From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 17:20:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.150037.15701@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>The purpose of a bicameral legislature is to provide every person with
>>a "meaningful" vote...one chamber has representation by population,
>>and the other has whatever compromise is necessary to effect
>>"meaningfulness" for every person, even from a sparsely populated
>>regions.  There are two fundamental democratic principles...the right
>>to a vote and the right to self-government...the second chamber gives
>>effect to a sufficient measure of self-government for sparsely populated
>>regions.
>
>This is confused.  In a democracy, citizens elect their government,
>and each citizen should have a vote equal to every other.
>

And each citizen has the right to self-government...there are two
principles, the right to a vote, and the right to self-government,
which are not perfectly compatible, and which require a compromise
between densely populated and sparsely populated regions of a
country.  The compromise between the two principles is effected
in how the second chamber is comprised.

The sovereignty of the individual is the supreme democratic principle...
in a democracy, the collective manifestations of this supreme principle
are the principles of self-government and representation by population,
which are coequal.  One vote per person is not always sufficient
to give a sufficient measure of self-government to all regions of
the country.  There is no set prescription for the compromise...
it is whatever is agreed upon that makes the sum greater and more
attractive than the parts.

>Your "right to self-government" is a red herring.  Individuals share
>interests in domains ranging from their own homes, to the world (e.g.
>on environmental issues).  This range of domains is supposed to
>be reflected in our federal system.  The citizens of each province
>have the right to govern themselves within that province in areas
>of provincial jurisdiction.  The citizens of Canada govern themselves
>within Canada in areas of federal jurisdiction.  There is no reason
>why voters living in sparsely-populated regions should have more
>influence than voters living in densely-populated regions over federal
>policies.
>

No one is saying they should have more influence...but equal influence
in terms of the two collective expressions of individual sovereignty.
In order for the sum to be greater than the parts, an individual in
a sparsely populated region must have the sense that they have an
equal say and equal control over their own lives as someone in
a densely populated region.  The two collective expressions of
individual sovereignty, or the right to a vote, and to a sufficient
measure or sense of self-government are both important.  The tyranny
of the majority is as bad as the tyranny of a minority.

Democratic government is fundamentally limited government...the
Senate in this sense is a protection or check against the possible
tyranny of the majority...bicameral legislatures did not arise by
accident...they arose because of these two imperfect collective
expressions of individual sovereignty.

>Saying they should have more influence is to say that certain citizens
>are better qualified to vote than others, because of how they live.
>This begs an infinite number of questions about who is qualified to
>vote on what.
>

Bicameral legislature are based on sound democratic principles.

>If people living in the regions think they cannot be fairly governed
>by the federal government, then they should fight for decentralization:
>the transfer of power to their own province.  They should not try to give
>themselves unequal votes.
>

This is true only if one believes that federalism is a zero-sum-game.

>People who favour giving more power to the regions should therefore give
>up their bias towards centralized government in those domains.  The
>combination of the two amounts to discrimination in favour of individuals
>outside central Canada.
>
>>The current proposal is all muddled-head in terms of fundamental
>>principles, screwing up both chambers.
>
>Agreed.  The Senate should have been abolished, the House of
>Commons restored to representation-by-population, and natural
>resources made an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
>

Exclusive...exclusive in a federal system is never perfect...
any federal power over the environment ultimately bears on 
natural resources.  Federalism is not a zero-sum-game.  Powers
are not perfectly divisible.  The tyranny of the majority is
the killer of federations, which is why Senates exist to
stabilize federations.

>>But to argue that the second chamber should not have rep by pop is
>>not hypocrisy, it is just the compromise necessary between the
>>fundamental rights of a person to a vote, and a region to
>>self-government.
>
>The dual-chamber system you describe is not a compromise because it
>has been entirely defined by you.  Now, Quebec nationalists demand
>extra representation for Quebecers on the grounds that they live in a
>distinct society.  Feminists demand a quota for females in the Senate
>on the grounds that they are systematically oppressed.  Aboriginals
>demand representation for their distinct races on historical and
>pragmatic grounds.  By demanding inequality for voters outside central
>Canada, EEE promoters have opened a Pandora's box of collective rights.
>

The rational for a Senate are the political rights of individuals, not
of collectives, and the claims of others for special representation
should be endorsed or rejected on this basis.

I do not support provincial equality in a Canadian Senate...I don't
think it is a particularly good model for BC or Alberta...I still
consider myself an Albertan...equality in the Senate would result
in tyranny of the small provinces, and the Commons would be 
tyranny of the large provinces, and Alberta and BC are neither
large nor small, and would be left out again...this time with
a double whammy...triple if you count Central Canada's hegemony
on the Supreme Court.

Abolition is preferable to what they have proposed...I would
rather have 3-year mandates rather than 5 for the commons and
legislatures, and no Senate at all.  There really isn't a good
Senate model for Canada that is worth the money that more
frequent elections wouldn't be a better and cheaper solution for.

Canada is already too decentralized to really need a Senate...we
would only need a Senate if we planned to centralize the country
more, and we really are on a course for more decentralization...
so what we really need are federal governments with a mandate,
and paying attention to the people in the country,
and not stringing out terms to the bitter end...hence no Senate,
and more frequent elections...don't take more politicians from
the regions and put them in Ottawa, but eliminate the patronage
Senators, and force the MP's to spend more time out of Ottawa
and in the regions.

Gerald