Independence, Part 3

As you know, I am a huge map fan, I love maps and make maps. You may not know I'm also a flag fan. I like flags that are simple. My personal motto around flags is that a 3 year old should able to accurately draw the flag of his nation, province, and city. The US flag, thus, is a "bad flag" because many will not get more or less than 13 stripes, many will not make the blue field rest on the proper stripe, and no 3 year old I know can draw 50 white stars on a blue background in the proper pattern. Canada's flag is not much better; while the bars can be drawn properly, the maple leaf always ends up looking like a mess; it's just too complex a shape to get right. Flags like Russia, Germany, France, Sweden, Japan, etc, are all good flags in my mind. To that end I've decide what I feel is a simple but realistic and politically palatable flag for Western Canada

This borrows from designs used in the past by Western Separatists. The 'triangle' is the Rocky Mountains, and the flat bit is the Prairies. I've replaced the various starfields proposed with a maple leaf; a white one as that looks best on the Blue background. This is not a perfect flag, but should Western Canada become a nation in the way I propose - IE a mutual agreement and not a hard fought referendum with the rest of Canada fighting it - I do feel that this very flag would be in the top few finalists that the MPs of the new nation, or, the voters in a referendum, would be deciding upon. Since I'm unable to consult with all 11 million people in Western Canada about this for this blogpost, I'll just presume this will be the flag!

So then what would these nations look like politically?

Lets start with Western Canada.

First, the Parliament.

The West has always shown a preference for smaller governments. With 14 MPs currently from Saskatchewan and from Manitoba, as well as 3 total from the Territories, and, 34 new ridings in Alberta and 42 in BC, our total, 107, does seem large enough for a nation of 11 million concerned about too much government. The problem then becomes one of fudging. Manitoba has more people than Saskatchewan, and economically, is the "odd man out" in this new country. They would likely want additional MPs. Alberta and BC, however, would not want to end up under-represented to the other provinces. My compromise, one that I think is politically realistic, is for a  "Saskatchewan Formula" to determine the number of seats.

Saskatchewan has 14 MPs and I propose that remain the case. The number of voters per riding in Saskatchewan would then be applied to the other provinces. This means Manitoba now gets 16 MPs. The total list, by math alone, is as follows.

MB - 16
SK - 14
AB - 51
BC - 58
YK - 0
NT - 1
NU - 0

Of course you can not have 0 in a Territory, thus it is only logical to add one. There are no other adjustments that are then needed to the house. Thus our final totals are as follows.

BC-58
AB-51
MB-16
SK-14
TR-3
Total - 142

So what of the Senate? The West has always shown a preference for a Senate that can equalize the provinces. Currently, the 4 western provinces and 3 territories have a total of 27 members. 27 seems like a very small number for a nation of 11 million. Compare to Australia, with double the population, has 76 Senators. Even the smallest nations tend to have houses of at least a dozen or two. Thus I think doubling the number, from 6 to 12 per province, and 1 to 2 per Territory - the same number per state and territory Australia uses, is more politically sound. Our Senate totals are thus

BC-12
AB-12
MB-12
SK-12
NT-2
YK-2
NU-2

They, like in Australia, would be Elected. Half at each general election.

So what then if there is a fight or disagreement between the House and the Senate? Like Australia the answer is to combine the two houses so they vote as one. In such a scenario the breakdown of total members is as follows.

BC-70
AB-63
MB-28
SK-26
NT-3
YK-3
NU-3

So that is solved, and solved in a way I think an overwhelming majority of Western Canadians would want things. The problem then is where to locate the new Parliament buildings?

Unless we plan to put it in Dog River, Saskatchewan, we'll need to look to a larger centre. One that is "known". That means no Williams Lake, no Canmore, no Gimli; but some place with a few more people.

So what places are candidates? There are a few places I see being shot down quickly. Prince George, Kamloops, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Moose Jaw, Brandon; none of these places seem to have a real draw to them. Victoria might be an option, but it'd be weird to replace a fly-in-fly-out capital in Ottawa with one at the other edge. Winnipeg is also out for similar reasons. Lloydminster will certainly have a good go at it, being "between provinces" is a good selling point for a Federal centre; but I think the draw towards a larger urban area will simply be too much. Saskatoon might make a claim, but I can't see much of a good reason to pick it over the alternatives. Edmonton is the strongest so far, but as a provincial capital, I think it might be passed over, as well I can't see it making a stronger case over the others. So who are the big alternatives?

Vancouver, Regina, Calgary, and Red Deer.

Red Deer, located in the "middle" of Alberta, could really sell being the "middle" of the new nation. It could argue that, being "driving distance" from both Edmonton and Calgary, it would be the cheapest option as you have fewer people flying in and out, and having to rent apartments in the city. MPs could live at home if they live in Edmonton or Calgary and drive in every morning. The problem with this argument is that it is quite a long drive, and, Red Deer is the smallest city on the list, and would thus need the most infrastructure (IE new office buildings) to support a new Capitol.

Vancouver, the largest city in the new nation, could make that it's selling point. As the largest "port" it could clearly mark the new nation as a pacific nation and make a statement. The problem is the Rockies. You end up with a Capitol that is geographically distinct from the rest of the country, something that might not go over well with Prairie voters. While Vancouver can make a very strong case and get some dedicated supporters, I don't see it managing to beat an "Anywhere But Vancouver" campaign.

Regina, originally designed and built as THE Capitol of the West, it could serve this role well. This is my personal favourite, and if I was writing this as a fiction piece and not what I think would happen, Regina would be the final answer. The Legislature in Regina was, in fact, designed to hold 100 or more members, and could easily be adapted to hold all 142 MPs. While somewhat small, Regina does have the needed infrastructure to hold a national Capitol. The problem then is what of the existing Saskatchewan government; and the answer is very simple; they move to Saskatoon, which was the "original capitol" of Saskatchewan, and is it's largest city. This would mean each of the 7 largest cities in the West are doing something. Winnipeg, Edmonton, Victoria, Saskatoon are being provincial capitals. Regina, the national Capitol. Vancouver is being the biggest. Calgary is being the economic hub. It's win-win all around. The problem is while this plan would "work best" I don't see it selling politically, at least not as well as...

Calgary, the obvious and clear choice. I can't see any city actually beating Calgary, regardless of weather it's MPs, MLAs, Premiers, or Voters deciding on the location. Calgary has, for decades now, been the unofficial Capitol of the west, and I can't see any other city being able to beat it out for the official title. It's certainly big enough to do the job and do it well, and it certainly has all the infrastructure in place. The only additional thing needed would be an actual Parliament building itself; something that can be relatively easily built in a good and central location. Calgary does not lack for engineers! Thus I feel Calgary would be the new Capitol.

So, what of politics in the new nation? Presuming this happens now, I think Harper would become the Prime Minister. Both the Liberals and NDP would need to find new leaders, likely people like Goodale, or Murray and Julian, or Cullen. I could, possibly, see a merger between the two. The NDP and Liberals in Alberta almost merged a few years ago, and the Liberals are so weak in Saskatchewan and Manitoba at the provincial level, it would not really change much. BC could be opposed, but I don't see why the provincial Liberals can't just change their name to something else if that were to happen; people support the party because it's "Not the NDP", thus they could win a majority government being "The Not-NDP Party of BC" Those looking to cast a protest vote could vote Green, many here already do. So what would an election look like under this political system? It's extremely likely the Conservatives would easily win a majority; but lets make this new NDL party strong enough to present a challenge to see what that'd look like.

TR
3 - NDL

MB
7 - Cons
9 - NDL

SK
6 - Cons
8 - NDL

AB
43 - Cons
8 - NDL

BC
21 - Cons
36 - NDL
1 - Grn

TOTAL
77 - Cons
64 - NDL
1 - Grn

As for the Senate, I see things being closer, with the NDL having the advantage in more provinces.

Total
27 - NDL
23 - Cons
4 - Grn

For a combined total of
100 - Cons
91 - NDL
5 - Grn


The new nation would be decidedly Conservative; at least for the time being. Over time, the new NDL would likely move closer to where voters are, while the Conservatives would develop "old government rot"

So, what about the rest of Canada? Find out in the final post, part 4.