From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Absolute Madness... Naturally.
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:24:53 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Aug20.195900.12568@mprgate.mpr.ca> heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath) writes:
>In article <BtAM0G.H6F@ireq.hydro.qc.ca>, beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard) writes:
>|> 
>|> Good!  With the stupid agreement they announced yesterday (the only
>|> use of a minimum 25% of seats for Quebec corresponds to a racist
>|> behaviour of stopping almost completely immigration),
>
>You kind of lost me there, Denis. Please explain yourself.

If you mean about the word racist : Quebec opened the door to immigration
a few years ago because her population was growing slower (if not declining)
than Canada's mean.  Thus, if a 25% minimum is guaranteed, the immigration
is no more necessary, at least concerning the preservation of a political
weight in Commons.  Using this as a reason for stopping immigration would
be considered as a racist behaviour in my opinion and if Quebec does so,
just expect some bashing on that topics (i.e. Quebec negociated a 25%
minimum to stop immigration and preserve purety of the race (sigh) ).
Note that I do not promote to stop immigration, I just say it can happen
and some media may give this as the reason.

>
>|> Bourassa will loose the elections.
>
>I assume the latest polls showing a comfortable  PQ lead have you hoping for
>an early election. As you may know, polls go up, polls go down. No doubt
>you would be unhappy with a referendum on a federal offer and are hoping
>for a failure of the current negotiations. Would you be more happy with

With the current proposition, a federal referendum would get a no in Quebec.

>a referendum on a fuzzy "sovereignty association" proposal? Like it or
>not, the Liberals are still in power in Quebec and have their choice of
>options to present until their term expires.
>
>|> I can't see any advantage of only 8% of senate
>|> seats excahged again some .5% more seats at common.  And if the EEE senate
>|> is actually operative, French speaking are loosing power.
>|> 
>
>You should take a more careful look at the actual tentative aggreement.
>The Senate will only be able to block legislation dealing with taxes on 
>natural resources (natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction,
>but the federal government still has taxation powers in these areas).

This may be true today because the Western provinces were harmed in the
70's by a specific program.  But, what happens if something else
occured, something not involving natural resources, and some province
feel of being victim.  What happens if Federal decides to give Northenr
territories of Western provinces because "the natives loose no previous
rights" and it is possible that they get back their territories in West?
This is not resources.  Thus, the content will change, and many times
probably.  And they won't even need a 10/10 provinces to made many
modifications to this agreement anyway.

 
>
>The Senate has a very limited power to delay supply bills.
>
>In all other legislation, the Senate can force a joint sitting with the
>House of Commons if it votes against legislation. Quebec's representation
>in the combined body would be 25%, its present share of Canadian population
>and its current share of seats in the House of Commons.
>
>In short, it is difficult to argue that Quebec has lost anything in these
>proposals.

I did not it has lost, I said it did not gain some significant power
In one posting, someone wrote a 5% increase in number of seats, forgetting
that other provinces increased too the number of seats.

[stuff deleted]
>Gord Heath - Opinions are my own.

I think all this is debattable, like a negociation with a trade union.
You take previous agreement, boss made a lot of change, employees too,
and then it is very hard to weight the pro and contra because there
are many issues.

For example, if the francos hors Quebec feel angry about Quebec because
the fact Quebec favors French gives them harm : 6 provinces may
nominate francos senators, then the Commons may pass a cultural law
against the interest of Quebec, and finally this senate, having 6 francos
out of Quebec, 5 in Quebec (i.e. the 6th being allophone or anglophone),
would accept something against the interest of Quebec (yes, the francos
out of Quebec could vote against the Quebec if the proposal favors them).

Final point : the EEE senate agreement is exactly was Alberta wanted.
In other words, they patched the law in favor of Alberta, but in such
words that if something occured in a similar fashion, but not in the
limited domain of natural resources, it will be like if there was no
change.  Example : could the new senate opposes to GST if the same
debate occured again?

If something is debattable, IMHO, it can be changed later and if we
think to have gain today, we could loose this gain tomorrow.

-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Barthelemy Jarret (1471) -> Andre Jarret, sieur de Beauregard (1665)
\_.-===   -> Denis Beauregard (1992)                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.politics