From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Getty has made Central Canada stronger
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:43:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.010156.15682@mprgate.mpr.ca> heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.232100.4128@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>|> With this deal, Don Getty is agreeing for perpetuity that Alberta
>|> will have less than rep by pop in the House of Commons, in the
>|> Senate, and on the Supreme Court (and in fact the worst representation
>|> of any province on the Supreme Court).  BC and Alberta lose, lose,
>|> and lose in this deal...but at least BC has a SC justice.   
>|> 
>|> Central Canada, with this deal, will likely almost certainly always
>|> have greater than rep by pop in the House of Commons, and two-thirds
>|> of the votes on the Supreme Court.
>|> 
>
>You might find the tabular summary of the tentative agreement which was
>presented in today's Globe and Mail to be quite informative on this issue.
>According to these tables, Central Canada will have 62.3% of seats in the
>House of Commons for 62.1% of Canada's population. To say that this current
>representation is a violation of rep by pop would appear to be splitting
>hairs.
>

This is today...this is an agreement essentially for perpetuity...you
don't judge the principles agreed to on the basis of how it affects
things tomorrow, but on how they are likely to affect things in fifty
years...this agreement abandons representation by population, the core
principle of representative government.

>
>My feelings are that I like the general principles and mechanics behind
>these proposals. They accomodate concepts like "equality of provinces"
>and representation of regional "group" interests while making a clear
>indication that "equality of persons" as manifested through "representation
>by population" is clearly centred as the primary focus of democratic
>representation.
>

This agreement abandons representation by population...

>|> With the addition seats in the Commons given to Central Canada,
>|> and the threshold for Quebec, Central Canada gains power in this
>|> deal in terms of raw voting power.
>|> 
>
>I think you are quite mistaken here, see above. Quebec retains its
>current power while Ontario loses some overall. Its a complex tradeoff
>and it would be simpler to measure if we had simply abolished the Senate,
>but I think you will see that you can no longer simply look at the House
>as the only centre of power within Parliament. 
>

You are again only looking at the consequences tomorrow, but not at
the consequences fifty years from now.

>|> It seems Alberta's worst enemy in this constitutional deal is
>|> Don Getty.
>|> 
>|> Bourassa is a genius...I stand in awe!  
>|>
>
>I personally think if you back up a few steps and look at the proposals,
>that they represent a centre road through the many conflicting views
>held by Canadians. I think it is a fair and broad accomodation of these
>world views. There are many who will be unhappy, but I don't think
>that many have any reason to say "They got what they wanted, and we were
>ignored".
>

This agreement abandons the principle of representation by population
for the fraudalent Holy Grail of the equality of the provinces in the
Senate...and an ineffective one at that.  Canada is a country of
peoples and of provinces, both uneven in size and distribution, and
equality of the provinces rather than equity for peoples and provinces
is a straightjacket than Canada can only be contorted into as
evidenced by the madness of abandonning representation by population
and one person-one vote.  Equality of states in the American Senate
works because of the more even distribution of populous large states.
Equality in the American Senate works because the ethic is that of
the melting pot...it is the American people.  In Canada, it is the
Canadian peoples, English, French, aboriginal, and immigrant, the
ethic is a mosaic, and our provinces are differently sized in
different regions.  The small provinces are in the Atlantic,
the large provinces are in the center, and the mid-sized provinces
are in the West.  The Canadian Senate must conform to provide
a meaningful vote for citizens of whatever province or people they
belong to...the model of equality of the provinces cannot do that,
and the ultimate proof of that is the necessity of abandoning 
representation by population in the Commons.

We are entrenching ideas that will undermine the basic democratic
legitimacy of our bicameral legislature.

Representation by population is much more important than equality
of the provinces...the premiers of Alberta and BC have left
Alberta and BC permanently underrepresented with respect to Central
Canada for perpetuity...and that will destabilize Canada in the
next century.

Gerald
Xref: sparky can.politics:6048 soc.culture.canada:5909