From: heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath)
Subject: Re: The Hegemony Continues
Reply-To: heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 02:07:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.132414.10940@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug26.044928.19437@ee.ubc.ca> kenb@ee.ubc.ca (Ken Buckland) writes:
|> >
|> >What possible use is a "symbolic voice"?  If that is all one requires, why
|> >are Ontario and Quebec so obsessed with maintaining their *real* power?  
|> >And why should the provinces other than Ontario and Quebec put up with a
|> >"symbolic voice" after all the abuses they have endured?
|> >
|> 
|> BC loses with an equal senate, and so will Alberta, although less so.
|> 
|> BC and Alberta are big boys now and should start thinking like big
|> boys...instead they traded away votes for an equal Senate...go figure.
|> 
|> [ ... opinion omitted ... ]
|> 
|> Western Canada could have gotten 40% of an equitable Senate that was
|> more effective, and all they would have had to give up was 20% of
|> the Senate to Quebec.
|> 
|> Instead Western Canada has 40% of a less effective equal Senate, and
|> they have given Quebec 25% of the House of Commons, a move which
|> insures for perpetuity that Alberta and BC will be underreprented
|> in terms of representation by population in the Commons.  
|> 
|> Beaudoin-Dobbie had endorsed the notion of a 5-region country instead
|> of the old 4-region country...and Quebec would have went along with 
|> this...instead Bourassa goes home with a four-region country and
|> Quebec as 1 of 4...Quebec would have settled for 1 of 5. 
|> 
|> Alberta was trying to make Quebec one of ten...and when Quebec was
|> offering one of five...you have to be a pretty lousy bargainer to
|> end up with one of four.
|> 
|> Alberta and BC achieved nothing...Ontario and Quebec will dominate
|> the Commons...the small provinces will dominate the Senate...and
|> Alberta and BC have gained no influence institutionally.  
|>

Well, I certainly can't disaggree with your analysis George. My submission
to Beaudoin-Dobbie made similar points. The EEE proposals were always
heavily weighted towards Canada's smallest provinces. B.C. gains nothing
from them, unless you believe that the Atlantic and Prairie provinces
would do a good job of representing B.C. interests. Alberta interests
are more closely tied to its neighbours, so it does not lose so much
in relative terms. Then again, Alberta interests are probably at least
as well protected in a five region model.

|> Getty and Harcourt are morons...
|> 

They certainly are not Rocket Scientists...
B.C. would have preferred a 5 region deal but caved into the Gang of Four
(Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland) to achieve a unanomous
offer to Quebec, under the misguided belief that Quebec was willing
to support EEE (in exchange for constitutional veto???). Once
the premiers had agreed to this offer, there was no way they were
going to back out.

|> Still, it is probably too late to recoup the losses in this round.

I would say there is no chance, except if the whole thing fails and
through divine intervention, everybody forgets all we've been through
in the last 10 years.

|> Just like when Levesque lost the veto, Alberta and BC will have to
|> wait for the next round to recover from the mistakes they made this
|> round.  The losses aren't fatal...losing this deal might be fatal...
|>

Amen
 
|> Gerald
|>

Yes, I think we would all wish that politicians had a bit more common
sense. It seems that the EEE Senate is somewhat like a religion. Once
you put your faith in its basic tenets, all debate runs in circles.
----------------------
Gord Heath      - opinions are my own
Newsgroups: can.politics