Independence, Part 4

So what of the Rest of Canada? Sure we could keep the same flag, but as a flag geek, I'd like to design something new. The Maple Leaf has always been seen as a symbol of Canada. Seen as, because, officially at least, it was not such a thing until the 1960s. The Maple Leaf is, officially, a symbol of Ontario. Three maple leaves, in fact. Most people probably know the Pearson Pennant which has 3 leaves; it is this 3-leaf design that is found on Ontario's coat of arms. While I like the idea of multiple leaves, it only gets further from the idea of a flag that is simple and easy to draw. As such, this is my preference.

This, therefore is my recommendation. It's a bit like the flag of Austria, but also distinct. It's simple, and removes, symbolically, the now redacted "west coast". It replaces it with our two historically most important "coasts"; the northern Hudsons Bay "coast", and the southern St.Lawrence "coast". The Three Leafs have a triple meaning. First as a symbol of Ontario and thus Canada; second as symbols of Ontario-Quebec-Atlantic, and finally as symbols of Anglos-Francos-Allos.

So, what would our "New" Canada looks like politically.

First, the Parliament.

Unlike the West, the provinces in "New" Canada have never feared more representatives. I also feel Quebec will play a major role. Right now, Ontario mirrors and adopts the Federal riding boundaries; making only minor adjustments. I feel that with Quebec's new "place" in the "new" Canada, we can do something similar.

Therefore I propose a new Quebec Formula. Quebec would use it's 125 provincial ridings as Federal ridings. The number-of-people per riding in Quebec would then be applied to the other provinces. This gives us the following result mathematically.

NL - 8
PE - 2
NS - 14
NB - 12
QC - 125
ON - 208
Total - 369

We'd then need to apply the existing Senatorial clause; that raises PEI from 2 to 4 members. This means Quebec ends up ever so slightly under-represented, 125/369 VS 125/371. This very small perturbance should not be enough to upset them. Thus our final result is as follows:

ON - 208
QC - 125
NS - 14
NB - 12
NL - 8
PE - 4
Total - 371

Now we quickly run in to a problem. Ontario, with 50%+1 of the people, naturally have 50%+1 of the MPs. How to counter balance this? The answer lies where many do not think to look, the Senate. The Senate of "New" Canada will be very different yet also similar to that of Western Canada. First, it will be roughly balanced between Anglophone and Francophone populations. Second, we'll apply the reverse* of the Senate clause to increase the number of seats.

*By this I mean the following. The Senate clause says no province can have less MPs than it has Senators. The new reverse clause would say no province can have more Senators than MPs.

Thus, the Senate would look like this:

ON - 24 (Remains as-is)
QC - 48 (Because Quebec is unique, and, Francophone)
NB - 12 ("half" of them "french"; 12 because NB has 12 MPs)
NS - 12 (Balanced with NB)
NL - 8 (Reverse Senate Clause)
PE - 4 (Remains as-is)

Exactly who is French and English is not important; the Senate is not "officially" balanced between the French and English, it is only adjusted to get a better balance. Quebec would retain the advantage, due to it's distinct character; something the Constitution would recognize. The ratios would be as follows.
PE = 1
NL = 2
NS/NB = 3
ON = 6
QC = 12

So our "Starting Senate" is as follows.

QC - 48
ON - 24
NS - 12
NB - 12
NL - 8
PE - 4

However, if we need to increase the size of the Senate, we could end up with

QC - 30
ON - 60
NS - 15
NB - 15
NL - 10
PE - 5

Why would we need to increase the size of the Senate? Balance. Remember that idea, stolen from Australia, to combine the Senate and House in the event of a disagreement between the two on a bill?

Look what happens when you do that here, with our original 12-seat-NB Senate

PE - 8
NL - 16
NB - 24
NS - 26
QC - 173
ON - 232
Total - 479

That's right, Ontario ends up with under 50% of the total seats. This is how that would be made to work; the Senate would always ensure a combined parliament will never have any one province with 50%+1 of the seats.

This Senate would, however, not be elected. The Senate would be appointed. Appointed, however, by the Premiers. This will ensure that the Senate represents provincial wills and is thus able to over-ride anything that Ontario may try to ram though against the other provinces.


So, what of the other issues?

The Capitol is settled. Why move it from Ottawa?

What does need to be discussed is Quebec. Quebec would be offered, in short, the things it wants. Distinct Society, power over it's Culture and Language, and so on. Remember that while Charlottetown failed 63%-37% in Western Canada, it only failed 53%-47% in the provinces of our "New" Canada. In fact, without Quebec, Charlottetown would have lost in Ontario and the Atlantic, combined, by 34,321 votes. Compare that to the 54,288 margin in the Quebec referendum, which had fewer voters. Ideas like Meech and Charlottetown could well pass a referendum in this "New" Canada, especially if supported by all sides, and by a popular new government.

So what would politics look like in the new nation? For one, the Bloc, and likely PQ, would find the wind has been knocked out of it's sails. The Tories would not just vanish, nor the NDP, despite being "western" parties historically. In fact, I could see the first election producing a 3-way tie, or near so. With such an obvious NDP possible win, I think even PEI would jump on board and elect an NDP member. In fact, I could see the following occurring:

NL
5 - Lib
2 - NDP
1 - CPC

PE
2 - Lib
1 - NDP
1 - CPC

NS
8 - Lib
3 - CPC
3 - NDP

NB
8 - Lib
3 - CPC
1 - NDP

Subtotal; Atlantic
23 - Lib
8 - CPC
7 - NDP

Quebec
77 - NDP
38 - Lib
10 - CPC

Ontario
105 - CPC
62 - Lib
39 - NDP
2 - Grn

Total
123 - Lib
123 - NDP
123 - CPC
2 - Grn

Which would certainly be interesting.


So how would these countries act? How would they be socially, economically, and on the world stage? Find out in the final post in this series.