From: thood@twitus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:15:24 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>In article <1992Sep14.150037.15701@pandora.matrox.com> thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>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.

I only see one right: the equal right to vote in elections of one's
own governments.

You offer two slogans to describe this right and say that "the right
to self government" can only be satisfied if there is a second assembly
in addition to the one elected by citizens with equal votes: an assembly
elected by citizens with votes proportional to the amount of empty land
near their homes.

Why should living in a sparsely-populated region give a person a
stronger vote?

I will anticipate your answer.  You are not really concerned with
population density.  Quebec has a lower population density than P.E.I.
You are concerned with the right of geographically-defined minorities
to govern themselves.

That is why we have provinces.  In demanding an EEE Senate, you are
demanding for outer Canadians more influence per individual over
matters that are supposed to be national -- not provincial -- in scope.
I say "no."  I should be your equal, even if I live in Montreal and
you live in Flin Flon.

(In the current constitutional agreement, the joint session has the
final say, so I am satisfied.)

You go on to say that the Senate protects regional minorities from
the "tyranny of the majority."  There are minorities in opposition
to every imaginable policy, but we do not create a raft of new
parliamentary chambers.  If a regional minority cannot accept
the decisions of the minority, they should fight for decentralization.
That was Quebec's approach, and probably should be yours.

>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.

So much for the sacred principle of equality by province.  The current
constitutional agreement is a compromise: an EEEish Senate with a
counterbalancing 25% HOC floor for Quebec.  I didn't want either,
but there's your compromise.

>>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.

I begin to agree here.  The equal Senate is a fine doggy bone to
throw to proto-separatists.

>>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 rationale 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.

That is the bais they use.  You argued above that an individuals right
to self government is attenuated if he lives in a "region," so this
must be offset by a somewhat stronger vote in a second chamber.
He is thus given special rights as a member of a group.  This is
no different from the demands by feminists, Quebec nationalists, and
aboriginal leaders for special voting privileges for members of the
minority groups they represent.

>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.

Hmm.

>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.

Agreed.

>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.

I agree entirely.

Most of the EEE support derives from resentment of the National
Energy Programme.  We must remember that Trudeau was an unusually
bold and arrogant man who was reckless in his alienation of
western Canadians.  It won't happen again; we promise :-)

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Montreal