Over 40 years ago J.M.S. Careless wrote that “the experience of regionalism remains prominent and distinctive in Canadian history—time has tended less to erode it than to develop it.” This observation holds true, regionalism continues to be prominent in the national dialogue to this day. We regularly hear that the West is distinct from the center, the North is not the same as Atlantic Canada and so on.
Now, granted there are regional differences, but are they really as acute as some make them out to be?
Canadians have been certain for so long that we are regionally divided that we’ve dedicated significant portions of our governmental systems to accommodate regionalism. Our Senate is a good example. One of the primary purposes of the Senate is to provide regional representation and this is done through the division of seats. As such, the four traditional regions (Ontario, Quebec, the Maritime provinces and the western provinces) all get 24 seats each, Newfoundland and Labrador gets six and each of the territories gets one. This formula remains static regardless of population shifts so, theoretically, even if the population of the West doubled, these numbers wouldn’t change.
Our electoral system is another example. There are few redeeming features of first-past-the-post as far as electoral systems go, but the one thing it does really, really well is reward geographically concentrated or regionally based parties. That’s why we have a party like the Bloc Québécois and why the Reform Party was able to make such a dramatic entrance onto the federal scene via the West. These parties were able to get their foot (and leg and torso) in the door because our electoral system caters to regionally concentrated parties.
As long as we are comfortable with the notion that region is the most important characteristic of Canadians, this is all well and good. But what if we aren’t sure?
Hear me out: when one of the main functions of the Senate is to represent regional interests, that sends a message that the most important characteristic about you, from the government’s point of view, is whether you live in Quebec, Nova Scotia or British Columbia. That is more important than any other identity you might have including your gender, religious beliefs, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, etc. We have designed a political system wherein these identities are of secondary importance to where you live.
This raises an interesting question: are the political institutions and systems we have in place a reflection of the regional differences that exist in this country, or, do they actually contribute to the continued perception of regional divisiveness by masking complexity and elevating geography to a higher level of importance than other forms of identity?
As an example of how complexity can be masked, take a look at the electoral distribution map of Canada. At first glance, there appears to be quite a bit that differentiates an Ontarian from a Saskatchewanian based on their different voting behaviors. Western Canada is a veritable sea of Conservative blue, Quebec is dominated by the Bloc Québécois and Atlantic Canada is varying shades of Liberal red. From that perspective, there appears to be quite a bit that separates any given person in Alberta from any given person in PEI.
This is not, however, an accurate reflection of the variance of Canadian perspectives and ideologies. In the 2008 federal election, the Conservatives might have received 96% of the seats in Alberta, but they only received 65% of the vote (that is, 65% of the 53% who bothered to vote). Similarly, in PEI the Liberals got 75% of the seats, but only 48% of the vote. Our first-past-the-post electoral system exaggerates the differences between regions and helps to encourage political parties to focus on regional strengths. There are undoubtedly regional differences of ideology and thought, but they are not as dramatic as they may first appear due to the masking effect of our current political system.
As a thought experiment, if Canada changed over to a more proportional system of voting and we made the Senate representative of cultural, linguistic, and religious diversity, what effect do you think that would have on our understanding of regions?
Posted By: Shawna Ritchie
Comments
Post has no comments.