recent ones — is playing a mug’s game.
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
No comments:
Post a Comment