Friday, November 09, 2007

A Triple E Senate is a Intellectual and undemocratic Abortion

The name of Britain’s two houses, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, reveal one of the reasons why we have a senate in the first place. The purpose of having a House of Lords was to check and balance out the will of common people. One of the main purposes of the Canadian senate and the US senate, which were both modeled after the British system, was to do the same.

The other purpose of the senate in both the US and Canada, of course, was to provide regional representation. Smaller states and Provinces wanted their interests protected before agreeing to form a Federation. For example, the Southern States wanted to make sure the Northern States, were most Americans lived in and live now, would not be able to abolish slavery. Yes the US senate has done a lot of good over the years.

Some believe that the regions need more say and an “equal” “effective” and “elected” senate is the best way of achieving a balance between population centers in Eastern Canada and the rest of us. 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 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 the 5th the value of a vote cast in Charlottetown. Assuming that no government would ever dare take away seats from a particular province or region, the government would have to add a ton more seats to make it have way equal. If the government would commit to an MP for every 70,000 people the new numbers would break down as follows. Ontario would gain 67 seats, Quebec 32, BC 23, Alberta 19, and Manitoba, Nova Scotia 2 each. All total, a 145 seats should be added, most of those in urban areas. Even then there would still be outliers. PEI, and the territories would still be over represented. The second reason is that comparing province to province is a perverse misnomer. It is comparing apples to oranges. The people living in Canada’s less populated provinces (hello again PEI) have a mechanism assure that regional concerns are addressed; it is called province jurisdiction and provincial representation. By the very nature of living in a province with a small population, the 135,851 people in PEI have plenty of ways of addressing regional concerns that are not available to, for example, the 169, 642 residents of Oak Ridges Markham. All in all, comparing province to province is a perverse misnomer. A province is no more or less than the people that make up that province. Giving the 135,851 in PEI the power to determine everything under provincial jurisdiction, provincial representation and 4 MPs well all the while given 169, 642 Oak Ridges Markham one MP is bad enough as it is. Giving the 135,851 people in PEI the same number of “effective” senators, as per the American Triple E Senate model, as 12.1 million Ontarians is beyond stupid and grossly undemocratic.

Needless to say, if push comes to shove, abolishing the senate is far more preferable to senate Reform. No province has a second chamber, most abolished them, and they are doing just fine. Furthermore there are numerous examples of unicameral nation states. New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Israel, Sweden, Iceland, Liechtenstein, South Korea and Portugal are all unicameral.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

You miss the point of regional representation completely. It's a check on the otherwise unmitigated power of the majority.

No province was willing to enter into Confederation with Ontario without some check on their power. Why would anyone in PEI, or Quebec for that matter, agree to enter into an arrangement as mere colonies of Upper Canada.

Nobody in California or Texas seems to have a problem with Rhode Island or Wyoming having as many Senators as them. And in Canada, where regional differences are all the more accentuated, it makes as much or more sense.

If the people in Markham want a federal government that is completely run by Ontario, they can have it. I just doubt the rest of us will bother to play in that sandbox after awhile.

KC said...

Totally agree that a triple E Senate stinks. People have voices in the federal government not inanimate "provinces". The "no province would enter if Ontario could dominate" is such a fallacious argument as Ontario is not some voting bloc that votes for an "Ontario Party" that advances its interest. While Ontario admittedly went all Liberal for a short time in the 90s it is split between all three major parties right now, and the Mulroney government came to power primarily on the strength of other provinces (Quebec, Alberta, etc.).

Whats more I've never heard a convicning proposal as to how the territories could be treated in a triple E Senate. SURELY an area with only 20-40,000 people cannot have the same representation as Ontario, yet how can they logically have less than PEI as PEI is only about 4-6 times more populous than any territory while Ontario is almost 100 times bigger than PEI! It just wouldn't make any sense.

This doesnt mean I dont support Senate Reform. Just not a fantasty "Triple E" Senate where some peoples votes are 100 times more important than others.

Koby said...

>>>>"You miss the point of regional representation completely. It's a check on the otherwise unmitigated power of the majority."

Homey do not play that game. I dismiss out of hand the need for second "effective" house to promote regional representation. As I have said time and again whatever regional concerns need addressed by Canada being divided in provinces.

>>>>"No province was willing to enter into Confederation with Ontario without some check on their power."

That was then this is now, but if you want to go down that root I will see your regional argument and raise you a House of Lords.

>>>> Nobody in California or Texas seems to have a problem with Rhode Island or Wyoming having as many Senators as them.

You are a funny guy. Of course they do. Arguments go all the way back to 1783.