From: douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong)
Subject: Re: October 26th Referendum
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:43:34 GMT

rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore) writes:

>In article <douglasc.718224891@sfu.ca> douglasc@fraser.sfu.ca (Douglas Ming Chong) writes:
>>cowan@aqua.ocunix.on.ca (Darin Cowan (root)) writes:
>>>wetmore@theochem.uwaterloo.ca (Ross W. Wetmore) writes:
>>>>   On the otherhand there is no good reason not too, and since the result is
>>>> usually a bit more peace and quiet for the rest of us, why not?
>>>That is the yes side motivation that I am afraid too many people have.
>>>Vote yes for imagined peace and quiet.   Sad that those people would see
>>>democracy eroded away in favour of "peace an quiet".

>  Nonsense ... this is one piece in a comprehensive package. The package
>neither rises nor falls on any one component, and no one is getting every
>thing they wanted or pristine perfection since that is unattainable - ever. 

>>The decision should not be based on why not.  It should be based on
>>logical reasoning.  Is the 25% floor fair and just?  Is it fair to
>>take from other provinces to give to another province to maintain the
>>25% floor?  Is it fair to a province like B.C. that may in the
>>next 50 years have 25% of the population of Canada but only get
>>20% of the representation?  Will the province's people that are under represented think it is fair?

>  Sure ... they gave up ~25% guarantee in a regional Senate to go to a 
>provincially based one. 25% HoC guarantee was the trade.

>  Scratch the 25% guarantee, scratch the EEE Senate, scratch the ...
>the art of compromise involves accepting a reasonable position at the
>current time in order to gain a reasonable change in the status quo.
>If the situation changes, presumably we will discuss reasonable changes
>at that time. 

>  However, the guarantee *in writing* that Quebec has its safety net to 
>insure the continued influence of a francophone bloc, is something it is
>willing to trade for significant other points. View it as an IOU or
>insurance policy that Quebec will cash in for some other form of protection
>in a future Constitutional deal if trends turn out differently, if you wish.
>

The general feeling of many British Columbians is that the 25% guarantee
is not fair and that it is not much of a compromise.  The Triple E
Senate is a joke.  The first E (elected) is not really true.  Some
provinces may elect the Senators others will appoint.  Thus the first
E is not fulfilled.  The second E (equal) is generally fulfilled with
each existing province getting 6 seats.  But any new province that may
result such as the Yukon will not be guaranteed 6 seats. Any change in
the composition of the Senate must be approved by the federal govt and
all 10 provinces. Because each province has a VETO.  So in this case the
second E is mostly true but not necessarily.  The last E is effective.
The effectiveness of the Senate is a joke.  It has no power but to
deny taxation on resources with a majority vote.  It also has a double
majority on French cultural matters.  For all other issues is it totally
ineffective.  Ray Pereau (sp?) Senator for B.C. did research on the
proposed Senate.  He found that under no circumstances since the
Second World War for each majority federal government elected that 
a 60% rejection in the Senate could not overturn any bill in a 
joint sitting of the HoC and the Senate.  The only exceptions would be
in minority governments but then the government would be more sensitive
to regional interests.  Also in the future when more seats are added
in the HoC the Senate will lose its already limited power when
a joint sitting is invoked.  So the analysis shows that the Senate
is basically ineffective or just a toothless tiger.  

So what is the compromise definately not the reformed Senate.  
What Quebec and Ontarion did was trade in 18 useless Senate seats each
province for more powerful House seats.  From the view of an Ontarion
or Quebecer it looks fair.  But to BCers it does not.
Another thing that irks many BC people is that in this so called
compromise is the VETO for all provinces concerning the House and Senate.
This veto gives every province an effective veto to stop all changes in
the future as the country changes in the future.  This means that
if circumstances change and one porovince is under or over
represented the province over represented will want no change and
those under represented will clamor for change.  This COMPROMISE
package will cause dissention and unfairness to be unchangeable.

Doug
Newsgroups: can.general