From: heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath)
Subject: Re: Getty has made Central Canada stronger
Reply-To: heath@mprgate.mpr.ca (Gordon Heath)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 01:01:56 GMT

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.

Quebec will be slightly over-represented vis-a-vis rep by pop in the House
of Commons but this is offset by the fact that Ontario remains slightly
under-represented. The significant gains which both provinces made in the House
of Commons under the proposals has basically restored a closer measure of
representation by population in the House of Commons (for these provinces).

In terms of the House of Commons, B.C. and Alberta will marginally slip in terms
of representation by population. In fact, these provinces will initially have the lowest representation in the House. It should be pointed out that B.C. and
Alberta have a significant edge over Ontario in terms of Rep. by Pop. within
Parliament as a whole (House plus Senate). This is significant, because all
legislation (except supply bills?) must pass both the House and Senate OR
the House plus joint seating of House and Senate (I hope you can follow
this).

With respect to all other provinces, they will be less heavily weighted in
Representation within the House of Commons, but will still be over-represented
in terms of Rep by Pop. This is of course compensated for by the power they
gain with respect to the Equal Senate. It should be pointed out that ALL of
the smaller provinces have a net gain in representation if you compare the
old House of Commons with the reformed House plus Senate. 

Some may argue that the Senate is less effective as an institution than
the House (this is true) and therefore the representaion does not matter.
Senators will have somewhat different powers than MPs, but within the
joint sitting, all votes will count equally. The joint sitting becomes the
ultimate body of power, so Senate representation does matter.

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.

|> 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. 

|> 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".

|> Gerald

-----------
Gord Heath  - These opinions are mine, until I change them.